Policing of opinions has no place in our country.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2009 10:55 PM GMT
    from the British paper the express:

    "It has happened agin. A Christain pensioner of 67 wrote to her local council to complain that a gay pride march was a public display of indecency and offencive to god. The council should have responded merely that it disagreed instead of which it called the police who grilled the women in her own home investigating what they called a hate crime. "

    The sad thing is, this is not a one off.

    She had every right to her say, but by no means was it a hate crime, and no crime at all, for having an opinion.

    I myself feel these gay pride things are outdated, and do give the impression of being one big orgy, and gay men think about nothing other than sex, and their next root. Any wonder many people think wrongly of so many homosexual people, and don't won't children to be in their care.

    can you imagine the effect these gay pride things would have if all the guys were dressed in what they wear to work, it would show how divers we are; but sadly many homosexuals would feel threatend by that thought.

    I hope this never come to pass in my country.
  • drypin

    Posts: 1798

    Nov 12, 2009 11:10 PM GMT
    Is that really all that she said? Do the British police have so much free time on their hands and so little tolerance for people's opinions?

    Or might she have also said something that sounded threatening?

    I'm a little leery of these quick blurbs about such incidents.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2009 11:14 PM GMT
    Source please.
    I feel like we're missing some important information.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2009 11:37 PM GMT
    One did just pull the first wee bit from the artical, from the Iternational Express, by Ann Widdeconbe. November 3 - 9 2009.

    WWW.theinternationalexpress.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 12:53 AM GMT
    Yaho0 saidSource please.
    I feel like we're missing some important information.


    Not really missing any important information.
    Pauline Howe, 67, wrote a letter to the Norwich city council to complain about a pride march she saw. In the letter she described gays as sodomites and said they homosexuality had contributed to the downfall of every empire and was a major cause of STDs. She also said that it's shamefull that such a small but vociferous group should be allowed such a display unwarrented by their small numbers.
    She was warned by the councils deputy chief executive, in a letter, that because she had expressed views that deal with people of a certain sexual orientation that she could face charges for a hate crime.
    Howe's letter was turned over for investigation by police, who later decided not to press charges.
    From the pinknews.co.uk

    Sounds like over kill and hate crimes laws gone wrong. I may not like her opinion, but what does it say about society if we begin to police not only freedom of speach, but freedom of thought?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 1:30 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Yaho0 saidSource please.
    I feel like we're missing some important information.


    Not really missing any important information.
    Pauline Howe, 67, wrote a letter to the Norwich city council to complain about a pride march she saw. In the letter she described gays as sodomites and said they homosexuality had contributed to the downfall of every empire and was a major cause of STDs. She also said that it's shamefull that such a small but vociferous group should be allowed such a display unwarrented by their small numbers.
    She was warned by the councils deputy chief executive, in a letter, that because she had expressed views that deal with people of a certain sexual orientation that she could face charges for a hate crime.
    Howe's letter was turned over for investigation by police, who later decided not to press charges.
    From the pinknews.co.uk

    Sounds like over kill and hate crimes laws gone wrong. I may not like her opinion, but what does it say about society if we begin to police not only freedom of speech, but freedom of thought?


    You know i don't care what she said, I don't feel hurt or threatened by it, and I'm so sorry she had too endure such a thing for voicing her opinion. Homosexuals had to once fight censorship, in many ways, this was at the beginning of the fight.

    Maybe to be equal, laws need to be created too protect heterosexuals from hate crimes too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 2:06 AM GMT
    its overkill, but i don't know if the brits have the same extremities of free speech that we do here... may just be a cultural difference in how things are treated. either way, i'm glad there's some obnoxious 'affirmative action' going on SOMEWHERE in the world for the gays- biggots have had long enough to spread their closed mindedness and hate and ignorance- it's a catching illness, and i think a retaliatory period of "shut the fuck up and grow up" will help reverse some of the damage they've done to younger generations already. intolerance should just not be tolerated. if this story's true, it means that the people in charge are realizing, at least somewhere, that everyone's sovereign rights to happiness outweigh whatever rights a majority feels it may have to stomp on the happiness of minorities, and attack their equality. its refreshing.
    i've always said i never judge others or belittle their beliefs.... unless those beliefs involve taking a giant daily crap on everyone around them, and then its flame-on! icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 4:47 AM GMT
    Nothing wrong with being gay, but those parade... Wow... They kinda look like freak shows... I really don't think they're such a good image of the gay community now. It also just gives hateful bigots fuel, and gives people who don't understand the wrong idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 5:00 AM GMT
    Gay pride parades are the most visible demonstrations of "gayness" that the public ever sees. Sure, they see Will and Jack on TV, but what kind of messages do pride parades send to the very people gays are trying to convince to embrace them? It's the gay population's wildest, most flamboyant, most tactless individuals who routinely take to the streets to present an over-the-top, in-your-face browbeating for "why everyone should respect us and treat us equally". However, the very opposite reaction is occurring, each and every time gay pride parades flow through a main street. It's no wonder gays and gay rights aren't taken seriously when their largest coordinated events involve giant phallic symbols being towed down the streets with men in glitter and dresses fawning over them. Honestly, grow up if you think this kind of thing is ever going to produce the outcomes you're fighting for. Until the majority of the gay population learns to behave, I can't say that I'm all that surprised (or upset) that equal rights haven't been conferred to them yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 5:24 AM GMT
    GotBiceps saidGay pride parades are the most visible demonstrations of "gayness" that the public ever sees. Sure, they see Will and Jack on TV, but what kind of messages do pride parades send to the very people gays are trying to convince to embrace them? It's the gay population's wildest, most flamboyant, most tactless individuals who routinely take to the streets to present an over-the-top, in-your-face browbeating for "why everyone should respect us and treat us equally". However, the very opposite reaction is occurring, each and every time gay pride parades flow through a main street. It's no wonder gays and gay rights aren't taken seriously when their largest coordinated events involve giant phallic symbols being towed down the streets with men in glitter and dresses fawning over them. Honestly, grow up if you think this kind of thing is ever going to produce the outcomes you're fighting for. Until the majority of the gay population learns to behave, I can't say that I'm all that surprised (or upset) that equal rights haven't been conferred to them yet.


    I feel in days gone by, when homosexuality was tucked away, and was subjected to censorship, and instead of saying you were off to a gay party it was: " I'm off to Dohertys!" But these days are long gone; so we don't have to be so out there anymore, and this is why I say they are not relevant anymore, and they do have the opposite affect now days, they do promote the wrong idia of many homosexuals of today.

    Once again what would shock people would be, if all were dressed, in what they wear to wok, people would see another side of the community.

    Here in melbourne we already see gay police in Uniform, we would also see people in the Defence Services, people in suits, doctor, nurse, firemen, farmers, factory worker, sports people and so on.

    But also at the end of the day, many gays don't really care, they just see it as a time to party, and hope to get laid; and fuck anyone who gets in their way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 5:33 AM GMT
    . . . well, England is a country in a very steep decline, and, not surprisingly, it's becoming a surveillance society . . . Orwell must be turning over in his grave . . . the thought police are very much alive there and here on RJ, too . . .
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Nov 13, 2009 5:33 AM GMT
    Seriously, the whole 'serious business attire' was tried. As was 50 thousand other heteronormative attempts to integrate into society and none of them have led to much success.

    People are retarded, and I place the blame mostly on religion for keeping them retarded. They live in a small little box and nothing outside of that box is proper, and is steeped in sin.
    *shrugs* was it overkill? Yes, it was. But is being aggressively questioned in the comfort of your own home really worse than being blugeoned to death at the hands of an angry mob bent on stamping out sin? Because that's the kind of 'overkill' you usually hear about when the homophobe is the aggressor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 5:47 AM GMT
    . . . soundwave, you really don't want to give that kind of power to the/a government, which, as you surely know, is elected and maintained in power by the very impressionable masses you so obviously and rightly loathe . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:06 AM GMT
    Wasn't was the intent of her letter to get council to do something? She didn't tell her neighbour or her friend or family or the man at the meat counter. She wrote to a public authority.
    People usually write city hall to get something done.

    Yes they overdid it and they're learning. For pete's sake they didn't tie her to a chair and smack the info out of her.

    Tabloid news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:15 AM GMT
    they are learning what? to cover the fist in velvet?

    if you are on board with soft totalitarianism and thought control well, please feel free to say so . . . it's still ok . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:22 AM GMT

    well, d'oh of course not. Sites like this would end wouldn't they?

    It's tabloid news. Likely exaggerated. This should be all over the Religious Right's news links.

    What do you think should be investigated if someone wrote the city to get rid of blacks or muslims? The police showed up and found an old lady and not someone else or a group. Good plan. Last thing you need is a potential sniper at a pride parade.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:27 AM GMT
    I hardly see how this is an example of "hate crime laws gone wrong", the police did not press any charges, given the circumstances, an example of a finely functioning set of laws.

    Should the council have handed the issue to the police? meh, up to them to balance their own responsibilities and duties. They may have been pulling a bluff to give an old bigot a fright.

    As for all you pride is showing us in a bad light advocates, particularly 'gotbiceps' statement "Until the majority of the gay population learns to behave (read:conform), I can't say that I'm all that surprised (or upset) that equal rights haven't been conferred to them yet."

    I have to say i'm a little surprised at the lack of acceptance. First of all, the notion of having to 'earn' equal rights confounds the mind. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but gay pride is as much, if not more, about expressing the confidence you have attained to be who you want to be as it is about making a political statement. Yes we could tone it right down and walk around in ordinary clothes, and be rather unremarkable, but why should we? There is tradition there. It is arguably no more raunchy than the heterosexual equivalent of mardi gras, which raises certain questions if one only kicks up a stink about gay pride. But on what grounds should either of these events be censored? Who is honestly offended by them? and why cant those people act like grown-ups, if they don't approve, stay out of that part of town for all of a day instead of bitching on about others!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:29 AM GMT
    noren said . . . well, England is a country in a very steep decline, and, not surprisingly, it's becoming a surveillance society . . . Orwell must be turning over in his grave . . . the thought police are very much alive there and here on RJ, too . . .


    *points out that people disagreeing with you, even 'passionately', does not constitute the policing of thoughts*

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:33 AM GMT
    IHG84 saidNothing wrong with being gay, but those parade... Wow... They kinda look like freak shows... I really don't think they're such a good image of the gay community now. It also just gives hateful bigots fuel, and gives people who don't understand the wrong idea.


    freak shows. interesting term.

    Surely the problem in this case is the "hateful bigots" and the "people who don't understand", rather than the parade. Perhaps education, rather than 'normalising' the parade would be a better route. Otherwise the thought starts to sound like the whole idea that gay people shouldnt be allowed to have kids because they will be teased for having gay parents, or that gay people are unhappy because they are gay, and not because of the way society treats them for being gay. Seems like the incorrect attribution of blame.

    p.s. sorry for the triple post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:33 AM GMT
    . . . this is just your usual milquetoast drivel . . .

    and it has nothing to do with the Religious Right . . . they. like you, clearly have no qualms about using government force to ensure proper thoughts and to get what they want . . .

    . . . you might try acquainting yourself with the facts . . . read about what ordinary people in England are being subjected to . . .

    . . . and if some crank writes to a paper or to a government authority about getting rid of a certain class, then I think the proper response from fellow citizens is derision, social ostracism, etc. . . and the proper response from a governmental entity is nothing at all . . .

    . . . please feel free, while you still can, to come against the 1st Amendment . ..

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:41 AM GMT
    "this is just your usual milquetoast drivel"

    That explains a lot.


    Noren, it has everything to do with the religious right in respect for them to use this story to further their cause - keeping you under a stone. It would be all over their newscasts if they considered it valid. It's a tabloid. like the National Enquirer. Why haven't any of the mainstream media picked this up? It's pure Fox news fodder.

    We'd be curious to see the letter she wrote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:42 AM GMT
    noren said . . . this is just your usual milquetoast drivel . . .

    and it has nothing to do with the Religious Right . . . they. like you, clearly have no qualms about using government force to ensure proper thoughts and to get what they want . . .

    . . . you might try acquainting yourself with the facts . . . read about what ordinary people in England are being subjected to . . .

    . . . and if some crank writes to a paper or to a government authority about getting rid of a certain class, then I think the proper response from fellow citizens is derision, social ostracism, etc. . . and the proper response from a governmental entity is nothing at all . . .

    . . . please feel free, while you still can, to come against the 1st Amendment . ..



    "Ordinary" people in England are subjected to alot, perhaps you could point out your specific concerns.

    Last I heard, 'getting rid of a certain class' is constitutes genocide. The article under consideration did not even approach such a magnitude, and correspondingly there was no action taken by the police. I do not see however what the problem is with punishing certain types of speech, namely those directed to incite violence. Yes you have a right to free speech, however people also have a right to security of person, when the two come into conflict, the lesser right must yield.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 6:55 AM GMT

    This is interesting:

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Fighting-For-Life-After-Homophobic-Attack-By-Mob-In-Liverpool/Article/200910415418126?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15418126_Man_Fighting_For_Life_After_Homophobic_Attack_By_Mob_In_Liverpool

    We wonder if any of the kids in the above story call the letter writing lady Grannie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 7:27 AM GMT
    noren saidthey are learning what? to cover the fist in velvet?

    if you are on board with soft totalitarianism and thought control well, please feel free to say so . . . it's still ok . . .


    Again, though, as the article clearly states, no legal action was taken. But I would agree with you that it's bad precedent regardless. I think even the threat of action being taken against a person for their speech can have a broader dampening effect on what people say, and I think that's very much a negative for society. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to say almost anything that they want in public, including hateful, bigoted shit, without fear of state reprisal or even the possibility of state reprisal unless what they say creates a clear and present danger to those around them (think, yelling fire in a theater as the classic example). The fact that someone tried to use a hate crimes law to punish the woman is ridiculous and we need to be sure that hate crimes laws are not used in this way.

    That being said (and this is now a general response and not a response to you specifically Noren) I don't think people should take this as any sort of evidence of what hate crimes laws might do here in the states. Speech is considered in a much different way in the UK than it is in the US (just look to the UK's libel laws for evidence of that) and it seems to be the case that US free speech laws are much broader and more encompassing than the UK's. A complaint like this in the US, unless linked with a specific suspect's speech in relation to a possible hate crime, would almost certainly not even go to the point of being investigated by anyone. Current US hate crimes laws--and the hate crimes act extension recently passed by Congress and signed into law--specifically state that a hate crime deals with a "crime of violence" as currently defined in US law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2009 7:38 AM GMT
    Still here, just reading.