SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

“Homophobia”, “Islamophobia” and the “incendiary comments” of the French Archbishop

by Leave a Comment

American neuroscientist and neo-atheist, Sam Harris, according to a report in The Times (25/04/13)  “has gone as far as to suggest that there can be no such thing as “Islamophobia” – a hatred akin to racism – any more than there can be Christophobia or Conservativophia. He sees the accusation as a way of silencing critics of religion. To him Islam is a dangerous force on the planet today and it is his job to say so.”

If it’s true that “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a meaningless epithet, then what about the epithet “homophobia“?

[For a detailed analysis of the term “homophobia” see https://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/]

Times contributor, David Aaronovitch, makes it very clear that he believes that “homophobia” is a real and meaningful term.  He criticises the Archbishop of Lyons (France) for likening homosexuality to incest and declaring that “[The French] Parliament has decided to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. Aaronvich calls such comments “incendiary talk aimed at preventing non-Catholics from enjoying equal rights” and has, in his view “helped to create an atmosphere of homophobic violence.”

“Homophobic” violence is presumably caused by “homophobia” – literally meaning “irrational fear (phobia) of homosexuals”. However, “gay-rights” activists are now admitting that the word “homophobia” does not mean this when they apply it to describe a person. They claim it is merely a neutral descriptive term to apply to all those persons who oppose the claimed “human rights” of homosexuals such as “rights” to get married and thereby share in all the benefits bestowed by the state on those heterosexuals who are married, and is not a term of abuse. This claim is disingenuous. Anyone who has tried to express their views opposing “gay marriage” or raise concerns over claimed “gay” adoption “rights”, are regularly howled down by homosexuals as being “homophobic”.

If Sam Harris is correct that there is no such thing as “Islamophobia”, and Aoronovich does not dispute this, then on what basis should we accept the claim that “homophobia” means anything at all. Aaronvich asserts that violence against homosexuals is fuelled by “homophobia” and then blames the honorable Archbishop for contributing to “homophobia” by his alleged “incendiary” comments.

The term “homophobia” is an oxymoron. Those opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’ – including the estimated 1.4 million French who marched against the bill in March, are clearly not fearful of homosexuals.

To suggest crimes committed against homosexuals can be blamed, even in part, on the Archbishop’s statements or to any arguments voiced by those objecting to same-sex ‘marriage’ legislation, is without any basis. If radical elements such as French neo-Nazi skinheads infiltrate a genuine family-friendly protest, to commit crimes, then mainstream participants from pro-traditional marriage groups cannot be  blamed for such crimes.

If Islam, as Harris asserts, is indeed “a dangerous force on the planet today” then one can understand why he states that “it is his job to say so”. He rejects the accusation that in doing so he is “Islamophobic”.

In New Zealand our rights to freedom of expression, involving the rights to expression of robust opinion, is preserved in section 19 of the Bill of Rights 1990. If a person expresses the view that ‘HIV/AIDS is a dangerous threat to mankind and is linked clearly to the promiscuous lifestyle of many homosexuals and the unhygienic use by drug-addicts of  needles’, homosexuals will accuse him of being a “homophobe”. If a person expresses their genuine belief, whether based on the Bible or Koran or not, that marriage is between a man and a woman; why do homosexuals label them “homophobic”.

Sam Harris’ words in relation to “Islamophobia” apply equally well to the use of “homophobia” by homosexuals.  The accusation is used by homosexuals as a weapon – a way of silencing critics of the case for homosexual ‘marriage’.

It is certainly queer reasoning that would attempt to prove that white is black and black is white; by the use of invective!

Source

The Times 25 April 2013

Leave off prof. Let the devout do their thing. By David Aaronovitch

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3748011.ece

 

Why does liberal Iceland want to ban online pornography?

by Leave a Comment

The Economist Explains: Why does liberal Iceland want to ban online pornography?

ON THE face of it, Saudi Arabia and Iceland have little in common. In the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Gender Gap report, which compares progress towards sexual equality in 135 countries, Saudi Arabia ranked 131st while Iceland, a country with 322,000 citizens, topped the list. And yet Iceland’s proposal to outlaw online pornography places it in the company of Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive, to travel without a man’s permission and have restricted rights to vote. Why does liberal Iceland want to ban online pornography?

Iceland’s proposed ban can be seen as a continuation of earlier legislation to regulate the sex industry. In 2009 it introduced fines and prison terms for those who patronise prostitutes (though not the prostitutes themselves, which the law treats as victims). In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. And distributing and selling pornography in Iceland has actually been illegal since 1869.

The main reason behind the proposed ban seems paradoxical: it is a result of Iceland being a highly liberal place. The country is run by the world’s only openly lesbian prime minister, while 65% of Icelandic children are born outside marriage (more than any other country in the OECD)

For full story go to: 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-why-iceland-ban-pornography?fb_ref=activity

Banning the sex industry

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21576366-iceland-determined-outlaw-worlds-oldest-business-can-it-succeed-naked-ambition

Naked ambition: Banning the sex industry [in Iceland]

by Leave a Comment

Banning the sex industry: Naked Ambition 

Iceland is determined to outlaw the world’s oldest business. Can it succeed?

April 20th 2013. The Economist Report. Reykjavik

ULTRA-LIBERAL Iceland wants to ban online pornography. It is just the latest step in its attempts to eliminate the sex industry entirely. In 2009 it introduced fines and jail terms for those who patronise prostitutes (whom it treats as victims). In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. In February the government decided to take on the glut of smut online and floated the idea of banning violent or degrading pornography, which some Icelanders take to mean most of it. No country has yet wholly succeeded in controlling commercial sex, either through legalisation or criminalisation. But all over the world, particularly in rich democracies, policymakers are watching to see whether Iceland succeeds—and may follow in its footsteps if it does.

Full Report:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21576366-iceland-determined-outlaw-worlds-oldest-business-can-it-succeed-naked-ambition

Take-up of unpopular “gay” ‘marriage’ by French “gays” likely to be below 5,000 p.a.

by Leave a Comment

The Economist reports that only a very tiny number of “gay” couples are likely to get ‘married’ in France (<5,000 per year) despite claims by jubilant advocates of “gay” ‘marriage’ that securing the “rights” to get ‘married’ will make a huge difference to their lives. The reality is that it is a highly unpopular institution among LGBTIAQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual/transgender, intersex, asexual, queer) communities, most of whom consider it largely irrelevant and meaningless. The estimated 1.4 million opponents of the bill to legalise same-sex ‘marriage’ who protested in Paris in March, are currently being urged to attend another march, on May 26th, to try to force the government to back down even though the law has passed. They know that advocating “marriage equality” and “gay” adoption, is primarily focused at “normalising” homosexual lifestyle with the result that children are discriminated against (children adopted by “gays” are denied the right to have both a father and a mother). 

“IT WAS a moment of jubilation for some, consternation for others. After 136 hours of riotous parliamentary debate and months of demonstrations by opponents and advocates, French deputies voted on April 23rd to legalise gay marriage and adoption. The measure should be on the statute books by June, making France the 14th country to approve it. But the critics have not given up and are appealing to the Constitutional Council to reject the law……

“In reality, few people are likely to take advantage of the new law. In Spain, which legalised gay marriage in 2005, same-sex marriages represent only 2% of the total. Applied to France, this would suggest fewer than 5,000 gay marriages a year. Under French law, marriage confers firmer rights, particularly over inheritance, than the civil pacts that have long been open to same-sex partners. The irony is that, for heterosexual couples, such pacts are now nearly twice as popular as the increasingly unfashionable institution of marriage.”

The Economist. April 27th 2013

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21576692-frances-parliament-votes-legalise-gay-marriage-and-adoption-rainbow-warriors

Maurice Williamson MP: “Our own little gay icon” who voted against civil unions

by Leave a Comment

Political Report by Barry Soper (NewstalkZB) on “Motormouth Maurice Williamson” who voted against Civil Unions.

It was with a distinct lisp that John Key giggled about “our own little gay icon.”

The State Homie was of course talking about Motormouth Maurice Williamson who after years in the wilderness made an off the cuff speech about gay marriage and sealed his place the the annals of gay history.

maurice williamson

Maurice Williamson

His four minute rant went viral with around a million hits on u Tube and he’s been boasting about how many have been listening to his dulcet tones saying he thought nothing more about it after taking his seat.

The speech itself obviously wasn’t up there with the “I Have A Dream” tub thumping oratory but the occasion itself was pretty special, giving same sex couples the right to marry. That’s why the gay community worldwide have been tuning in and it’s even come to the attention of lesbian telly talk host Ellen DeGeneres who’s invited The Motormouth to come on her show.

She’ll pick up the tab and even give him appearance money, which he’ll donate to a worthy cause just as The Home did when he looked goofy on the David Letterman Show a few years back.

But unlike Key, Williamson didn’t even have to lobby to get on the American show which his boss is happy for him to appear on if he can paint God’s Own as a liberal little country. His Minister, he says, has voted liberal on most issues, he was aware of, and seemed a little surprised when he was told that he actually voted against civil unions!

And given what he said last week it’s hard to see how he opposed the unions eight years ago when he didn’t even bother to take part in the debate.

Last week he told the grizzlies in Parliament’s bear pit that he couldn’t understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage and he railed against the bullies who tried to make him change his mind.

Motormouth Maurice declared that all they were doing in Parliament last week was allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage.

How that gels with his opposition to civil unions is beyond most liberals.

Maybe the Beehive water tanks, or its air conditioning system, should be checked because some of the inhabitants are clearly suffering from the same affliction – memory fade!

Source: NewstalkZB Political Report. Tuesday 23 April 2013

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/opinion/political-report-23apr2013