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