Owen Jones

I was never taught about LGBTQ issues, except when a teacher told a class that anal sex was bad for your health.

Well, arguably and in part it is. So are a lot of other things some people enjoy and others don’t.

The usual answer to such being that we tolerate those who wish to indulge yet don’t quite teach 5 year olds how to do it.

Or at least that’s how liberals approach such issues.

71 comments on “Owen Jones

  1. “…in truth, LGBTQ people and Muslims should be allies: above all, because we share many of the same experiences and enemies.”

    Maybe they don’t think so, Owen..?

  2. Owen Jones is talking crap.

    But the aim of the lessons is to tell 5 year olds that we tolerate those who wish to indulge but that if anyone tries to do it with them (or any other child they know) they should report it to an adult. Everyone needs to know enough about it to protect themselves. What’s allowed – legally and socially. What’s safe. How to deal with bullying, threats, or blackmail. Who to go to if you need help. As they get closer to puberty, they’ll be taught that it’s still not allowed, but that if you are going to do it illegally then how can you do it safely. What practices are safe/unsafe. How to be sure the people you do it with are safe. What constitutes consent. What to do if things go wrong.

    The controversial bit everyone is objecting to is that bit where you said “we tolerate those who wish to indulge”. Parents don’t want their children taught tolerance. That, as you say, is teaching them to be liberal.

  3. How about calling sex “private life” and insisting it is confined to consenting adults, in private?

  4. “The controversial bit everyone is objecting to is that bit where you said “we tolerate those who wish to indulge”

    Are you living in 1997 or something? Nowadays anything less than wholehearted celebration, promotion and encouragement is considered bigoted.

  5. Dear Owen –

    The vast majority of Muslims view homosexuality as a mortal sin. The fact that such a view inconveniences you and your little pals doesn’t really enter into the equation for those same Muslims.

    If nothing else, you have managed to demonstrate – convincingly – just how detached from reality you really are.

  6. Parents don’t want their children taught tolerance.

    Bullshit. Parents want to be in control of deciding what is best for their children, and that includes what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Tolerance flows from that, not the other way around.

    As usual NiV manages to wedge his head further up his ass than we ever thought possible.

  7. “Are you living in 1997 or something? Nowadays anything less than wholehearted celebration, promotion and encouragement is considered bigoted.”

    Really? Why are people protesting, then?

    “Bullshit. Parents want to be in control of deciding what is best for their children, and that includes what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.”

    Exactly. They don’t want their kids taught tolerance of stuff they’re not tolerant about themselves.

  8. “LGBTQ people and Muslims should be allies: above all, because we share many of the same experiences and enemies.”

    The Jews?

  9. “LGBTQ people and Muslims should be allies: above all, because we share many of the same experiences and enemies.”

    Right-wingers and Muslims should be allies: above all, because they share many of the same beliefs and enemies, like LGBTQ people and people who say everyone should tolerate that sort of thing.

  10. “That is certainly the battle cry of ever more emboldened Islamophobes, who never talk of LGBTQ rights except when it becomes convenient artillery in their bigoted war on Muslims. If you only talk of LGBTQ rights to attack Muslims then you do not care about those rights: and for those of us who have been attacked by homophobic far-right activists in the streets but have never endured homophobia from Muslims, there is a perverse irony at work.”

    I’m going to guess that Owen mostly hangs around with very liberal, political muslims who are nothing like the 50% of muslims in this country that want a ban on homosexuality.

  11. “LGBTQ people and Muslims should be allies: above all, because we share many of the same experiences and enemies.”

    The Judean People’s Front?

  12. “I’m going to guess that Owen mostly hangs around with very liberal, political muslims who are nothing like the 50% of muslims in this country that want a ban on homosexuality.”

    Gosh! You mean they’re like the other 50%?!

  13. Why are people protesting, then?

    Because for many people, tolerance for homosexuality does not extend to allowing other people to teach it to their 5-year olds.

  14. “Because for many people, tolerance for homosexuality does not extend to allowing other people to teach it to their 5-year olds.”

    And if people won’t tolerate teaching tolerance of homosexuality to their 5-year olds, is that what Tim describes as “how liberals approach such issues”?

  15. And if people won’t tolerate teaching tolerance of homosexuality to their 5-year olds, is that what Tim describes as “how liberals approach such issues”?

    I have no idea, you’d have to ask him. But conservatives – genuine ones – probably don’t want adults teaching their toddlers about homosexuality, even if it’s dressed up as “tolerance”.

  16. That sort of intersectionality gets people hanged from cranes in Iran.

    Ask Corbyn about it – he gets on well with the Iranian government, and is very happy to take money from them to appear on their propaganda TV station.

  17. @NiV

    Surely whatever a parent wants to teach their own kids is their own right? after all we do have laws that make the parent ultimately responsible. This includes when and how they should be told about sex and sexuality, when and how they are told about drugs, alcohol, access to fast food and sweets etc?

    Being liberal,. to me at least, is accepting that i may or may not agree with them on these things but it’s their call and like wise they should allow me to decide related to my own kids… i.e. it’s my responsibility to decide?

    Relating that to this – surely the parents should get to choose when their own kids are told or do you know better?

  18. “Are you living in 1997 or something? Nowadays anything less than wholehearted celebration, promotion and encouragement is considered bigoted.”

    Really? Why are people protesting, then?

    They’re protesting that homosexuality is actively being PROMOTED to kids, contrary to their basic religious tenets. If it was just basic live and let live stuff, you know, *tolerance* stricto sensu, only the terminally religious would care. But since it’s “look, little 5 year old, you wave that rainbow flag and CELEBRATE it or you’re a bigot” stuff, people get upset.

    And for the record, I’m glad that I live in a country where my kids aren’t taught anything at all about sex at such a tender age. They’re really, really not old enough for it.

    Frankly, the fact that there are adults who are very activist about actively promoting sex ed of any kind at kindergarten age (5 years old is KG1 where I am) is highly, highly suspicious. I would, indeed, heavily question their motives.

  19. “Surely whatever a parent wants to teach their own kids is their own right?”

    What, like “Daddy’s special hugs are totally OK. But don’t tell Mommy about them, it’s our little secret…”?

    But apart from stuff like that, then yes. Parents can teach their kids whatever they like. They can teach them that the sky fairies are real and it’s safe to play with matches if you douse yourself with petrol first and that nobody will mind if you hang the neighbours’ kids from a tree and skin them. That’s a parent’s right.

    But the function of a school is to teach them how to survive and prosper in society. Our society has laws, which all its members are required to obey. (Or at least, exercise due discretion if they plan to break them.) The ‘No Outsiders’ programme is intended to teach kids about the Equality Act, which schools are as much subject to as any workplace your kids might seek employment with. The Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate or harass on certain grounds, and you have to understand the meaning of and be aware of those grounds if you are to have any hope of complying. Some parents may choose to leave their children ignorant and vulnerable to destruction by the state, but the state doesn’t feel it is fair to stamp on children for breaking laws that nobody has told them about, because their parents are idiots with personal hang-ups about it who don’t want them to know.

    You guys have been moaning for ages about Muslims teaching their kids their primitive, barbaric, and intolerant ways, but as soon as someone tries to push to integrate them better into British society, you suddenly make common cause with them!

    Parents can tell kids whatever they like, but so can everybody else. You can’t stifle the school’s or the state’s free speech, any more than they can stifle yours. No censorship.

  20. “They’re protesting that homosexuality is actively being PROMOTED to kids, contrary to their basic religious tenets.”

    They’re protesting that their kids are being taught that homosexuality is acceptable, which as they rightly say, is contrary to the teachings of Islam. The problem is, treating it as unacceptable is also illegal.

    “And for the record, I’m glad that I live in a country where my kids aren’t taught anything at all about sex at such a tender age.”

    We’re talking about stuff on the level of: “C is for cookies. Both of my dads know how to make great chocolate chip cookies.”

    Unless you think “chocolate chip cookies” is a euphemism for something?

  21. We’re talking about stuff on the level of: “C is for cookies. Both of my dads know how to make great chocolate chip cookies.”

    Bollocks.

  22. “Bollocks.”

    You think it’s a euphemism for ‘bollocks’? That’s not what I was expecting…

  23. Both of my dads know how to make great chocolate chip cookies

    Predators often offer children sweets

  24. Evidently in NiV’s world, the history of the Hitler Youth represents a how-to guide for the proper preparation of future citizens.

  25. The ‘No Outsiders’ programme is intended to teach kids about the Equality Act, which schools are as much subject to as any workplace your kids might seek employment with. The Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate or harass on certain grounds, and you have to understand the meaning of and be aware of those grounds if you are to have any hope of complying.

    The law is such that 5-year olds need to be taught about homosexuality or they risk breaking it. Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing to concern conservatives here.

  26. Parents don’t want their children taught tolerance.

    Some things cannot be taught. They can only be modeled.

    A teacher who teaches “tolerance”, but shows none, is in fact teaching intolerance. I had plenty of teachers who displayed tolerance, effectively teaching it, without it ever being the subject of a single discussion.

    The modern Left spout the word “tolerance” a lot, but don’t display it and don’t mean it.

  27. Some things cannot be taught. They can only be modeled.

    A teacher who teaches “tolerance”, but shows none, is in fact teaching intolerance.

    Exactly.

  28. It’s a shame the Muslim community couldn’t rouse themselves to protest about Pak gangs drugging and raping underage girls.

    But I guess in those communities Muslim kids have to be protected and what they see as “white trash” doesn’t matter.

  29. Most parents don’t want their toddlers being taught about *any* sexuality, as it is perceived as their kiddies being taught to have sex.

    My personal view is that sex education is something for SECONDARY school, *NOT* primary school.

  30. “Predators often offer children sweets”

    Sexual predators target children because they’re uneducated and unexperienced when it comes to sex, because nobody has taught them anything about it. All they get is playground rumour and nowadays the internet. Which the parents usually know little about, but the predators do.

    “The law is such that 5-year olds need to be taught about homosexuality or they risk breaking it. Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing to concern conservatives here.”

    Because conservatives love it when their kids go to jail. Or are fired from their jobs, excluded from school, or punished for saying or doing the wrong thing. They think their kids will love it so much, they want it to be a total surprise.

    “My personal view is that sex education is something for SECONDARY school, *NOT* primary school.”

    It’s something that needs to be taught before puberty, because that’s when children start wanting to experiment on their own. For girls, that’s 10-14, for boys 12-16.

    However, only a dribbling idiot would believe they’re teaching 5 year olds how to have leather-clad sadomasochistic bumsex. The starting stages are about accepting different family arrangements, including two fathers, two mothers. They are no more told what daddy and daddy get up to than they are told what daddy and mummy are doing in private. They *do* get told that nobody, not even family, should touch them in ways they’re not comfortable with, but nobody is going to go into details. Most of the education at this stage is about accepting people who are different in more general ways. John likes Red. Jane likes Blue. John likes jelly. Jane likes custard. Stuff like that. They only go into more detail when the kids get older.

    It’s not teaching the details of how to have sex (of any sort) that’s the problem. It’s the tolerance for people who are different that’s causing the controversy.

  31. Is there anything , however improbable or wrong, that current generations will learn to believe .
    When I was 5 we were warned about Colorado beetle and butterfly bombs. More innocent times though rather dramatic.
    (yes born 1935)

  32. Because conservatives love it when their kids go to jail. Or are fired from their jobs, excluded from school, or punished for saying or doing the wrong thing. They think their kids will love it so much, they want it to be a total surprise.

    That’s their decision to make: either risk their 5-year old going to jail for not being sufficiently deferential towards homosexuals, or allow activists access to their 5-year olds to teach them all about homosexuality.

    Sorry, but this looks more like a plan to indoctrinate children than keep them out of trouble.

  33. Sexual predators target children because they’re uneducated and unexperienced when it comes to sex, because nobody has taught them anything about it.

    So they teach primary school children about homosexual relationships so they can be better prepared for an encounter with a sexual predator?

  34. A sexual predator with experience of manipulating children will not be deterred or put off even if the children have been bombarded by the the school with sex education.
    There is a world of difference between information and experience. Telling kids about sex is not the same as them understanding it. Especially pre-puberty. It’s on the same level as explaining calculus to a 5 year old, they are simply not equipped to comprehend it in any meaningful sense.
    It is why children are children and adults are adult.
    It is plainly obvious to me that this is yet another step in the forced indoctrination of children. I can’t go into my kids schools with being bombarded by pro diversity, pro LGBT, pro socialist propaganda.They are immersed in it at every step of the way. The parents are deliberately sidelined and have no meaningful say in the content of their kids education. Only the wealthy who can pick and choose the best schools can have any influence on the type of education their kids get. The rest of us have to get what we’re given. In this case one of the protected groups have kicked up a fuss, and lips service will be made to their concerns, but the long term goal is clear and I can’t see even Muslims being able to avoid this kind of propaganda.

  35. NiV:“But the function of a school is to teach them how to survive and prosper in society. Our society has laws, which all its members are required to obey.”

    Like the laws that say I can’t set up a caravan in a beauty spot, let my children shit in the bushes, have unrestrained vicious dogs running around and leave a disgusting mess for the council to clean up when I move on.

    Unless I’m a traveller, of course.

  36. Sexual predators target children because they’re uneducated and unexperienced when it comes to sex, because nobody has taught them anything about it.

    Yeah. Teach your little ones about fisting or a nonce will get them.

    Last time I am bothering to even read anything from the troll/mentalist.

    It is like when you end up stuck talking to a loon in a pub; at first it seems OK because the guy is expressing himself coherently, but then suddenly you’re 10 mins into a conversation and you realise that he’s talking unmitigated barmy bollocks but you’ve still got 3/4 of a pint to go.

    Swerve…

  37. BlokeInBrum – Dunno. My money’s on the Muslims doing their own thing in the schools they are the dominant demographic in, and Ofsted realising it would love to investigate, but has another urgent appointment. “Good heavens, look at the time…”

    We already know the British state is good at turning a blind eye.

    Partly this is because liberalism is weakened by its own intersectionalist victim hierarchy, but also it’s because people who are seriously religious will always outlast the lukewarm.

  38. “That’s their decision to make: either risk their 5-year old going to jail for not being sufficiently deferential towards homosexuals, or allow activists access to their 5-year olds to teach them all about homosexuality.”

    Who said anything about ‘deferential’? You’re just supposed to treat them like normal people. And if you’re even having to think about the decision about whether to see your children get into trouble because you can’t bear to think of them knowing about homosexuality (as if any schoolkid doesn’t!), then there’s something wrong with you!

    Some people like jelly. Others like custard. Some people like boys. Others like girls. If people start organising protests because they don’t want their kids told about custard, taught that it’s ‘acceptable’ for people to like custard, contrary to their own barmpot religious beliefs, you’d think them mad. If you knew there was this bunch of people rejecting and discriminating against people who like custard, who used ‘custard-lover’ as an insult, and drove people to suicide with their treatment of them, who drive them into hiding it, you’d think ‘what a nasty bunch of bastards’. Some people like jelly. Other people like custard. Both are normal, natural, boring, everyday, and nothing to get excited about. It’s not ‘deference to the custard-lovers’ to treat them both the same.

    “Sorry, but this looks more like a plan to indoctrinate children than keep them out of trouble.”

    Bollocks. It looks more like you’re desperately trying to defend your own homophobic indoctrination of children. You don’t want anyone pointing out to your kids how mad your beliefs are.

    Education presents *both* sides of an argument. Indoctrinators want only *one* side to be presented. You can tell which is which by asking which side wants the other side to be censored!

    “So they teach primary school children about homosexual relationships so they can be better prepared for an encounter with a sexual predator?”

    No! They teach older children about sex in general (in an age-appropriate way) so they know what to look out for, so they’re better prepared to defend themselves in an encounter with predators, most of who of course are heterosexual. Predators want them ignorant and trusting.

    They teach younger children about people who are different, that they shouldn’t be rejected and excluded as outsiders. That covers the Equality Act categories of race, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity. It also covers language, accents, weight, fashion, poverty, cleverness, and musical tastes. It’s only one of many. It’s not about the sex, it’s about the tolerance for different ways of living.

    “Yeah. Teach your little ones about fisting or a nonce will get them.”

    You know the bit above when I said someone would have to be a dribbling idiot to believe they were doing that? I didn’t know how quickly I’d be proved right!

  39. It looks more like you’re desperately trying to defend your own homophobic indoctrination of children.

    Oh, if we’re going to be insulting, let’s just say your obsession with being allowed access to toddlers to “teach them tolerance” makes me glad I’ll not be the policeman who is one day examining your hard drive.

  40. “Anyone who’s watched the nature of the LGBT movement over the past decade.”

    That’s a different group.

    “Oh, if we’re going to be insulting, let’s just say your obsession with being allowed access to toddlers to “teach them tolerance” makes me glad I’ll not be the policeman who is one day examining your hard drive.”

    It wasn’t an insult, just an observation.

    I’m not asking for access to toddlers. I’m just noting that when teachers teach tolerance, the people objecting to them doing so seem less interested in protecting toddlers and more interested in protecting their nutty beliefs from being challenged. They’ll use ‘protecting toddlers’ as their excuse, but have to distort the facts to do so.

    And *everyone* should be worried for their hard drives – since there’s no telling what opinions will turn out to be a crime in future. (It used to be that homosexuality was a crime, to be hidden with shame. Now it’s homophobia. What might be next?) It’s standard practice now to go back through someone’s social media history for retrospective dirt. You can’t stop social fashions changing. You *can* reduce the social penalty for falling out of fashion by teaching tolerance of differences. Do unto others (like homosexuals) as you would want others to do unto you. Because one day they will.

  41. And *everyone* should be worried for their hard drives – since there’s no telling what opinions will turn out to be a crime in future.

    Thanks to disingenuous authoritarian fanatics like you.

  42. ‘And *everyone* should be worried for their hard drives – since there’s no telling what opinions will turn out to be a crime in future. (It used to be that homosexuality was a crime, to be hidden with shame. Now it’s homophobia. What might be next?) It’s standard practice now to go back through someone’s social media history for retrospective dirt. You can’t stop social fashions changing. You *can* reduce the social penalty for falling out of fashion by teaching tolerance of differences. Do unto others (like homosexuals) as you would want others to do unto you. Because one day they will.’

    Automatic turns of the wheel are not guaranteed. Given the enfeebled demographics of Western Europe and of the LGBT/ Militant Trns lobby in general vs. Muslims I would not bet the house on the former winning. Writing the kind of commentary you put on here might get you appearing on an IS video in a couple of decades…..

    there’s an echo of a song here as well: ‘Tomorrow belongs to me’

  43. “Thanks to disingenuous authoritarian fanatics like you.”

    I’m not the authoritarian, here!

    It’s thanks to the previous generation of authoritarian fanatics stamping down on homosexuality that the current generation has learnt that this is how the world works, this is how you get what you want, and simply adopted the same methods. You can’t break the vicious cycle without learning tolerance of differences as a general principle.

    Orwell said “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” What he didn’t emphasise in Nineteen Eight Four is that the reason it’s forever, despite all the reforms and revolutions, is that we take turns wearing the boot. (It comes up in Animal Farm, of course.) One day it’s stamping on the faces of homosexuals. Another day it’s stamping on the faces of homophobes. It’s the same system. The same boot. But we never think to get rid of the system, we only ever fight to be the ones doing the stamping.

    You can’t get rid of the new forms of political correctness without also getting rid of the old ones. You can’t expect to have your beliefs and way of life respected, without respecting the beliefs and way of life of other people, like the homosexuals. You can’t get rid of the system of society enforcing behavioural norms on its members and keep it at the same time.

    It’s logically inconsistent.

    Authoritarians only believe in freedom for themselves and their own beliefs, and fight to be the ones in charge of stamping out heresy. To be a libertarian, you have to oppose them all.

    “Automatic turns of the wheel are not guaranteed.”

    Nobody knows which way it will turn, but it will turn.

    It’s like a sort of Russian Roulette. The only way to be sure of surviving is to put down the gun.

  44. I’m not the authoritarian, here!

    You and your fellow extremists have successfully campaigned for laws which punish what people say and how they think, and now demand access to primary school children to keep them falling foul of said laws. That’s about as Orwellian as it gets, but extremists always think they’re perfectly reasonable.

  45. “You and your fellow extremists have successfully campaigned for laws which punish what people say and how they think”

    Not me!

    You are assuming that because I disagree with you on one thing, that I disagree with you on all the rest. That everyone who disagrees with you on anything are all part of the same group. My point is a little more subtle than that.

  46. ‘That everyone who disagrees with you on anything are all part of the same group.’

    Stones, houses of glass.

  47. “Stones, houses of glass”

    Not a coherent argument. No evidence. No context. No idea what you’re talking about.

  48. “Who said anything about ‘deferential’? You’re just supposed to treat them like normal people. ”

    And ‘normal people’ get the p*ss taken out of them for their character, sexual proclivities, weight, height, dress sense etc etc. But woe betide anyone who dares to take the p*ss out of anyone who is gay, thats homophobia!!!

  49. “And ‘normal people’ get the p*ss taken out of them for their character, sexual proclivities, weight, height, dress sense etc etc. But woe betide anyone who dares to take the p*ss out of anyone who is gay, thats homophobia!!!”

    I agree with you. There should be no difference. Speech, even offensive speech, should be free.

  50. “There should be no difference. Speech, even offensive speech, should be free.”

    But there is a difference. As a white middle aged male I can be insulted in any which way anyone cares, and I have no recourse. If I was gay I could claim sexual discrimination and get recourse in law. So gays ARE privileged, their sexual preference gains them a power that a straight person does not have. So they are deferred to, because the law demands it.

  51. “As a white middle aged male I can be insulted in any which way anyone cares, and I have no recourse.”

    Actually, you have exactly the same power. If someone harasses you or discriminates against you on the basis of being white, male, or heterosexual, you can make a complaint and have them prosecuted under exactly the same legislation.

    The difference is that few people do, because gays are commonly persecuted that way and heterosexual people aren’t. The difference is not in law, but only in society.

  52. Utter rubbish, I knew a local kid who was excluded from school for making a racist remark about a black kid, which he did. That the black children had nicknamed him ‘the milky bar kid’ due to his complexion was of course perfectly okay, and that was the nicest thing said to his face.

  53. “That the black children had nicknamed him ‘the milky bar kid’ due to his complexion was of course perfectly okay, and that was the nicest thing said to his face.”

    And did he make a complaint about that under the Equality Act 2010? What was the response?

  54. “If someone harasses you or discriminates against you on the basis of being white, male, or heterosexual, you can make a complaint and have them prosecuted under exactly the same legislation.”

    Yeh, right. You really are dim if you think thats the case. John Snow just made the comment (live on national TV news no less) about the Brexit march “I have never seen so many white people in one place”. Is he still in a job? Will he be prosecuted for racial bias? Of course not. Ofcom are ‘investigating’ after thousands of complaints, which means in a few months time the people who run Ofcom (who are John Snow clones) will issue some mild rebuke, and that’ll be it. He’ll still be in a job, none of the great and good will consider him beyond the pale, because they all agree with him, and everything will go on as before. Yet if (for example) Jacob Rees-Mogg travelled to Bradford and said ‘He’d never seen so many Muslims in one place’ he’d be lucky not to be in court, and it would be headline news constantly and his character would be being smeared by every media outlet going.

    Is was Diane Abbot ever disciplined in any way for her racist utterances? How about that Goldsmiths student who wanted to ‘Kill all whites’?

    Just like the USSR was legally a democracy with elections and everything, the UK has ‘equality under the law’ in theory, in practise its entirely different, because the people who are tasked with enforcing it are all of one political persuasion, and use the law to further their political ideology. Anyone who says otherwise is lying, and trying to hide that fact.

  55. “John Snow just made the comment (live on national TV news no less) about the Brexit march “I have never seen so many white people in one place”. Is he still in a job?”

    [Rolls eyes] Because simply making comments related to race is not illegal! It may be socially disapproved, and the criticism it arouses might be enough to get his employers to do something about it, but he couldn’t be prosecuted for it, any more than somebody could be prosecuted for making a comment about the number of black faces.

    There are general laws restricting speech on assault, harassment, and malicious communication, but they require an element of a plausible threat of violence, and none of these laws make any reference at all to protected categories. They cover everybody, for all causes, but only for actual threats. Then there is the Equality Act which has an offence of harassment that includes creating a “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”, which is illegal if done on the basis of one of the protected categories, but not for other reasons. The law makes no distinction between sides: it is just as illegal to do so because someone is white as because they are black. So your local ‘milky bar’ kid facing a hostile environment based on the colour of his skin would indeed have a valid complaint. Marchers annoyed at Jon Snow are not in that category.

    The law does not take sides. You have exactly the same powers under it that they do.

    Public opinion, on the other hand, is a different matter. Society imposes its will by means other than the law. JS Mill wrote about it a long time ago, and people are still the same.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyran–society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it–its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    So in the past, this social tyranny was directed against blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, the disabled, women – outsiders generally. The white heterosexual males ruled the roost, and were happy to put the boot in. Today the social fashions have changed, and those old attitudes have become unpopular. And people being people, they’re putting the boot into the white heterosexual males now in just the same way. Same “social tyranny more formidable”, just a different target.

    So it would be a jolly good thing for you white heterosexual males to change the system before things get any worse. To establish the principle and teach it to the next generation that bullying people for being different is wrong. Any difference. Any side.

    But it is impossible to credibly do this while fighting to retain your right to bully the old minorities using that same social tyranny. Or to lie and say it never happened, and all this political correctness is a new phenomenon.

    The state is seeking a neutral solution. You can have protection against discrimination because you are a white heterosexual male, but only if you give up discriminating against people who aren’t. You can have the freedom to hold and express your views and try to teach them to the next generation, but only if you give the same freedom to people with different views. You can be tolerated, but to make that possible you have to be tolerant; to teach tolerance.

  56. “The state is seeking a neutral solution.”

    No its not. Because the State does not exist. There are just millions of individual State employees who decide who to prosecute and who not to, and what things to spend money on, and what not to, and they do what they want, with no recourse from anyone who disagrees. And those State employees are all of one mind, the PC authoritarian mind.

    ” Marchers annoyed at Jon Snow are not in that category.”

    Yes because if Tommy Robinson made the same comment about ‘blacks’ everyone would be quite happy with it, and not make any fuss whatsoever.

    ” You can have protection against discrimination because you are a white heterosexual male, but only if you give up discriminating against people who aren’t.”

    As I’ve pointed out and you ignore, we have exactly that, laws that outlaw discrimination on grounds of all the usual bollocks, from everyone. But the law which is supposed to apply to all is not applied to all. If I tuned up at my local police station to complain that I considered John Snows comment hate speech that caused me alarm and distress, I’d be laughed out of the door. If someone turns up to complain about an identical but mirror comment from Tommy Robinson, the police would fall over themselves to take it all down and start the wheels in motion.

    There is no equality, despite there being an equality law.

  57. “If I tuned up at my local police station to complain that I considered John Snows comment hate speech that caused me alarm and distress, I’d be laughed out of the door.”

    It would help if some of us actually understood what the laws we were complaining about actually said! Because as I just pointed out, what Jon Snow said isn’t against the law.

    Do pay attention!

  58. “It would help if some of us actually understood what the laws we were complaining about actually said! Because as I just pointed out, what Jon Snow said isn’t against the law.”

    You studiously avoided the other part of my comment – if Tommy Robinson made a similar (though mirror) comment and complaints were made to the police, what (in your opinion) would they do? Laugh at the complainer and tell them to bugger off? Smile, take the complaint and throw it in a bin, or the ‘forget about this’ file? Or take down all the details very studiously, alert the press that ‘investigations’ were ongoing about the ‘incident’, and probably seek to question TR with a view to prosecuting him for something?

    You seem to forget that its irrelevant whether something is ‘against the law’ these days, the punishment is in the process, not any eventual conviction. If the police decide to put you through the legal process or not is entirely in their gift, and the consequences for people who are entirely innocent of being put through that process are often severe – loss of job, loss of house, loss of marriage and kids, loss of future employment etc etc. And they they only seem to do it to the Tommy Robinsons of this world, but not the John Snows. Funny that.

  59. “You studiously avoided the other part of my comment – if Tommy Robinson made a similar (though mirror) comment and complaints were made to the police, what (in your opinion) would they do?”

    They couldn’t do anything. It’s not against the law.

    Tommy Robinson makes comments every other day that the chattering classes would consider racist and offensive, but he’s not in jail for any of them. They might well investigate, as they’re duty bound to do whenever a member of the public reports a crime. But if all you’ve got is that he made a remark some people could consider racist, they’d go “Yes? And?” It’s not exactly news to anyone, is it?

    “You seem to forget that its irrelevant whether something is ‘against the law’ these days, the punishment is in the process, not any eventual conviction.”

    We were discussing whether a straight white male had any “recourse in law”. Now you’re talking about recourses outside the law.

    And as I explained above, when it comes to measures society imposes outside the law, then yes, society can find a variety of ways to be nasty to people it doesn’t like. Which used to mean gays and black people (the number of times I’ve heard both complain of being regularly harassed by the police…! Ever heard of the Stonewall riots?) and now is getting applied to the Tommy Robinsons.

    And yes, that’s bad, and I’m against that. But I’m against doing it to anyone, not just the people one side or the other side think should be defended from it. You have to make the principle of tolerance for differences universal, or eventually it will come round and bite you too.

    Incidentally, in this particular dispute between Muslims and LGBT, which side do you think Tommy Robinson would be on?

  60. Who said anything about ‘deferential’? You’re just supposed to treat them like normal people.

    NiV admits that teh gheyers aren’t normal?

    Also, if you could define normal, that would be great.

    You have to make the principle of tolerance for differences universal, or eventually it will come round and bite you too.
    Bollocks.
    There’s plenty that a healthy society shouldn’t tolerate.

  61. “NiV admits that teh gheyers aren’t normal?”

    No. I admit that some people treat them that way.

    “There’s plenty that a healthy society shouldn’t tolerate.”

    Like homophobes and racists?

    The Harm Principle applies, of course.

  62. So should Israel Folau be sacked from his job for merely stating his views on (among other sinners) homosexuals?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47932231

    If a gay person put on their twitter account ‘Straight people are going to hell’ would he be sacked do you think? If we are to treat gay people as ‘normal’ why can’t they be told they are going to hell, along with all the straight sinners – the liars, cheats, adulterers, fornicators et al? Why is it OK to tell a straight person they’re going to hell, but not a gay person?

  63. “So should Israel Folau be sacked from his job for merely stating his views on (among other sinners) homosexuals?”

    No.

    Although it shouldn’t be illegal to sack anyone for any reason whatsoever. An employment contract is just one person selling their labour to another. Just as it should be legal for people to choose not to buy from a shop run by people they don’t like, so an employer should be able to choose not to buy the labour of someone they don’t like. It’s not good that they do so, and in a liberal, tolerant society most people would choose not to, but it should be a choice, and not compelled.

    But although I would say it shouldn’t be illegal to sack him, in this case it’s arguable that under UK law it might be – since they’re discriminating in their employment on the basis of religious or political belief, which is a protected category. I don’t know about Australian law, though.

    “If we are to treat gay people as ‘normal’ why can’t they be told they are going to hell”

    They can. They are. Just as religious people can be told their ideas about ‘hell’ are disgusting, immoral, untrue, and obviously crazy. The proper response to words is words.

  64. “They can. They are. Just as religious people can be told their ideas about ‘hell’ are disgusting, immoral, untrue, and obviously crazy. The proper response to words is words.”

    Odd then that Billy Vunipola has been warned that his views on the same subject are ‘unacceptable’ and if repeated would result in him losing his job.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47941729

    But gays aren’t a protected species in the UK, not not at all……..

  65. “Odd then that Billy Vunipola has been warned that his views on the same subject are ‘unacceptable’ and if repeated would result in him losing his job.”

    Not odd at all. I’ve told you several times now, and you just ignore it every time. There is a major difference between what’s against the law and can be prosecuted in a court, and what’s a matter of public opinion and can be met only with protest and the withdrawal of voluntary association.

    The comment I disagreed with was “But there is a difference. As a white middle aged male I can be insulted in any which way anyone cares, and I have no recourse. If I was gay I could claim sexual discrimination and get recourse in law.” The law makes no such distinction. Under the law, you can prosecute for discriminating against whites, males, heterosexuals as easily as black, female, homosexuals. Speech is mostly legal. Where speech is illegal, it’s illegal equally.

    But society has a variety of legal ways besides the law of enforcing its norms, it does not have to be neutral when using them, and modern society is no different in this regard than the society of the 1950s. Back then, it would be someone exposed as a homosexual who could expect to lose their job. Nowadays it is the homophobes turn. Those are the consequences of social intolerance.

    Billy expressing his opinions is not against the law, but it is in breach of the contract he signed with his employers promising to abide by their rules on social media. The usual attitude of employers is that you’re entitled to your own opinions at home, but you don’t bring them to work, and for a public figure strongly associated with their business, what you Tweet to the world reflects on them, so they’re only going to contract with people capable of keeping their more socially pungent opinions to themselves.

    I can’t say I approve of companies doing that, but it’s their choice. If you don’t feel like you can abide by what’s in the contract, don’t sign it.

    Much of society believes it has the right and duty to impose their own norms of behaviour on others. The religious ‘morality police’ think they have the right to impose their own moral standards on homosexuals and other sinners, and to be unpleasant to them in that cause. So SJWs think they have the right to impose their own moral standards on homophobes. You can’t have one without getting the other. You can’t truly get rid of one without getting rid of the other. They are merely different sides of the same coin.

  66. “The religious ‘morality police’ think they have the right to impose their own moral standards on homosexuals and other sinners, and to be unpleasant to them in that cause. So SJWs think they have the right to impose their own moral standards on homophobes.”

    Yes you can we have exactly that. No one is discriminating against homosexuals one jot, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out they are now a favoured section of society (not as favoured as Muslims though, as they are rapidly finding out), yet we still have SJW’s discriminating against everyone else who doesn’t fully sign up to the rainbow pride/chicks with dicks/alphabet soup agenda. There is not one single thing in any aspect of life that a gay person can say they are treated any differetly to everyone else – employment, marriage, healthcare, you name it they get exactly equal treatment, but they just can’t accept any criticism of their lifestyle, criticism thats absolutely fine for everyone else to have to accept. Jacob Rees-Mogg gets absolutely vile treatment and comments made about his lifestyle and religious choices, and he’s supposed to just take it (and rightly so, sticks and stones and all that). But gay people are so thin skinned unless everyone is telling them how wonderful they and their lifestyle are 24/7, then they are being ‘discriminated’ against apparently.

    The irony is that the inability of the gay community to accept that part of being ‘normal’ is you get shit on from a great height constantly by everyone and everything, and thats just how life is, will eventually drive the majority to return to 1950s style behaviour (probably driven by Islamics to some extent), whereby gays are driven back in the closet and openly discriminated against again. All because they can’t accept they have achieved equality, and that means equality of misery not just equality of pleasure. A few get it, Peter Tatchell is an honourable exception, but the majority aren’t prepared to forego the favoured status they have achieved, and accept true equality.

    But as I said above, that will change – the Islamics are now top dog in the identity stakes, and gays are sliding down the power list. If they are not careful they will alienate the very people who might be prepared to defend them when the Islamic drive against them gets into full swing, and probably already have with their ‘gay cake’ antics.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.