Tyson Fury’s got every right to be as bigoted as he likes

It all started when Fury gave an interview to my colleague Oliver Holt in the Mail on Sunday, and said, verbatim: “There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one’s paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?”
You will notice that 1. Fury thinks homosexuality and abortion should still be illegal and 2. That he is conflating homosexuality and paedophilia.

So? We don’t usually go to heavyweight boxers for moral guidance, do we?

And we have heard of this free speech thing?

And just to point out the blindingly obvious, he’s not conflated the Gayers with the Kiddie Fiddlers, he’s quite clearly marked out that they are different. As in, here’s one thing, here’s another and there’s a third?

Referring to the Mail on Sunday piece again, Fury says: “I didn’t say it [homosexuality] was right, wrong or indifferent. But I am against it by the way.”

Disagree with him all you want but not letting him say it would be worse.

41 thoughts on “Tyson Fury’s got every right to be as bigoted as he likes”

  1. Actually, I get all my moral guidance from heavyweight boxers. I find them much more moral than politicians, SJWs or journalists, for example.

    My Fury has discovered the old truth that anything said to a journalist will be twisted and spun to mean something else. Perhaps in his next interview he will let his fists do the talking?

  2. Sure he’s every right to be bigoted. If he doesn’t like buggery he’s free not to do it. But claiming it brings the devil marks him out as a small-brained fascist religious nutter whose beliefs deserve only hoots of derision. Social consequences of free speech an’all.

    As to why so many boxers need to loudly protest their heterosexuality, buggers me really.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    And just to point out the blindingly obvious, he’s not conflated the Gayers with the Kiddie Fiddlers, he’s quite clearly marked out that they are different.

    He has. Something the Gay lobby persistently refuses to do. It is a cheap trick designed to smear people they don’t like. When the Kiddie fiddler is someone they do like, then they are happy to say he is Gay. There is no one demanding that Pasolini is not called Gay. Or Andre Gide. Both predatory paedophiles. Gide adopted the son of a friend of his so he could better sexually assault him.

    What is interesting is that Fury identifies as a Gypsy. The Guardianistas are usually happy to protect homophobia from the right community. The Muslims obviously. So it looks like for Social Justice purposes being a Gay and having your feelings hurt trumps being a Pikey. But that being a Muslim trumps being Gay.

    I wish they would produce a little handbook or something explaining these esoteric hierarchies.

  4. SMFS: Gypos have no chance of overthrowing boojwah society–or at least disrupting it enough to give leftist scum a chance to step in to the power vacuum. Whereas muslims might have. It is this belief that forms the basis of leftist support for islam and puts it further than pikey-ness up their
    hierarchy of anti-white/western hate.

    BiG: So you feel the need to respond to what you label as the bigotry of another by exposing your own.

    No, but wait. As a supporter of scientistic atheism you KNOW you are right. That’s it isn’t it? He just has a lot of daft beliefs but you KNOW you have the TRUTH(tm) on your side.

    Silly of me to think that scientistic TRUTH was just ordinary belief.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “But claiming it brings the devil marks him out as a small-brained fascist religious nutter whose beliefs deserve only hoots of derision. Social consequences of free speech an’all.”

    Maybe. On the other hand the rest of us have a choice. We can listen to someone who believes that the decay of modern British society is the work of the Devil. Or we can listen to a lot of people who insist that Bruce Jenner is actually a woman deserving of an award for courage.

    There are penalties for doubting the latter.

    I am not sure that Fury is the one deserving the derision here. On the contrary he appears to me to be one of the more rational participants in modern public conversation. Even if by comparison with all the others as opposed to his own intrinsic merits.

  6. @Ecks,

    No, I don’t know I’m right. I know that on the balance of probabilities, for everyday values of “right”, with due respect to the principle that a negative can not usually be proven, I am right.

    But that isn’t the point. The point is that once someone’s religion stops being their private belief system that informs their thoughts and actions and nothing more – once it starts throwing its weight around in public and harming other people (or calling for them to be harmed) it should cease to deserve the special protection that the various established religious delusions currently enjoy.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “(or calling for them to be harmed)”

    So no freedom of speech for the religious. Got ya.

    So no cigarette advertising? So Macca’s ads? No car adverts? No alcohol? No public support for Communism?

    All of those are more likely to cause harm than Mr Fury’s perfectly sensible opinions.

    As is, for that matter, any defence of homosexuality. Given about half of all homosexuals still die of HIV. It is vastly more dangerous than anything else mentioned here. So no doubt you full support Clause 28 or whatever it was?

  8. SMFS said it first but how is saying you don’t approve of somebody harming them? If it is a harm then you just did it to those who believe in the Devil. Notice how what you advocate has the same structure as the antics of the left (I’m not saying you are a leftist)–saying you dislike/don’t approve of anybody is bad–except when we (the left) say stuff about those we don’t approve of.

  9. Don’t care what he says or thinks. He’s a slugger and this story is a passing distraction. One day someone will thump him so hard that he’ll never be heard from again.

    And to be honest, it’s quite refreshing when a slugger says something more than ifumpedimindaface.

  10. I stopped caring about boxing back around the time of the farcical Mike Tyson v Frank Bruno bout, so had never heard of Tyson Fury before.

    However, Tyson Fury is the greatest name for a boxer ever. He sounds like a Streetfighter 2 character. I want to see him fight Zangief.

    To argue for homosexuality to be illegal is not an “opinion.”

    Yes it is. A daft one, maybe. But an opinion nonetheless.

    It is a call for persecution

    So is calling for racists, homophobes, drug dealers, and “climate deniers” to be prosecuted. Yet those are also opinons.

    When Fury’s “views” came to light,

    “Nice” “use” of “scare quotes”.

    moral relativists cited Floyd Mayweather’s history of domestic violence and Mike Tyson’s rape conviction. This is quite a feature of our times. No specific offence can be challenged if others in the same field have committed entirely unrelated misdemeanours.

    It’s more a matter of perspective. Mike Tyson bit a man’s ear off. Fury just ran his mouth.

    It all started when Fury gave an interview to my colleague Oliver Holt in the Mail on Sunday, and said, verbatim: “There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one’s paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?”

    For a man who gets hit on the head for a living, this is insightful. Who indeed in 1950 would have foreseen that 100,000 abortions a year would take place in England by the end of the century? Or that disapproval of homosexuality would get you monstered in the pages of the Torygraph? Or that the Independent and other lefty newspapers would run sympathetic pieces about kiddy fiddlers, as they did recently?

    You will notice that 1. Fury thinks homosexuality and abortion should still be illegal and 2. That he is conflating homosexuality and paedophilia.

    Seems the guy who trades punches for his daily bread is more nuanced than the guy who writes words for a living.

    Fury did not “conflate” homosexuality and paedophilia any more than he conflated abortion and paedophilia. Read what he said.

    Fury then explains the original interview. “We were talking about Armageddon. We were talking about the end of the world,” he tries to explain. “And I said before the end of the world can happen all them three must be made legal [homosexuality, abortion, paedophilia]. I have newspaper evidence that suggests the gay rights act of 1977 [sic] backed in favour of paedophilia being legalised in the UK.

    As we know, the gay liberation lobby in the 70’s and early 80’s did support decriminalising paedophilia. Ask Harriet Harman about her old pals from PIE.

    Thankfully the gays threw the paedos off the bus back in 1984, but in the current climate -where a four year old child can be declared “transgendered” and have his life ruined by adults at an age when he is still trying to work out if Spongebob is real, where “genderqueer” social justice warriors are relentlessly evangelising every imaginable strain of polymorphous perversity as the cool new lifestyle choice, and where self-confessed paedos like Sarah Butts can become Twitter celebrities for having the right Left opinions – anything is possible.

  11. Bloke in Germany,

    “But that isn’t the point. The point is that once someone’s religion stops being their private belief system that informs their thoughts and actions and nothing more – once it starts throwing its weight around in public and harming other people (or calling for them to be harmed) it should cease to deserve the special protection that the various established religious delusions currently enjoy.”

    Religion should have no special protections than any other opinion in the first place. Why should someone have a “not selling pork” because of their religion, but we don’t protect “not selling Julia Roberts DVDs” because they think Julia Roberts is a shitty actress? Of course, if I create the Church of Good Cinema with “and the lord spoke and said thou shalt not touch the DVDs of the Julia Roberts, for her acting be shit” in the commandments, I’ve now got a religious exemption.

  12. @SMFS,

    I don’t see Fury being silenced or me calling for Fury to be silenced (though others are – as indeed is their right). It seems to me he is exercising his right of free speech as freely as anyone could want. So what, precisely, is the problem?

    @Stig, I agree in an ideal world we’d have no special protections for religions. The trouble is that going around insulting all sorts religions has a long history of that resulting in (to put it mildly) breaches of the peace. Thus we have to tolerate some distasteful laws in order to reduce the number of beheadings.

  13. He appears to have some of the same opinions as the Pope. Which is enough, in some circles, to make him the devil incarnate.

  14. “…no summary of Fury’s achievement is possible without calling him to account for the outrageous comments he made in the run up to the Klitschko fight.”

    Yes it is. Just concentrate on his boxing. It’s what sports columnists are paid to do, I’d have thought.

    “…it differs from the usual homophobia in sport of course by employing a phony religious justification for criminalising an entirely personal choice.”

    Make up your mind, man. Is it an uneradicable part of a person’s sexual makeup or is it a choice?

    SMFS: “I wish they would produce a little handbook or something explaining these esoteric hierarchies.”

    It changes so often, it’d have to be a miniature Etch-A-Sketch…

  15. Homos: Fury against, (Current) Pope kinda pro
    Abortion: Fury against, Pope against
    Paedos: Fury against, Current Pope undeclared, recent Popes pro.

  16. Christian’s often seem focussed on homosexuality, and rarely seem to mention fornication.

    The former is just a subset of the latter, and a pretty small one, so it seems an odd place to start.

  17. @JuliaM, that wasn’t boxing. It was even less boxing than Kitschko does, which is an achievement of sorts.

  18. “He appears to have some of the same opinions as the Pope. Which is enough, in some circles, to make him the devil incarnate.”

    TYSON! Make a speech on Global Warming NOW! It’s your only chance of redemption!

  19. >Christian’s often seem focussed on homosexuality, and rarely seem to mention fornication

    Not in the circles I move in. The standard, conventional teaching is that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that point is usually made perfectly clearly.

    The difference is that when you tell a bloke living with his girlfriend you won’t (as a church) employ him, if he takes you to court (which he almost certainly won’t), he will lose. A gay bloke probably will sue, and some activist judge may well decide he has a human right to minister to a whole bunch of folk who believe is way of life is sinful.

    Thus Christians tend to end up shouting about homosexuality more than fornication or adultery not because they care more about one sort of sin than the other, but because there aren’t militant adulterer’s rights groups busy campaigning against them.

  20. Anyway, or conflating homosexuality and peodophilia, aren’t pedos massively over-represented anoungst homosexuals?

    I’m fairly sure the percentage of crimes by men against boys vs girls has more than 5% of such crime being against boys (certainly based on cases that reach the news I would think it’s more like 30%) while 5% is a generous estimate of the gay population.

    I’m sure it’s not popular to point this out, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Obviously it doesn’t mean all gay bloke are raging pedos, but it does mean that are considerably more likely to be than a random straight bloke.

  21. Ah, no-one may form an opinion unless Jack C knows!
    theProle asked a question. Jack C’s response is to insult him.

  22. john77,
    I can teach you nothing about insulting responses.

    That, of course, is not at all what I said.

    Prole has made a pretty big accusation, and one that he recognises won’t be popular.

    So, worth checking wouldn’t you say?

  23. So the church is above the law? Or gets special treatment under the law?

    But, but, didn’t the overtly pro-Roman edition of Jesus have something to say about the establishment of earthly authorities?

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “I don’t see Fury being silenced or me calling for Fury to be silenced (though others are – as indeed is their right). It seems to me he is exercising his right of free speech as freely as anyone could want. So what, precisely, is the problem? ”

    If you do not see Fury being silenced it is because you are refusing to look. Of course that article, and your comments, are designed to silence him. So far he is allowed to, but probably not for much longer. The problem being the lack of tolerance from Social Justice Warriors like you. The fact that you would strip someone of the legal protection to speak because you don’t like their opinion is a problem.

    Jack C – “Prole has made a pretty big accusation, and one that he recognises won’t be popular. So, worth checking wouldn’t you say?”

    Which Theo does and shows Prole is right. Paedophiles are much more likely to be Gay. Much more dangerous as well. Bisexual paedophiles (or what my Gay friends would call confused homosexuals) are even more dangerous.

    Yet again common sense wins the day. After all, the only robust and replicable result in social science is that there is a racial disparity in IQ, but also that common sense prejudice is vastly more robust and likely to be true than anything social psychology has ever had to say.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201210/stereotype-inaccuracy

  25. “…aren’t pedos massively over-represented anoungst homosexuals?”

    No they’re not, if by homosexual you mean a man who’s attracted to other men. Adult homosexuality and same-sex child abuse are two different things.

  26. I get your distinction, but is that statement true?

    I would assume (possibly incorrectly, but IMHO not unreasonably in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that child abusers generally abuse children of the sex that are also attracted to as adults – thus I would expect to find most abusers of girls are heterosexual, and most abusers of boys are homosexual (ignoring bisexuality for the moment).

    Is there any evidence to the contrary, or is this just a last line of hastily errected defence to a line of argument that otherwise appears to reach an unfashionable conclusion?

  27. @ SJW
    I don’t doubt your veracity, just theirs. If they sexually abused boys they were not wholly heterosexual.

  28. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “No they’re not, if by homosexual you mean a man who’s attracted to other men. Adult homosexuality and same-sex child abuse are two different things.”

    So basically you re-define homosexuality to exclude paedophiles. Except when they make award-winning films it seems. It is not obvious to me that homosexuality and same-sex child abuse are two different things. Explain that one to me.

    Social Justice Warrior – “Yes it’s true. Try googling it. Abel and Harlow questioned over 1000 men who admitted to having molested boys: 70% reported being wholly or predominantly heterosexual.”

    So 30% were Gay. Which is what we would call a massive over-representation among the child-abusing community. Given, you know, that maybe 3% of men are Gay.

    Although I notice the clever little hair splitting you like goes out the window. A man who is attracted to boys is not homosexual because you define a homosexual as someone attracted to adult men. But a man who is attracted to girls is suddenly heterosexual.

  29. “So basically you re-define homosexuality to exclude paedophiles.”

    I was replying to theProles’ assumption “that child abusers generally abuse children of the sex that are also attracted to as adults”. Which turns out to be wrong for men who abuse boys.

    “It is not obvious to me that homosexuality and same-sex child abuse are two different things. Explain that one to me.”

    It’s not obvious to you because you’re thick.

    “So 30% were Gay. Which is what we would call a massive over-representation among the child-abusing community. Given, you know, that maybe 3% of men are Gay.”

    No, 8% described themselves as exclusively homosexual.

    “Although I notice the clever little hair splitting you like goes out the window… a man who is attracted to girls is suddenly heterosexual.”

    You notice it where?

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “Which turns out to be wrong for men who abuse boys.”

    No it doesn’t. Two activists report a lot of them *saying* otherwise. That says virtually nothing about their actual sexual orientation.

    “It’s not obvious to you because you’re thick.”

    A homosexual is someone who has sex with people of the same gender. Unless they are children it seems.

    “No, 8% described themselves as exclusively homosexual.”

    I am sure that about 8% of that 3% have never had sex with a single woman. By this standard there are virtually no homosexuals at all. Again, self reporting by criminals. Not exactly authoritative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *