What is Homophobia?
Haddock cuts straight to the chase (brief warning – Haddock can be a bit coarse, and I don’t mean his fishing).
The Thought Police define homophobia thus,
“A homophobic incident is defined as: ‘Any incident which is perceived to be Homophobic by the victim or any other person’.
“which translates as ‘It means just whatever I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less’
Do you know what, I hadn’t spotted that before. Basically, if someone thinks that I’m being homophobic, that’s good enough…
there was a case of a gay person recently who got quite a bit of compensation for homophobic remarks. I think he worked in a bakery and one day went in with a cream suit on and they called him a ” CREAM PUFF”. I am not homophobic but i laughed at that one because it was funny and witty. I dont know if any malice was intended by the remark and if a gay person had made the remark would he protest.
Actually, I think uses language like “puff” or “faggot” is offensive and should be prosecuted. It’s demeaning and derogatory and designed to ridicule and ostracise.
The problem with the SORS though is that the way the law is framed, not only will stuff like this be illegal (and rightly so) but also anything that someone thinks is offensive, even if, for example, it’s someone reading out from the Bible.
The point is that not all gay people would think that offensive either. I have heard jokes spoken by the gay community themselves that if we said them would be deemed offensive. Also how do we know that malice wasnt intended and it was just a jokey comment. I understand what you say that deliberately demeaning remarks that are designed to ridicule should be banned……how do we know if that is the intention.
To my point if another gay man found that funny would he be deemed……homophobic?
I suppose alot of where i am coming from is living with alot of banter,inuendo, etc.Not much of it is deliberately mean but could be taken so.
As for preaching the gospel I think this is where real battle will take place as this defines who we are and how we behave. if that changes then so does everything else.
Context! We’re talking about reporting incidents here, not charging or prosecuting people. Basically, if you or someone else perceives an incident to be motivated by hatred, report it as a homophobic incident. It says nothing about what happens afterwards. There is no indication that a charge or prosecution could follow merely because you’ve been unfortunate to have been interpreted in a particular way, regardless of your intent.
The police are giving the EXACT same advice about racially and religiously motivated crime: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/crime-reduction/crime-victim-hate.asp
“Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person. … Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the faith of the victim or so perceived by the victim or any other person. …”
So much for the “drip drip drip of anti Christian propaganda”.
In any case, how have you leapt from this quote to “homophobia according to SORS”? You’ve ripped the definition from a totally different context and linked it without any justification to the SORS.
Dave,
You’re absolutely right and I apologise. I was working on two different things at the same time and wrote a title that was incorrect for this post. I have amended the title.
Good job, Peter!
And can you agree that, even in its original context, it is a far cry from saying that homophobia is anything you want it to be? It is plainly talking from the point-of-view of a victim deciding whether to make a report to the police, not whether someone should be charged or prosecuted for a hate crime.
You’re aware from even this thread that I will oppose proper homophobia – for example abusive name-calling and discriminatory action based on sexual orientation (not sexual practice). But I disagree with you on the point you raise – I think we are in very great danger in this country of moving to a position where the very discussion of homosexuality is in danger of being censored and it becoming criminalised to even express your public disapproval of homosexual practice, or to encourage others to disapprove of homosexual practice.
I am broadly in favour of the SORS’ stance on goods and services, but I have deep concerns over whether it will have a direct impact upon my and other’s ability to preach the unchanging word of God.
Good grief! We have turned into a nation of wimps, wusses, whingers and whiners! I can tell you that as a woman of heterosexual orientation, because I disapprove of sodomy, believing it to be not what the human body was designed for nor what God intends for His people, I have been called the usual ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’, amongst other names, and I have been told that I ‘share a common history with fascists, despots, murderers and tyrants down the ages’ and that I am ‘psychotic’. After all that, I would regard as a bit of light relief being called a Cream Puff.
I once worked for a Jewish company where the (Jewish) Managing Director would regale the staff with the latest Jewish jokes most days. The jokes were terrible, but we enjoyed them because he thought they were so funny! I have also known gays who love gay jokes, and would regard ‘Cream Puff’ as highly amusing. My favourite gay blogger, Dreadnought, prefers to be called a faggot.
As a woman, I have endured decades of sexual innuendo, suggestive remarks, gropings on the London Underground, I have even been stalked. Some of this was quite sinister but mainly it was harmless banter and I would have just joked it off, as most of my generation did. If we had reached for the telephone to phone our lawyers every time somebody whistled at us, we would probably be rich women by now! I am thoroughly sick and tired of these po-faced humourless individuals bristling with righteous indignation every time somebody makes a remark which they construe as being racist/sexist/homophobic. Peter is quite right, it is an assault on our freedom of speech and religious belief.
I think Peter is right in that demeaning,derogatory, offensive remarks should be be curtailed. My point is that people differ so much in temperament, attitide,likes, sense of humour. what one person thinks is funny might offend someone else and vice versa……it will be hard to legislate. Anyway i think all this has persuaded me to keep my mouth shut more and stick to really cheesy bad Jokes………oh my kids just said my jokes are all cheesy…..little blighters :)
A good debater i am not but I make wicked muffins…………yup i will stick to that.