Censorship

Support College Censorship or Become Its Target, Prominent Gay Activist Discovers

Peter Tatchell snubbed for signing onto letter opposing elimination of platforms for debate.

|

Credit: Kaihsu Tai

Peter Tatchell is one of the most prominent and vocal gay rights activists in England, participating in causes and actions going back to the 1970s. He famously attempted a citizen's arrest of extremely anti-gay Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe when the leader was visiting London. He was actually attacked and injured by Mugabe's guards during a second attempt to arrest the man in Brussels in 2001. He has a lengthy history of support for LGBT causes, peaceful causes, and all sorts of left-leaning positions.

But he signed a letter opposing behavior by students in colleges in the United Kingdom who were attempting to deny the ability of speakers to discuss ideas with which they did not agree, so screw him. If Tatchell doesn't support driving out speakers who hold unpopular views, then he shouldn't get to speak either. So the argument apparently goes. Tatchell is supposed to give a speech today at Canterbury Christ Church University on "re-radicalizing queers." But his support for open platforms for free speech are not queer enough for the National Unions of Students' LGBT rep. From The Guardian:

In the emails, sent to the organisers of a talk at Canterbury Christ Church University on Monday on the topic of "re-radicalising queers", Cowling refuses an invitation to speak unless Tatchell, who has also been invited, does not attend. In the emails she cites Tatchell's signing of an open letter in the Observer last year in support of free speech and against the growing trend of universities to "no-platform" people, such as Germaine Greer, for holding views with which they disagree.

Cowling claims the letter supports the incitement of violence against transgender people. She also made an allegation against him of racism or of using racist language. Tatchell told the Observer that the incident was yet another example of "a witch-hunting, accusatory atmosphere" symptomatic of a decline in "open debate on some university campuses".

One of the founding members of direct action group OutRage!, which caused a storm in the 1990s by outing establishment figures it claimed were homophobic in public and homosexual in private, Tatchell is used to being in the establishment firing line. But the original radical queer is now finding himself having to think long and hard about free speech.

It is interesting that Tatchell is now having to think about free speech. You see, Tatchell has not exactly been a purist on free speech issues. He has been a major force behind opposition to the anti-gay lyrics of Jamaican dance hall music, a fight that was world news for a time back in the early part of the new millennium. A lot of the activism was a perfectly normal example of fighting bad speech with more speech—protests and calls for boycotts and attempts to apply social pressure to create change. But Tatchell also got British police involved in investigating the lyrics and shutting down concerts, arguing that the calls for violence with the lyrics were dangerous.

Now though, things have changed. Or perhaps Tatchell has at least found some nuances. Tatchell recently took a position on a bakery in Belfast that has been found guilty of anti-gay discrimination for refusing to write "Support Gay Marriage" on a cake because the message violated the baker's religious beliefs. Tatchell's position is in support of the bakery, not the customer. He originally condemned the bakers, but announced a change of position at the start of the month. He explained in The Guardian:

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any "lawful" message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

This isn't taking it as far as defending (philosophically) the right for singers to wish death upon gay people, but baby steps.

Advertisement

NEXT: Oil Output Freeze by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Qatar: So What?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someone at the National Union of Students goes barking mad. Also, water is wet. These stories and others, tonight at 11.

    1. Scorpion and frog…

  2. Tatchell also opposes fining bakeries for not baking gay wedding cakes.

    No wonder he’s made an enemy of the Campus Crusaders.

    1. From the article:

      Tatchell recently took a position on a bakery in Belfast that has been found guilty of anti-gay discrimination for refusing to write “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake because the message violated the baker’s religious beliefs. Tatchell’s position is in support of the bakery, not the customer.

      1. You can’t expect me to read things.

          1. reading is for fags.

            1. Reading is for the colored. This is what Irish actually believes.

              1. I wonder what he thinks of coloring books or colored pictures.

              2. Didn’t racists want blacks not to read? Is this the new and evolving racism?

                1. Irish does have a drinking problem so he often confuses his racist policy proposals.

                2. *deep sigh* Reading is black folks, which is why Irish doesn’t do it, but, simultaneously, blacks can’t and shouldn’t read. Irish understands this. Do try to keep up.

                  1. You’re all wrong.

                    I hate reading because the black and white isn’t segregated enough.

                    1. +1 Segregation now, segregation forever.

            2. So let’s make some faggot cookies!

          2. reading is for fags.

        1. Wait, don’t you have a duty as a white person to read so you can explain things to minorities? Or does that only apply to liberal racist?

          /dididothatright

    2. But surely that can’t be. Why, I am regularly informed on these pages that gay activists are monolithic, and like nothing better than ruining the day of some virtuous christian.

      1. generalizations are fun.

      2. “gay activists are monolithic”

        1x2x4?

        http://pics-about-space.com/bl…..1609797352

        1. Open the pod bay doors, Swiss!

        2. Everybody should know that black monoliths are 1 x 4 x 9 !

  3. This is one of the reliable things about leftism; everyone eventually gets the knock at the door. This episode also shows how gays are going to be thrown back into the closet if and when religious Muslims become vital to the Progressive cause. Any gay person who stands up and points out the appalling treatment of gays by Muslims or the threat Muslims represent to the gay community will be called a racist and prevented from speaking.

    1. If the larger implications weren’t so horribly terrifying, I’d actually enjoy sitting back with a beer and watching these morons eat each other.

      1. I agree. Part of believing in freedom is defending the freedom of people who in many ways seem unworthy of it. It is going to be more than a bit ironic a few years from now when gays wake up and realize the only people left speaking in their defense are Libertarians and conservatives.

        I don’t think it will get too bad here. But I suspect that gays will start fleeing Europe in a few years the same way Jews are fleeing there now.

        1. Part of believing in freedom is defending the freedom of people who in many ways seem unworthy of it

          Like Muslims…?

          /ducks for cover and runs…SERPENTINE!

          1. Sure. You should defend Muslim’s freedom. But they don’t get any more or less freedom than we do.

            1. Absolutely.
              C’mon smokey, you know where I stand. But picking on you can be fun.

              /did you see me serpentine?

              1. I pick on people all of the time. Fair is fair. Pick away.

        2. I remember when people used to say, I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Part of that American exceptionalism, you know. (of course, I also remember when every little boy used to carry a pocket knife to school.)

          1. “It’s a free country” is another oldie but goodie.

            1. The sad thing is that both of those statements are now on the official verboten list for UC campuses, as they’re considered microaggressions and ‘exclusionary’.

              Also on that list:

              “I don’t see race”

              “America is the land of opportunity”

              “With hard work, anyone can be successful”

              “Everyone is equal”

              There’s more, but that’s just off the top of my head. I wish I was joking, but I’m not.

          2. A quote from an English writer paraphrasing a French Philosopher might not be American Exceptionalism

        3. It is going to be more than a bit ironic a few years from now when gays wake up and realize the only people left speaking in their defense are Libertarians and conservatives.

          Almost all of the gay people I know are libertarians for this reason. Of course, most of them are intelligent enough to recognize that the Democrats were just as hostile to them until recently, and only stopped because it was politically advantageous.

      2. Oh, come on, men who sleep with men come in all political and religious orientations.

        The real fight is between progressives and Christians, each trying to protect their own turf and privileges while each proclaiming (laughably) to have the moral high ground.

    2. It’s already happening in feminism, even atheist feminism.

      1. Did you see the picture of the German feminist with the sign “better to have rapists than racists”? That really sums up the insanity of leftism doesn’t it?

        1. What do you think the odds are that her rapist will also be a racist?

          1. Brown people can’t be racists silly.

          2. Someone is gonna rape the smug off her stupid smuggy face.

          3. That shit can’t be real.

            Prolly shooped.

            1. I’d bet that it is (in fact redAlertPolitics, whatever that is, confirms that it is). Even if it isn’t, the meaning is ambiguous.

              Here is another protest sign that I wanted to be real, from OWS (NSFW): http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6VWX…..pytits.jpg

              1. The original actually says:
                “Will give blowjobs to destroy glass ceilings”

              2. I don’t think it is. I ran it through an edge detection filter and it looks legit.

    3. This episode also shows how gays are going to be thrown back into the closet if and when religious Muslims become vital to the Progressive cause.

      I just don’t think this is at all likely. For one thing, the broad social acceptance of gays is a real change that isn’t going to go away. Gay’s being accepted as a normal part of society isn’t a political strategy. It’s something that actually has happened. Progressives are not in a position to throw them back into the closet.
      Second, religious Muslims are anything but progressive. They may seem useful to the cause now, but no fucking way they ever really fit into the movement.
      Finally, are many religious Muslims actually any more anti-gay than conservative Christians? The American progressives seem to be doing just fine counting on the support both of a majority of gays and a majority of often shockingly homophobic religious black people.

      1. I just don’t think this is at all likely. For one thing, the broad social acceptance of gays is a real change that isn’t going to go away

        Is the social acceptance of gays any more broad than the social acceptance of women being able to dress as they please and go out alone in public? I don’t think so. And yet, in the face of Muslim gangs making that impossible in parts of Europe, leftists are telling women to cover up and stop being so racist.

        Are gays any more accepted in society than Jews? That social acceptance isn’t saving the Jews either. The leftists don’t care about anything but power zeb. They never cared about women or gays or Jews or anyone else. They just pretend to do so if it is convenient. And once it is no longer convenient, they will turn on them like wolves.

        1. Who the fuck is “they”? Do you seriously think that everyone on the political left shares one brain?

          Some leftists are doing these things. Many others are arguing against it. Maybe you are right and what you say will happen. Time will tell. Yeah, some assholes are telling women to dress more modestly. A whole lot of people are ignoring them or telling them to fuck off.

          I just have no idea of what Muslims have to offer the European left. Once they get tired of their multiculturalist bullcrap and find some other cause, the Muslims will just be another bunch of religious conservatives. The left does depend to a large extent on maintaining the young-hip political brand, which they just won’t be able to do if they become the political brand of religious modesty and gay-bashing. I just don’t see that working for them. Either they will have to return to being a bit more sane, or the scary European right-wing will start picking up a whole lot more support.

          Like I said, maybe you are right. But I think you are way, way oversimplifying the political dynamics involved here.

          1. Go ask the Jews who are fleeing Europe by the tens of thousands how I am oversimplifying this. The governments refuse to protect them. And the European Left is home to some of the worst anti-Semitism in the world. And go look for yourself the meltdown European feminists, who are all leftists, are having about the rape problem. Go ask the girls who were raped in Ratherham how I am over simplifying it.

            Zeb, do you just refuse to believe anything that doesn’t fit your PC narrative no matter how obvious?

            1. Zeb, do you just refuse to believe anything that doesn’t fit your PC narrative no matter how obvious?

              Well, there you go reading people’s minds again. Seriously, fucking stop it. It makes you sound like a fucking moron. If you think I have a PC narrative, you really need to work on your mind reading skills if you are going to keep up your Amazing Kreskin routine. Or is not automatically believing everything some asshole on the Internet tells you a sign of being overly PC now? I don’t make any claim to know the minds of Muslims and Euro-leftists. That’s you. Who is clinging to a narrative again (I would note that I am not declaring you wrong, narratives can be accurate)?

              You keep on talking about things that are happening now. Do you really think people won’t change their minds about any of this? Seriously? Public opinion in Europe is already shifting away from support for the migrants. The left isn’t going to stake it’s whole existence, and all of the support it has from the libertine cultural left on getting Muslims to like them. Sooner or later even they will see that their PC narrative is bullshit and that Muslims need to assimilate and be toerant or it will be a big fucking problem.

              1. Do you really think people won’t change their minds about any of this? Seriously?

                Why would they? Did Charlie Hibdo change anything? Has Rotherham changed anything? What happened in Cologne? No. What other than blind faith that leftists really are good people would cause you to think they will change?

          2. Maybe “they” refers to the political left who are the loudest and purport to speak for their entire side of the political spectrum?

            1. Probably that. And they may end up surprised if they find that they don’t actually speak for their entire side. Which was my whole fucking point before it turned into another session of “look how shitty Muslim countries are” (which I don’t deny).

              1. But, unfortunately at this point they actually DO speak for that entire side — or damn close to it.

                Anyone who doesn’t want to be represented by these lunatics already departed to become libertarians or conservatives or Trumpkins. The left is now pretty monolithic in it’s intellectual bankruptcy.

          3. “maintaining the young-hip political brand”
            Guess which culture has stopped reproducing in europe and which one has not?

            In 20 years that 20 year old demographic will look a lot different. A large minority group that will piss on the native culture, the native norms, the native laws. It will be seen as hip and cool to burn down french and german culture.

            Young whites in the US idiolize trash ghetto culture, it would not be a leap for young whites in europe to do the same with muslims over time.
            Europeans will adjust to having an underclass with high crime rates, They’ll get americanized.

          4. Either they will have to return to being a bit more sane, or the scary European right-wing will start picking up a whole lot more support.

            Seriously dude, Europe doesn’t have a right wing.

            The European parties who predominantly run on a platform of kicking out immigrants, all have policy preferences that are otherwise indistinguishable from all the other political parties in Europe.

            Even European “Liberal” (in the original sense) parties support income taxation that would make even left-leaning Americans spit out their lunch and curse, along with endless social programs.

      2. In my not at all important nor scientific (well, moreso than AGW but thats a low bar) opinion, Souther Baptists and Mormons are the most anti-gay and probably equal to average Islam. (Radicals exist in all sects and are not being discussed here, yes I realize radical Islam takes these things to levels that havent been seen in the judeo/chrisitan world for centuries, but we arent talking about that) In my limited experience your average SB and Muslim have a disdain for homosexuals about the same while Mormons are so damn nice about it I wouldnt call it disdain but disapproval and a desire to “fix” it. This does not mean I think SB now Mormons would not hire a gay person in most circumstances and neither is likely to ever call that person out in public. And I feel the same way about the muslims I know. In private they are all “sinners” but public is it “hello”.

        1. now = nor

        2. Has any Southern Baptist or Mormon ever argued for the execution of gays? Meanwhile, there are nine Muslim countries were being gay is the death penalty and many others where it guarantees stiff prison sentences.

          If a Southern Baptist and a Moron are no different than the average Muslims, then there should be no difference being a gay person and living in Georgia or Utah than it is living in an average Muslim country. Do you actually believe that?

          1. Moron? was the intentional? To your point name an Average Muslim country. Please note that there are still laws on the book in Catholic countries about gays. We are talking about THIS country. Where its population has self selected to be more freedom oriented (broadly speaking). SO average muslims here and average mormons and average SBs, IN MY EXPERIENCE, all ahve very similar views with similar convictions about gays. None that I know have ever acted on them. I know a Muslim who hired two gay people. I know a SB who works with and for openly gay people. The only time it ever comes out is in private. And for my part I let them know it isn’t my thing to have those discussions. They are respectful of that. Catholics in this country can barely be considered religious so we shall leave them out of this discussion.

            p.s. Mormons are not morons. Just really nice people.

            1. I would also like to remind everyone that atrocities are committed by individuals ALWAYS and my political philosophy is to hold INDIVIDUALS accountable not groups. Individuals have rights and responsibilities, groups only have privileges.

            2. lease note that there are still laws on the book in Catholic countries about gays.

              Its not even close. Here are the five countries with the worse anti-gay laws; all of them are Muslim

              http://www.newsmax.com/FastFea…..id/650638/

              1. I am not disputing this (nor am I clicking a newsman link). The point is THIS COUNTRY!

                1. i think that may be a john level typo there…most of mine suck but I like that one.

                2. Interestingly, I can find almost no polling data about what American Muslims think of homosexuality and gay rights. If you can find any, I would be curious to see it. It is almost like that is a question people are afraid to ask.

              2. Nigeria is more Christian than Muslim. And Uganda is just as bad if not worse.

                I fully agree that Islam is a particularly bad religion in many ways. I’m just not convinced that they are really worse on gay stuff than Christianity and some others.

            3. 12 countries with the worst gay laws.

              Only one of them is Catholic, Hondurans, and three Christian. Seven of them are Muslim

              http://www.newsweek.com/top-tw…..ons-230348

              1. And in Nigeria they’re treated worse in the Muslim than the Christian parts of the country. Plus, that list is idiotic because it includes places like Lithuania on the grounds that people are mean to gays, even though being gay isn’t even illegal there, unlike 79 other countries worldwide.

                How do you include a country where homosexuality isn’t illegal when there are close to 80 countries where it is? So the Christian countries that are included are actually pretty suspect.

                They also hilariously include the US as an ‘honorable mention’ despite the US being one of the top 20 most gay friendly nations on Earth. They basically have to engage in propaganda to get any Christian countries on that list, whereas the Muslim countries actually belong due to homosexuality being punishable by death.

                1. They basically have to engage in propaganda to get any Christian countries on that list

                  Oh, I’d say a few of them deserve to be there.

                  Anyway, this was a discussion about how the left in Europe and the US would deal with gay and Muslim constituencies, not about the laws in Muslim countries. So it is rather irrelevant.

                  Muslims living in non-majority-muslim countries don’t seem to be any more hostile to gays than most conservative Christians are. So I don’t think that the left will have to abandon gays to placate Muslims.

          2. John, we are talking about Europe, not some typical Muslim country. There are Christian countries that will imprison or execute homosexuals too.

            If a Southern Baptist and a Moron are no different than the average Muslims, then there should be no difference being a gay person and living in Georgia or Utah than it is living in an average Muslim country. Do you actually believe that?

            Sorry, but that makes no sense. We aren’t talking about the average Muslim country. We are talking about Muslims in Europe and the US. I am suggesting that Muslims aren’t any less capable of being part of a coalition that includes gays than religious, anti-gay blacks (who are almost all Democrats) are.

            1. So you think Muslims in Europe are tolerant towards homosexuality? Really?

              Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance towards homosexual acts compared to their counterparts in France and Germany, according to a survey published today.

              The Gallup poll features the results of telephone and face-to-face interviews with Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK, France and Germany and is designed to measure global attitudes towards people from different faith traditions.

              It shows that British Muslims hold more conservative opinions towards homosexual acts, abortion, viewing pornography, suicide and sex outside marriage than European Muslims, polling markedly lower when asked if they believed these things were morally acceptable.

              The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed.

              By comparison, 35% of French Muslims found homosexual acts to be acceptable. A question on pornography also elicited different reactions, with French and German Muslims more likely than British Muslims to believe that watching or reading pornography was morally acceptable.

              http://www.theguardian.com/uk/…..osexuality

              Seriously Zeb, where do you get these ideas?

              1. How does any of that contradict what I am saying?

                All I’m saying is that I doubt that the European left will throw gays under the bus for Muslims. I never said Muslims all love and accept gays. I said they don’t seem to be much worse than most conservative Christians, who also in large numbers will tell you that homosexuality is morally unacceptable.

                Yes, Muslim countries have the worst laws. But we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about the European left.

              2. Britain, the country where the the biggest portion of the Muslim population is Deobandi. As in, the sect the Taliban is a part of. Of course they’re more extreme than other countries.

                1. Excuse, the rationalization where the the biggest excuse of the rationaization population is Excuse. As in, the rationalization the Excuse is a part of. Of course they’re more rationalized than other excuses.

                  FTFY

            2. “There are Christian countries that will imprison or execute homosexuals too.”

              There are 0 Christian countries that execute homosexuals. The closest example is Nigeria, but the only places that execute gays in that country are majority Muslim provinces.

              1. Great. So the fuck what? There are also plenty of Christian countries who severely punish homosexuality. When did the standard become “well if they don’t murder them, but just abuse them and lock them up it’s not so bad”?

                I don’t disagree that countries run by explicitly Islamic rule are just plain fucked. So great, they win the prize for killing homos. That doesn’t mean that Muslims in general are uniquely anti-gay, nor that other religions don’t hold very similar views on the subject.

                Let’s remember what this started out with. John seems to think that the European left must necessarily “force gays back into the closet” in order to get Muslim support. I said that I didn’t think that was likely and explained why. And got in response a bunch of irrelevant shit about Jews and how terrible Muslim countries are.

                1. here are also plenty of Christian countries who severely punish homosexuality.

                  Name them Zeb. You can’t because they don’t exist. For God’s sake give up your prejudices for ten minutes and just admit the truth.

                  1. Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Uganda, Senegal, Nigeria (majority Christian), Ghana, Kenya. There are a few to start with.

                    I have nowhere denied that Muslim majority countries are almost all worse. So what truth do you think I need to admit?

                    1. Ha Uganda only known in the age of the internet for the “eat the poopoo” anti-gay video.

                      Neither country group has anything in common in with western countries.

                      still 100 years back in many reforms including gay.

                  2. If I have any prejudice in this, it is towards agnosticism. All I know is what other people tell me. Many people tell me one thing, many tell me another. So sorry if I don’t buy into your narrative anymore than I buy into the narrative that says Islam is a religion of peace and the ones doing bad things are not real Muslims. I’ll even grant that what you are saying is more likely true than that nonsense. But I’m not going to uncritically accept your prognostications about what the European left is bound to do to gays.

              2. Uganda does it again, and in part because of lobbying by American Christian groups. And until the 20th century, a lot of Christian nations did.

                And the reason Western nations stopped executing people for homosexuality is not because of Christianity, but because Western nations have increasingly abandoned Christianity and resigned it to the dustbin of history, along with its cousins, fascism and communism.

          3. Has any Southern Baptist or Mormon ever argued for the execution of gays?

            Christians certainly have. In fact, most of the anti-homosexual laws in the world originated with the British Empire and were rooted in the British version of Christianity. Britain used to have the death penalty for homosexuality until 1861. Nazi Germany was more than 95% Christian (half Catholic, half Lutheran) and shoved homosexuals into the gas chambers. Today, Uganda has the death penalty for homosexuality.

            If a Southern Baptist and a Moron are no different than the average Muslims, then there should be no difference being a gay person and living in Georgia or Utah than it is living in an average Muslim country. Do you actually believe that?

            Utah and Georgia both used to throw people into prison for consensual homosexual conduct, and neither electorate was willing to decriminalize homosexual conduct.

            The fact that “Christian” countries are more tolerant than Islamic countries today is due to the fact that Christian churches have been losing power, not that Christianity as a religion is any less bloody or violent than Islam.

      3. “Finally, are many religious Muslims actually any more anti-gay than conservative Christians?”

        Yes. It should be noted there are a total of 0 non-Muslim countries where gays are executed as a matter of state policy, whereas there are 9 Muslim countries where gays are executed, in addition to executions in the Muslim parts of Nigeria.

        Sure those are third world countries, but it does show a difference in that you don’t see this in third world Christian countries, at least not as a matter of actual state policy. There are an enormous number of anti-gay hate crimes in London as well, particularly around the Tower Hamlets.

        1. Yes. It should be noted there are a total of 0 non-Muslim countries where gays are executed

          Uganda has the death penalty for homosexuality (repeat offenders), in part because of lobbying by US Christian groups.

          but it does show a difference in that you don’t see this in third world Christian countries

          That’s because most of the third world that is nominally Christian used to be Catholic, and after nearly two millennia of killing people (including imposing the death penalty for homosexuality), the Catholic church was finally beaten into submission by the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and secular European nations. Of course, nominal celibacy and the fact that a large percentage of Catholic priests are practicing homosexuals probably also has something to do with it.

      4. are many religious Muslims actually any more anti-gay than conservative Christians?

        Having spent about six years in Sunni Muslim countries, I’d say pretty much every genuinely religious Muslim outside of the US is much more serious about punishing homosexuals than conservative Christians. It’s not even close. At worst, conservative Christians want homosexuals to turn from the error of their ways or stay out of sight; genuinely religious Muslims want their mutawa to kill them.

        Acculturated American Muslims, however, seem to have a much more benign live-and-let-live attitude, but this is unique to American Muslims who are a minority.

      5. Progressives are not in a position to throw them back into the closet.

        No, but Muslims might be.

        -jcr

        1. John C. Randolph2

          /adjusts tinfoil hat

      6. These inconsistencies are just a reminder that parties represent coalitions, not ideologies. Conservatives tend not to be fond of either Muslims or gays, so both end up with the Democrats by process of elimination, because each dislikes conservatives more than either dislikes each other.

    4. The progtards will step over the gays without a second thought if they can accumulate more control in the process. Look how Obama is fucking the blacks with his lawless open border policy. All to import millions of illegals to vote democrat.

      Mark my words, if it means co-opting millions of islamic votes to attain more power, they will faggot cookies out of the gay population.

    5. This is one of the reliable things about leftism; everyone eventually gets the knock at the door.

      The original gay rights movement had nothing to do with “leftists”. It had to do with overturning draconian and totalitarian laws against private conduct.

      Any gay person who stands up and points out the appalling treatment of gays by Muslims or the threat Muslims represent to the gay community will be called a racist and prevented from speaking.

      I know some gay people in Muslim countries. Is the way they are being treated appalling? Yes, of course it is. But it is no more appalling than the treatment of gay people used to be in Christian countries. Whether it’s Islam, Catholicism, Calvinism, socialism, neo-Marxism, progressivism, fascism, communism, they are all morally bankrupt and they have all been bloody scourges of humanity. Your attempts to pretend that some of these -isms are better than others is laughable.

  4. What is that they say? “Live by the word, die by the word”? But I still find it laughable that the oppressed and the powerless are the ones silencing their critics and the ones being silenced their powerful oppressors.

    1. No, the powerless can’t silence anyone. If you can do that it means you have power, or at least have the sympathy of those that do. And gays of all people should realize how that works, having been on the receiving end of that for centuries.

      1. Being on the receiving end is precisely why some want to use it to their advantage. Same for feminists and ethnic minority movements as well. A sad truth about humans is, while when we’re slaves, all we want is freedom, once we’re free, we then want power, and once we have power, we want revenge.

  5. The existence of UK colleges is very useful for making US ones look less insane.

  6. I’m reading more and more about gay white men being no better than the straights, they seem to have outlasted their usefulness.

    1. Yeah, nothing bothers activists like victory.

      1. “Yeah, nothing bothers activists like victory.”

        It’s that yucky napalm smell.

        1. “Yeah, nothing bothers activists like victory.”

          It’s that yucky napalm smell.

          —-and the end of the institutional grievance industry and it’s cushy no-work paychecks.

    2. Human lives have value in proportion to the number of certified victim hood categories that they fall into.

      1. “Human lives have value in proportion to the number of certified victim hood categories that they fall into.”

        Of course, but I think gay men have had it much worse historically than white women, even lesbians. White women just happen to be the largest moral busybodies, movement falls apart without them.

      2. “Human lives have value in proportion to the number of certified victim hood categories that they fall into.”

        Not true. It depends on who the oppressor is.

        For example, Indian lives matter when they were killed by the British, but didn’t matter when there was massive violence following Indian independence or when millions of women were burned to death on their husbands’ funeral pyres or when Untoucables were forced to suffer and die because they weren’t allowed to live in the village since it was determined they’d pollute superior castes.

        No progressive cares about those things, so they don’t actually care about oppressed people, only about people being oppressed by white men.

        1. One is the colonial patriarchy, the other is the colorful cultural nuances that make life interesting.

          Vive La Diff?rence

        2. +1 good point

    3. Here you go. The gay community needs to deal with its misogyny problem.

      A bunch of men who have no interest in living with or having sex with women need to learn how they really are inferior to women like the straight men have.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men…..y-problem/

      1. Atheists have also gotten shit on by the left lately because too many of them are straight white men.

        Ten years ago I remember atheists were super popular on the left because they were criticizing Cowboy Bush and the creeping US Christo-fascist theocracy.

        Now that Republicans are out of power and they spend way more time criticizing Muslims than Christians, suddenly the fact that atheists don’t really care about whiny feminists is evidence that they need to be brought to heel.

        1. Richard Dawkins was a hero to the left ten years ago. Like I said above, one of the reliable things about leftism is that eventually everyone gets the knock on the door. It really is a sick cult.

          1. The only decent thing about Dawkins is that he’s married to Lalla Ward.

        2. Atheists have also gotten shit on by the left lately because too many of them are straight white men.

          So what? Skeptics and homosexuals are groups everybody loves to hate. There is little difference between Christians and communists in that regard.

      2. Meanwhile, the very few women present in such bars were known as “fag hags”. Each was invited to keep their respective gay male friend company until he met another guy he liked, at which point the “hag” would be expected to leave them to it. It was all rather depressing.

        Even the entertainment in gay bars can be misogynistic. I mean, how else can one describe drag queens and their crude lampoons of womanliness? I’m still baffled that such creepy ? not to mention deeply tedious ? acts are considered entertaining at all. Imagine a bar full of white people howling with laughter as a blacked-up white man paraded around on stage, mocking Afro-Caribbean people. It’s the sort of thing Channel 4 would make an undercover documentary about.

        lol is this a joke?

        1. And aren’t feminists supposed to want men to not see them as sex objects? Here is the one group of men that are virtually certain not to see women as sex objects and the feminists are still butt hurt.

          1. Blame Will & Grace if you like, but when they are interacting with women some gay men seem to forget that they are men and that there are lines that no chap should cross. A female friend who has several close gay friends and therefore encounters lots of gay men in their 20s and 30s tells me she endures “constant grabbing of my boobs or my bits in a way I wouldn’t be cool with straight men doing”, and that young gay men “talk endlessly about women’s bodies in an incredibly possessive, judgemental or objectifying way”.

            The US rapper Azealia Banks also pointed to this when she said: “I feel like a lot of times gay men can be way more misogynistic than even straight men. Even how they come to you picking at your hair, telling you you’re fat, telling you all this other s**t. Telling you how to be a woman. What the f**k do you know about being a woman?”

            They are never happy.

            1. Feminism is less of a philosophy and more of a personality, miserable cunt.

            2. this shit is gold…I am dying over here.

            3. “They are never happy.”

              That is the truth. Look, there are plenty of shitty obnoxious gay men out there just like there are plenty of shitty straight men and shitty women. Avoid them. Don’t be friends with them. It’s not that fucking difficult.

            4. Those bitches just need a good, hard, deep dicking. Then maybe they will get back to the kitchen and bake the menfolk a pie!

        2. “Meanwhile, the very few women present in such bars were known as “fag hags”. Each was invited to keep their respective gay male friend company until he met another guy he liked, at which point the “hag” would be expected to leave them to it. It was all rather depressing.”

          How is this any different from being a wing man? Apparently I’m the victim of male misogyny any time I go out and help a friend get laid.

          1. depends on how hot your friend is.

            1. I only hang out with hot people. That way I can at least pretend women come over because they’re interested in me, even though most of them run away once they notice the smell and my serial killer eyes.

          2. Well, they can’t take the fat friend off your hands, so they aren’t totally useful wingmen.

            1. If the fat friend has self esteem issues and likes to chase unattainable men, they can be useful.

              1. True, though I meant the fat friend of the gay guy. But then a gay guy having trouble getting laid doesn’t make much sense either.

                1. Yeah, the gay guy has better things to do than be some straight guy’s wingman.

        3. It reads like nothing more than a drawn out, mewling whine.

          Things happen that I don’t like. People like enjoy things I don’t and that’s problematic. Bitch bitch bitch. It’s like a proggy John Kasich.

      3. I liked it, but they never gave a good reason why the gay community should care.

        Here’s a few older ones.

        http://www.washingtonblade.com…..successes/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..43240.html

        (This one is interesting, based on this idea, it would seem like Southerners are being pushed out of being White)

        1. That is because there is no reason why the gay community should care. And of course the lesbian community is not exactly friendly as a group towards men. Gay men tend to have women friends. Gay women tend not to have nearly as many male friends. That of course is totally different. No one would ever say the lesbian community has a problem with men.

          1. “That is because there is no reason why the gay community should care.”

            Of course they shouldn’t, they should be like rednecks – free and not giving a shit – but just going by the few I know here in Seattle, they’ll cave. (Hopefully I’m wrong here)

            “And of course the lesbian community is not exactly friendly as a group towards men. Gay men tend to have women friends. Gay women tend not to have nearly as many male friends. That of course is totally different. No one would ever say the lesbian community has a problem with men.”

            Proof of their privilege, clearly. At least for the white ones.

            1. When I was growing up the gay community was wildly free. It took real balls to be openly gay back in the 70s and 80s. Being gay back then really was telling your family and pretty much all of society to go fuck themselves. Even though I wasn’t gay, I really had to respect them for the courage it took to do it and the almost outlaw anything goes culture they had.

              It is really sad to see leftism gets its fangs into that this century.

              1. I’ll defer to your judgement here then, as I’m definitely an outsider just piecing stuff together (plus your feedback seems to fit my theory nicely)

                Hopefully gays will raise some rainbow confederate flag soon.

        2. I liked it, but they never gave a good reason why the gay community should care.

          Unless there is a really large orgy involved, sleeping with men doesn’t make you part of a “community”.

      4. she endures “constant grabbing of my boobs or my bits in a way I wouldn’t be cool with straight men doing”

        Bullshit. Or… maybe find a better class of gays to hang around?

        Yet… I have spent many hours with many women in gay bars and this has *never* happened.

        This is the same kind of concern-troll writing we would never accept from the usual SJW crowd.

        1. I know women who feel this way about some gay dudes. They don’t view it as some problem with the gay community, they view it as a problem with those gay dudes.

  7. “It is interesting that Tatchell is now having to think about free speech. You see, Tatchell has not exactly been a purist on free speech issues. He has been a major force behind opposition to the anti-gay lyrics of Jamaican dance hall music, a fight that was world news for a time back in the early part of the new millennium.”

    Well, he is British. You can only expect so much from a limey these days.

    1. So limeys aren’t white enough for you either, huh.

    2. Yeah–who’da thunk identity politics could be so fraught with bad ideas and actions???

  8. I know this is a British university, but how about do away with government guaranteed student loans? Why should anyone be forced to pay for this crap?

  9. OT: Rule Britannia!

    Grandmother died of THIRST on an NHS ward ‘after nurse refused to give her a drink in case she wet the bed’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..t-bed.html

    Edna Thompson, 85, was admitted to Maidstone hospital with eye condition
    Given mannitol, which causes dehydration, to reduce pressure on her eyes
    Drug is normally prescribed for 48 hours, but she was given it for five days
    Her family raised concerns about her dehydration with an agency nurse but they refused to give her a drink in case she wet the bed

    1. 85 years old? She’d get the thumbs down from the future American death panels anyway. “Zeke Emanuel says 80 was enough for you.”

    2. At least she died knowing she had full, guaranteed access to her right to health care*.

      *Nobody said that right entails private sector quality.

  10. his support for open platforms for free speech are not queer enough

    *IS not queer enough*, damn it!

    Or is correct grammar not queer enough?

      1. Well done.

        But this particular nuance of “modern English” is still *bad*.

    1. I’m getting the feeling that support for “open platforms” and “free speech” are becoming quite queer these days, in the non-sexual sense of the word.

  11. It’s just rackets. Everything.

  12. Somewhere here, there’s at least one Iron Law at play.

  13. Ah. I was going to post this in PM links. Where does Reason get off reading the UK press.

  14. It was way better back in the 1970’s when gays, straights, and others could go to a David Bowie concert or a midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show and get along without a fuss. The whole decade seems to have been erased from public awareness.

    Bowie wrote a song about it with no lyrics.

    “Art Decade”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iti4TG2dNWI

  15. Just out of curiosity, why do you think homosexual activism everywhere is necessary, appropriate, or desirable? It’s everywhere to the point that we’ve all puked a thousand times over. Can’t you give it a rest and let people attend classes and study and stuff without being harassed at every corner?

    1. There’s that pesky 1st amendment again.

  16. Slap Daddy Jojo is not going to like that.

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  17. How in the world can we have free speech in this country if we don’t enact speech codes and other forms of censorship?
    People just don’t get that part.

  18. Wow, if those leftards think Tatchell isn’t radical enough, what *would* be radical enough for them?

    Tatchell and some buddies disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter sermon in 2011.

    1. And he – along with, I’m sorry to say, some pro-Ukrainian demonstrators – disrupted a London Symphony Orchestra concert to protest the pro-Russian conductor.

      1. Oh, it was his Foundation which cooperated in the disruption.

      2. What a bunch of twats. I’m sorry, but music is more important than politics. I would sooner protest a politician whose policies I adored because I found out he hated Wagner.

  19. Normally I get a chubby when the progressive theocracy eats its own, but this guy does seem to have some history of turning from the dark side, so I’ll refrain from my gleeful happy dance.

  20. “Cowling refuses an invitation to speak”

    So she isn’t going to go?

    That’s fine. Skip the event.

    More people need to stand up to this nonsense. Tatchell is a veteran — he’s been campaigned against in a general election in the UK by a gay-baiting socialist who turned out to be gay himself. He’s been beaten up by nationalist thugs and the Russian secret police during gay pride in Moscow. He has, as the article noted, been physically assaulted and injured twice by Mugabe’s thugs.

    He sustained himself during an outrageous attack by the fringe-lefty Scott Long at “Human Rights Watch” when he dared to criticize Iran and other Islamic dictatorships over their treatment of gay people.

    These silly “student unions” in the UK are featherweights in comparison.

    1. One solution is to not send your spawn to a University at all.

      I can’t imagine why I would spend a penny to send my half-white child to an American University.

    2. They should start beating up the students themselves. Nothing says “good morning hippie shitbag” like a nightstick up the side of the head.

  21. “anti-gay lyrics of Jamaican dance hall music”

    Look, when you get down to it, dancehall has some really fucked up lyrics, literally advocating murder against gays. But what the hell did he think banning the music in the UK would even accomplish?? Even ignoring the free speech concerns, it’s not like this music will radicalize ANYONE. Who the hell outside of Jamaicans (who are already homophobic) can even understand Creole enough to know that “Shot battybwoy, my big gun boom” is calling for the murder of gay people??

    It would be like trying to ban Mongolian Hip Hop in America because it often advocates violence against Chinese immigrants. Very few people in the country where it is banned will even understand the lyrics enough to pick up on the violent, bigoted message.

    1. The UK has very different “Free Speech concerns” then the US. So your analogy fails. Attempts at censorship in the UK will to succeed or fail based on UK laws and mores, not American ones.

      1. I didn’t USE “Free Speech concerns”.

        I instead pointed out how banning it solves no problem. Or can you really tell me what is homophobic about the statement “From dem a par inna chi chi man car, Blaze di fire mek we bun dem!!” without Google or a working knowledge of Creole??

        As far as I know, Great Britain isn’t populated by tons of people who speak Creole and can actually understand the message enough to be influenced by it. So what’s the point?? There’s no danger to begin with, because the Brits don’t understand di dancehall lyrics. No one’s going to be inspired to “mek we bun di chi chi men” without knowing what the hell that sentence means.

        1. My “point” is that in America the bar for banning things, be they books, shirts, music, movies, etc., is very high.

          In Britain the bar is *not* that high.

          So regardless of efficacy, a ban that passes muster in Britain will almost certainly fail in America. The question of efficacy in the analogy is moot.

  22. til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

    Clik this link in Your Browser

    +++++++++ http://www.Wage90.com

  23. Wait, so boycotts are appropriate uses of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, but a single speaker boycotting events with specific other people is suddenly censorship?

    Yeah, that makes sense.

  24. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  25. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  26. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  27. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  28. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  29. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.