Unsurprisingly Littlejohn has stuck his oar in on Chris Graylings comments about the gay couple turned away from the B&B story which were leaked to the Observer. Where he claims that he believes that B&B owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples if they object to it. (in opposition to his party's official stance on homosexuality, and the current discrimination laws.) There's only one way Littlejohn articles go, when gays and "liberal diversity" and "tolerance" are mentioned and it duly goes there.
"The Observer newspaper prides itself on its impeccable 'liberal' credentials. Indeed, the latest edition carries a splendid editorial in support of free speech.
Yet the very same paper splashed on its front page a vituperative attack on the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps people who run bed and breakfast establishments should have the right to decide who sleeps under their own roof "
That's called free speech. I mean the Observers editorial hardly going to agree with him anyway. Anyhoo, we continue:
"That is a perfectly respectable view to take. But Grayling's remarks were secretly taped and passed to The Observer, which decided that this was a major scandal, whose importance outweighed anything else which had happened in the world last week.
It was cited as evidence that the entire Conservative Party is anti-gay."
I don't know whether it paints the entire party as anti-gay, (I don't think Grayling is a homophobe either. I actually think his comments are a lukewarm "endorsement" of allowing B&B owners to "use their consciences" to say the least.) and the question of how the paper obtained the speech is another matter (like the Mail wouldn't have done something similar to taping private(ish) speeches?). But it is still quite a serious revelation. So stick with me my lovelies, as I explain why.
A) It contradicts the official Tory party line on their stance on homosexuality. He says he believes (on some level.) that it should be possible for B&B owners to bar gays if they want to. This does raise questions to how much of a shift in attitudes to gay rights has actually occurred as a whole.
B)As shadow Home Secretary he is unique in actually having some chance (unlike most people)of being able to go some way to implementing what he has said. (Though I don't think, if he gets the job; that he really has any intention of changing the existing laws.
Littlejohn now has to square the paradox, that he thinks the criticism of the comments is just Stonewall bolshiness, with the circle; that he is some major league gay rights champion. Hmm.
"I've been on the receiving end often enough. It comes with the turf."
"Even though I have been vocal in supporting civil partnerships and equal rights for gay couples in areas such as housing, health and pensions, I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave and think that adoptive children should be placed with a man and a woman wherever possible."
So does Littlejohn have "issues" with homosexuality? How would we know? I can only go on what he writes, but you do wonder when he uses things we associate with a prejudice, like:
*Describing a minority rights program as a bunch bolshy fanatics trying to "force" people to their agenda. This implies a latent fear or undue defensive fixation of the group in question.
"The usual hysterical suspects queued up to demand Grayling's resignation. Hereditary Labour lackey Dame Ben Summerskill, the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, predictably went ballistic.
His tried-and-tested tactic is always to howl down and smear anyone who questions any aspect of his own selfish agenda."
If you go to the Observer link, you can see what Summerskill actually said, and it really was quite muted. Oh and calling a homosexual man a dame, implies all gay men are an effeminate stereotype. That's textbook prejudice.
"Self-styled 'liberals' are now trying to destroy the career of a decent politician simply for expressing a point of view which I would guess is held by at least half the population. Secret tape recordings, smear campaigns. These are the disreputable weapons of fascists, not liberals.
I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth. They only tolerate opinions which chime with their own world view. Anyone who dissents must be traduced and punished.
They enforce their beliefs with totalitarian ruthlessness and, under New Labour, often with the full support of the law."
*The critic trying to deflect the criticism from the other side, not by refuting the claims, but by counterclaiming that they are the discriminated against, thus changing the nature of the debate, without quelling the claims.
"Those who speak out against the fashionable Leftist agenda are not merely wrong, they are denounced as inherently evil.
Until the election campaign loomed, anyone who expressed even the mildest reservations about the uncontrolled level of immigration was trashed as 'BNP', 'Little Englander' or 'racist' - the guardianistas' favourite term of abuse.
Along with many of our other traditional liberties, New Labour has mounted a sustained assault on freedom of speech."
"But, as I wrote last week, 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is a one-way street."
"I am reliably informed there are gays-only boarding houses which exclude heterosexuals, but I have yet to hear of one being prosecuted for operating such a policy."** Which sources, and what B&B's?
*A bizarre obsession with a minority, much more than we would expect from a casual commentator. Freudian innuendo.
"Marina Hyde of the Guardian has helpfully compiled a log of Dick’s references to homosexuality. In 2003, he referred “24 times to gays, 17 to homosexuals, 15 to cottaging, seven to rent boys, six to lesbians, six times to being "homophobic" and four times to "homophobia" (note Richard's scornful inverted commas), twice to poovery and once to buggery. That's a mere 82 mentions in 90-odd columns.” In 2004, he excelled himself, and “referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to "homophobia" and six to being "homophobic" (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”
"force 'tolerance' down our throats"
"I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave"
*Then there are just gay bashing articles.
"Officers from Scotland Yard's special hate crimes unit are investigating a formal complaint brought by the Gay Police Association, which has had enough of the writer's homophobic comments. The GPA is particularly outraged by an article Mr Littlejohn penned for The Sun that referred to cottaging as a "career move" for gay police officers. These comments and other homophobic sentiments were published under the heading "Just a little light spanking, sarge" on 6 January. The GPA accuses Mr Littlejohn of stirring up hatred not only against gay police officers but against the gay community as a whole.
There is no specific law in Britain making it a criminal offence to stir up homophobic feeling. It is understood that the Met's Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force is examining existing laws to see if there are any grounds for prosecution. The GPA said it has also contacted the Commission for Racial Equality to make it aware of the article.
The catalyst for Mr Littlejohn's rant against gay police officers was a proposal by senior officers to introduce new quotas to ensure homosexuals and lesbians are properly represented in the police service. In his article, Mr Littlejohn directly accused Commander Brian Paddick, the highest profile openly gay police officer, of using his sexuality to gain promotion.
"You used to get nicked for cottaging. Now it's a career move. Commander Paddick, the man who turned Brixton into an open-air drugs den, has milked his homosexuality for all it's worth in his relentless assault on the greasy pole."
The columnist also lashed out at Inspector Paul Cahill, the chairman of the GPA. "Inspector Brian [sic] Cahill, 32-year-old chairman of the Gay Police Association, has been awarded the MBE. Good luck to him but what marks him out from hundreds of other inspectors other than his predilection for same-sex sex?"
The columnist also informed readers that he had "assumed all policewomen are lesbians anyway, unless provided with incontrovertible proof to the contrary".
You can't claim to be a defender of gay rights with a record. You can't claim that you are a passionate defender of free speech, when you order a retraction from a spotty student on "Question Time" for pointing out that the leader of the BNP bigged up your column. You can't claim that your opponents are bastards for screaming down their critics as "fascists, and then bang on about "elf n safety Nazis." every bloody week. That's just circular reasoning, and makes you look like a bit of a tit.
So much for writing just a "short entry on this subject."
"The Observer newspaper prides itself on its impeccable 'liberal' credentials. Indeed, the latest edition carries a splendid editorial in support of free speech.
Yet the very same paper splashed on its front page a vituperative attack on the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps people who run bed and breakfast establishments should have the right to decide who sleeps under their own roof "
That's called free speech. I mean the Observers editorial hardly going to agree with him anyway. Anyhoo, we continue:
"That is a perfectly respectable view to take. But Grayling's remarks were secretly taped and passed to The Observer, which decided that this was a major scandal, whose importance outweighed anything else which had happened in the world last week.
It was cited as evidence that the entire Conservative Party is anti-gay."
I don't know whether it paints the entire party as anti-gay, (I don't think Grayling is a homophobe either. I actually think his comments are a lukewarm "endorsement" of allowing B&B owners to "use their consciences" to say the least.) and the question of how the paper obtained the speech is another matter (like the Mail wouldn't have done something similar to taping private(ish) speeches?). But it is still quite a serious revelation. So stick with me my lovelies, as I explain why.
A) It contradicts the official Tory party line on their stance on homosexuality. He says he believes (on some level.) that it should be possible for B&B owners to bar gays if they want to. This does raise questions to how much of a shift in attitudes to gay rights has actually occurred as a whole.
B)As shadow Home Secretary he is unique in actually having some chance (unlike most people)of being able to go some way to implementing what he has said. (Though I don't think, if he gets the job; that he really has any intention of changing the existing laws.
Littlejohn now has to square the paradox, that he thinks the criticism of the comments is just Stonewall bolshiness, with the circle; that he is some major league gay rights champion. Hmm.
"I've been on the receiving end often enough. It comes with the turf."
"Even though I have been vocal in supporting civil partnerships and equal rights for gay couples in areas such as housing, health and pensions, I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave and think that adoptive children should be placed with a man and a woman wherever possible."
So does Littlejohn have "issues" with homosexuality? How would we know? I can only go on what he writes, but you do wonder when he uses things we associate with a prejudice, like:
*Describing a minority rights program as a bunch bolshy fanatics trying to "force" people to their agenda. This implies a latent fear or undue defensive fixation of the group in question.
"The usual hysterical suspects queued up to demand Grayling's resignation. Hereditary Labour lackey Dame Ben Summerskill, the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, predictably went ballistic.
His tried-and-tested tactic is always to howl down and smear anyone who questions any aspect of his own selfish agenda."
If you go to the Observer link, you can see what Summerskill actually said, and it really was quite muted. Oh and calling a homosexual man a dame, implies all gay men are an effeminate stereotype. That's textbook prejudice.
"Self-styled 'liberals' are now trying to destroy the career of a decent politician simply for expressing a point of view which I would guess is held by at least half the population. Secret tape recordings, smear campaigns. These are the disreputable weapons of fascists, not liberals.
I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth. They only tolerate opinions which chime with their own world view. Anyone who dissents must be traduced and punished.
They enforce their beliefs with totalitarian ruthlessness and, under New Labour, often with the full support of the law."
*The critic trying to deflect the criticism from the other side, not by refuting the claims, but by counterclaiming that they are the discriminated against, thus changing the nature of the debate, without quelling the claims.
"Those who speak out against the fashionable Leftist agenda are not merely wrong, they are denounced as inherently evil.
Until the election campaign loomed, anyone who expressed even the mildest reservations about the uncontrolled level of immigration was trashed as 'BNP', 'Little Englander' or 'racist' - the guardianistas' favourite term of abuse.
Along with many of our other traditional liberties, New Labour has mounted a sustained assault on freedom of speech."
"But, as I wrote last week, 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is a one-way street."
"I am reliably informed there are gays-only boarding houses which exclude heterosexuals, but I have yet to hear of one being prosecuted for operating such a policy."** Which sources, and what B&B's?
*A bizarre obsession with a minority, much more than we would expect from a casual commentator. Freudian innuendo.
"Marina Hyde of the Guardian has helpfully compiled a log of Dick’s references to homosexuality. In 2003, he referred “24 times to gays, 17 to homosexuals, 15 to cottaging, seven to rent boys, six to lesbians, six times to being "homophobic" and four times to "homophobia" (note Richard's scornful inverted commas), twice to poovery and once to buggery. That's a mere 82 mentions in 90-odd columns.” In 2004, he excelled himself, and “referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to "homophobia" and six to being "homophobic" (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”
"force 'tolerance' down our throats"
"I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave"
*Then there are just gay bashing articles.
"Officers from Scotland Yard's special hate crimes unit are investigating a formal complaint brought by the Gay Police Association, which has had enough of the writer's homophobic comments. The GPA is particularly outraged by an article Mr Littlejohn penned for The Sun that referred to cottaging as a "career move" for gay police officers. These comments and other homophobic sentiments were published under the heading "Just a little light spanking, sarge" on 6 January. The GPA accuses Mr Littlejohn of stirring up hatred not only against gay police officers but against the gay community as a whole.
There is no specific law in Britain making it a criminal offence to stir up homophobic feeling. It is understood that the Met's Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force is examining existing laws to see if there are any grounds for prosecution. The GPA said it has also contacted the Commission for Racial Equality to make it aware of the article.
The catalyst for Mr Littlejohn's rant against gay police officers was a proposal by senior officers to introduce new quotas to ensure homosexuals and lesbians are properly represented in the police service. In his article, Mr Littlejohn directly accused Commander Brian Paddick, the highest profile openly gay police officer, of using his sexuality to gain promotion.
"You used to get nicked for cottaging. Now it's a career move. Commander Paddick, the man who turned Brixton into an open-air drugs den, has milked his homosexuality for all it's worth in his relentless assault on the greasy pole."
The columnist also lashed out at Inspector Paul Cahill, the chairman of the GPA. "Inspector Brian [sic] Cahill, 32-year-old chairman of the Gay Police Association, has been awarded the MBE. Good luck to him but what marks him out from hundreds of other inspectors other than his predilection for same-sex sex?"
The columnist also informed readers that he had "assumed all policewomen are lesbians anyway, unless provided with incontrovertible proof to the contrary".
You can't claim to be a defender of gay rights with a record. You can't claim that you are a passionate defender of free speech, when you order a retraction from a spotty student on "Question Time" for pointing out that the leader of the BNP bigged up your column. You can't claim that your opponents are bastards for screaming down their critics as "fascists, and then bang on about "elf n safety Nazis." every bloody week. That's just circular reasoning, and makes you look like a bit of a tit.
So much for writing just a "short entry on this subject."
I think Chris Graylings was referring to B&Bs that were run from the owner's homes, if I remember correctly from the news report I saw the other day. That is should be a personal choice based on the beliefs of the owners whether to admit same sex couples. If it was a business run from different premises then same sex couples should be accepted as guests regardless of any reservations the owners may have. Sorry to muddy the waters further, but I thought that it was a point worth clarifing.
ReplyDelete