spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Isn't one "being prejudiced" when one acts upon their prejudice? Yep. And that's illegal. Holding the views isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You miss my point. Spindrift had said that homophobia was legal in the UK, because the law doesn't prevent us from having homophobic thoughts or views. My subsequent comments were made as examples of how obtuse his argument was. We cannot police racist, homophobic or sexist views, but there are many laws against doing things that are racist, homophobic or sexist - so racism, homophobia and sexism are all illegal in one way or another. That was my point. My bold Well, since you changed from talking about "thinking" to talking about "doing", which are 2 totally different cups of tea, you didn't make your point very well, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Oh, you don't think it had anything to do with being fed up of being referred to as poofters, shirt lifters, **** bandits, etc, etc?? And since gay has been "highjacked" and is synonymous with being a homosexual, how on earth can somebody who openly says, "I'm gay" be assumed to be ashamed of their sexual preference? I wouldn't sweat about it. He's obviously one of those dull and tiresome people who complain that the word gay has been hijacked but probably never ever used it in any form before it was. Its just a nonsensical narrow minded prejudice. If you genuinely cared about words changing and the way that use of words evolves you would never use any slang, colloquialisms or anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What is silly is not refering to Homosexuals as Homosexuals. I think people should stop refereing to "door knobs" it's very confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hmmmm .. I wonder if you would also allow people to express a viewpoint that Jews should be executed? After all, that too wouldn't be "calling for any crime to be committed"? Would you agree that people "should have the right" to call for Jews to be executed? Maybe you'd also allow people to distribute leaflets calling for the execution of people who have learning difficulties? This issue isn't about a religious standpoint or any other motivating factor. It's about allowing people - your fellow citizens Nagel - to go about their daily lives without having leaflets shoved through their letterbox calling for their execution just because they are a Jew, or have a learning difficulty, or (as in this case) because they are gay. I would let people express any viewpoint they want, however much I disagreed with it. If people think all Jews should be executed allow them to say it. I don't think you can legislate for opinions. What's this about shoving leaflets through letter boxes? Is it part of this current homophobia case? I would classify that as intimidating or threatening behaviour and there should be a penalty for it. But just expressing the viewpoint, let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yep. And that's illegal. Holding the views isn't. The clear and obvious crime of punching someone in the face is illegal, but it can be also be deemed racially aggravated/motivated, and treated as such if the police suspected as much. So the mere views that someone holds can be taken into account in a prosecution and increase the seriousness of the charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The clear and obvious crime of punching someone in the face is illegal, but it can be also be deemed racially aggravated/motivated, and treated as such if the police suspected as much. So the mere views that someone holds can be taken into account in a prosecution. I know. That's what I've been saying for three pages. It's why that yob girl got an extra year in prison for killing the gay man in Trafalgar Square, she had shouted homophobic abuse before the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Which part don't you understand, and why did you claim that quote constitutes an admission that Islam is not homophobic? I took that as a claim that Islam is not homophobic because that's what you've been arguing throughout the thread: For example In response to Glamrocker posting this: "Of course he can generalise,If the Koran says that homosexuality is a sin, as far as devout muslims are concerned thats it its a sin the book is their word and their lives are governed by it,I dont believe any devout muslim will contradict the koran." You responded: "There is a widespread misapprehension - repeated yesterday in readers' comments about Peter Tatchell's article - that the Qur'an "is plain in its condemnation of homosexuality". It is not plain at all and it depends, as with the Bible, on how you interpret the relevant verses. Nor is there any sound theological reason why Muslims should condemn anyone simply for being lesbian or gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ithbeinggayand" And then proceeded to post further cherry picked quotes from the liberal fringe of Islam. Aside from all those cherry picked quotes you also explicitly claimed that 'modern' Islam isn't homophobic in your own words: "Islam is no more anti-gay than Christianity. Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars." So please do explain to us why did you cherry pick a quote about how undetected homosexuals tend to escape punishment in Islamic societies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I took that as a claim that Islam is not homophobic because that's what you've been arguing throughout the thread: For example In response to Glamrocker posting this: "Of course he can generalise,If the Koran says that homosexuality is a sin, as far as devout muslims are concerned thats it its a sin the book is their word and their lives are governed by it,I dont believe any devout muslim will contradict the koran." You responded: "There is a widespread misapprehension - repeated yesterday in readers' comments about Peter Tatchell's article - that the Qur'an "is plain in its condemnation of homosexuality". It is not plain at all and it depends, as with the Bible, on how you interpret the relevant verses. Nor is there any sound theological reason why Muslims should condemn anyone simply for being lesbian or gay. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ithbeinggayand" And then proceeded to post further cherry picked quotes from the liberal fringe of Islam. Aside from all those cherry picked quotes you also explicitly claimed that 'modern' Islam isn't homophobic in your own words: "Islam is no more anti-gay than Christianity. Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars." So please do explain to us why did you cherry pick a quote about how undetected homosexuals tend to escape punishment in Islamic societies? I repeat, which part don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I know. That's what I've been saying for three pages. It's why that yob girl got an extra year in prison for killing the gay man in Trafalgar Square, she had shouted homophobic abuse before the attack. You're saying that merely holding private homophobic or racist views without acting on them isn't a crime, but i contest that in a way, it sort of is if an apparent "racist" or "homophobic" motivation is attributed to a particular crime, making the charge more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.