NO APOLOGY REQUIRED...
Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 09:58AM First it was slavery, then it was looting the world's architectural treasures for our museums .Now it is homophobia.
Activists in India are about to demand another apology from Britain. Sixty-six years after Mahatma Gandhi called on the British to leave India from a park in Mumbai, thousands of gay activists will gather in the same park today to call on the British Government to apologise for introducing anti-sodomy laws that still make homosexuality illegal in India today.
Their call will be issued during the first gay pride march in Bombay for three years and is part of a wider campaign to abolish Section 377 of the Indian penal code which outlaws "unnatural sexual offences" and theoretically punishes anal or oral sex with up to 10 years in prison. In practice no one has been prosecuted under the law in the past two decades but it has been used by officials to counter the work of HIV activists in some Indian states.
Britain has nothing to apologise for and these Indian militant gays should be told to take a hike. It was Britain that banned the Indian barbarism known as Suttee and helped civilise these people so they should be thanking us rather than hectoring us. It was General Napier who famousl said to other whinging Indians... -
- You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours....
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (78)
Are these the same geeks who have a class of people called 'untouchables'!
I don't think Britain has anything to apologize for on this an old unenforced law, but put me on the side of of favoring oral sex (better to recieve than give one might say).
A suggestion for the title of this piece (We Aren't Sari!).
Maggie,
You are so right in your query. The 'Untouchables' or to give them their 'caste' name of Harijan or 'Dalit', number some two hundred million of India's billion, yet they are accepted, from birth, as being only suited for working in sewage and filth, for that is how the Hindu religion has placed them even within India's 21st Century society. As I wrote on my own blog some time back, their treatment is nothing short of criminal, which is why the most fortunate emigrate to countries where they are accepted for what they can do or achieve, not to whom they were born.
When India achieved her Independence, one man sought to change things, but even a 'Dalit' Law Minister couldn't alter the basics of Hindu discrimination.
Sooner the Indians remove the wooden beam from their own eyes, before tackling the perceived splinter in the eyes of the people who helped build their very nation!
Dispicable attempt to continue the dismantling of Western Civilization by gay activists worldwide. And it must be terribly satisfying to rally against perceived wrongs hundreds of years old. Victim status without the problems associated with real victimhood.
A charade, conducted by cowards. Victims of the World Unite!
Former British colonies ought to unite and give an "All Hail to MIghty Britain" parade because she should be thanked for laying the foundations for the prosperous, democratic world we live in today.
Patty -
You are wise indeed.
From the Independent: Sixty-six years after Mahatma Gandhi called on the British to leave India from a park in Mumbai ...
Bombay, I think, as educated Indians still refer to it. If the anti-chauvinists want a punch up they can start with the hindu lunatics who demand - with menaces - that Bombay be referred to by the name of a hindu goddess.
Dispicable attempt to continue the dismantling of Western Civilization by gay activists worldwide.
Patty that surprised me. Homosexuals are trying to dismantle western civilization? Look how Islamic nations treated their homosexuals, and what of people like Bruce Bawer who wrote books in defence of western civilization.
I agree that the apology is totally daft and should be ignored, and even say that a thank you could be uttered by these people rather than asking for an apology. But gay activists wanting to dismantle civilization - no!
Gosh! "no!"
Hmmm..gosh, yes! Now pay attention here, I'm addressing "Gay Activists" not gays, per se.
"What are the foundations of Western Civiliaztion that the activists would like to dismantle?", you ask.
Church, and family primarily. Activists seek to change the way gays are thought of. Gay activists would like us to believe that their "lifestyle" is "normal" That 2 Dads is as good as 1 Mother and 1 Father, that scouting with Gay scout leaders is not putting boys at risk of possible sexual abuse on camping trips, that Biblical traditions should be rewritten and that gay priests are no different from non gay priests.
I have no problem with how someone has sex. It's an individual right to choose what he/she does. Sexuality is the most personal, and private of an individual's choice. Handcuffs, whips, Maid costumes, whatever -- but keep it private, behind closed doors -- I don't want to hear about it.
And at the end of the day, Gay Activists seek to foist their sexuality on me -- because "Gay" is a sex preference -- nothing more.
Also, it's becoming sort of obvious that "gay activism" in 2008 is a form of exhibitionism for many in the community.
Patty remember the womens lib activists? Did feminism ever foist anything on to you that you did not want?
Aren't gays like women treated badly by Islamic law? In defence of western civilization they'd be better to join forces rather than condemn each other.
At least you didn't come back at me with stuff about undermining marriage as a bed rock of civilization.
Also, it's becoming sort of obvious that "gay activism" in 2008 is a form of exhibitionism for many in the community.
So? Since when did a bit of exhibitionism become a threat to western civilization?
Gosh: Actually, feminist activists have also overstayed their welcome in the arena of political causes.
Not satisfied with basically winning the argument in the 1970's, unwilling to declare their "mission" in life over, Western feminists have worked to "normalize" abortion; thanks to feminism abortion is now used as a form of birth control, and many do not think that the killing of the unborn matters. It has become acceptable.
Feminist Tammy Bruce - ex-head of NOW in Los Angeles, states that abortion is one of the only issues left that can be used for fund raising, so the feminist orgs. keep pounding on the issue.
Exhibitionism, partnered with political activism = San Francisco.
Pattys 521 is spot on. Especially about the desire to allow molesters to go into the woods with young boy scouts, in a world where a NAMBLA exists.
If its uncomfortable for some to face these truths, then that's too goddamned bad.
I totally agree with you, but their activists have never forced a woman to have an abortion against her will.
I think what you're really aiming at here is this whole victim group thing where these groups want special protection and special status.
Was reading Tammy Bruce, her book on the thought police which was very interesting. ? She comes out very strongly against hate crime legislation saying it makes one person more valuable than the other. She defends Dr Laura,but I didn't know that she was in favour of using abortion as a fund raising issue.
I agree with you on the fundamentals but I don't think forcibly shutting these people up or making them go away will defend western civilisation. AS Bruce says in her book, opinions don't go away they fester. Neither will their activism endanger Western Civilization if it is truly based on freedoms.
I think we're back to the individaul and how a person lives in society. Theres nothing wrong with setting your own moral code and standards to live by. The problem is without good standards barbarism is at the gate, so its a difficult one - very. But if pushed I'm in favour of freedoms of expression and to live how one choses.
Gosh: I've got to run but just want to say that is so interesting that you read Tammy Bruce -- she has a radio show here -- very articulate, funny. A real contrarian. And a thoughtful commentator. I quite like her.
BTW: She's not defending the feminist establishment when she points out that they use "abortion" as a fund raising tool. She is criticizing them. She feels that they have gone too far. An individual's freedom to choose to abort is very different from the current attempt to mainstream the practice of abortion, the ongoing devaluing of unborn human life. Just because the movement want to raise funds, to stay in business. That's why she left the feminist movement.
She states that the feminists are unprincipled, in business for their own power.
Anyway, got to go. Later.
I thought that Patty, shes a good read - (which I haven't finished only a third of the way through).
Look forward to seeing you later.
Abortion is a form of birth control. And an important one. And feminists have sought to do nothing other than defend it being made illegal by religious activists, who simply cannot resist going on and on about it. They have hugely overstayed their welcome. I wish religious activists would keep their personal preferences with respect to the sexual arena, behind closed doors also. God would they ever though. They are the most repulsively narrow minded of individuals whose malign influence in guilting is quite astonishing. They are like the Stasi. Other people's lives and other people's decisions are no end of fascination for them. But come actually providing alternatives for childcare they are nowhere to be seen.
I thought this must be a wind-up, but no.
India has been independent from Britain for 61 years. If gays are still persecuted, that is a result of Indian homophobia. End of.
'Former British colonies ought to unite and give an "All Hail to MIghty Britain" parade because she should be thanked for laying the foundations for the prosperous, democratic world we live in today.'
Spot on Patty. Just reminds me how ungrateful the Irish are for example. They'd still be running around naked and painted if it weren't for the civilising effects of English rule.
Peter
Yes, but the word "homophobia" itself is an absurd and loaded cliche. It means "fear of" homosexuals or "prejudiced against" gays.
Those who are oppose things they see as wrong are not necessarily prejudiced against anyone or afraid of anything. They think certain things are wrong. And that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
--
William
Oh grow up will you?
Phantom
So you think it's ok to make private sexual acts between consenting adults a criminal offence?
Those who are oppose things they see as wrong
What exactly is wrong? Everything??
I agree with those who say that our troubles in society have stemmed from the sexual liberation movement of the sixties. Illigitimacy is destigmatized, easy divorce which led to the disintegration of the family. (The breakdown of marriage in my view has come from easy divorce more than anything else.) This in turn has led to neglect of children who grow up to become feral ill educated or uneducated youth.
They think certain things are wrong. And that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Like homosexuality?? But again isn't that as a consequence of the sixties? Everything to do with sex must be liberated and free from any kind of restraint? No body cares anymore what the neighbours think, thats why it's ok to be exhibitionist and flaunt it in societies face.
>>Like homosexuality?? But again isn't that as a consequence of the sixties?<<
Who do you think started it exactly, Edward Heath?
>>The breakdown of marriage in my view has come from easy divorce more than anything else<<
Marriage hasn't broken down, it's still doing quite well, I hear. Some marriages have, of course. But if they were ruined simply by the availability of divorce, they should never have been contracted in the first place.
>>No body cares anymore what the neighbours think<<
Probably because they suspect the neighbours are people like you. Why should gays care what you think considering you don't care about their happiness?
I'd say what gays want is that they no longer have to excuse or disguise their nature. Of course they know they'll probably never be accepted by the narrow-minded and the bigoted, but they want those whose opinions count in their lives - especially lawmakers - not to discriminate against them, and they're right.
To repeat: Gays are not trying to make Patty have sex with other women, as she seems to think.
-So you think it's ok to make private sexual acts between consenting adults a criminal offence?-
No I do not think that these things should be illegal. I'll not demonize those who hold to those beliefs though.
Noel: "Gays are not trying to make Patty have sex with other women, as she seems to think."
I don't think this.
What I think is that Gay activists are exhibitionists who want me to "celebrate" their sexuality. They get off on this. It's not about persecution. Not in 2008. Gays are accepted in mainstream society.
So look, I do not ask them to "celebrate" my sexuality, and I don't see why I have to celebrate (or even know about) their sexuality.
Regarding homophobia in India, and requested apologies for perceived wounds inflicted prior to the birth of anyone alive today -- I think the Left and Political Correctness feed into a "victim" psychology which is extremely negative.
I think "victim" activists should apologize for foisting their fantasies on the West.
Phantom
Would you "demonise" those who think that sex between different races should be banned?
Peter
Why are you playing games? Go play hide and seek with someone else.
Phantom
Why not answer the question?
I would criticize them. I would not demonize them. And there is no intelligent comparison here - American blacks find it very insulting to compare their civil rights struggles with the behavior spoken of here.
Why should gays care what you think considering you don't care about their happiness?
'But the ideas and sensibilities of the sexual revolutionaries have now so thoroughly permeated our society that we are scarcely aware any longer of the extent to which they have done so. The Dionysian has definitively triumphed over the Apollonian. No grace, no reticence, no measure, no dignity, no secrecy, no depth, no limitation of desire is accepted. Happiness and the good life are conceived as prolonged sensual ecstasy and nothing more. When, in my work in an English slum, I observe what the sexual revolution has wrought, I think of the words commemorating architect Sir Christopher Wren in the floor of St. Paul's Cathedral: si monumentum requiris, circumspice.'
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-all_sex.html
So Noel does sexual deviancy equal happiness? Please don't say gays are not deviant, they deviate from the norm. I'm not saying they don't have a right to live as they wish, but their private homosexual acts have had societial consequences. The same with femimism.
The loosening of the constraints and the social mores around sexuality has created wretchedness for women and children why should it create happiness for homosexuals?
Oh and yeah it was Edward Heath.....
Gosh
They deviate from the norm, and yes, they pervert the norm. This must be said, and cannot be denied.
All of us have gay friends who we respect and care for, and almost no one wants to go back to the days when gay life was illegal.
But to say this is good and normal, and to be treated exactly as normal human behavior? Sorry, some may want to say this lie but I cannot.
Phantom
This may be a surprise to you, but I wasn't thinking about American blacks.
For what it's worth, I despise and detest anyone who seeks to intrude their "morality" into the bedroom when it involves consenting adults. This "morality" has no place in 2008 in any country which claims to be civilised, and that includes the remaining theocracies, both admitted and disguised.
Everyone, including you, draws the line somewhere. The only matter under discussion is where that line is to be drawn.
Phantom thats the trouble. People like Peter don't see that no morality is just as dangerous as too much. It is time to wonder how much further we as a society can go with this without damaging the fabric of society. The only taboo left is paedophilia should that be broken?
Thats why I said to Patty earlier that it's a difficult one, and while one lives by ones own standards, live and let live, when there are no standards in society barbarism is at the gate.
Yes, and again there are organized groups in the male gay movement that actively promote pedophilia. None of these are academic questions.
Out of here soon for a few pints. Listening to " The Best of the Dubliners" and my god, its a reminder of the body of work those fellows have left us.
People like Peter don't see that no morality is just as dangerous as too much.
Where did I say that?
You and Phantom (and others here) should admit to your homophobia and leave it at that. It's no worse than racism.
Ah, he angrily resorts to name calling. Sorry you did so poorly, Peter. Better luck next time.
Besides, I'm not homophobic. I don't fear gays at all.
Peter you didn't say it, you implied it, and I'm not homophobic - far from it. Discussing issues that affect society can be done without personalising it.
Phantom and Gosh
Homophobic means hatred of gays.
I'd say if the cap fits...
Is that all you have Peter? Name calling is a weak argument.
Have you ever read anything on hate and hate crime legislation? In her book Tammy Bruce discusses two murders one of a woman because she didn't have an abortion and another of a gay man. The murderer of the gay man got the harsher sentence, life without the possibility of parole, the other did receive a lengthy sentence but the murderer of the gay man was more harsh. Why? Both victims were dead. But the gay man was a member of a protected group, so in the eyes of the law hate crime makes one victim more important than another and that is wrong.
Try reading Tammy Bruces' the thought police. She writes 'Hate will never be abolished, and we may never even understand it, but at least we can keep it from becoming a slogan used by the thought police in their attempts to carry out their special plans for a lobotomized society.
Get back to us when you have a better argument than unfounded name calling .
Gosh
Face up to your homophobia. Then move on.
Peter
Very weak comments.
>>They deviate from the norm, and yes, they pervert the norm. This must be said<<
But just look at the people who say it!
That "deviate from the norm = deviant" argument is bullshit. Just tell us the sexual practices you've indulged in in your life, Phantom, and I'm quite sure we'll find something that "deviates from the norm".
The fact is there is no "norm" in any statistical (or medical) sense in sex between humans. Human sexuality is one of the most diverse of human practices in the nature of the acts and choices of partners, as well as being almost entirely impractical and illogical. Why, some people even prefer the most "unnatural" option of all and have absolutely no sex with man, woman or beast!
>>when there are no standards in society barbarism is at the gate<<
What on earth do you mean by "standards"? Laws? Example? Do you mean someone like the US President, the Pope or the English Royal family should show us the way? Or does "standards" just mean pontificating with your pet prejudice on an Internet blog?
Well, you can go and follow such Standards, but leave me to choose and follow my own.
But maybe you mean something else with "standards" After all, it's a central point of what you seem to be saying. So please illuminate us.
'Face up to your homophobia. Then move on.'
Peter again I quote from Tammy Bruces' book:
Name calling may not sound like much. ('Sticks and stones may break my bones...') but it has been a powerful tool throughout history-'Barbarian!' 'Heretic!' 'Witch' Today it is one of the hallmarks of the left wing, and it's pretty clever strategy. Isolating individuals by promoting group identity and the politics of the 'other' keeps people from recognizing just how devoid the Left is of actual ideas for progress and the future. Such delineations also undermine the willingness to challenge the status quo; people are afraid of being termed 'other' and banished from the group.
Look around you. Labels such as 'racist', 'sexist', and 'homophobe' are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda'.
Well, you can go and follow such Standards, but leave me to choose and follow my own.
read:
I think we're back to the individaul and how a person lives in society. Theres nothing wrong with setting your own moral code and standards to live by. The problem is without good standards barbarism is at the gate, so its a difficult one - very. But if pushed I'm in favour of freedoms of expression and to live how one choses.
Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 06:13PM | Gosh!
'norm = deviant"'
Norm = A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical.from the online dictionary.
>>Labels such as 'racist', 'sexist', and 'homophobe' are routinely used to demonize anyone <<
As is "deviant".
As is "deviant".
No one used it as a label I merely said they deviate from the norm as did Phanotom.
>>Theres nothing wrong with setting your own moral code and standards to live by.<<
Oh, I see. So it's all right then. Gays and all others set their own queer standards and live by them and you support them in this.
Why didn't you say that earlier!
>>Norm = A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical.<<
Hold on, I thought a standard was something one was free to set for oneself; now it seems we have to consider statistical averages, etc.
Or do you mean, say, gays set standards that they regard as typical for themselves....
Is, for example, Mahons living according to standards when he gets drunk twice a week?
Everyone is free to set their own standards but society also has standards .
Off out ...later.
>>No one used it as a label I merely said they deviate from the norm as did Phanotom.<<
LOL, stop back-peddling. You called them "DEVIANT"!
That term of yours demonises (or "demonizes") much more strongly than "homophobe", to say nothing of making certain people "afraid of being termed 'other' and banished from the group"!
That people who pontificate like soon show up their hypocrisy is nothing new. But that you've shown yours within just a few minutes suggests you are really getting a bit too careless.
>>I merely said they deviate from the norm as did Phanotom.<<
I'm also sure Phantom has in some way deviated from the norm some time.
heh ok Noel they don't deviate from the norm, infact homosexuality is the normal typical human sexual behaviour since time began ...ooops but how can it be since the species has developed.
*Scratchess head*
But don't let that stop you from pontificating.
Do you understand what 'norm' is? The normal sexual union in society is between a man and a woman, a man with man or woman with woman deviates from that typical standard in society.
This is in the context of society not what someone is doing in the bed room. Homosexuality and masterbation etc have been around since time began but in a western society the norm is a union between a man and a woman. Culturally within the west.
Over and out!