If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Should this woman be allowed to be in government?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/heres-not-to-you-mrs-robinson-belfast-pride-hits-back-at-mp-who-reviles-gays-884238.html[Iris Robinson MP] has described homosexuality as "an abomination" and recommended that gays could be "turned around" with psychiatric help. Next she told a Westminster debate on sex offenders: "There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children." She then faced calls for her resignation as chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly's health committee.
or should she be treated like the homophobic extremist, hate-filled piece of shit she is, and kicked out of office?
I can think of fewer people who could ever be described as more unfit to be in her job. The same goes for her MP status.
Imagine if a gay MP had said being a religious person was an abomination and as sick as being a paedophile, and that religious types should be offered therapy and 'turned around'. He'd probably be prosecuted and jailed, let alone losing his job.
But sadly discrimination and favoritism are still alive and well in this country, and some people can just get away with pretty much anything by simply advocating their "deeply held" beliefs :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
And she says that gay people can be 'turned around' with psychiatric help. Fucking hell, she should be kicked out
no political parties should be barred on their views, only if they actually break the law, same with individual representives
Sadly our laws, so eager to protect the sensibilities of religious people, don't offer the same protection to the people some of the religious types hate, insult, offend, persecute and vilify so much.
But at least she should be made to step down.
Her views probably deeply unpleasant to most people, but who decides what is an allowed view and what isnt?
It just so happens that certain groups are protected from certain comments or opinions on them, but others are not. To add insult to... er insult, the only excuse given to explain why certain groups can abuse and offend others is that it is their 'deeply held belief'. But do not express yourself in similar terms towards them, or you will actually be breaking the law.
:yes:
You'd be suprised - but MPs and members of the devolved assemblies do have freedom of speech (and MPs have Parliamentary priviledge which protects them from slander laws). These laws aren't to protect religion, but to protect MPs from the 'Crown' and to ensure our democratic representatives aren't controlled by the state. Don't like their views - there is a ballot box.
That's what I was referring to, there was some case in the Scottish parliament a while ago but sadly I'm hazy on the details.
But as I understand the law you would indeed be able to say the reverse, that you think religious faith is an illness which can be cured by medical help - you just cant say X is wrong and we should go out and stop them (incitement).
Incidentally, Richard Dawkins has another documentary on Channel 4 tonight at 8pm. Make sure you watch it. :thumb:
Not sure of the details from Scotland, but it sounds right. I know its been used at various times to name members of the IRA and UVF army councils, my understanding is that the media can then also report the comments if made in the chamber and also be immune.
that said she didn't say them in the chamber, but as you say she wasn't inciting (in fact she made clear that she hates the sin, but loves the sinner)
Without wishing to be cynical about my fellow countrymen I suspect her view is popular on both sides of the political divide. I also suspect even if it wasn't people will vote on where she stands on the border, and to be fair given that there are members who were involved in the bloodiest bout of ethnic cleaning in Europe between 1945 and Yugoslavia, I suspect her views are not the least repulsive in that chamber.
Meh, fair enough. In that case Northern Ireland and people like this are a great advert for the secularist cause.
This story boils down to the fact she's a massive dick, but that's all.
The wider issue is that if she had used the word 'black' or 'Jew' instead of homosexual, she would likely be in very deep trouble indeed. If we do not put up with such types of hate-speak I can't see why we do allow it when it comes to homosexuals. Nor do I believe just because a person holds beliefs deeply and sincerely thinks of them as the truth they should be treated differently. I am sure there are many racial supremacists out there who deeply and genuinely believe non-whites are inferior and untrustworthy. If I were one of them I would be pissed off that my deeply-held beliefs are not being respected while those of religious people are.
For the same reasons the BNP are allowed to exist and run on the policies and views they hold, she should be allowed to express herself without fear of reprisal. If she was to think the same things about black people, Jews, Muslims, white people, women, or anyone else, i'd still let her harp on about it. It's her right to be able to speak her mind as long as she's speaking within the law.
Despite it being her right to come out with this tripe I think these she's best heard out anyway. If she's heard she can be ridiculed. Also, you'll have her crying out 'religious discrimination' and distracting the focus away from how much of a douche-commander she is if you start trying to shut her up.
If so we'll have to agree to disagree about it. There has been far too much persecution and murdering of such minorities. When it comes to racists and homophobes total freedom of speech should come second to fighting such repellent scum in every way possible IMO.
But who should decide, my mum as a christian things homosexuality is against gods will, she is a decent person and certainly wouldnt discriminate, but should her views be censored?
Unless they are inciting actions they should be left to witter on - frankly the worst thing we can do with people like this and the BNP is to pay attention.
Yes, people should be allowed to talk about how much they dislike [insert group here]. I find the idea of trying to shut them up because you don't like what they're saying, disagreeable. It's as much my right to hear these people as it is their right to say what they're saying. You rarely achieve anything productive by gagging people like her anyway, and I think it's particularly true in this case.
In fact when you allow such scum to speak their views freely more damage than good is done as the constant stream of lies, deceit, half-truths and baked stories put in easy soundbytes are believed by more people over time and take hold in their consciences. Had the Nazi party been ilegalised and prevented from participating in the electoral process, a lot of grief would have been avoided.
Then there is the social responsibility, which again comes with being a public figure (your mum presumably isn't one). There are still too many homophobic attacks in the UK, and with horrific murders like this still happening, the last thing we need is a member of the NI government suggesting homosexuals are as bad as paedophiles. Screw that and screw that nauseating bitch.
But we have a branch of the NI Government who thought it was alright to kill people with different views. And I'm pretty sure Iris Robinson hasn't suggesting we should murder Stonewall activists, so in moral terms she seems to be above other members.
BNP are one of the most minor parties in the UK. They don't control one council, nor even hold the balance of power. they are marginalised. You may not like them, but as you may have gathered I'm not a massive fan of Sinn Fein (linked to more racist murders than the BNP, btw). But if we decide which parties can or cannot exist we might as well give up on voting and democracy and all go home.
Yeah, I seem to be in the minority on this issue, but I still believe a line can be drawn to allow the immense majority of parties that do not seek out to persecute minorities or promote racist or hateful agendas, and ban those that do. It doesn't need to be a slippery slope. There is a massive, clear different between what the BNP stands for and every other party in existence in the UK.
How come she's not allowed to say such things about homosexuality, but you're allowed to say the same things against paedophilia? "As bad as paedophiles?" Paedophilia is presumably as much of a choice as homosexuality, so in claiming someone to be bad just because they have been born with a particular sexual preference you have done exactly the same thing. Obviously, acting upon paedophilia is different to acting upon homosexuality because of the consent issue, but the involuntary sexual preference itself cannot make you an bad person.
That seems like an odd thing to say. That is the essence of the electoral process. The majority does persecute the minority in all elections unless, of course, everyone agrees.
All Western legal systems are based on the laws of the Old Testament. (For example,the Supreme Court in the US has proclaimed that there is NO higher authority than the word of God).
She seems to be (accurately) basing her views on the statutes present in Leviticus.
Ridiculous statement.
The Supreme Court has the least authority in the American judicial system. The separation of Church and State happened a long time ago in the West.