"The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is being investigated by police for saying that homosexuality was "harmful".
In an interview with BBC Radio 4's PM Programme on 3 January, Sir Iqbal also criticised same-sex civil partnerships.

However, he went on to say that everyone in society should be tolerant. " BBC News Website

Now don't get me wrong. I'm as gay as a spring morning, and I don't like it when people have a go at our lot.

However, I listened to this interview and it isn't as if he is encouraging people to take up arms against us. He just doesn't like it.

On a similar theme, I know that Tony Blair is still being investigated by North Wales police for having a private pop at the Welsh.

Is the law really saying that people should not be able to express how negative they feel about certain groups in society?

(all my friends are welsh).

Originally posted by Deavon
"The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is being investigated by police for saying that homosexuality was "harmful".
But anything that's rammed down somebody's throat consistently is bad for them.

That goes double for religion :rant:

Apparently the police received a complaint following the Radio 4 interview with Sir Iqbal Sacranie.

I listened to a repeat of that interview today, in which he expressed his religious views and thoughts on homosexuality, and his opposition to registered partnerships for same sex couples.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie is entitled to hold whatever views he wants on homosexuality. But this complaint is plain daft. The law certainly permits negative expressions by anyone, as long as it doesn't incite hatred, etc., - which I certainly couldn't detect.
Somebody is wasting police time.

Deavon - this is the first I've heard about Tony Blair allegedly taking a private swipe at the Welsh? Doesn't seem to be in his nature to me. Are you sure you don't mean Anne Robinson and not Tony Blair?

Originally posted by Deavon
However, he went on to say that everyone in society should be tolerant. "

That really is hypocrasy at its very best!

:nono:


:nono:

:)

P.s: I'm not having the 'morning' lot reading this...

Originally posted by Deavon
I just can't believe that what was supposed to be a serious and sober discussion.....



Why can't I have a drink when on SF? I've checked the rule book and can't find anything about prohibition when posting.

Anyway, back on topic now..... er, which was, erm..... oh yes, why can't folk express their negative views on homosexuality if they want? It's a free country, and anyone should be allowed to say what they want - as long as it's not incitement to hate, cause harm or commit a crime.

Originally posted by redrobbo
...why can't folk express their negative views on homosexuality if they want? It's a free country, and anyone should be allowed to say what they want - as long as it's not incitement to hate...
See? that's why verbal gay bashing is prohibited :D

some of the community can 'hate' you for wearing a pair of shoes they like :rolleyes:

(do I need to edit that out?)

I don't get how so many religious people say homosexuality is 'wrong.'
If god created us, then he must have created our sexuality.

If he didn't, then he only created part of us, and that's not what it says in the holy books.

It says he gave us free will, but sexuality is not something you will, any more than you can will the length of your er, nose.

So it's not homosexuality that's wrong, it's religion.

Should Iqbal be allowed to publicly promote his views?
I don't think banning is a solution, especially seems though Christian sects have always got away with spreading bigotry.

I think what's needed is some kind of compulsory education course in schools, drawn up by psychologists, and designed to show children how propaganda and indoctrination work on the mind.

Then children could really make up their own minds before they have the 'fear of god' put in them.

The only trouble is, it would be fiercely opposed by most politicians, as they use very similar tactics of instilling fear to manipulate people.

Originally posted by donkey
I think what's needed is some kind of compulsory education course in schools, drawn up by psychologists, and designed to show children how propaganda and indoctrination work on the mind.

Then children could really make up their own minds before they have the 'fear of god' put in them.

The only trouble is, it would be fiercely opposed by most politicians, as they use very similar tactics of instilling fear to manipulate people.

Of course until very recently Clause 28 prevented the 'promotion' of homosexual lifestyles in school. So even if a teacher knew that a pupil was gay, they could not help or advise in any way. So at least we have some form of progress there.

You're right! It really is using 'the fear of god' to influence people's thinking!

Originally posted by donkey
I think what's needed is some kind of compulsory education course in schools, drawn up by psychologists, ...
:shocked: *pictures monty python 'meaning of life' school sketch* :shocked:

Originally posted by Deavon


Now don't get me wrong. I'm as gay as a spring morning, and I don't like it when people have a go at our lot.



Well you've just had a go at your "lot" in that statement Deavon! Crazy, you've just labelled yourself and other Gay people.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Why can't I have a drink when on SF? I've checked the rule book and can't find anything about prohibition when posting.

Anyway, back on topic now..... er, which was, erm..... oh yes, why can't folk express their negative views on homosexuality if they want? It's a free country, and anyone should be allowed to say what they want - as long as it's not incitement to hate, cause harm or commit a crime.
It's nice to see that you realise that people who do have negative views are not homophobic as you so put it in other threads.
Everyone has a right to express their opinions and not liking a particular society or religion shouldn't be classed as hate crime unless actual physical harm is done through their actions.

donkey, just remember that logic and religion rarely meet. What you said about god and creation is logical, religion isn't, most religions are chock full of condradictions. Probably because the people writing different bits of their "holy books" had personal hangups about different things.

Originally posted by Delboy3
It's nice to see that you realise that people who do have negative views are not homophobic as you so put it in other threads.


I have always been consistent with my views on free expression Delboy3. Kindly point me to where I've ever said otherwise.

I believe that you have previously jumped to conclusions about my beliefs on this issue, as you are doing once more in this post. Mind reading should be left to clairvoyants.

Originally posted by Delboy3

Everyone has a right to express their opinions and not liking a particular society or religion shouldn't be classed as hate crime unless actual physical harm is done through their actions.

On this observation, we can both agree.

I stopped taking notice of anything said by religious types long ago, luckily in this country they don't have that much political power.

Just to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons:

I agree that one should be permitted free expression so long as it avoids actual abuse, repression or incitement.

I also believe that the same freedom should be permiitted to discuss race and other diversity without witch-hunts erupting.

This is rarely the case, however.

Am I mistaken in my understanding?

Originally posted by nick2
I stopped taking notice of anything said by religious types long ago, luckily in this country they don't have that much political power.

They shouldn't have any!
Sadly, their influence is steadily expanding in the areas of legislation (incitement to religious hatred bill -which, by the way, religionists are seeking to get their texts exempted from as it seems that the Bible and Koran include too many incitements to religious hatred!), education (expansion of so-called faith schools), entertainment (Christian fundamentalists recently strong-armed Sainsburys and Woolworths into withdrawing the Jerry Springer: The Opera DVD, a Hindu mob forced the closure of a play they deemed offensive), food (a Muslim threatened jihad unless Burger King withdrew a lid for an ice cream tub which he said looked like the Arabic for Allah and was thus sacrilegious – I kid you not) – the list goes on.
I wonder how long it will take for some religious group or other to demand the withdraw of, say, queer eye for a straight guy, as it offends their religious sensitivities. Surely can’t be that far off as we’ve already seen Christians burning their TV licenses outside the BBC in protest at the screening of the Jerry Springer opera.
You are absolutely right that we should not have to take notice of anything religious types say but unfortunately, it seems that this is more and more a necessity if we are to safeguard our hard won freedoms from religious intolerance.

Originally posted by nick2
I stopped taking notice of anything said by religious types long ago, luckily in this country they don't have that much political power.

Oooh I'm so glad it's not just me. By taking notice and commenting I feel some level of credence is given to their views. Just look at them as though they are wearing the wrong shoes.

Originally posted by withnail
a Hindu mob forced the closure of a play they deemed offensive

Assuming you are talking about the play Behzti, it was Sikhs, not Hindus. Just for accuracy, like. Agree with your post 100%. Creeping religionisation (is that a word? It is now!), very worrying. I heard in a program on Radio 4 recently that kids in Lambeth can't go to a school in their own borough unless they are Christians. Granted, there is a school places crisis in Lambeth in general, but religious apartheid anyone?

Religion is becoming an excuse for any kind of predjudice, the phrase "it's agaisnt my religion" is used to justify almost anything now, the message seems to be if you want to be openly predjudice against any group of people you should join a religious body, then you will get away with it.

The odd thing is that most religious "leaders" when questioned about some hate-crime commited by one of their deranged flock almost always fall back on "that kind of thing is not condoned by our religion, we're taught to love everyone".

Biggest bunch of two-faced hypocrites on the planet.

This sad, sorry, saga started with this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

Followed by this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/ngay10.xml

And then this http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article338012.ece

It appears all 3 belong to the God Squad. I believe Lynette Burrows is a member of the Catholic Church. Now, all of them would no doubt say that they are purely expressing the views/ beliefs held by their particular brand of religion, nothing personal you understand. However, leaving that aside, if you believe that it is right to investigate one, then it must be right to investigate them all. If you believe, as I do, that freedom of speech ( providing it doesn't incite hatred etc ) should be protected at all costs, then this is political correctness gone stark, staring, mad and potentially one of the most dangerous and sinister developments this country has seen for a very long time.

Originally posted by TeaFan
Assuming you are talking about the play Behzti, it was Sikhs, not Hindus. Just for accuracy, like. Agree with your post 100%. Creeping religionisation (is that a word? It is now!), very worrying. I heard in a program on Radio 4 recently that kids in Lambeth can't go to a school in their own borough unless they are Christians. Granted, there is a school places crisis in Lambeth in general, but religious apartheid anyone?

My mistake, thanks for the correction.

This is the bit that confuses me :

"Sir Iqbal Sacranie also provoked outrage last week when he complained that civil partnerships risked damaging society's foundations."

how can it ?

I don't get it at all, it's not like people are suddenly going to turn gay and have a civil partnership.

Originally posted by Cliff Clavin
Well you've just had a go at your "lot" in that statement Deavon! Crazy, you've just labelled yourself and other Gay people.

I hope that I haven't upset anybody else by describing myself. I think it's quite an affectionate description. One of my friends first said it to me.

Also with affection I have told a friend that he is as camp as a row of pink tents, and another as camp as christmas! There are many other ways of describing people that could be seen as labelling if taken out of context. I certainly don't mean that everyone who is gay, is like a spring morning. Believe me, I've met many who aren't.

Like I say, it is an affectionate description, one amongst many that no doubt sometimes usurps the abusive terminology used by some against gay peoples.

Don't worry Deavon, as one of 'your lot' I certainly didn't feel got at, but then I'm as big a lulu as they come!

Originally posted by Deavon
I certainly don't mean that everyone who is gay, is like a spring morning.


After an all-night partying session I bet you're not either :)

Originally posted by redrobbo
I have always been consistent over my views of free expression Delboy3. Kindly point me to where I've ever said otherwise.

I believe that you have previously jumped to conclusions about my beliefs on this issue, as you are doing once more in this post. Mind reading should be left to clairvoyants.



On this observation, we can both agree.

If you do look back at posts that you have posted one related to a joke that was made that was apparently offensive to a minority of homosexuals where you automatically branded it as being homophobic yet you did not read it as it was deleted by Max.
Other homosexuals in that thread stated that they were not offended.

Another instance was when I posted in the thread...What are peoples opinions abut gays.
I posted my opinion which was that I did not class it as being normal behaviour and stated that they should be housed on an island some where....(this was my opinion and I said what the thread had asked ) You immediatley branded me as being homophobic and after your sarcastic and personal abuse I then gave you some back to which you had me banned......For being homophobic or in your case.....for having a different opinion to yourself regarding the gay community etc.


I rest my case, I dont need to mind read.

Originally posted by Strix
But anything that's rammed down somebody's throat consistently is bad for them.


Thats the problem with those gays you see Strix ;)

Originally posted by redrobbo
Apparently the police received a complaint following the Radio 4 interview with Sir Iqbal Sacranie.

I listened to a repeat of that interview today, in which he expressed his religious views and thoughts on homosexuality, and his opposition to registered partnerships for same sex couples.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie is entitled to hold whatever views he wants on homosexuality. But this complaint is plain daft. The law certainly permits negative expressions by anyone, as long as it doesn't incite hatred, etc., - which I certainly couldn't detect.
Somebody is wasting police time.



The police seem happy to waste their own time on this issue...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1982656,00.html

Why did this student need to spend a night in the cells for suggesting that a police horse might be gay :help:

In this case it was the police who pursued his prosecution, - there is no suggestion of a complaint from a member of the public, - or the horse :P

The police have to follow-up everything that might be homophobic the same as they have to follow-up everything that might be racist. Sometimes it is just someone joking but they still have to investigate.

Interestingly no-one has really said this incites hatered however if it was said by a bishop:

My belief is that God does not allow Black men to have a marrage with a white women, or saying no-one except white's should be employed. Then this person would be shot down and never have credibility again, even arrested.. however the minute someone talks against gay people it's freedom of speech and it's said their doing no harm..
There is a lot of people who follow the every word of religious leaders and ignore common sense. However i also disagreed with him saying the other religions agreed with him, seen as the CofE is spliting themselves on this issue at moment it's not everyone agreeing with him.

Originally posted by nick2
The police have to follow-up everything that might be homophobic the same as they have to follow-up everything that might be racist. Sometimes it is just someone joking but they still have to investigate.

they have to follow up complaints, but in the case of something said and broadcast, simply listening to what was said should be enough for them to dismiss the case.
And arresting someone for calling a horse gay, that's just stupid.

Originally posted by Cyclone
And arresting someone for calling a horse gay, that's just stupid.

What if he had said "you horse looks like a ******" (insert appropriate racist word) would that have been serious enough ?

Originally posted by nick2
The police have to follow-up everything that might be homophobic the same as they have to follow-up everything that might be racist. Sometimes it is just someone joking but they still have to investigate.

In that case there should be a few on the forum here being invited for an interview down at the local nick :D

As Cyclone says in the recent cases involving radio broacasts there was no need to subject the people involved to questioning. All the evidence the police might need would be in either a recording or transcript of the broadcast.

To my mind there is a suggestion that the police have a deliberate policy of harrassing people in these situations. It may be just a stunt to get across the message of zero tolerance, but it could be more sinister than that, - let's hope not :suspect:

Originally posted by nick2
What if he had said "you horse looks like a ******" (insert appropriate racist word) would that have been serious enough ?

The student asked the copper if his horse was gay, he didn't make an assertion. If the horse was a gelding it could be considered a pertinent question. Geldings are often confused about their sexuality - but not as confused as the stallions they come into contact with :P

Originally posted by nick2
What if he had said "you horse looks like a ******" (insert appropriate racist word) would that have been serious enough ?

what if he said "your horse looks like a caucasian (or alternate racial type)" no that wouldn't have been serious.
Unless you're saying that gay is actually an offensive term. If you are, then i'd question it, as many homosexual people who use this forum have used the word to describe themselves. I doubt you'd see that being the case with your ****** (inserted racist word) would you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
If you are, then i'd question it, as many homosexual people who use this forum have used the word to describe themselves. I doubt you'd see that being the case with your ****** (inserted racist word) would you.

****** is used a lot by black people when refering to other black people (especially in hip hop culture), for them it's ok, but not for us. At the end of the day it's not what you say it's how you say it and what you mean. I'm not saying the horse thing isn't daft but who is to decide how serious something is ? Better that everything that could potentially upset someone is treated the same.

Originally posted by nick2
The police have to follow-up everything that might be homophobic the same as they have to follow-up everything that might be racist. Sometimes it is just someone joking but they still have to investigate.

It's a pitty they don't have to follow up everything that might be a crime :suspect:

Originally posted by nick2
****** is used a lot by black people when refering to other black people (especially in hip hop culture), for them it's ok, but not for us. At the end of the day it's not what you say it's how you say it and what you mean. I'm not saying the horse thing isn't daft but who is to decide how serious something is ? Better that everything that could potentially upset someone is treated the same.

I don't think it's yet been made illegal to upset people.

Originally posted by nick2
****** is used a lot by black people when refering to other black people (especially in hip hop culture), for them it's ok, but not for us.

It may be used by lots of black people, but many really dislike the use of this word and the connotations it brings so for them its not necessarily ok! It was never a word used in kindness, but as a derogatory form of address. I wonder what Rosa Parks would have thought of its current use? (She was the brave lady who publicly defied the ruling that black people had to sit at the back of the bus in the deep south of the USA!)

'Gay' on the other hand is what? Used by homosexual people generally to describe themselves and also in general use in a non derogatory way to describe homosexuals.
It can also be derogatory, but if someone was aiming it at a horse then who was going to be offended?

Originally posted by Cyclone
'Gay' on the other hand is what? Used by homosexual people generally to describe themselves and also in general use in a non derogatory way to describe homosexuals.
It can also be derogatory, but if someone was aiming it at a horse then who was going to be offended?

Well you see this is why the story was so funny.

"Gay" can now mean "crap" or "silly" or "pants"

Used in the context of "Don't buy that album, it's totally gay"

I think this is a case of the (mainly young, male), heterosexual population taking back the word and re-emphasising the disparaging and belittling original use.

I used to think it was a real pity as I had grown to love the term "gay", even though a long time ago it was used abusively towards me. Somehow we as a group had claimed it as our own and used it to describe ourselves with pride.

But it doesn't bother me now and I've even used it in that context myself.

I think the real joke about that student calling the horse "gay" is that the police involved didn't understand the context of the word.

Originally posted by Deavon
Well you see this is why the story was so funny.

"Gay" can now mean "crap" or "silly" or "pants"

Used in the context of "Don't buy that album, it's totally gay"

I think this is a case of the (mainly young, male), heterosexual population taking back the word and re-emphasising the disparaging and belittling original use.

I used to think it was a real pity as I had grown to love the term "gay", even though a long time ago it was used abusively towards me. Somehow we as a group had claimed it as our own and used it to describe ourselves with pride.

But it doesn't bother me know and I've even used it in that context myself.

I think the real joke about that student calling the horse "gay" is that the police involved didn't understand the context of the word. Could it be that the homosexual has progessed through stealing words that they once accepted as normal but now want a full descript word to enhance their perversions yet deny the old words that described them?

who knows? gays queers, faggots, queens etc seem to be none pc yet are descriptive in their meaning...apart from gay.....

Originally posted by Deavon
Well you see this is why the story was so funny.

"Gay" can now mean "crap" or "silly" or "pants"

Used in the context of "Don't buy that album, it's totally gay"

I think the real joke about that student calling the horse "gay" is that the police involved didn't understand the context of the word.

That drives me insane, if someone said "don't buy Pablo Honey that's totally 'gay', then I would bloody hit the roof (admittedly, I wouldn't be bothered if it was Murder On The Dancefloor, but I'm sidetracking from a serious discussion).

The point is that 'modern' youngsters do seem to brand crap things as 'gay' - the word has already change its meaning from 'happy', now let's keep it how it is now, and be done with it!!

What's next? 'Spring' cosidered dodgy? ;)

The point is, that if a word has a meaning, it needn't be changed!

I'm really bad at making points late at night...

Originally posted by Delboy3
Could it be that the homosexual has progessed through stealing words that they once accepted as normal but now want a full descript word to enhance their perversions yet deny the old words that described them?

What??? :loopy:

Originally posted by Delboy3
who knows? gays queers, faggots, queens etc seem to be none pc yet are descriptive in their meaning...apart from gay.....

Again, this statement makes almost as little sense as the one above. However, if I'm right in thinking that the point your are trying (very hard) to make is that all the words you have just listed can be used both as ways of abusing someone or as ways of describing someone, then in my opinion you are correct.
This goes back to Nick2's point about minorities reclaiming the nouns that were used to describe them collectively in a disparaging way.

My close friends can laugh along with something silly that I've done and affectionately call me a "silly faggot", but you cannot. I don't know you well enough to allow you to say that to me.

(and something tells me that if I did know you well enough I would still not allow to use such language towards me).

Thing is.... I have no problem with people being " Gay".... most people who shout from the roof tops as in anti-gay usually have an inside issue in this topic to deal with themselves.... nuff said. I have some brilliant "Gay Friends" They know my ground and I know theirs.... mutual respect and a respect for each others lives and life styles is the way to go forward.... if anyone cannot deal with a fact of life, then I pity them. As long as a section of life doesn't harm someone, then why should anyone else be bothered?

Thing is.... I have no problem with people being " Gay".... most people who shout from the roof tops as in anti-gay usually have an inside issue in this topic to deal with themselves.... nuff said. I have some brilliant "Gay Friends" They know my ground and I know theirs.... mutual respect and a respect for each others lives and life styles is the way to go forward.... if anyone cannot deal with a fact of life, then I pity them. As long as a section of life doesn't harm someone, then why should anyone else be bothered?

Originally posted by Deavon

I think the real joke about that student calling the horse "gay" is that the police involved didn't understand the context of the word.

OTOH this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1985953,00.html) in the Times today makes me wonder about the police attitude to 'perceived' homophobia.

"The Staffordshire force has also pioneered a scheme called True Vision, intended to give an accurate picture of levels of homophobic, as well as racist and religious, attacks by inviting people to report crimes anonymously."

How the police are supposed to act on the anonymous tip-offs isn't explained. Anonymous sources are by definition reluctant witnesses so perhaps the police will deal with the culprits in their own way.

But it goes some way to explain the way the police have reacted in recent cases involving radio broadcasts.

Ruth Kelly hasn't been averse to employing known sex-offenders in schools, but I wonder how she squares her deep Roman Catholic conviction with the employment of gay teachers ?