Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Does the Gay lobby have a monopoly on discrimination?
Options
Comments
-
You act as if there are no LGBT travellers or disabled people.
Of course there are disabled people or travellers that are LGBT. Which is why they would be very lucky to have the LGBT community to speak up for them due to the organisations strength.Which is why the LGBT seems to speak louder. The other groups are about society and integration. LGBT people want equality.
You seem to assume that the other minority groups mentioned do not want equality as well !!!?:eek:
I wouldn't be able to disagree with that point.I'd also argue that the Trans community can be treated just as badly as any other group in Ireland.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
You neatly avoided the question of employment equality. You also neatly avoided the substance of my post which is that if we had laws which said these things about women or the disabled, there would be a national outcry... but they exist happily enough at the moment for LGBT. How is that so?
Also, when was the last time a woman or a disabled person feared being beaten up on the streets solely because of who they are?
Or denied a room in a B&B?0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »You seem to assume that the other minority groups mentioned do not want equality as well !!!?:eek:
How are they discriminated against?0 -
You neatly avoided the question of employment equality. You also neatly avoided the substance of my post which is that if we had laws which said these things about women or the disabled, there would be a national outcry... but they exist happily enough at the moment for LGBT. How is that so?
Also, when was the last time a woman or a disabled person feared being beaten up on the streets solely because of who they are?
Or denied a room in a B&B?
In light of the treatment of disabled people in the Mayo Centre:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-does-not-rule-out-independent-inquiry-into-abuse-at-mayo-disability-centre-1.2032737
I would say vulnerable disabled people are more in danger indoors then outdoors.
Then of course there is the argument how do some others get outdoors transport mobility access etc.
There is also the issue of non-white people getting beaten up in the North or forced to leave their homes
https://againstracismsinireland.wordpress.com/tag/nigerian/
I think the fact that the LGBT community's complains have reached the level of employment issues show how much further ahead they are then other minority groups in terms of equality.
I assume you mean members of the LGBT community who are denied the opportunity to become teachers in schools? Unfortunately. I think this is because that the Education system in Ireland is still largely controlled by the church.
Travellers are repeatedly refused entry to hotels for weddings when the proprietors realise that they are from the travelling community as well.
But yet as is the point of my thread the LGBT's communities arguments are always put forward their issues clearer and louder then other minority groups in mainstream media with a cogent structure. Regardless of the importance of a particular issue to the LGBT community it manages to get attention because of this. More importantly it gets attention in a positive light.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »I think the fact that the LGBT community's complains have reached the level of employment issues show how much further ahead they are then other minority groups in terms of equality.
Yes the ability for a school to legally fire someone because they're gay is a trivial thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »In light of the treatment of disabled people in the Mayo Centre:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-does-not-rule-out-independent-inquiry-into-abuse-at-mayo-disability-centre-1.2032737
I would say vulnerable disabled people are more in danger indoors then outdoors.
Then of course there is the argument how do some others get outdoors transport mobility access etc.
There is also the issue of non-white people getting beaten up in the North or forced to leave their homes
https://againstracismsinireland.wordpress.com/tag/nigerian/
I think the fact that the LGBT community's complains have reached the level of employment issues show how much further ahead they are then other minority groups in terms of equality.
I assume you mean members of the LGBT community who are denied the opportunity to become teachers in schools? Unfortunately. I think this is because that the Education system in Ireland is still largely controlled by the church.
Both of the links you have show illegal activities. People may still do it but there are consequences for it, with LGBT rights there is plenty of discrimination that is completely legal.
I have no idea what you are trying to achieve.0 -
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Do I seriously have to list a page of reasons? I will just let you think about it instead.
No give a list of reasons how they are legally discriminated against in Ireland please.
I mean actual law that says they
can't get married
can't give blood
can't adopt as a couple only by one person
can be legally fired from a teaching position0 -
Women get beaten up all the time because they are women. Woman are the major victims of domestic violence, and that's not a coincidence.Also, when was the last time a woman or a disabled person feared being beaten up on the streets solely because of who they are?
Or denied a room in a B&B?
If you want to see disabled people being singled out for special abuse solely on account of their disability, just look at the Aras Attracta scandal for a topical (as in, yesterday) example.
We should be very careful about doing exactly what the OP seems to want, which is to pit minorities against one another for a victimhood bidding war.
I really resent this notion that gay people suffer worse than everyone else, just as much as the OP's notion that other minorities suffer worse injustices than gay people.
Furthermore, people do not suffer victimisation as 'groups'. Individuals suffer.
Dividing victims of prejudice into their respective groups is no more than a statistical exercise.
If a man is assaulted because he is a traveller, it's of no particular consolation to him that it happened because he was a traveller. And the fact that it happened because he was a traveller (as opposed to a black man, or a homosexual, or a person with a disability, or a woman) does not make the assault objectively worse than any other from of victimisation.
We seriously need to get over this habit of creating a hierarchy of deserving innocents.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Yes the ability for a school to legally fire someone because they're gay is a trivial thing.
I am sorry this is incorrect it is illegal for an employer to this discriminate purely on the basis of sexual orientation.
See the employment equality act 1998
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/sec0006.html#sec6 I refer you to section 6 (1) (d) of that act which refers to sexual orintation.
Where there is an exception to this is s.37 of that act See 37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part
See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/print.html#sec37 for the full section.
I am aware this loophole is being fought at the moment -
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/29/ireland-government-to-ban-religious-schools-from-discriminating-against-gay-teachers/comments/#disqus_threadGuff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »I have no idea what you are trying to achieve.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that the LGBT community is far better at self promotion in a positive light then the other minority groups I mentioned.
The LGBT community manages to capture the public imagination in a positive light far better then the other groups.
Norris can come on radio/TV dramatically quoting Wilde/Joyce articulately putting the LGBT position forward. There are a myriad of other people who can speak up for this community who are just as eloquent. He even ran for president!
When there is a disturbance involving travellers a guy from Pavee Point comes on and meekly repeats "Travellers are not all the one, like settled people are not all the one"
The only positive for ethnic groups I can think of is Dil Wickremasinghe on global village on newstalk. The rest of the time there are talk-shows mentioning how there are too many immigrants or asking would you refuse a taxi if it was a black taxi driver?
Positivity on disability issues is rare too. There was a brief period where the general public's imagination was captured in a positive sense by Joanne O'Riordan. Today it is negative news about a care centre in Mayo.
(at the risk of repeating myself)The LGBT community seem fantastic at getting issues heard on a constant basis and a far higher profile then other groups.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Women get beaten up all the time because they are women. Woman are the major victims of domestic violence, and that's not a coincidence.
If you want to see disabled people being singled out for special abuse solely on account of their disability, just look at the Aras Attracta scandal for a topical (as in, yesterday) example.
We should be very careful about doing exactly what the OP seems to want, which is to pit minorities against one another for a victimhood bidding war.
I really resent this notion that gay people suffer worse than everyone else, just as much as the OP's notion that other minorities suffer worse injustices than gay people.
Furthermore, people do not suffer victimisation as 'groups'. Individuals suffer.
Dividing victims of prejudice into their respective groups is no more than a statistical exercise.
If a man is assaulted because he is a traveller, it's of no particular consolation to him that it happened because he was a traveller. And the fact that it happened because he was a traveller (as opposed to a black man, or a homosexual, or a person with a disability, or a woman) does not make the assault objectively worse than any other from of victimisation.
We seriously need to get over this habit of creating a hierarchy of deserving innocents.
What the OP wants to is not show that one side is victimised more then the otther. What the OP wants to do is show that one side is far better in the promotion of ANY victimisation.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
No give a list of reasons how they are legally discriminated against in Ireland please.
I mean actual law that says they
can't get married
can't give blood
can't adopt as a couple only by one person
can be legally fired from a teaching position
This would be fitting square pegs in round holes because the other groups issues are different. I could list off all those difficulties that the other groups receive and say does the LGBT suffer x or y compared to z. But that would not serve any purpose.
So a "neutral" I will answer all the LGBT issues you raised
The marriage issue for the LGBT will be resolved through force of public opinion over time. Note public opinion
The blood issue is a question of scientific issues (according to leo varadkar) I have not heard the full counter arguement so I cannot fully comment.
The adoption issue for the LGBT community can only be relsoved after the marriage issue. At the moment there is nothing to stop a single gay person adopting a child as anyone can adopt a child.
The legally fired from a teaching position is a tough one because if a person is working in an institution that is set up by the religious how can one particular group expect to work there where that religious institution views it as a "sin"
That is a religious dogma issue which is entrenched over donkeys years. It has made me realise that a very religious gay person must be completely conflicted.
But the manner in which you set out the LGBT issues Daith proves the point of why I set up this thread. Supporters/members of the LGBT community get thier message across far, far more eloquently (yet forcefully) and better then other minority groupsGuff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »What about access to buildings/education? Travellers, Disabled etc.
Also it seems if this is the only thing that the Gay community has to achieved they are not that badly off. It seems to me that the politicians always go where there are votes to had. This is a vote getting issue and will be achieved.
The profile of the Gay community is the strongest and most vocal of any minority group. As another poster said it would be wonderful if all minority groups had that amount of publicity and awareness.
I think as far as minority groups go the LGBT community does not realise what a privileged position it is in. It carries tremendous say and punches way above its weight.
Oh boy did I laugh reading that!
A (presumably) straight man or woman telling gay people how privileged we are!
Oh you! You really crack me up.
Edit - OP instead of responding to the various posts you've made, I'll ask you two questions.
What is it that you want to constructively achieve in this thread. And do you have any actual interests in helping these other minority groups.
Because it seems to me to be some sort of moan about how lgbt advocates have succeeded in advancing equality in recent years, as of that's a bad thing. Or that since they are almost equal they should just shut the **** up know and let others have the spot light.
But both of those would be really stupid positions.
Yet you refuse to answer questions ons about what you actually do to promote minority interests which suggests yiu probably don't do much at all, or really care about their issues.
So if you want everybody to agree that lgbt rights have advanced enormously in the last 30 years we will. And we should all agree that that's a good thing.
But if you want us to say lgbt advocates should step away from the stage and give the spot light to other minority groups, few will agree.
I would imagine they would all much rather we built a stage big enough for everybody.
Edit 2 - I don't think anybody is saying that lgbt are worse off than others (at least they shouldn't). I think people are just refuting the suggestion that lgbt people are "practically equal" or "not too badly off."
While things have improved, I still can't hold my boyfriends hand walking down the street or pretend that my sexuality hasn't the potential to cause problems for me in my personal and professional interactions with people.
So as much as I look forward to the day we have nothing to complain about, we still have a long way to go unfortunately.
Lastly, everybody saying Panti's speech didn't achieve anything, than you really don't appreciate the power of rhetoric.
MLK's sperch was just words, and yet it impacted the world and ignited many conversations about race and equality. It also instilled hoped, pride and purpose in many black people.
Panti's speech similarly ignited a conversation about homophobia in all its forms, first people to consider things from an lgbt perspective, ignited a powerful debate at homophobia in the media and how it can and should be challenged.
Even at a more simple level, it was an eloquent, insightful and powerful piece of rhetoric. We give awards and acclaim to authors and poets for how they use language to convey a message, I can't see why we should have any issue given it Panti.0 -
everybody saying Panti's speech didn't achieve anything, than you really don't appreciate the power of rhetoric.
MLK's sperch was just words, and yet it impacted the world and ignited many conversations about race and equality. It also instilled hoped, pride and purpose in many black people.
Panti's speech similarly ignited a conversation about homophobia in all its forms, first people to consider things from an lgbt perspective, ignited a powerful debate at homophobia in the media and how it can and should be challenged.
Even at a more simple level, it was an eloquent, insightful and powerful piece of rhetoric. .
What? Seriously what?
You're comparing the Panti Rant to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech"?
I figured I mustn't know exactly what rhetoric means so I looked it up. Here's what the OED says: "language designed to persuade or impress (but perhaps insincere or exaggerated)"
Got that right!
Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was not just rhetoric. He pointed out that the black man's struggle was entirely in keeping with the white man's vision of himself. He read out the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which it is said "We hold these truths to be self evident; that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed with fundamental rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then pointed out that for blacks in America, this promise was "a bad cheque, returned marked Insufficient Funds"
In other words he persuaded white America that it was noble in its aspirations, just under achieving in their implementation. He offered a way forward by appealing to the better instincts of those who could help his people get there.
Now what did Panti say?
He complained about all the wrong things. It wasn't the abuse from the lads in the car or the soggy milk carton that hurt. No. It was the fact that they could tell he was gay!! "What gave the gay away?"
That's not a complaint against homophobia; that's a whinge against Gaydar.
And seriously Panti, as you said this you were on stage wearing a dress, high heels, a bouffant wig and falsies. You want to be inscrutable? Try harder. Or perhaps not so hard at all.
He criticised all the wrong people. Not the genuine homophobes who abuse hi and throw things at him, but everybody else because "we're all a little homophobic"
Crap, sir! Utter bull****. Frankly, we didn't drive the clergy from their unimpeachable position as masters of our morals with their oppressive "You're all born sinners and will burn in hell unless you receive the Divine Grace of Jesus Christ!!" only to have you fill the vacuum with your nonsense that we are ALL inherently racist and homophobic. Learn, sir, to tell the difference between a superficial observation and a value judgement.
I can't for the life of me see why this ranting buffoon has struck such a chord.
And BTW, none of the foregoing is an argument against gay equality or gay people in general. I'm not a homophobe; just a Pantiphobe.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Up until very recently women were obliged to leave the civil service when they got married. Societal attitudes and norms change.
I can understand how the gay community want civil partnership to be called marriage because they will be on an equal footing to everyone else.
But it kind of amuses me because in this day and age marriage is devalued anyway. As there is no stigma to children outside wedlock like years ago and divorce is now permitted. Also for a lot of couples it makes more economic sense to remain an "unmarried mother" but live with a partner because they would lose benefits.
I still think the gay community is in a very strong position in comparison to the other minority. As the gay community has heavy involvement in arts, culture, education, media and of course politics.
The other groups I mentioned have issues are that are far more basic and involve integration into society.
The blood donation issue is being looked at by Varadkar. He said it would be decided on science. So this issue may very soon be resolved.
If the only issue for the gay community left is gay marriage. Public opinion already seems to be in favour of it. So it will not be long until that is achieved.
I think the other minority groups problems that I mentioned do not look like they will be resolved so successfully. For the reasons I have already stated in previous posts their voice is not as strong as that of the LGBT community.
I fear that other minority groups I mentioned in particular the travellers and the disabled might never achieve the level of advocacy and influence of public opinion that the LGBT community currently receive.
Hopefully ethic minority groups/immigrants should eventually achieve improved status in Ireland as the more educated second generations will provide the building blocks for the future.
By "until very recently" do you mean 41 years ago? The marriage bar was removed in 1973. Not that I'm defending what was a terrible practice, at least get the facts straight.
On the topic at hand, I feel its immigrants that probably get most of the spotlight. You always hear all the immigrant support groups coming out with the same report every year, with 3 main points: 1. Racism is up 100% 2. Not all racism is reported, so we reason that its actually up 10'000% and 3. We need to fight racism more, so give us more money.
I'm not denying that racism exists and is an experience of immigrants, but it always strikes me how racism seems to always, always be getting worse and worse according to these reports. You'd think we're being hit by a catastrophic plague of racist hatred for all non Irish people. Its almost as though if racism were seen to be getting less prominent, these people would be out of a job.....0 -
Oh boy did I laugh reading that!
What is it that you want to constructively achieve in this thread. And do you have any actual interests in helping these other minority groups.
Yes I do. But it my opinion that the LGBT community do promotion far better then other groups and tend to dominate the issues on discrimination. For reasons previously mentioned. I did not intend the thread to turn into sure x group is worse off then y group (it turned into that in parts unfortunately).
I was just trying to find out the underlying issues why the LGBT commuinity seem to be far better at advocacy (to me) then other groups. As to me in my opinion that the reason why panti got the award seemed over hyped for its content.
Again just my personal opinion nothing against the guy.
I also knew that by creating this thread that people like yourself will give me an alternative passionate viewpoint and might tell me another side to the argument. Or another way of thinking on it. Which will help me understand why such a speech was viewed as so important to some people.
There might even be a round about argument that Panti's speech did achieve what it wanted to achieve because people like me (not in the scene) are talking about it.Yet you refuse to answer questions ons about what you actually do to promote minority interests which suggests yiu probably don't do much at all, or really care about their issues.
That is a bit of speculative comment on your part. But i will just say I do my bit and will continue to do so.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Hey, I knew a Gay Lobby, nice man he was.0
-
CrabRevolution wrote: »By "until very recently" do you mean 41 years ago? The marriage bar was removed in 1973. Not that I'm defending what was a terrible practice, at least get the facts straight.
Your correct I phrased that poorly. I meant to say in recent history.CrabRevolution wrote: »On the topic at hand, I feel its immigrants that probably get most of the spotlight. You always hear all the immigrant support groups coming out with the same report every year, with 3 main points: 1. Racism is up 100% 2. Not all racism is reported, so we reason that its actually up 10'000% and 3. We need to fight racism more, so give us more money.
I'm not denying that racism exists and is an experience of immigrants, but it always strikes me how racism seems to always, always be getting worse and worse according to these reports. You'd think we're being hit by a catastrophic plague of racist hatred for all non Irish people. Its almost as though if racism were seen to be getting less prominent, these people would be out of a job.....
I suppose their strategy is to try and keep anti-racism in the public mindset?
But if the message is always the same it is going to lose its power. That is why I think sports stars are more effective for promoting an anti-racism message.Younger kids are more inclined to listen to them.
But as I said integration in the Irish culture is difficult for some immigrants. That is the key I think not just "reports" as you said.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
There's Malala getting the Nobel Peace Prize... for what? Getting shot?!0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Yes I do. But it my opinion that the LGBT community do promotion far better then other groups and tend to dominate the issues on discrimination. For reasons previously mentioned. I did not intend the thread to turn into sure x group is worse off then y group (it turned into that in parts unfortunately).
I was just trying to find out the underlying issues why the LGBT commuinity seem to be far better at advocacy (to me) then other groups. As to me in my opinion that the reason why panti got the award seemed over hyped for its content.
Again just my personal opinion nothing against the guy.
I also knew that by creating this thread that people like yourself will give me an alternative passionate viewpoint and might tell me another side to the argument. Or another way of thinking on it. Which will help me understand why such a speech was viewed as so important to some people.
There might even be a round about argument that Panti's speech did achieve what it wanted to achieve because people like me (not in the scene) are talking about it.
That is a bit of speculative comment on your part. But i will just say I do my bit and will continue to do so.
If you want to seriously consider why the LGBT movement has made such great progress, then you ahold rephrase your question.
Instead of asking why are the LGBT community better at advocacy, you should be asking why is society more receptive to LGBT people than other minorities.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »What? Seriously what?
You're comparing the Panti Rant to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech"?
I figured I mustn't know exactly what rhetoric means so I looked it up. Here's what the OED says: "language designed to persuade or impress (but perhaps insincere or exaggerated)"
Got that right!
Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was not just rhetoric. He pointed out that the black man's struggle was entirely in keeping with the white man's vision of himself. He read out the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which it is said "We hold these truths to be self evident; that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed with fundamental rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then pointed out that for blacks in America, this promise was "a bad cheque, returned marked Insufficient Funds"
In other words he persuaded white America that it was noble in its aspirations, just under achieving in their implementation. He offered a way forward by appealing to the better instincts of those who could help his people get there.
Now what did Panti say?
He complained about all the wrong things. It wasn't the abuse from the lads in the car or the soggy milk carton that hurt. No. It was the fact that they could tell he was gay!! "What gave the gay away?"
That's not a complaint against homophobia; that's a whinge against Gaydar.
And seriously Panti, as you said this you were on stage wearing a dress, high heels, a bouffant wig and falsies. You want to be inscrutable? Try harder. Or perhaps not so hard at all.
He criticised all the wrong people. Not the genuine homophobes who abuse hi and throw things at him, but everybody else because "we're all a little homophobic"
Crap, sir! Utter bull****. Frankly, we didn't drive the clergy from their unimpeachable position as masters of our morals with their oppressive "You're all born sinners and will burn in hell unless you receive the Divine Grace of Jesus Christ!!" only to have you fill the vacuum with your nonsense that we are ALL inherently racist and homophobic. Learn, sir, to tell the difference between a superficial observation and a value judgement.
I can't for the life of me see why this ranting buffoon has struck such a chord.
And BTW, none of the foregoing is an argument against gay equality or gay people in general. I'm not a homophobe; just a Pantiphobe.
I didn't compare them. I have MLK as an example of how a speech can have a huge impact.
We have given acclaim to people who make great speeches before so I don't see why recognising one now should be a problem (much like MLK though Panto does an awful lot more than speeches).
I think the speech went entirely over your head if you think it was just a whinge about being spotted as gay. It was a brilliant illustration of the pervasive nature of homophobia and how how various forms of casual homophobia can eat away at gay people.
And how the so called lesser or indirect forms of homophobia can have an impact.
What exactly difference does it make that he was on drag by the way?0 -
Good point, more people need to realise thisWomen get beaten up all the time because they are women. Woman are the major victims of domestic violence, and that's not a coincidence.
If you want to see disabled people being singled out for special abuse solely on account of their disability, just look at the Aras Attracta scandal for a topical (as in, yesterday) example.
We should be very careful about doing exactly what the OP seems to want, which is to pit minorities against one another for a victimhood bidding war.
I really resent this notion that gay people suffer worse than everyone else, just as much as the OP's notion that other minorities suffer worse injustices than gay people.
Furthermore, people do not suffer victimisation as 'groups'. Individuals suffer.
Dividing victims of prejudice into their respective groups is no more than a statistical exercise.
If a man is assaulted because he is a traveller, it's of no particular consolation to him that it happened because he was a traveller. And the fact that it happened because he was a traveller (as opposed to a black man, or a homosexual, or a person with a disability, or a woman) does not make the assault objectively worse than any other from of victimisation.
We seriously need to get over this habit of creating a hierarchy of deserving innocents.0 -
Why are you trying so hard to make us think lgbt people arent discriminated against as much as they are?gormdubhgorm wrote: »What I am trying to demonstrate is that the LGBT community is far better at self promotion in a positive light then the other minority groups I mentioned.
The LGBT community manages to capture the public imagination in a positive light far better then the other groups.
Norris can come on radio/TV dramatically quoting Wilde/Joyce articulately putting the LGBT position forward. There are a myriad of other people who can speak up for this community who are just as eloquent. He even ran for president!
When there is a disturbance involving travellers a guy from Pavee Point comes on and meekly repeats "Travellers are not all the one, like settled people are not all the one"
The only positive for ethnic groups I can think of is Dil Wickremasinghe on global village on newstalk. The rest of the time there are talk-shows mentioning how there are too many immigrants or asking would you refuse a taxi if it was a black taxi driver?
Positivity on disability issues is rare too. There was a brief period where the general public's imagination was captured in a positive sense by Joanne O'Riordan. Today it is negative news about a care centre in Mayo.
(at the risk of repeating myself)The LGBT community seem fantastic at getting issues heard on a constant basis and a far higher profile then other groups.0 -
We have given acclaim to people who make great speeches before so I don't see why recognising one now should be a problem
The "problem" is it was a dreadful speech.I think the speech went entirely over your head if you think it was just a whinge about being spotted as gay. It was a brilliant illustration of the pervasive nature of homophobia and how how various forms of casual homophobia can eat away at gay people.
And how the so called lesser or indirect forms of homophobia can have an impact.
It was a whinge about a lot of things. The main problem, I believe, is that Panti thinks she can redefine homophobia to her own liking and then call people by that name.
Actually, no she can't. Maybe she doesn't like the libel and defamation laws which judge words by their generally accepted meaning rather than by what SHE think them to mean but there it is.
Consider an analogy to our drink driving laws. Drink driving (as an offence) used to mean driving with a certain amount of alcohol in your blood. If caught and convicted at this level, you were banned from driving. No ifs buts or maybes.
Now drink driving as an offence means driving with a much lower level of alcohol in your blood. If convicted now of that offence, assuming you are only slightly over the limit, you get a fine and some penalty points.
The meaning of the offence has changed, and so too concomitantly has the punishment.
The trouble with Panti's assertion, made in the "noble call", that gay people, as the targets for homophobia, should be able unilaterally to define homophobia more broadly to include, well everybody, is that there is no analogous downgrading of the slur.
You call somebody a homophobe because they raise questions about the legal minefield of gay adoption and you are lumping them in with the Fairview Park killers. You may not mean to, but that's in fact what you're doing.
I found little in this speech that was noble, and much that was paranoid, self-obsessed, accusatory and just plain wrong headed.
Far more "noble calls" in support of the dignity and rights of LGBT people have been made by other commentators, much more worthy in my view, of the title of National Treasure. People like David Norris and Donal Og Cusack.
If Panti is a national treasure, it's no wonder we're broke.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »You call somebody a homophobe because they raise questions about the legal minefield of gay adoption and you are lumping them in with the Fairview Park killers. You may not mean to, but that's in fact what you're doing. .
No and in fact it was a point of Panti's speech. She actually says that you don't have to beat gay people up to be called homophobic and there's different degrees.
Also gay people can adopt so not sure what legal minefields there are?Snickers Man wrote: »The main problem, I believe, is that Panti thinks she can redefine homophobia to her own liking and then call people by that name.
Now you're doing the same thing that you accuse her off. By changing what homophobia means to you to define it. Homophobia doesn't mean you have to have physical violence.Snickers Man wrote: »The trouble with Panti's assertion, made in the "noble call", that gay people, as the targets for homophobia, should be able unilaterally to define homophobia more broadly to include, well everybody, is that there is no analogous downgrading of the slur.
What's the downgrading of racist? That's a more apt comparison than your bizarre drink driving example.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »The "problem" is it was a dreadful speech.
It was a whinge about a lot of things. The main problem, I believe, is that Panti thinks she can redefine homophobia to her own liking and then call people by that name.
Actually, no she can't. Maybe she doesn't like the libel and defamation laws which judge words by their generally accepted meaning rather than by what SHE think them to mean but there it is.
Consider an analogy to our drink driving laws. Drink driving (as an offence) used to mean driving with a certain amount of alcohol in your blood. If caught and convicted at this level, you were banned from driving. No ifs buts or maybes.
Now drink driving as an offence means driving with a much lower level of alcohol in your blood. If convicted now of that offence, assuming you are only slightly over the limit, you get a fine and some penalty points.
The meaning of the offence has changed, and so too concomitantly has the punishment.
The trouble with Panti's assertion, made in the "noble call", that gay people, as the targets for homophobia, should be able unilaterally to define homophobia more broadly to include, well everybody, is that there is no analogous downgrading of the slur.
You call somebody a homophobe because they raise questions about the legal minefield of gay adoption and you are lumping them in with the Fairview Park killers. You may not mean to, but that's in fact what you're doing.
I found little in this speech that was noble, and much that was paranoid, self-obsessed, accusatory and just plain wrong headed.
Far more "noble calls" in support of the dignity and rights of LGBT people have been made by other commentators, much more worthy in my view, of the title of National Treasure. People like David Norris and Donal Og Cusack.
If Panti is a national treasure, it's no wonder we're broke.
If it was a dreadful speech, why was it played around the world and translated into numerous languages?
Why was she invited to countries around the world to speak after the speech was heard?
You may not have liked it, and that's fine. But it has been critically acclaimed around the world so lets not pretend it's dreadful.
And Panti didn't refine anything. Homophobia does take various forms, much like all types of discrimination.
Much like racism isn't confined to lunching black people, but can include employment discrimination, negative stereotyping, access to services, racial abuse and harassment etc.
Believe me, honophbia takes numerous forms and impacts in innumerable ways.
And Panti was clear that being homophobic does not make one evil. So it was very clear that she wasn't equating the lesser forms of homophobia to gay bashers.
It's seems you either ignored the substance of the speech or are "redefining" the message she was conveying.
Oh and people aren't called homophobes "for raising questions about the legal minefield" of adoption by same sex couples (what legal minefield - apart from some drafting changes to adoption legislation, no substantive issues arise).
It's because there they have no reason for opposing it other than the fact that it's gay couples.
Seriously, there aren't. Check any of the recent US judgments on gay marriage cases. The judges, even republicans, are openly ridiculing the arguments put forward to oppose same sex marriage and same sex parenting.0 -
Why are you trying so hard to make us think lgbt people arent discriminated against as much as they are?
It's feels a more then a bit pretentious of me to quote myself but I said it in the very first paragraph you quoted.Originally Posted by gormdubhgorm
What I am trying to demonstrate is that the LGBT community is far better at self promotion in a positive light then the other minority groups I mentioned.
In other words when there is any form attack on the LGBT community they are far, far better equipped to speak up for themselves then other groups.
To the extent that a somewhat watery speech by Rory/Panti gets tremendous attention. Other posters above have gone through this speech and pointed out the serious flaws in it. So it is not necessary for me to repeat them. But at the same time fair play to him for generating that attention and giving it a go.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »...
To the extent that a somewhat watery speech by Rory/Panti gets tremendous attention. Other posters above have gone through this speech and pointed out the serious flaws in it. .
they have? i must have missed all of those posts.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
Advertisement