Interesting new flavor of backlash in the U.S. -- "reverse bigotry panic"

[Jingthing]

For a humorous take on this new trend, which has emerged now that gay civil rights has MAJORITY public support in the U.S., watch this starting at minute 10:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-june-17-2013-linda-cardellini

This is a tricky issue. Gay rights supporters are of course for tolerance as a core value. Now the anti-gay crowd is accusing gay rights supporters of intolerance towards their intolerance. Not sure how this new trend should be dealt with. It's a very clever political tactic indeed. Obviously they are wrong. When the Mormon Church was overtly racist against black people in their religious dogma, they had the religious right to their beliefs, but they were still OBJECTIVELY intolerant. Same difference with anti-gay attitudes justified by religious dogmas.

Samples of this new kind of rhetoric:

"It's open season to bully Christians and all in the name of tolerance and diversity"

"... these homofascists are going to force us to wear on our sleeve some kind of identifying marker."

Edited June 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Quite a funny broadcast!

I never knew about this Englishman John Steward until now.

[Jingthing]

Quite a funny broadcast!

I never knew about this Englishman John Steward until now.

I assume you're joking ...

Edited June 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Quite a funny broadcast!

I never knew about this Englishman John Steward until now.

I assume you're joking ...

Wrong assumption. But then, you don't know me (yet).

[Jingthing]

Well, maybe this is more of a new topic, but anyway, this is surprising. The leading American "cure the gays" outfit has now seen the light and has APOLOGIZED for the damage done to gay people. That's a new trend I've love to see more of!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/20/exodus_international_an_ex_gay_ministry_apologizes_for_the_harm_it_s_done.html

In a poignant blog post, Exodus International president Alan Chambers announced yesterday that the ex-gay ministry was shutting its doors, conceding that “reparative” therapy for gay people is ineffective and unhealthy. Chambers’ note took the form of an apology for the “shame,” “false hope,” and “trauma” he caused would-be converts, pleading for forgiveness from “ex-gay survivors”:

[LeCharivari]

The “new trend” has actually been going on for some time in parts of the world where gay rights and anti-discrimination legislation have been established for some time.

It would be all too easy to wave the “gay fowl” yellow (or even red) card but it is far from “a very clever political tactic indeed” by those who are “anti-gay” and even “homophobic”. The problem of gay rights supporters' intolerance has been made not just by the mainstream gay press such as Pink News, Queerty, and the Huffington Post but by some of the most highly respected and active gay rights supporters such as Peter Tatchell and Andrew Pierce.

Reverse persecution (to use the correct term) is very real and now that the gay lobby has got some “clout” both nationally and internationally an unpleasant minority of extremists are abusing their new found position, all of which is undermining the work done by the many genuine gay rights supporters and the vast silent majority of gays whose personal example has made gays not just tolerated but accepted.

“Now the anti-gay crowd is accusing gay rights supporters of intolerance towards their intolerance. …. Obviously they are wrong.”

According to the mainstream gay press and the most prominent gay rights supporters OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE RIGHT. This intolerance is undermining the acceptance it has taken us all years to get, and we are in danger of not just looking but becoming as intolerant as the very people whose bigotry has targeted us, making us as isolated as we were before.

Peter Tatchell, an international campaigner for human rights and the UK’s best known gay rights campaigner, has spoken out several times about the growing tide of reverse persecution: “The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality” and these views have been supported by all branches of the media including the gay media:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3221925.ece

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/12/peter-tatchell-dont-criminalise-homophobic-christians/

Reverse intolerance is anything but “humorous” for those involved, and in the long term it doesn't just damage us (gays) but sometimes a blind insistence on “equal rights” can mean “less rights” than we had before:

In two separate incidents in the UK, two Christian couples who owned B & Bs refused to let a gay couple share a bed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350764/Second-gay-couple-sue-B-amp-B-turned-away-owner-said-convictions-didnt-allow-men-share-bed.html?ITO=1490 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/christian-gay-couple-ordered-pay-damages ) – not because the couple were gay but because they did not let anyone who was unmarried, gay or straight, share a bed in what were their own houses. Following complaints in what were suspected to be “set up” cases (they had “coincidentally” received letters from Stonewall one month before warning them that their policy was discriminatory) they were both ordered to pay damages. One case is now being appealed to the High Court. Both cases were brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has now decided that “in the interests of equality” “gay only” bars, guest houses and hotels are illegal in the UK and cannot have a “gay only” policy unless they have some extenuating reason such as a “clothing optional” policy. (http://www.queerty.com/should-gay-only-hotels-guesthouses-welcome-straights-in-the-name-of-equality-20110220/ )

Nobody has actually complained about discrimination in gay bars, but personally I would prefer to have a gay bar where I wasn’t forced to put up with a nude dugong from Dongtan beach on one side and a couple of straight bigots loudly discussing how unnatural homosexuality was on the other (now perfectly legal in a gay bar, see “Sam Brown” below) than to be allowed to use a B & B where I already knew I would feel unwelcome.

In Australia because of equality legislation the Peel Hotel in Melbourne (a gay male “entertainment complex” rather than a “hotel”) can no longer bar all women and men who they think do not “look” gay enough, or even ask if they are gay or straight as they previously did (http://www.queerty.com/why-this-gay-bar-can-no-longer-ask-whether-youre-straight-and-refuse-you-entry-20101230/ ). Although there have been no incidents of homophobes or Christian radicals taking advantage of the change to cause problems since the ban was lifted (just as there were none before they imposed their ban three years ago) there have been a number of incidents involving groups of lesbian activists taking over the pool tables, the bar area, etc, in protest at their previous ban.

Sam Brown, a student at Oxford, was arrested by six policemen for making “homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by” when he asked a mounted policeman “excuse me, do you know you’re horse is gay?”. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm ). He spent a night under arrest and was fined £80 for “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior”, which he refused to pay. The case was later dropped and the law has been amended after a campaign led by Peter Tatchell and Rowan Atkinson who maintained “ ‘merely stating an alternative point of view’ could be interpreted as an insult” so that now insulting someone (which is often subjective) is no longer illegal unless it becomes threatening or abusive.

Dale McAlpine was arrested by a gay policeman for handing out Christian leaflets and preaching that adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality were sins. He was later awarded £7,000 plus costs for wrongful arrest ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339843/Homosexuality-sin-street-preacher-wins-7k-police.html ).

Pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts, aged 73 and 68, asked their local council in Lancashire if they could display Christian pamphlets alongside the gay publications displayed in the council staff areas – they had a lengthy visit from the Lancashire police who told them they could be committing a hate crime. They were later awarded £10,000 in an out-of-court settlement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/6205223.stm )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/andrewpierce/6443373/It-has-gone-too-far-gays-dont-need-state-censorship.html

Pensioner Pauline Howe, aged 67, wrote a private but strongly worded letter to her Council in Norwich about a Gay pride parade where she had tried to hand out Christian pamphlets; she had a visit from the police, a lecture and a warning about committing hate crimes.

Internationally pro-gay intolerance and a lack of respect for local gay rights groups and for local values and culture has made the position of many gays considerably worse rather than better:

Gays in Uganda have had their position made far worse by the USA (and Canada to a lesser degree) doing exactly what the CSCHRCL (Uganda’s civil and gay rights lobby) had asked them NOT to do in an open letter, leading to the Huffington Post urging “Take your white hands off Ugandan gay rights”.( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/muna-mire/uganda-anti-gay-bill-colonial_b_2160460.html )

Gays in Pakistan are now suffering the effects of American "support" in what is seen as "cultural terrorism” as the US Embassy continue to hold Gay Pride events in Islamabad at a time when the US is already unpopular (at best) with drone attacks - Jamaat-e-Islami could not have asked for a better excuse to clamp down on gays in public as never before. At the same time there is a conspicuous absence of such events in Saudi Arabia which has a far worse record on gay and human rights. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14010106 ).

Fortunately there are enough respected, rational and genuine gay activists around who can’t be labeled “homophobes” or “anti-gay” to put the extremists into perspective, but unfortunately that doesn’t stop the damage the extremists are doing to the gay cause in the name of “gay rights” and “equality”.

Gay rights should be a shield, not a sword - particularly a double-edged one.

Edited July 5, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

It's a new trend in the USA. I stand by my assertions. The USA is not Britain and it is certainly not Uganda.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It's a new trend in the USA. I stand by my assertions. The USA is not Britain and it is certainly not Uganda.

"The USA is not Britain and it is certainly not Uganda."

Definitely not - agreed 110%. Unfortunately that doesn't stop the USA interfering in Uganda and elsewhere (and I am only talking about gay issues here) AGAINST THE EXPRESS WISHES of the gay and civil rights groups they are claiming to support and making their position worse - or individuals supporting that interference.

Edited July 6, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Off topic, dude.

[LeCharivari]

Off topic, dude.

Thank you for your view, dude, but the topic is "Interesting new flavor of backlash in the U.S. -- "reverse bigotry panic".

A substantial part of the problem in Uganda IS "reverse bigotry panic" directly and deliberately caused by "the US" - NOT by individual Americans or anyone else, although some undoubtedly fanned the flames.

This IS the all too real "backlash" - not some jokes by a comedian or something which can be dismissed as "a very clever political tactic indeed" by "the anti gay crowd".

As you rightly said elsewhere "Yes, it is true the USA does not lead the world in gay civil rights, but the USA is still the most powerful nation on the planet ... (edited)" so what happens IN the US is not limited TO the US.

As these are the views of the most respected PRO gay press and gay activists around (check the links) and, I believe, represent the views of the vast majority of gays and rational gay rights supporters I think they deserve to be discussed here and this thread seemed the appropriate place. If a moderator decides that this is "off topic" I'll understand that, respect it, and be perfectly happy for my posts in this thread to be deleted and to open another thread on the subject; in the meantime I'll continue to post in this thread on anything and everything written in the opening post.

[Jingthing]

Cheers.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

“Gay rights supporters are of course for tolerance as a core value”.

“Of course”? That seems a bit of an assumption, rather like “Obviously they are wrong”.

Why should “gay rights supporters” be “for tolerance” for anyone except themselves?

Because they’re human rights supporters or because they’re gay?

Of course tolerance SHOULD be a core value for ANY human rights supporter - unfortunately the reality is that those who support a single rights issue in isolation seldom care about anyone else’s rights and many seldom even acknowledge them. Very few supporters of a single issue are, and I don't know what would make "gay rights supporters" so special. Peter Tatchell may be a leading gay rights activist but he is first and foremost a human rights activist, with the ability to see the bigger picture and the courage to recognise and respect other people's rights however offensive they may be to him personally, so I'm actually starting to respect him a lot more and the blinkered gay rights gang rather a lot less.

Being a bigot isn’t about being AGAINST something, it’s about being “blindly or obstinately devoted TO a particular creed or party”, putting your own interests and rights above anyone else’s to the point where you don’t just refuse to accept or understand them but you refuse to even acknowledge them. No one human rights issue can be taken in isolation, as it is seldom right vs wrong, good vs evil, black vs white; there are usually varying shades of gray and blindly supporting one “right” (however justified it may be) can have dramatic and dangerous effects on another “right” and even on one's own "rights", whether they are gay rights, black rights, abortion rights, women’s rights, animal rights, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc, etc.

There are far too many examples: Piers Morgan exercising his right to freedom of the press to publish photos of alleged atrocities in Basrah by British troops, without caring that it would lead directly to hundreds of British troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis being killed and injured, even though the photos turned out later to be fakes; animal rights activists condemning any experimentation on animals without caring that finding a cure for HIV / Aids is not the same thing as testing the latest scent; gay rights activists insisting on “equality” in small, straight (Christian run) B & Bs without caring that that would mean an end to all “gay only” bars, which is probably of far more importance to most gays.

Human rights supporters who concentrate on a single issue are seldom tolerant of any other human rights issues and the unfortunate reality is that instead of learning from their experience and rejecting it those who have been subjected to bigotry, discrimination and intolerance themselves often turn out to be among the most discriminatory and intolerant of all – I am sure I do not need to cite any examples.

Gay rights are often, rightly or wrongly, linked with black rights whose supporters would also be expected to have “tolerance as a core value” – unfortunately the reality is that for every Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King there are a thousand Robert Mugabe’s, Idi Amin’s and Black Panthers.

“Tolerance” is NOT a given in the field of human rights.

Any idea that gays are somehow “tolerant” by nature or nurture is equally unjustified. We’re not a bunch of gentle, kind hairdressers or fashion designers and that stereotype went out with the dinosaur. Some are, some aren’t. We’re the same as anyone else: good, bad and indifferent.

As a member of the Gay Aryan Skin Heads (GASH) put it: “public opinion calls nationalists rough barbarians, murderers, and so on, so observers from outside probably think that the nationalist has to be a strong, fearless street fighter, and gays represent gentleness, kindness, and harmlessness. In the public imagination, it doesn’t make sense that men who prefer the beautiful and glamorous side of life can fight for their rights and ideas.”

Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch nationalist assassinated in 2002 who advocated that Muslims should not be allowed in Holland because they were “backward” and Ernst Rohm, co-founder of the SA and Hitler’s closest ally (until the Night of the Long Knives, by which time he was his closest competitor ) and his deputy Edmund Heines were openly gay. They certainly weren’t for tolerance.

“Of course” …. I don’t think so.

[sustento]

I've no idea why people think that those fighting for gay rights ought to be 'tolerant'. When the gay marriage bill was wending its way through the House of Lords there were lots of people complaining in UK newspaper comment sections that gay folks expected tolerance from those who disagreed with them but weren't being tolerant themselves.

Hello! We don't want your 'tolerance'. We want the same legal rights as you and if that requires us to be as intolerant of you as you've been of us since 1533 then you can kiss my big patootie!

[LeCharivari]

I've no idea why people think that those fighting for gay rights ought to be 'tolerant'. When the gay marriage bill was wending its way through the House of Lords there were lots of people complaining in UK newspaper comment sections that gay folks expected tolerance from those who disagreed with them but weren't being tolerant themselves.

Hello! We don't want your 'tolerance'. We want the same legal rights as you and if that requires us to be as intolerant of you as you've been of us since 1533 then you can kiss my big patootie!

Agreed, STT - but I'm not saying let people use you like a doormat, and maybe I take a more generous view than some because no-one's ever been intolerant towards me because I'm gay; while we may not want "tolerance" from others wouldn't a little "tolerance" on our part make acceptance more likely and life more pleasant?

Legal rights aren't everything, although they do make for a more level playing field ....

[Jingthing]

A very current news story that is quite relevant to this topic.

Duck Dynasty "star" a popular American t.v. show I've never watched and never WOULD watch, has mouthed some anti-gay speech and now his employment is suspended.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, some right wingers are crying reverse intolerance!

Oy vey.

Personally I believe in free speech but also think employers have the right to set some standards for their public figures especially if they are signed employment contracts.

I do know some high profile anti-black bigots have had their careers ruined in the U.S.

I think the standards should be similar. In other words if hate speech against one minority group would trash your career, the same level of hate speech should trash your career if it's directed against gay people. Not special treatment. EQUAL treatment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/12/18/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-condemned-by-hrc-for-homophobic-comments

A few defenders have jumped into the fray. Sarah Palin posted a photo on her Facebook page hanging out with the “Duck Dynasty” star, with the caption, “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us."

Anyone I told you this was a new tactic of the right wing, and here it is again!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

This backlash has legs.

The fight for equal gay civil rights in the USA is FAR from over (sadly) because the enemies of this have not given up, and aren't likely to anytime soon.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/oregon_anti_gay_referendum_the_initiative_is_homophobic_segregation.html

That’s not, I suspect, a reality that most Oregonians (or Americans) want to experience. But it is, without a doubt, the direction the country is moving—and Oregon’s “religious liberty” initiative will only expedite the process. Don’t be fooled by bigoted bakers’ sincere defense of their Christian principles, or by politicians’ pleas for freedom of conscience. The religious defense of discrimination is based not in morality, but in hatred and intolerance. And we shouldn’t condone their vision of an America segregated by sexual orientation.