Gay organisations and Gay Pride parades

Remove all ads!

Amidst the double standards discussion in several latest threads devoted to US administration, I've decided to touch an even more controversial problem belonging in the same category: gay organisations and Gay Pride Parades.

It has taken place recently, in Cracow, the ancient city of Polish kings and former capital. Up to this day considered more of a cultural centre than the current capital city. A seat of both benevolent but fair and lawful tolerance, according to the best traditions of royal Poland, and political as well as moral conservatism.

Despite the fact that for several years gay clubs in Cracow had functioned undisturbed and gay couples holding hands in parks didn't provoke any aggression at all, no one had been discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation and homosexuals were freely given opportunity to voice their opinions on the media so far as they remained within the boundaries of civil discussion (the ancient Polish rule: you can say whatever you want, but say it politely), someone in the lead of gay activists considered it proper to destroy the peaceful status quo and conduct a great march through the most time and tradition honoured quarters of the city.

The date was chosen to be the 9th of May, the Feast of St Stanislas (mart. 1058), bishop and martyr in a way similar to England's Thomas Beckett, one of the patron saints of Poland in the Catholic Church. The Gay Pride march was planned to end in exactly the same place where crowds of Catholic faithful were having a yearly Mass and Procession in honour of the Saint. Namely, the place was Wawel Castle, the seat of kings from 11th century.

The leading initiative group for the march was active under the name of Anticlerical Party of Progress Reason (Reason is the proper name). Campaign against Homophobia was one of the most civil names. During the march, leaflets were distributed with slogans such as "begone the black vermin" (ie Catholic clergy), T-shirts depicting a hand grenade with an inscription saying "throw in the basket" (idiom referring to donations collected from the faithful during the service of Mass), leaflets calling to fight against the Roman Catholic Church as the centre of reaction, and all sorts of similar materials.

At the same time, gay rights activists kept collecting all shreds of possible evidence of discrimination and handing it over to state prosecutors, demanding action.

During similar events in Berlin, where the society is more laicised, they were throwing used condoms in protesters (ie protesting against the parade) and publicly exposing their genitals. The most common slogan was "we are homo and **** you if you don't like it".

US Senator Trent Lott, who said "Yeah, it is. In America right now there's an element that want to make that alternative lifestyle acceptable. You still love that person and you should not try to mistreat them or treat them as outcasts. You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol ... others have a sex addiction or are kleptomaniacs.", was labelled fascist (Nazi) and racist by prominent gay organisations operating seemingly within the boundaries of law that include freedom of expression and protection against slander.

Apparently, freedom of expression applies only to gay organisations and not other people, even if the other people include the leader of US senate majority. Slander includes telling homo jokes, but it doesn't include calling a prominent politician a fascist (Nazi) and racist.

Nota bene, "racist" is pure propaganda and it serves to connect gay organisations' agenda with ethnic minorities' real or imaginated abuse, especially the stigma of slavery.

Nota bene bis, streaking is illegal in most countries and so is propaganda of hate, especially religious hate. Libel (accusing specified people of criminal acts without proof - which took place in the Cracow parade and was aimed at RCC clergy) is also illegal.

Disturbing a lawful religious cult practice violates basic constitutional human rights in many countries (Poland included).

Calling names and throwing other insults is illegal in most systems. Abuse of verbal vulgarity and public display of obscenity follows.

However, "tolerance" activists (yes, quotation marks are intentional and I can't make myself remove them) present themselves as the leading force of humanity, establishing moral, ethical and social standards. The rest doesn't matter.

Gay Pride Parades have been supported by state and municipal officials of Europe and US, not acting as private individuals but implicitly ex officio. Those include: Bertrand Delanoe, mayor of Paris; Francesco Rutelli, mayor of Rome; Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York; Hillary Clinton, NY senator; Gerhard Schröder (through letters but not in person), Chancellor of Germany; Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin.

All the said officials supported the activities of gay organisations during parades. As I enumerated above, those activities included not only unpopular and potentially discriminative opinions, but open violations of law in the light of day and in public. On the other hand, please fancy a thought: what would happen to an official who would appear on the opposite side of the fence in the same parade? Imagine charges of authority abuse. Senator Trent Lott serves as an example.

What gives gay organisations the authority they are so eager to take? Democracy? They make attacks on the majority, so I bet no. Natural order? Not really, since even they can't claim that homosexualism is the standard. Human rights? They violate them. The law? They openly disregard and break it. So what exactly?

Dealing with gay and gay supporters' arguments on a purely formal logical basis, one can see a lot of flaws in their logic even at first glance. In the most extreme cases, the skeleton of such an argument looks like below:

Other examples include sensitive, progressive, open-minded, agreeable and so on.

The first countermeasure to such reasoning that comes to mind is applying it the reverse way. Tolerance is for all, right? Everyone has a right to his opinion and voicing it and living like he wants etc without discrimination or unwanted interference. Mention this to gay organisations and the answer is similar to:

There have to be limits of tolerance, of human rights and so on. As if I heard a conservative speaking. It's tolerance activists who say that from here, there's a short way to corporate fascism (Mussolini) and from there to Nazism (proper Nazism).

On an ending note, I'll quote a Polish bishop:

"If someone is being provoked for long enough, there is no wonder that a reaction comes, and often an aggressive one."

A note to all participants: please stick firmly to the subject and avoid side-topics so far as possible.

 

The Polish way of discussing things? Civil and calm? We have a saying here in Sweden, when something is chaotic and turbulent and everyone talkes at the same time we call it a "polish parliment". I just thought I wanted to point that out.

As for the topic of your post, well, there are hypocrites all over the place. Actually, I am convinced that more or less everyone is one to a greater or lesser degree. However, you should keep in mind that homosexuals *are* being harassed and discriminated against everywhere, and I would think to a quite large degree in very conservative and devout Poland. They are the minority fighting for their rights, them attacking the clergy will likely not have much effect while if it was the other way around bad things would quickly happen.

 

Perhaps gays in Poland dont want to live as timid, subdued individuals who better be grateful for not being punished and repressed for their 'unnatural' ways? Dunno. Our media reports that homosexuality is not that popular in Poland. Dont get me wrong - its demonized in other places as well.

Now, I can understand why someone who is a firm believer in the one loving god might be offended by their vile deeds, but I suppose for the gays its payback. A rebellion against a church and society that has shunned them. Let them vent their anger, chevalier. Being a discriminated minority led them to react like that in the first place, I guess. Even it they are a bit extreme, things will surely relax.

And better get used to gays fighting for equality, for their rights as fully accepted human beings and against what they view as unjust. Your country joined the EU club which has, to the best of my knowledge, massive anti-discrimination agendas and encourages this spirit. Which is a good thing, in my opinion, for once the polish gays feel they dont have to be constantly defensive, they wont be as... shrill anymore, but more moderate. The consequence will be the poor pestered majority wont have to put up with the terrible intolerance of a minority.

When there is Christoper Street day in Cologne all join in, be it gays or straight. Sure, you can see some weird things there, however no one regards it as an personal attack. Rather they say: To each its own. That's what I call progress.

 

We have recently had an anti-racisim rally in Christchurch, New Zealand led by a chinense man whose name has slipped my mind. The rally went ahead very well drawing positive support from many people.

It was addressing the issue of random abuse from some (very, very few) Pakeha (white New Zealand born citizens), Maori (native New Zealanders) and Pacific Islanders (many Pacific Islanders are granted automatic NZ citizenship or residency) towards foreign migrants, especially Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants. The abuse would range from assault to unprovoked name-calling (simply yelling out "go back to China, yellow-monkey-boy!" while driving past). Although a very small minority of the country acts like this the rally was to draw attention to the actions of these few in an effort to stomp it out. Sounds perfectly reasonable and a good use of freedom-of-speech.

There was a stage where some person (Let's call him 'Idiot A') was claiming he would run an anti-anti-racisim (i.e. racisim) rally saying that people are entitled to be racist if they want. Course it never got off the ground (thankfully) but it's another clash between freedom of speech and the law - people defending their right to insult another race of people because they feel like it.

I guess this is where

comes into play.

Frankly I view it as: you're allowed to have freedom of speech and go about your life as you wish as long as it doesn't effect someone else intentionally and/or directly in a negative way.

Why 'intentionally and/or directly in a negative way' and not just 'in a negative way'? Take for example the Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants I have mentioned earlier. Most of this racisim is directed at them because they have been indirectly and unintentionally effecting people in negative ways. Almost all Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants are willing and determined to work. They are reliable workers who perform well. Employers prefer to employ these people. This angers people who can't get jobs. They dislike the migrants for "taking our [their] jobs". This is how the migrants are having a negative effect on somebody, however it is indirect and unintentional. You can't get angry at someone for taking your employment opportunity by simply being a better worker than you. The Olympics might as well be everyone hating the person who did better than they did.

Not exactly homosexual issue but it's still anti-abuse on a minority.

 

You make a good point about unintentional or unwilling negative effect. And about racist comments. However, what about a minority which makes a point of attacking the majority's lifestyle and no longer just fighting for their own rights?

"Begone the black vermin" is quite... well, intentional and conscious and willing... All sorts of physical attack and display of obscenity as well. Those people are well aware that they are breaking the law as well.

Minority or not, human rights are for all people and so is the law.

If I ever find myself in a position enabling me to report criminal offence or launch private prosecution against the minority in question, I will do it with utmost pleasure.

However, my chief concern here is double standards and faulty logic. Logic that is flawed from the very beginning and not as a result of simple mistake but as part of a certain lobby's policy.

You can be left, you can be right. You can be a commie, you can be a nazi, you can be green. But you have to make at least some sense. Some people don't get this one.

[ May 17, 2004, 22:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I have always been bothered by the giving of special "rights" to minorities. I'm not even sure that homosexuals should qualify as a minority. It isn't that they are a majority, it is more that it isn't anyones business what they are. Why aren't there laws to protect short people? A short person could be the same as a black person. There is no hiding it. An employer could put a sign in the window saying "No short people allowed" and would be within the law. The homosexuals want to given the exalted status of being a minority so they can get "special rights" not normal rights.

I have only found one right that a heterosexual married couple has that a homosexual couple cannot get by writing a contract/legal document. That is the ability upon death to gift unlimited assets to a spouse that are exempt from the U.S. estate taxes. Maybe I'm wrong, but if someone can come up with some others I would love to know what they are.

On another note the lawmakers that came up with "hate" crimes should be imprisoned themselves. A crime should not be worse because of the person it was done to. If a white man beats a white man with a bat and gets 10 years for assault and battery, he shouldn't get 15 because he beat a black man with hate in his heart. It makes no sense to me.

 

I am not so sure they want to be a minority at all. Or wish for an exalted place in society and special rights. What special rights? A life without all sorts of harassments in their jobs and social life? A simple thing such as marriage? To cross the street without someone hurling insults at them?
They want what we all crave for: Acceptance, a normal life and a non-hostile enviroment. Not the gays themselves but society labels them as something 'special' - in a negative way. They are marked, sorted out as different and they give voice to their troubles. Nothing more.

When was the last time that I was attacked because I am heterosexual? Maybe even by gays? Right, never. For homosexuals there are dangers out there. Some die because of what they are. They defend themselves against this, make their situation known to others and they are called intolerant for that effort? Oh yes, that makes sense to me.

 

@Dendri

That is my point. Everything you mentioned is a basic right. They should not have or be given special protections because of their "status"

Why should they be any different then anyone else? Here is a quick list of other people that get harrassed that nobody is passing laws to defend. The short, the tall, the fat, and the ugly. Why should the law say you can fire an ugly person, but not a homosexual? Here in the States most people are employees at the will of the employer. People can be fired with or without cause.

I would never consider a marriage simple. Regardless marriage has been between a man and a women for as long as the term has existed. If homosexuals want to come up with their own term let them.

Last I knew sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Why should the law prevent me from hurling insults at homosexuals while allowing me to insult fat people? If it is too annoying and obnoxious call the police and have me arrested for disturbing the peace. At least that is a crime.

You can't legislate acceptance, maybe people do not consider them normal, and there are already laws to keep things non-hostile.

Once again, I'm not aware of any municipality that has a law making beating or murdering a homosexual legal. The laws should be applied the same to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If I kill my wife is that any less heinous than if I kill some random homosexual?

I wouldn't call that intolerant, however they are really quick to call everyone who doesn't agree with them intolerant. Society already has laws that protect everyone. Now that makes sense for me.

 

I still see no reason why to allow them to slander religious officials, offend religions and propagate hate without any legal consequences.

The law says: no hate propaganda, in most of civilised countries. No hate propaganda means no anti-gay hate propaganda, but it also means no gay hate propaganda.

Propaganda of hate against religious organisations is still propaganda of hate if it's committed by gay organisations.

Slander is no less criminal slander if it's done by gay organisations.

Public display of nudity and obscenity (including throwing used condoms at people) is prohibited under most of law systems and no exception should be made for any minority.

In fact, no such exception is present in the legal systems in question and therefore the acts are illegal. They should be prosecuted as any other criminal offence.

Next, the setting of the date on May 9th and the place at Wawel Castle, ie exactly the same date and place as a Roman Catholic Mass and procession, religious cult performance protected by the Constistution, was obviously aimed to disturb the said celebration and infringe on the Catholics' (majority) right to free peaceful performance of religious cult.

I see no reason why gay organisations should be above the law.

Slander, libel, public display of nudity and physical assault on fellow citizens is called making your situation known?

I am speaking about them hurling insults. Should they be allowed to while at the same time hurling insults in them forbidden to other people?

Someone who attacks you, shows his bare ass to you, yells "**** you" at you and throws condoms full of sperm at you hardly wants your acceptance or seeks a non-hostile environment.

And heterosexual people get raped by drunken or drugged gays after parades. Just some people? Well, and exactly how many homosexuals have been killed recently for being homosexual? Dying in a car accident caused by a heterosexual driver doesn't count.

 

Chev, I have a lot of respect for you, though I would like you to re-examine one rather central thing to the debate you've brought up:

When exactly did the Catholic church give any sort of time / solidarity / Hell, let's be honest, anything other than Hell for - Homosexuals?

They never have as far as I've observed, not being gay or Catholic, call me an outsider, but hey?

The Catholic church simply doesn't take any time out for gays and that's why the gay rights march etc takes place as it does, not because they want anything special, but becasue they want to illustrate that they get a hell of a rough deal from the catholic church.

I'm guessing a little here, but I think that gay people just truly want to be treated the same as the rest of us, without being told that their sexual orientation is fundamentally wrong. SImple we all might think, but probably not if you're in that situation.

PS - Definitely not meant as any sort of personal attack.

 

Snook, hmm, interesting points.
You are right, the fat, small, overly tall and ugly are picked upon by their fellow humans. Is it a proper thing to do? No. Thats why homosexuals dont accept the treatment they receive.
Should they stand by and take the abuse they are dealt like good puppies? No! Nor should the fat, small and overly tall - not even the ugly. Others try to tear you down, you better fight back.
And thats all I am saying here. They dont take what others dish out. No one should. Other minorities (diaspora etc) band together to defend their interests, too. They are no less frisky when engaged in discussions. I refuse to see intolerance and special status where there is nothing but selfdefense. That is what this topic is about.

For the same reason no one should be fired because of their religion, sex, the shape of their nose? Where I live you need a reason to fire an employee. If a gay has trouble with his boss and a law would handle the indisputable fact that gays are discriminated he could defend himself. Just like a woman who gets kicked out because of her sex. Whats wrong with that?
Sometimes its important what is left out of a law, rather than whats included.

Agreed. But you twist it a bit, I think. Of course there is no law legalizing the killing of a homosexual. But there are people dying because they are part of that minority. You might be attacked anytime, but if you are gay you are in that much more danger. Should law ignore this?

Anyway, all this legal stuff isnt what the gay organisations are about, I think (and I am not really competent enough for such a difficult thingy ). Its about attention for their situation. And creating room for an 'alternative'. I dont know their agendas but I think if they felt genuine acceptance all the issues like gay marriage, special laws etc would become obsolete and less important. As it is they try to take what isnt freely handed to them. And they want it all the more because it is denied them for no good reason.
My take on the situation.

>edit< typos etc.

[ May 18, 2004, 02:18: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

MATTHEW 7:1-5

 

Good old Matt.

What exactly did Matt say some 1900+ years ago?

 

Well, there's points of agreement on both sides of this.... but I do agree with Dendri here. I think what most homosexuals want is legal acceptance in society. Of course there are the radical groups on both sides, who feel peaceful protests aren't quite sufficient....and that's where the trouble starts. But both sides are guilty of this.

chev -- It's unfortunate that the march you described turned out so ugly....but there have been many peaceful marches here in Seattle...people just kind of take the stand that it's their right, just like any other group, as long as they follow the rules.

In my view -- the kind of lifestyle that homosexuals live is their own business. I don't agree with it, but it's not for me to judge. They may be termed of, and think of themselves as a "group" and fight for rights as a "group" (referring to the marriage issue here)....but when it comes down to it, they're just individuals, different from me....but then so are a lot of people. Frankly, I don't think about it much... but when I do, I say....whatever floats your boat....all the merrier.

(Btw....this is the first day that gay couples can get married in Massachusettes, legally.)

 

@Dendri

Precisely, however getting the law involved will only make people bitter and not solve any of the societal problems. What if people whose last name began with a "D" were discriminated against. If a law was passed saying the "D" people couldn't be fired, had preferential treatment in hiring, and being mean to "D" people was illegal, don't you think the other 25 letters would be bitter?

I'll give you this point. That is a differnt culture than what I'm used to. Here in the states people are employees at the will of their employer. If they want to fire you for having a bad hair day it is allowed. Here the government cannot force anyone to employ anyone. We do have laws against making the workplace inhospitable, however those laws protect everyone. I can't call the women whores nor can I call a homosexual a faggot. Once again the law should be equal and give no preferential treatment. If I did anything to make my workplace inhospitable and my employer did nothing about it then they are open to lawsuits. This has made most employers have very strict discrimination policies. I consider this a good thing.

Yes in my opinion the law should ignore this. A crime is a crime. There is no need for special laws to make some crimes worse than others. Now if you are suggesting the police should have a cruiser parked outside "gay nightclubs" to help enforce the peace, then that makes sense. However, the police shouldn't offer everyone an escort home to keep them safe. People (including homosexuals) have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. Over the years women have learned not to go to dangerous places by themselves. I don't consider it that difficult of a concept.

Many people feel that homosexuality is an abomination and an insult to God. If that is someone's opinion than it is just too bad for the homosexual. As I said in an earlier post. Acceptance cannot be legislated it must be earned. I am Jewish. Long ago I accepted that people that follow the Aryan superiority doctrine are not going to like me. Guess what? I don't hang out (or even know) any Aryans.

Responding to Chev's initial complaint the gay parade was a direct attempt to upset and cause havoc to the Catholics. I understand that many homosexuals were born Catholic and wish to be accepted by the mother church. However, if the church doesn't want you it is the church's decision. It is quite possible the local chess club doesn't want you either. In a free society people have to right to associate with whom they chose. If certain groups that use their own money and resources do not want other groups to participate that is their right.

Here in the States we have the same issue with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts do not tolerate homosexuals. There has been lots of discussion if allowing the Boy Scouts to use "town property" would be considered the town using "town money" to support a possible discrimination. Some communities have decided yes and others have decided no. However, the courts have ruled if the scouts don't want homosexuals, they do not have the authority to force them to take them. Now, I also know that certain scouting groups have essentially adopted a "Don't ask, Don't tell policy" and as long as that works for them than so be it.

 

@ Snook

In Canada, it's different. We have the Human Rights Code which prevents discrimination based on, amongst other things, sexual orientation. As well, there are labour laws which basically state that one can only be dismissed for "cause" (a bad hair day would not fall into this category). So perhaps the attitudes regarding gays are in part a function of existing laws which protect them.

Personally, and as I have stated in previous discussions in the Alley, I feel that gays are discriminated against in our society and, because I believe in the motto "to each his/her own" (provided that others are not harmed which, in this case, I don't feel is the case), I think laws to protect gays are needed and justified. Dendri has stated nicely the case for gay pride parades and the like, and since I agree with him, I won't bother repeating his arguments.

 

That may be, but employees can access the legal system to get damages for unfair firings. For instance, suppose I get fired because my employer accuses me of stealing. I go to court and the employer cannot prove any such thing. I can demand legal compensation for such actions against my character. We have had this so called "bad hair day" argument before. Employers are NOT above the law, despite such conservative rhetoric.

 

I think, this is a rumor. Any proof?


Chev, try to walk a mile in their shoes: The catholic church uses propaganda against homosexual people. In catholic societies like poland this propaganda has a very deep impact on people in general. Maybe the church itself does not harass the gays, but it influences other people to do so. That's what behind this incident.

While I don't think it was okay for the gays to protest this way, it is quite understandable.

 

@Chandos,

I respectfully disagree with you. If your employer suspects you of stealing he/she is well within their rights to terminate your employment without cause.

Now I agree with you if the employer causes damages to the employee they may sue for said damages. If the employer were to slander or libel the person then they have cause for damages. This is what lay-offs are all about. When a company announces lay-offs they are effectively firing people without cause, but for business decisions.

To use a bad hair day example. If you had a job at a store that sold baby clothes and after a wild weekend you came in with your hair in a mohawk and piercings in your face in all probability you would be fired. You would not have any recourse even if you had been one of the best employees in the past. Your employer decided that you were no longer needed and that is the end of that.

I may be wrong and maybe this is a state to state issue. Hopefully, both of our employers never want to replace us with Chandos the blue or The Great Snaak and we have to find out.

[ May 18, 2004, 15:51: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]