Jul 182011
 

A report at Irish Central tells us today that Irish Priest will refuse to recognise and obey a new piece of legislation which requires them to report certain issues to the police which are revealed to them during confession, specifically child abuse. Which anyone of even a moderate level of common sense would presumably see as, at best, a good start.

But, of course, the priests consider that minimal requirement an affront to their religious freedom. In which case, please, by all means, be affronted, but fuck your religious freedom; I would sooner every single catholic on this planet be convinced they are going to burn in hell than that one innocent child be RAPED, SODOMISED, ABUSED by an adult in whom they are told to put their trust.

Of course, the monkey-monks see things differently;

Father P.J. Madden, spokesman for the Association of Catholic Priests, however, insisted that the sacramental seal of confession is “above and beyond all else.”

 Fuck you.

Thank goodness, at least, that the Irish government appears to have found its balls and is seriously using them now. No more pussy-footing around, the gloves would appear – for now at least – to be off:

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said on July 14 that canon law can not supersede state law.

Minister Fitzgerald said the government was firm on this point.

Good; be firm!

Don’t let them fight their evil little propaganda war against you and get away with it. Throw the fuckers in jail at the first sign of breaking this law. Because claims like the following – from David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute – fraudulent, misrepresentative lies, that raise fear and pedal panic, are only going to increase:

” … such a law is very unlikely to lead to a single conviction and, at a maximum, will be counterproductive and will make society less safe, rather than more safe.”

You fucking lying fuck. Fuck off!

Throw them in jail, or throw them out of the country.

St Patrick didn’t throw the snakes out of Ireland, the saints, the priest, the church – they are the serpents, and their pestilential influence should be at an end.

Jul 132011
 

Probably NOT a surprise, but I’m not a supporter of homeopathy. Believe what you wish about freedom of choice, patient involvement in treatments, etc. but when a snake oil merchant pedals blatant, shameless lies, then it’s time for us to intervene. The fact that the ASA has taken action to restrain fraudulent advertising, while not sufficient, is a good start.

However, apparently some hurting homeopaths don’t understand why we don’t love them all, and have put a survey out to ask us why this should be.

The survey is accessible here. If you have a few moments, why not go and tell them exactly why this is? Go on, it’ll make you feel better!

My responses? Ok … here you go:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jul 132011
 

I wrote just the other day, over at Zhoosh, about the outpouring of puss that apparently constitutes an article from Brian Sewell in the Daily Hate about the Queering of Corrie and how terrible it is.

So far, so nothing new …

Then today, just before 9, BBC Breakfast had a couch moment discussing the “fact” of the controversy in the press (note: tabloids!).

Why?

There wasn’t the same degree of bile as in the Sewer Sewell piece, but merely acknowledging the campaign of hate gives that campaign a greater degree, or at least veneer, of respectability and plausibility!

It’s disappointing; these hate-mongers should be left to fester in their own putrescence not given access to even greater exposure.

Jul 122011
 

If, like me, you think that Murdoch is scarcely a “fit and proper” person to shovel pig shit with his bare hands, then please click on the link below and sign this petition – imagine, a country without Murdoch’s baleful influence!!!

http://goo.gl/6ileh

Jul 062011
 

No. 

Well, that was easy.

Actually, I do have a reason for the post. There is an article from his smarminess Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at the Huffington Post with the same question as its title. I imagine it is unnecessary to state that he reaches a different conclusion to me.

His opening salvo about Britain includes:

“Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, the British have cornered the market on being anti-God … “

 

Neatly ignoring Sam Harris, and the fact that, although he is British, the vast majority of Hitchens’ work, life and outlook has been in the US of course, the Rabbi begins to draw a distinction, which he considers the beginning of his coup de grace, between the dangerously secular and skeptical Brits and good and godly Americans.

A smattering of (frankly rather encouraging) statistics regarding the relative degrees of religiosity in the US and UK later, and he continues:

“Europeans are in the habit of making fun of American evangelicals as backward religious knuckle-draggers who believe that Adam and Eve ate apples with a talking snake. “

 

Well, yes. Those of them who do believe that are asking for ridicule, and far be it from us to deny them!

“But for all this condescension, evangelical Christianity in the United States represents the single largest voting block in the world’s sole superpower.”

 

And this is a good thing, Rabbi?! The fact that over 22 MILLION people make decisions on their votes in the temporal world on the basis of their spiritual beliefs is incredible, if not downright bloody frightening!

Moving on, the Rabbi further develops his “argument”:

“My British friends argue that the demise of religion is a good thing, proving sophistication in sharp contrast to the religious hobos of America who speak in tongues and talk to dead people. I beg to differ.”

 

Well, colour me fucking stunned.

The Rabbi disagrees that the demise of religion is a good thing; oh really? The fact, Rabbi, that you disagree with it is not an argument in and of itself!

“… historian Paul Johnson makes the case that the remarkable growth of the U.S., from pioneering backwoodsmen to the most powerful and innovative nation on earth, was largely fueled by religious fervor.”

 

Yup. No – or little – argument there. I’ll also grant that the vast majority of art, literature and architecture (to name but three areas) throughout history have been influenced or caused by religion. That doesn’t make it either (a) right or (b) good. Neither does it make it relevant or helpful in modernity!

“From the piety of the pilgrims to the faith-based values of the country’s founders ….”

 

OOOOH! You cheeky bugger! You don’t just get to slide that claim in!

There’s strong evidence that majority of the founders of the US were either atheist, agnostic or – at most – deists. “Faith based values?” Bollocks! More like the beginnings of a concept of rights inherent to humanity, not derived from some supernatural hobgoblin!

“British influence in the world has, in contrast, gone off a cliff over the last century. And while there are many factors in this decline, I would argue that the new, militant atheism that is becoming characteristic of Britain is a key reason.”

 

Ok then, if you “would argue” it’s a key reason, please do so. Don’t state it baldly, as though it were a brute fact, and expect us all to accept it blindly; we’re not in the synagogue now, Rabbi!

Note, not just “a reason” or “a factor” but “a key reason”. As though no other factors could even come close! Never mind the collapse of empires worldwide, emancipation of suppressed peoples, devastating wars in Europe, reassessment of ownership of natural resources …. et cetera ad infini-fucking-tum!

“Atheism is a philosophy of nihilism in which nothing is sacred and all is an accident. While it has some brief, flashy moments, life is purposeless and meaningless.”

ARGH!!!

Learn what the FUCK atheism IS and ISN’T!!

And until you do, please stop fucking writing about it!

” … life is purposeless and meaningless. There is no soul to illuminate and no spirit to enliven — just dead, decadent flesh.”

 

FUCK OFF! You can’t state that as a “fact”! I’m an atheist – as people may have gathered – as are many of my dear friends. Our lives have great purpose and meaning and, while we don’t accept the soul, our lives are “enlivened”!

(Aside: is the Rabbi advocating necrophilia? If not, how to reconcile flesh which is both dead AND decadent?!)

“… poetry and faith are shallow distractions masking the inevitability of our certain demise.”

 

Faith, yes; poetry, however, is not shallow, nor a distraction. Please stop trying to conflate YOUR prestidigitations with art and beauty.

You lie to and abuse people; poetry elevates.

” … women are genetically programmed to seek out billionaire hedge-fund managers … “

 

Rabbi, please call Richard Dawkins and ask him if women can be genetically programmed thus! Seems unlikely to me …

And it goes downhill from there.

So, Rabbi, NO!

NO!

Godlessness is NOT dooming Britain; in fact, it’s our only hope. Godliness, however, may be dooming the whole of humanity.

 

Jul 012011
 

This is not “news” per se, but it’s the sort of thing which needs to be reported on and brought to the fore as much as possible.

The quick version: Colton Haynes is a not-too-brilliant American actor, who’s starring in the new MTV show “Teen Wolf”. He may or may not be gay. He also appeared, as a teen, in a photoshoot for XY magazine, aimed at gay teen youth, in which photoshoot he a) was shirtless and b) kisses another boy! Shock.

The trouble is, an attorney has been sending threatening letters demanding the removal of any copies of those pictures online, making claims along the lines that they are “private”. Despite having been published in a national US magazine and/or that they are pornographic or sexually explicit.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want any embarrassment to be caused to young Haynes. What I do want, however, is and end to the subtle, low level of homophobia which moves like this seem to perpetuate. The idea that pictures of him, kissing another boy, are likely to end, or at least, damage his career. The idea that such pictures are inherently pornographic or sexually explicit.

So let’s see shall we:

XY Magazine – 2006

Colton Haynes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the magazine says, “shocking”.

Colton Haynes – recent photos

Let’s see the hugely different, non-private, non-explicit, non-shocking photos with which his attorney has no problem shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, there you go – clearly a huge difference!

Basically, I think these photos need to be kept out there, and the story kept out there, because;

  • the attempt to remove them from the public domain intimates that there is something inherently shameful in homosexuality,
  • it perpetuates the idea – which may therefore become self-realising – that to make a career in Hollywood requires one either not to be, or not to be perceived to be, gay,
  • it’s a deeply worrying threat to freedom of expression,

    and, of course,

  • they are very nice pictures! The boy is easy on the eyes!

So, that’s my little bit of activism for the day!

 

1 – these pictures may be copyright – if so, I will happily remove them if so advised

2 – I don’t know Colton Haynes’ sexuality; any speculation is just that – or wishful thinking

3 – more coverage here and here

A couple more pics from the XY shoot, just to keep them out there:

 

 

 

 

Jun 132011
 

Like many, I’ve been following the blog of “A Gay Girl in Damascus”. (No, I’m not linking to it – for obvious reasons.)

Like many, I’m SICKENED to discover that this is a scam, a lie, a hoax.

I’d started following the blog about a month or so ago. I have sat and wept at some of the things that have been described in it, feeling impotently empathetic. A horrible feeling.

I’ve experienced optimism and pessimism in near equal measure, often within the same post.

So, what’s the problem? If the emotional response is genuine, and the circumstances being “described” are essentially accurate, why the outrage?

Simple; the lies which make up THIS blog breed doubt in any others of similar nature. The next time we read an apparently earnest, heartfelt cry for help from an LGBTQ person in such a regime, we will hesitate and wonder. And apathy will be more likely.

Apathy, the enemy of any advances in these states.

And that is why, along with P Z Myers, I say “Screw You, Tom McMaster”.

 

Read the coward’s excuse below:

Continue reading »

Jun 062011
 

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000004270 StartFragment:0000000451 EndFragment:0000004254

Who is my gay hero?

Well, setting aside for the moment the torrid ramblings of my fevered, late night imagination, and assuming that Tom Welling, of Smallville fame, really is not, in fact, actually a proponent of penile pleasure, I’d have to say that I have trouble answering this particular question.

In some ways, we are blessed with a surfeit of potential gay heroes: high heel wielding drag queens from New York, 1969, standing up for themselves and all of us against bigoted police forces, and starting in many ways the modern gay civil rights movement; Alan Turing, possibly one of the more obvious choices – a genius, bridging in some ways the gap between Einstein and Hawking, one of the greatest minds on this world, subsequently suffering government mandated chemical castration to correct his “deviancy”; Michaelangelo, incredible artist and genius, tortured by his sexuality yet turning the conflict into beauty; Stephen Fry, perhaps the only modern world polymath, from petty criminal to petit- and haut-bourgeois darling, beloved luvvie; the list isn’t endless, but it’s pretty bloody long!

But why do our heroes have to be gay? Are we still so insular and isolated that we can only relate to and respect people whose sexual proclivities mirror our own?

My hero, a fact which I don’t consider something of which to be ashamed, is the Doctor. Yes, Doctor Who.

He’s not gay – per se – but he almost certainly isn’t straight either.

Especially when you consider that the Doctor with whom I grew up was Peter Davison – he could scarcely be less of a sexual being. But then, none of the (now known as) classic Doctors was sexual. There was famously “no hanky-panky in the Tardis”.

And as a putatively gay teen, unable to relate to the traditional heterosexual images of masculinity and heroism (even if not sure why at the time) the Doctor’s uniquely non-sexual, non-violent, non-aggressive form of heroism was incredibly appealing. He was, to me, everything that the rest of the humdrum, human heroes weren’t; self-sacrificing, witty, intellectual and cerebral, rather than physical and violent.

Now the Doctor has been resurrected for the modern age, and things have changed somewhat. He’s now at least aware of sex and sexuality, though he seems not to dip his “toe” into that particular “water” too often! Of more importance though, is that he’s definitely NOT straight now; something for which we partly have (gay) Russell T Davies to thank, and partly the changed nature of society. He’s far more free-and-easy when it comes to sex, as his relationship with Captain Jack alone more than adequately demonstrates.

Should it not be possible, however, for me to find a GAY hero? I don’t think it’s needed actually; anyone I consider a hero, would be that regardless of their sexuality, not because of it! And that’s the best way for it to be!

So, my gay hero? He’s a fictional, non-human, and – perhaps oddly – non-gay man. Deal with it!

 

GScene Column - June 2011 - Canada Dry


 

Jun 012011
 

I really ought, by now, to know better than to read the Daily Hate.

It is, after all, the sheerest shit and fantasy. Mouthpiece for the views of the BNP/EDL/National Socialist Party. Scaremongering, anti-science, anti-humanity really.

But it still hurts my brain to see things like this:

Daily Mail Screenshot 2011-06-01 at 12.49.10 Mobiles CAN cause cancer.

 

Well, I find myself thinking, that’s big news. Wonder how come it hasn’t been picked up more widely. So I click through to the article …

Daily Mail Screenshot 2011-06-01 at 12.49.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah. Ok.

Excellent journalistic integrity there. You jackasses!

And the stupid doesn’t stop there, oh no. The further you read, the more apparent it becomes that nothing has changed. NOTHING.

Is it possible to rule out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a possible, potential, maybe causal link between excessive use of a mobile ‘phone and carcinogenesis? No.

Does that mean that “mobile ‘phones can cause cancer”? NO – you fucking fucks!

This shit shows, yet again, why we need a PCC with teeth, and an enforceable code of conduct for the media. Not some laissez-fucking-faire self-regulation which may as well be a circle jerk of bullshit peddling wankers for all the good it does.

Oh, and the Tea and Kittens reference? It’s all about this, and the lovely content I really should be looking at, instead of Mein Daily Kampf!

May 242011
 

This is an obscene transgression of the established constitutional settlement of the UK – and no-one notices!?!?!

The “UK Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill”, currently before Parliament, purports to be able to bind this Parliament’s successors, specifically in Sections 2 and 4:

2 Legal instruments

No Minister of the Crown shall make or implement any legal instrument which—

(a)is inconsistent with this Act; or

(b)increases the functions of the European Union affecting the United
Kingdom

without requiring it to be approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom

4 Royal Assent

No Bill shall be presented to Her Majesty the Queen for her Royal Assent which contravenes this Act or amends this Act or which purports so to do except and until the Bill, having been approved by both Houses of Parliament, has also been approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom pursuant to an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.

How?! How can this Parliament modify the method by which a future Parliament can pass a bill into law?

Simple answer; it can’t! If it could, then the entire basis of the rule of law in our system would fall apart! It sickens me that nothing is being done to stop this farrago proceeding, and more so, that there is next-to-no publicity surrounding this bill. Pandering of the worst sort to the most moronic factions of the Daily Mail & Telegraph brigades.

Sickening.