Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Spanish PM slams Church over “family” rally comments

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Bill Perdue 4 Jan 2008, 7:45pm

    Socialists are the best defenders of GLBT equality, while Conservatives, Republicans and other reactionares are our opponents.

  2. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Jan 2008, 8:12pm

    Bill, you’re absolutely right about socialists being the best defenders, progressives on GLBT equality which is why full marriage equality in the five countries that offer it succeeded. They all had socialist governments. It could never have happened under a conservative government, ever.I’m outnumbered on this website on this one issue, and that’s ok. What I find so disheartening that what they are doing is actually undermining what true equality signifies. I daresay there was no other way they could have achieved similar rights to marriage in the UK but to accept something different and to some extent I can’t blame them but to tell me and others that it is equal…….not in a million years! If they are so equal, then straight couples should be allowed to form these partnerships if they choose not to marry, but I bet not many straights would choose partnerships over marriage either.

  3. the act enshrining CP says specifically that it is not “marriage” and that it can take place only between same-sex couples. That is the law, whatever politicians and CP=marriage supporters say.I await the first case where the equivalence is tested

  4. Bill Perdue 5 Jan 2008, 12:31am

    Robert, I don’t think supporters of GLBT equality and samesex marriage are outnumbered at pinknews, just the opposite. Most posters agree that equality of samesex marriage is better than domestic partnerships and civil unions et al. And you’re right. If all couples, not just GLBT couples, were given a choice between the two the result would finish the debate for good. It’s true that a few people have temporarily stopped posting after a while because they get the Tory troll ‘treatment’. It’s the usual gargage; accusations of being of being a wretched foreigner, trying to hijack pinknews, having a personal agenda, having spots, bad breath, and being mean, bad, unloved, poor and a radical. Many of them return and if they see the atmosphere clearing maybe they’ll stay. I’m impressed by their passion and commitment to equality. And of course some just laugh at the trolls or ignore them, and some, like Omar turn on them and do a creditable imitation of a nuclear explosion. I hope Mother Superior wasn’t burned too badly when it happened to him. No, really, I do. Zapatero’s party, the Partido Socialista Obrero Epañol or the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party and other Labor, socialist and leftist parties are among the most adamant supporters of GLBT equality, including the right to marry, which for us is a cutting edge demand that separates friends from foes. The greens have a spotty record but radical nationalists like Sinn Fein, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and even the Cuban Fidelistas are moving towards support for GLBT equality, although they still have a way to go. Many Stalinists and most Maoists are opponents but that’s to be expected, most just cover right wing politics with a leftist facade. The rightists and centrists who dominate the US Democratic and Republican parties, the Conservatives in Canada, John Howards conservative ‘Liberals’ in Australian and the Conservatives in England along with bigoted theocrats like the roman catholic cult and other theocrats are our foes on this . They all obstinately oppose samesex marriage even where most voters are for it.

  5. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Jan 2008, 2:31am

    A few stats for you all to chew on, and in your case Bill, choke on:Responses to the government’s consultation on Civil Partnership registration were as follows:84% of individuals in support95% of LGBT orgs in support85% of public sector orgs in support42% of private sector orgs in support77% or volutary orgs in support91% or trade union orgs in support53% or national religious group in support15% of individual religious groups or congregations in support.All in all, the consultation showed heavy support for civil partnerships.The government estimated 11000 partnerships by 2010 at a low take up and 22000 at a high take up. Between December 2005 and December 2006 of 2006, 18000 civil partnerships had been formed, which is massively over the government’s projections.All the documentary evidence shows very clearly the popularity of civil partnerships in the UK.

  6. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Jan 2008, 2:35am

    By the way Bill, thank you for your informative summary of world politics in relation to marriage/civil partnerships, through the eyes of a jackass.

  7. William - Dublin 5 Jan 2008, 11:40am

    Oh, well done Bill. Again you turn a valid argument into a petty and mindless rant of hate towards people you don’t know. “Tory Trolls”… please, how stupid you are if you think your petty remarks “frighten” me or anyone else here who is entitled to a free opinion. I will hold my opinion, because my democracy allows me to.And NOTHING you will say will stop me. Nothing.So, still no website for “Rainbow Red”, eh? Didn’t think so. Its hard enough to find communists these days, but ones like you who have all the freedom-loving traits of Pol Pot, well, they’re almost a dead breed, aren’t they Bill?Must be lonely being the sole member of that foolish RainbowRed.

  8. SMC1 we weren’t given the option of CP or marriage, just CP. Yes we grabbed CP with both hands because it was the only thing on offer: how would you answer “will you accept civil partnership in preference to nothing?”2 people/organisations who respond to polls are self-selecting. Of course there was (largely) overwhelming support, because supporters generally mobilise. We haven’t got vast numbers of people who opposed CP, but the right-wingers and religious right did try to oppose it. Bear in mind that the noble lord Tebbit was only to happy to try and nobble this act by adding on all sorts of other relationships. This suggests how it can be viewed by certain sections of the wider community, i.e. not really marriage.And a caveat: statistics can be helpful, but the results can be interpreted and used in many different ways.As I have said: I wait to see what the future brings re the status of CPs compared with marriage.

  9. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Jan 2008, 1:41pm

    apYrs, thank you. I would love to see a poll among UK straight couples asking them if they’d rather have a civil partnership over marriage. Wouldn’t that be an interesting outcome? My gut feeling is, they’d stick with marriage, but I still think they should have the right to form a partnership outside of marriage if that is their wish, all things being “equal”.Statistics provided by Sister Mary mean absolutely nothing because they have nothing to do with marriage whatosever. Again, a poll of all those who supported CPs and who aren’t gay in support of full marriage equality would probably yield an entirely different result, ergo….they would not want us to have the right to marry. Its the same with the democratic party here in the U.S. They claim they support civil unions but not marriage, though the gap is narrowing in favour of it among straight constituents unlike the UK.

  10. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Jan 2008, 5:49pm

    Robert/ApYrsTo quote the more detailed results of the consultation:3.2 Some respondents felt that the proposals for civil partnerships closely resembled marriage. It was clear that many of those who supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme would prefer that marriage was made available to same-sex couples. Many respondents felt that it made little sense to create a separate status that was similar to one already available.“It is a matter of regret that the Government has not just changed the legal definition of the word ‘marriage’ to include same-sex couples, but the framework for the Civil Partnership seems to offer much to improve the human rights of gay men and women…”3.3 Others told us that they didn’t want a form of gay marriage and were glad that the Government was suggesting a purely civil status.“Whilst my partner and I cannot legally marry, recognition that marriage is not the only acceptable status for long-term relationships is important to me. I believe that although my relationship mirrors many aspects of marriage, it also has differences in terms of how we view being together…”4.12 Building on the arguments put forward for a form of gay marriage, some people felt that rather than introducing a civil partnership scheme, the status of marriage should be opened up to include same-sex couples. The term ‘marriage’ would therefore be the correct one to use.4.13 Some same-sex couples, however, made it clear that they did not want to ‘marry’ each other but wanted an entirely civil status that had no religious or moral overtones.So, again it is very clear from the consultation results that whilst some wanted to marry, others did not.The results of the consultation are very interesting and unusually – it appears the government did take some notice of people’s wishes.Its all very well poo-pooing the results of the consultation when they don’t support your arguments Bill, but its very clear that a large body of people do not want to ‘marry’. This issue has not nothing to do with, and no similarity to, the US and the Democratic Party. Britain is a souveign state and its peoples are capable of independent thought.

  11. Sister Mary Clarence:I’ve been around long enough (it feels like forever) to be cynical and untrusting where gay isues meet politics. I’m not confident that our best interests are served when politicians also look to the other constituencies – especially those that are our enemies.I hope that CP is treated as equally valid as marriage, and there is little YET to show it isn’t. However we’ll wait and see.One exception that I do know is the civil service pension scheme, wherein 12 years of my partner’s survivor pension is being filched because of a loophole. Had I married a woman yesterday she’d entitled to a full widow’s pension on my death, my partner of 30+ years has had his right reduced. This I am pursuing, but you may know that HMTreasury is always loath to part with money. (sorry that was a personal gripe)And SMC, while I do disagree with you on this and maybe other topics, I don’t know your motivation, so can only assume it’s the same as mine: ensuring that things do get better for the LGBT community: a worthy legacy I think

  12. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Jan 2008, 7:13pm

    Sister Mary, which consultation was that you made reference to? It still does not address the fact that many same-sex couples DO want marriage and they should have that right to marry or not marry, ditto for opposite sex couples. If you’re implying that the majority of UK same-sex couples do NOT want marriage at all, where is the evidence for that? Would they have shunned marriage if that were the only vehicle available to afford them their full equality had the government done the right thing and offered them just that, yourself included? The same thinking was in place in Canada when civil unions were enacted several years ago, until an enlightened and progressive labour government realised that such unions were separate and indeed could not be equal to the rest of society by defnition and the vast majority of gay Canadians demanded those rights and won them after much discussion with the then government of Paul Martin, a straight married man.Next, you’ll all be clamouring for different driving licences to separate you from straights, passports, national id cards, etc. Stop speaking for all UK gay and lesbian couples. You do not, you’re in the minority. You can go on posting whatever you like, you’ll never convince most of us that the two are equal. Civil Marriage for your information does not entail any religious component whatosever as well you know it. That canard doesn’t fly and will never justify denying any of us the right to marry if we so choose. I resepct anyone’s right to form a a civil partnership since its all that is currently available, but don’t ever try to brow beat any of us or insinuate that they are equal and that we should not have that right, let alone demand it. Each to his own, live and let live.

  13. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Jan 2008, 7:19pm

    apYrs:.. You quoted….”I hope that CP is treated as equally valid as marriage, and there is little YET to show it isn’t. However we’ll wait and see.One exception that I do know is the civil service pension scheme, wherein 12 years of my partner’s survivor pension is being filched because of a loophole. Had I married a woman yesterday she’d entitled to a full widow’s pension on my death, my partner of 30+ years has had his right reduced. This I am pursuing, but you may know that HMTreasury is always loath to part with money. (sorry that was a personal gripe).”apYrs, until the government defines them as equal to marriage by a parliamentary act, they will NEVER be equal. The government, not matter who is in office would have to merge them into the marriage causes act of 1973 to make that a reality. Until that happens, they will remain what they are, legally recognised partnerships. I have no problem with the terminology as long as they are legally referred to as marriages while retaining the term “civil partnership”.

  14. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Jan 2008, 7:25pm

    apYrs – I raised some time ago the potential issues in relation to the Treasury and furture taxation as a result of civil partnerships. The government did not budget for the high numbers of civil partnerships and there is a lose in tax income as a result of a civil partnership being formed. Small variances are not an isse, but the variance is actually relatively large and the cost implication continues to grow.The government framework document for Civil Partnerships does reference the fact that they are looking at their approach to pensions but I would guess that the Treasury is not in any hurry to lose more money, although ultimately they will have to equalise everything. Just a question of when, which I’m sure doesn’t really make it any less annoying for you at the moment.

  15. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Jan 2008, 7:29pm

    Robert – the government has made it very clear and it is stated in the document I provided a link to that the govenrment intends that they are afforded the same status.I am entirely satisfied with this.I can’t help but feel that you views of civil partnerships may be coloured by those that are springing up in the States which are a completely different model

  16. MarcoMilano 5 Jan 2008, 7:48pm

    Robert,It would be so simple… an Act that says:- The Civil partnership Act 2004 is abolished.- The ZZZ section of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which limits Marriage to opposite sex couples) is cancelled.- All of the civil partnerships are now marriages- The improvement of laws regarding umarried couples, including those who may want to be recognized under a civil solidarity pact is a matter that will soon be resolved by a specific law.Wouldn’t it be great? -

  17. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Jan 2008, 8:48pm

    Sister Mary, my views on marriage equality have nothing to do with what others think in the U.S. or elsewhere. I had often thought about marriage long before most had ever thought about it as far back as the 70s, never realising that one day some countries would allow it,nothing less than that. Say what you will, until I have the right to “marry” someone of the same gender in my own country, I will never be equal. The government can say all it wants about the equality of civil partnerships, that’s all they have said but they have also stated quite categorically that these relationships are NOT marriages, nor will they ever be. The fact remains, it has NEVER gone on record and no such laws exists stating that these partnerships ARE marriages. You and a handful of others may be satisfied with what’s been handed to you, but I don’t accept them as being equal to anything. Let me see them integrated into the marriage causes act and then we’ll have no more discussion about it. Until then, the majority of us around the world will never accept them as equal. Everyone knows they’re not othewise they would NOT be called civil partnerships. How many more times do I have to keep saying this? You can do what you like along with your supporters, but don’t undermine the majority of us around the world who are fighting for FULL and total equality by trying to pass these partnerships off as equal to marriage. The government say they’re not and they’re not. If I can die for my country, spill my blood fighting a war, pay taxes, my rights should be second to none and I should be entitled to the same rights as everybody else, not have some of them set aside from the rest of society.

  18. Robert, ex-pat Brit 5 Jan 2008, 9:02pm

    Marco, yes it would be simple to do but there is no will on the part of the government, gay lobbying groups and the gay populace to go that extra mile. I’m getting so worn out repeating myself, but until the UK government amends the marriage causes act to include these partnernships, nobody here can ever claim that they are equal to a marriage, if they are, then they’re all in denial.

  19. OMAR KUDDUS 6 Jan 2008, 2:43pm

    Bill,It would be a shame if a few people temporarily stopped posting after a while “ because they get the Tory troll ‘treatment’.” I personally hope that many of them return, irrespective of the atmosphere clearing or not and that they’ll stay. For to have a rational debate and not a one sided argument it requires their passion and commitment to equality, if for no other reason to balance out the debate.I would not say that I have turned on them, and it certainly was not my intent to do a “creditable imitation of a nuclear explosion” for I am just whispering at the moment.As I said before, my bite is far worse than my bark (and believe me people will know when they have rubbed me the wrong way) and though passionate about equality and gay rights, I do not let it influence my logic or my motivation nor my arguments, for I have no “hidden” agenda. It is good to see that you even have compassion for those who constantly try and belittle you, ie “ I hope Mother Superior wasn’t burned too badly when it happened to him. No, really, I do”. [01.05.08 – 12:31 am] especially as it seems to be lacking in others!!!!Its more than apparent that Equality means different things to different people, and unlike in the States where one is taught their constitutional rights in High School, in the UK most people are ignorant of their Civil, Parliamentary, Local Government and EU Rights and Laws, and thus accept that things must remain as they are and as individuals they are not allowed to make a difference and have to accept what is on offer to them.The day that this changes and people realise that elected governments are there to serve them, irrespective of their sexuality, is when the situation shall start to change in this country, hopefully for the better of ALL its citizens.

  20. Sister Mary Clarence 6 Jan 2008, 3:07pm

    Omar, I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again, perhaps you’d like to clarify what exactly you mean by “my bite is far worse than my bark (and believe me people will know when they have rubbed me the wrong way)”?Coupled with you wanting me to publish my real name and talking about people getting burned, am I to assume that if I do publish my details on here you’re be exacting some sort of revenge on me?

  21. Socialists *are* reactionaries, Bill.Or rather, they can be as progressive or conservative on social issues like same-sex marriage as you please. The only people who are in their ideology solidly for such progress and treating all people as equal are liberals (in the UK/EU sense not the wishy-washy centrist US sense of the word).In the UK we get that reflected in things like section 28 being abolished in Liberal-Labour coalition Scotland years before repeal in England Wales. Or indeed in the Libs being the only party to actually oppose it from the start.

  22. William - Dublin 6 Jan 2008, 4:33pm

    Omar, “As I said before, my bite is far worse than my bark”? What exactly is that supposed to mean? You’re on a forum. Are we supposed to be intimidated by this statement? We already have Bill Perdue and his lame racist attacks against other countries and nationalities, and your arguments are strong enough without digressing to statements like this which have, pardon the pun, no “bite”.

  23. Robert, ex-pat Brit 6 Jan 2008, 5:44pm

    Omar, you said…”Its more than apparent that Equality means different things to different people, and unlike in the States where one is taught their constitutional rights in High School, in the UK most people are ignorant of their Civil, Parliamentary, Local Government and EU Rights and Laws, and thus accept that things must remain as they are and as individuals they are not allowed to make a difference and have to accept what is on offer to them.The day that this changes and people realise that elected governments are there to serve them, irrespective of their sexuality, is when the situation shall start to change in this country, hopefully for the better of ALL its citizens.”Omar, I very much like what you said and of course, totally agree with you. Keep on doing what you’re doing.

  24. Omar Kuddus 6 Jan 2008, 5:46pm

    Far from it.SMC If you are comfortable behind your alias that is your freedom and choice.As apparently you are unaware of the quotation or saying, ill have to explain apparently, the pun I was having with the words.It means I give as good as I get and can counter any argument with valid statistics and facts. It means that when I get my teeth stuck into an debate I do not let go, until someone proves me wrong or shows me the error of my ways.Please don’t feel threatened, as its not my way or if you do, I suggest you contact the police who are more than welcome to question my motivation and statements, as I have nothing to hide and why I am not afraid to say or revel the TRUTH or my identity. I never stated anything about “people getting burned”, nor did I make any threats or that I would be “ exacting some sort of revenge “ and I would tread carefully on this on, as what you are saying amounts to libel and defamation amongst other things.William, if you go back, I don’t respond normally to anything SMC says because I don’t think it’s a valid argument and the facts distorted. And I think the above answers the question. If you read my comments accurately that says “I would not say that I have turned on them, and it certainly was not my intent to do a “creditable imitation of a nuclear explosion” for I am just whispering at the moment.” “and though passionate about equality and gay rights, I do not let it influence my logic or my motivation nor my arguments, for I have no “hidden” agenda.”Let it be put on record, that if I have offended anyone that is far from the intent, as being a pacifist it is hardly my way, or how a forum or debate should be exercised, as I feel that, as you put it,my ” arguments are strong enough without digressing”. Nor was I trying to “intimidated by this statement”.

  25. Robert, ex-pat Brit 6 Jan 2008, 6:02pm

    Omar, in regard to your comment to Bill,It would be a shame if a few people temporarily stopped posting after a while “ because they get the Tory troll ‘treatment’.” I personally hope that many of them return, irrespective of the atmosphere clearing or not and that they’ll stay. For to have a rational debate and not a one sided argument it requires their passion and commitment to equality, if for no other reason to balance out the debate.Omar, I don’t blame anyone leaving this site especially when some here resort to using foul language against others. If they can’t accept differing views, please or offend, perhaps it is they who should depart. I thought democracy was about the freedom to express and exchange ideas not insult or bully people whose views differ from theirs, even if they are wrong, obviously, people like me are no longer welcome. The message has been received loud and clear.

  26. William Dublin 6 Jan 2008, 6:35pm

    “Let it be put on record, that if I have offended anyone that is far from the intent”Fair enough, Omar.

  27. OMAR KUDDUS 6 Jan 2008, 7:30pm

    William,Fair is fair and as I said it was never my intent and if people cannot read properly and chose to pick selectively what has been said, and draw it out of context there is no debate.We can all do the same all day long and it would get us nowhere.Unlike others I quote accurately and as you, yourself said my, “arguments are strong enough without digressing”.I do not see any public apology however for others statements and misquotations and what can be construed as libel.Robert my point exactly, it would be a shame, and those who feel victimised should not let them for then the culprits has got there desired effect.No one is ever going to scare me off from speaking my mind, for that is exactly what my statutory rights allow me to do.You are in my books more than welcome and as stated what makes it an interesting point, when one can argue the position from ALL angles and those who resort to “foul language against others” are just using bully tactics.For you are correct that democracy is about “the freedom to express and exchange ideas not insult or bully people whose views differ from theirs, even if they are wrong”.I for one would miss your comments and as I find myself in the minority defending what is meant to be equality and freedom of choice, not have an balanced debate.I repeat what said to Bill, “It would be a shame if a few people temporarily stopped posting after a while “ because they get the Tory troll ‘treatment’.” I personally hope that many of them return, irrespective of the atmosphere clearing or not and that they’ll stay. For to have a rational debate and not a one sided argument it requires their passion and commitment to equality, if for no other reason to balance out the debate.”So the message from me, is please, stay. And I am shore that Bill knows himself that I was not having a go at him, either and despite what people say to/about him, has the courage and integrity to see through it all, for in the end the TRUTH always emerges. By the way, has anyone got anywhere with the mysterious Tomas?

  28. Bill Perdue 6 Jan 2008, 9:17pm

    Robert, I hope you stay and that other people slandered and insulted like Shawn of Canada come back. You and I are never going to agree on many things but I think we agree that samesex marriage is a line in the sand. And like many others, I think we agree that diversionary lies and divisive squabbling is bad for democratic discussion, debate and honest disagreement. It’s a waste of time to answer these slurs and insults, but I think that’s the point, if we’re doing that then the losers in the political debate can hide the fact that they lost. And unfortunately think it does drive some good people away when they get the coordinated ‘treatment’ from the same four for five ‘persona’ over and over. If we can find a way to stop the diversions and divisiveness maybe some authentic Tories and more people from Labour, the Lib Dems and others will jump in and we can have real conversations. One reason I like pinknews is that it’s a forum for people from across the EU. As I’ve said before, our movement is nothing if not international. GLBT folk worldwide have more in common with themselves than with others, irrespective of citizenship.

  29. Sister Mary Clarence 6 Jan 2008, 9:21pm

    Omar, firstly take the time to read the link below, in relation to people using their real identities on internet chat sites.It is profoundly stupid to do so and against the recommendations of the police, so please stop asking me or anyone else to do so. Are you able to explain exactly why you want my real identity? What do you propose to do with it when you have it exactly?“….what you are saying amounts to libel and defamation amongst other things”. Any chance you could explain this in relation to the laws of defamation? Are you threatening to take legal action against me for defamation?

  30. Bill Perdue 6 Jan 2008, 9:24pm

    Jen, the meaning of centrist in the US is a basically a fence sitter. It can also mean someone who is moving right or left by not quite there yet. It describes groups who are uncomfortable with the sharply defined ideologies of socialists or trade unionists and their opponents, the conservative defenders of property. Centrists are not always on the side of GLBT equality, although the Liberal Democrats are. There are precious few centrists in US politics. They include the Green Party, the Naderites and a very small centrist group among those who actually run and own the Democratic Party. There’s even a nanogrouplet in the Republican Party. What will shake things up during the next administration is the continued sizeable, rapid left radicalization of people who usually vote Democratic. That’s what will cause some big shifts as the US political landscape continues to splinter and shatter in the next few years. The last time anything of this magnitude happened was during the labor upsurge in the 1930’s and shortly before the Civil War. When I said socialists support GLBT rights I did exclude Stalinists and Maoists who have an abysmal record but even there some changes, very tentative and nothing to get excited about, have occurred. Stalinists and Maoists usually vacillate between accommodation to conservatism and wild eyed ultra left adventures, but as a rule whatever they do is guaranteed to be the wrong thing at the wrong time. These days’ lots of our opponents’ are paying lip service to GLBT rights. Look at the Conservatives. The statement that “The only people who are in their ideology solidly for such progress and treating all people as equal are liberals” is inaccurate if it’s meant to be global. Liberals in Canada mainly fit that description, but they were tardy in adopting it compared to the NDP’s socialist leftwing. In your country the Lib Dems have taken very good positions on GLBT equality, took them before Labour did on and haven’t backed down from them. That’s to be applauded. So is their refusal to get into bed with Cameron’s reactionary party of islamophobia, union busting and pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage. Centrists have often taken very good positions on GLBT equality, but some, like the Irish Greens, when they become part of a ruling coalition, quickly forget their support for same sex marriage. Our movement needs all the help it can get and there are no reasons that all the groups and parties that support same sex marriage, which in many places is becoming the cutting edge of our movement shouldn’t work together.

  31. Bill Perdue 6 Jan 2008, 10:16pm

    Omar. A more blatantly islamophobic concoction of hate filled garbage cannot be imagined. Mother Superior is crying wolf and whining about being persecuted again, which happens every time he uses the Tory troll treatment on someone and they rebut him. And Mother Superior’s proof? Mother Superior cites my sympathy for him when Omar and many others swept her arguments in the only proper receptacle, the garbage can. Mother Superior claims that MY statement that ‘… some just laugh at the trolls or ignore them, and some, like Omar turn on them and do a creditable imitation of a nuclear explosion. I hope Mother Superior wasn’t burned too badly when it happened to him. No, really, I do’ is a threat to exact revenge by Omar. Mother Superior has porridge for brains. Is Mother Superior exhibiting signs of paranoia or engaging in a typical Tory troll slander. Who cares? The use of these tactics is documented on these two English websites which detail the troll tactics of divisiveness and diversion taught by the Conservative Policy Exchange, who in turn learned them from their mentors in the US Republican Party: guid…cessful_02.html arch…_nick_boles.asp In this case Mother Superior, aka Sister Mary Mindless initially did her usual act of belittling and lying including accusations of being of being a wretched foreigner, trying to hijack pinknews, having a personal agenda. It part of the unending stream of lies and slurs by Mother Superior and his faithful alterego Wsilliam, who make them under cover of aliases and fake personas. Fortunately, when they make gross errors like the invention of ‘Tomas’ or this lastet islamophobic attack on Omar Kuddos, they open them selves to the possibility of our being given access to the IP’s of the originating computers. Dense Mother Superior.Stupid on his part but then we’ve seen Sister Mary Brainless playing the fool before. When he invented ‘Tomas’ he didn’t even look at the staff list published on the website of California Equality. When ‘Tomas’ was exposed as a fake he had ‘Tomas’ claim that he was underground, using an alias and quivering in fear. Stupid Mother Superior. And as Sister Mary Clarence continued to write the script for ‘Tomas’ he idiotically forgot that many words are spelled differently in the US and used the spelling common in England. What a dim-wit. What will you have ‘Tomas’ say about that, Sister Mary Ridiculous? Will ‘Tomas’ claim that he writes that way becasue he’s the son of the US Ambassador, or a Rhodes Scholar, or a Cambridge Don on sabbatical with EQCA who’s on the run from a machete wielding radical. Does ‘Tomas’ live on a fantasy western film set, or is it just his script writer being stupid again? I can hardly wait to find out. NOT. Sister Mary Clueless is always stumbling over his lies. I’d be neat if converted and got a job as a Vatican spin doctor. That would be like killing two birds with one stone… OH NO! OMG! What have I done? Now Mother Superior will call the police and tell them I’m threatening her with stoning. And the police will again offer to help Mother Superior get professional help. By the way, no one has any objection to the legitimate or even casual use of nicknames by posters. Some have a genuine need for anonymity and who can blame them with these Tory trolls trawling the blogosphere.

  32. OMAR KUDDUS 6 Jan 2008, 10:20pm

    1.Are you able to explain exactly why you want my real identity? I don’t, and frankly don’t care who you are. An non significant person.The difference is that I am prepared to put my name and reputation on the line for my beliefs and do not thus need to hide behind an alias, as no one who is serious about their beliefs and political standings do.2.What do you propose to do with it when you have it exactly?The above answers that, and I have never asked you or any one else to revile their true identity. Again assumption and misrepresentation, as I have said words to the effect that I don’t hide behind an alias.3.Apparently you seem to be unaware of what does and does not amount to deformation and libel so to put you in the picture; “In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.”Defamation” is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between “slander” and “libel”. Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published.. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.”4. Are you threatening to take legal action against me for defamation?Again, I get the feeling that your grasp of the language is letting you down and you are missreading things that are said.5. If I was “threatening to take legal action against” you, You would be the first to know about it. End of discussion ever with SMC, so post what you like or say what you want, I frankly don’t give a *##+!!$$ as a majority of the people on the site don’t either.

  33. Sister Mary Clarence 6 Jan 2008, 11:36pm

    Omar, why now challenged about it do you not care? You have been very keen on a number of ocassions for me to reveal my true identity. Why?The Times October 18, 2006Man has throat slashed in ‘web rage’Police have warned chat-room users not to include personal details after a poster was tracked downBy Fran Yeoman POLICE warned internet users to protect their real identities after a man was convicted yesterday of Britain’s first “web rage” attack. Paul Gibbons, 47, of Bermondsey, southeast London, attacked John Jones with a pickaxe handle and knife, slitting his throat, after tracing Mr Jones to his house after an argument in an online chat room. Gibbons pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to unlawful wounding yesterday in what police said was the first conviction of its kind. The court was told that Mr Jones, 43, had posted personal details about himself online and used his real name when participating in a Yahoo! chatroom dedicated to Islam, where he met Gibbons. These details allowed Gibbons, who has a string of previous convictions for violence and weapons offences, to locate his victim’s home address in Clacton, Essex, using electoral records. Gibbons, who used the username Pastordevil, argued about Muslims and the war on Iraq with Mr Jones through the chatroom. He then accused the father of three of being a paedophile, and told other chat room users of his plans for revenge. Ibitayo Adebayo, for the prosecution, told the court: “There were exchanges of views between the victim and the defendant, which were threatening on both sides. Certainly there was some hostility.” The lawyer said that on Boxing Day last year Mr Jones asked Gibbons “to attend a place near Tower Bridge in order to sort things out. The victim attended with his sister. The defendant did not.” Gibbons, 47, then arrived at Mr Jones’s house on December 28 carrying a pickaxe handle, together with an unnamed accomplice armed with a machete. “The victim was working on his computer,” Mr Adebayo continued. “His two elder children were just outside playing. His wife was taking a bath and the youngest child was asleep. “The victim heard his name being shouted out outside and he heard a knock on the door.” Mr Jones opened the front door carrying a knife for protection, but was soon pushed to the floor. “There was a scuffle on the landing between this defendant and the victim. The victim ended up on the floor and was beaten with the pickaxe handle,” Mr Adebayo said. Mr Jones tried to protect himself with the knife, but Gibbons managed to take it from him and then attacked Mr Jones with his own blade. During the assault, Mr Jones’s throat was cut from his Adam’s apple to his ear, narrowly missing the jugular vein. Mr Adebayo said that Gibbons told him: “Jones, if you carry on, I will f***ing kill you.” Mr Jones’s wife, Deborah Andrews, emerged from the bathroom and called for help, causing Gibbons to flee. Doctors later noted that Mr Jones had further cuts to his head, neck and hands. Police arrested Gibbons on January 11. They also seized the computer from the flat where he lived alone. It then emerged that he had boasted about his violent plans to another chatroom user called Angie, who has never been identified. On December 23 he wrote: “I am a law-abiding person but I’ll make an exception for Jones.” Another message, sent the day before the attack, read: “He’s going to regret it tomorrow. I’m looking forward to tomorrow.” Hours after the assault, Gibbons, who also used the user names Exudes, Devilishness and Pastordevil-tard-killer, logged on again and told Angie: “I had his knife at his throat. He was screaming in fear. He never stood a chance. Jones was freaked.” He later added: “It went perfectly to plan.” After his guilty plea, Gibbons was remanded in custody by Judge Richard Hawkins, QC, to be sentenced on November 7. He has previous convictions dating from 1975, including for assault and carrying weapons. A charge of the attempted murder of Mr Jones and four charges of online threats to kill four other chat room users were left to lie on the file. Sergeant Jean-Marc Bazzoni, who led the investigation for Essex Police, said his advice was: “Never put personal details on the web if you are using chat rooms. It was easy for Gibbons to track the victims down because he built up a picture of personal details they had let slip. And people need to make sure they know what their children are doing when they are on the internet.”I’ve now sought clarification as to whether you are making threats against me and you appear to threaten me with libel in return and suddenly are no longer interested in who I am, after pestering me repeatedly to find out.I think if I am misunderstanding your words the obvious solution is for you to explain exactly what you mean rather than avoiding questions and cutting and pasting text you have googled from the internet.

  34. Steve (2) 8 Jan 2008, 1:25pm

    omar, i’m quite interested to know why you should be so keen to have SMC’s true identity.everyone using this site should be aware of the dangers of revealing their true identity to anyone else whether on this site or any other. if they aren’t already then they should consider taking steps to inform themselves about those dangers.to be frank i’m very surprised that the editor has not censured you for this in the same way you received a rebuke for publishing a telephone number.

  35. Bill Perdue 10 Jan 2008, 12:40am

    Why would anyone (except Mother Superior) be remotely interested in repeating the absurdly slanderous claims of Mother Superior? Whenever Mother Superior loses a political argument, and he always does because he’s a rightwing Conservative, he mutates into Sister Mary Victim and commences to bleat and whine, claiming that people are out to get him. In reality we just want him to end these childish song and dance routines and stick to politics. But that’s difficult for Conservatives. Most political parties have both strengths and weaknesses – the Conservatives only have weaknesses and that’s why they resort to these whining offensives. Omar did say that he’s out and proud. That is a far cry from asking someone to reveal personal information. From my point of view the less I know about that loser Sister Mary Thatcher the better. Omar said “SMC, if you are comfortable behind your alias that is your freedom and choice.” If I had politics as bad as Sister Mary Clueless I’d hide too. As I said before no one has any objection to the legitimate or even casual use of nicknames by posters. Some have a genuine need for anonymity and who can blame them with these Tory trolls trawling the blogosphere. I’m sure that Omar does will not let this latest example of the ‘treatment’ deflect him for his important work in defending our brothers and sisters in Iran who are threatened with torture and hanging. That’s exactly what Mother Superior cum Steve(2) intend but it won’t work. The rest of us will continue to support Omar’s efforts. By the way, Omar, there have been several GLBT news reports here that the next series of state supported lynchings in Iran will be gays. Do you have any new information on that? And if you haven’t seen it the TUC has an informative story about the ongoing campaign of the ayatollahs against labor leaders in Iran.

  36. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Jan 2008, 11:34am

    Pulling it back to reality Bill, I don’t think the police are advising people to beware of these ‘Tory trolls’ you keep referring to.The case cited in the Times referred to some nutter that got into an argument over Iraq I believe and there is no mention of either the victim, his attacker, the police officer quoted or anyone else voting for the Conservative party. The could potentially all be raving Marxists like your good self.It is interesting that you seem to be in support of Omar asking me for my true identity when an allegation has already been made that you made accusations of paedophilia against individuals when you got hold of their identities on the internet.Interesting too that the link to your elusive website never seems to work and we are therefore unable to find out what dark secrets it holds about you.

  37. Robert, ex-pat Brit 10 Jan 2008, 5:31pm

    Good for Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain and his government. About time our own government had the guts, including Cameron if he’s elected, to have the courage and common decency to do the same with C of E and others. Nice to see a government defending the rights of its people against an institution of bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy.

  38. William - Dublin 10 Jan 2008, 6:38pm

    That fool Bill Perdue STILL thinks I’m you, Sister Mary. And another blah blah rant about him and his pet hates. He’s a brave man for one so dull and with such a proven track record for racism. So, for all you new comers here, anyone who doesn’t agree with Bill’s dull rhetoric, is (1) A “tory troll” (regardless of your political or national identity) and (2) the same person i.e. Sister Mary/Luke/Steve/etcHmmm. Bill forgot to take his Ritalin again, hasn’t he? He should buy a map… he seems to have all the geographical knowledge of a blind lemming. Ireland is England being the same in his mind and the like. How sad to be THAT dumb.Okay, Bill, I know your degrees are fake, so I’ll keep this simple. (1) Not everyone who thinks your a complete tit is actually Sister Mary. Occam’s Razor would indicate that you ARE a tit and everyone dislikes you because your a bully, and idiot and a filthy racist. There are simply too many of us here who think that to be one person. QED.(2) There is NO tory party in the Republic of Ireland, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence would know that.(3) You’re a racist, so no one really takes you seriously.Now run along and find yourself a real education, Bill O’Fool…

  39. Thank you William. That was very well said. Mr Perdue is so obviously wrapped up in his fantasy world that he can’t imagine people could have an opinion without being alligned to a political party. It is possible Bill. Now just to clariy: I live on the other side of the world and am NOT SMC, et al. I am not a Tory, Republican or with any other political party that you choose to spout about. Those parties don’t even exist in my country so please keep your dilusions to yourself. Yes I am using an alias to protect my identity. No I am not scared, nor do I have anything to hide, and no I’m not afraid to stand by my convictions; however I do wish to protect against my details being used – ever heard of identity theft Bill/Omar? You are both being repugnant by using bullying tactics to suggest people should be as brave (read STUPID) as yourselves and publish their real names.

  40. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Jan 2008, 10:13pm

    Thank you William/Leilah – although Leilah, you do of course realise that you will in fact now be me, or I will in fact be you, which ever way round it is.None of your protestations about not being a Tory will have been absorbed in any way shape or form. The mere fact that you have uttered the word will be damning proof that you are the love child of Margaret Thatcher and a true blue through and through.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all