Is Trevor Phillips implying that Joel Edwards simply didn’t know the Evangelical Alliance was homophobic or that he’s had a sudden change of heart?
Either way, I’d like to see some evidence of this, as it sounds like so much politically expedient hogwash to me.
It seems totally incomprehensible that a man such as Edwards has been able to infiltrate an organisation such as this, which has a remit to stand up for full equality for everyone regardless of…….. and so on.
Perhaps his views will eventually change thanks to gay people telling their stories or having adequate and honest representation; we’ll be seen then not as ogres and pedos. but as sensitive, loveable and witty human beings equally acknowledged as being children of the same God.
I think Trevor Phillips’ acknowledged “failure to understand” the viewpoints of LGBT people suggest he is not up to the job of chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I mean, how on earth could he ever have thought that the appointment of an anti-gay evangelical leader was appropriate?
Observe the heterophobic venom here!
Vee . . . I do not remember any one mentioning that they hate heterosexuals . . . only Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians
Any ideas why we might not like the latter?
“Observe the heterophobic venom here!”
My parents heterosexual. I love them to pieces. Please grow up!
Its the Evangelicals aim to position themselves in positions of power and influence. They have a fair few prospective candidates for political seats as MPs for the next general election as candidates for the main parties.
Too late came the cry!
Or rather, Trevor Phillips admission of his own appalling failure of leadership and integrity.
As a black man, he should have been able to recognize that there’s no essential difference between racists seeking to denying Black or Jewish people full and equal citizenship in a democracy, and religious cultists who seek to deny LGBT people equal rights.
Trevor Phillips — what a dope! :-(
Why comes this admission (confession) now ? Trevor Phillips will soon make more troubles for LGBT people. I guess.
I love the fact that world is binary and that if one thing is false it cannot be true at the same time. If I am a holophote ( a hater of sunlight) I cannot also be a heliophile; or if I am a homilophobe ( hater of sermons) I cannot also be a homilophile and so on.
Jesus said “”No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other….”
I am a heterophile : I love complementary difference, I cannot therefore be a heterophobe, someone who hates complementarity, neither can I be a homophile, someone who loves, accepts or believes that everything is the same, or equivalent. I am in fact a homophobe, someone who not only has a fear of what homophilia leads to for our children but also an implacable hatred for it because it stands against the truth that marriage is only between complementarities, a man and a woman.
In contradiction to this homophiles, lovers of sameness or equivalence cannot a accept the truth that marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex.
One other example: if you are a lover of the freedom to express your personal views, even if this causes offence to others you cannot at the same time be someone who hates freedom of speech and would silence others with whom you disagree.
Sir Trevor Philips, admirably demonstrates this inability to hold two opposing, antithetical, or antipathetic views at the same time for In the Times, February 26th 2006, he said
….“non-Muslims must also accept the right of imams to denounce homosexuality in a way that many would find offensive.
“One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is…………”
“That’s why freedom of expression — including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful — is absolutely precious.” ‘
Yet in the following year, In the Pink News October 18 2007, Sir Trevor said:
“Let me put it as crudely as I can do it as a public official. If somebody is guilty of discrimination of any kind, and with sexual orientation we usually know what it’s about with sneering and contempt and all the rest of it, we want them not to be just be punished by the court but frankly to feel the contempt and hatred that they have visited on other people.
“They can argue what they like, but there’s a law now and frankly if these people want generally to pose as they often do as the decent and moral people in the community, perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.
“As far as I’m concerned there isn’t a conflict here.
“There is a law. Your faith does not protect you. I understand what you are asking me but to be perfectly honest I haven’t
got time for it. If people want to use in my view, the mantle of faith to be bigots, I’m not buying it.”
Trevor Phillips is a double minded man just like Straw who said on the Today Programme, 4 November 1998:
“I’m not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies. Children, in my judgement, and I think it’s the judgement of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There’s no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not.”
He also has jumped ship.
I cannot be both a heterophile and a homophile. I must choose one or other. I cannot love complementarity and antitheses and at the same time love equivalence and loss of antithesis. I cannot love that which is true and at the same time love that which is a lie.
It gives me the greatest of pleasure to announce that being a heterophile I am an outed and implacable homophobe.
Could someone please translate David Skinner’s drivel for me? On second thoughts, never mind. He is obviously a complete nut job. Oh, and sorry the world is NOT simply “binary”.
Off topic, and with regard to the thread begun on 7 May re. the Gallup-Coexist Poll that found that UK-Muslims have “zero tolerance” of homosexuality (see pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12321.html#).
This is to advise readers that I followed the above thread with interest, particularly the refusal by a small minority of PinkNews posters to believe the finding that the average Muslim person in the UK has no tolerance of homosexuality.
Some people said that the Poll was poorly conducted because it was conducted by a group (The Coexist Foundation) that has no skill in conducting valid surveys.
Consequently I decided that I would write to Coexist and question them as to the methods used.
I have today received the following reply from their Coordinator. She advises that Coexist had no part in the conducting of the actual survey. The survey was carried out by Gallup, experts in their field.
The letter reads:
“I should clarify that the Coexist Foundation has had no involvement in the design or the analysis of the polling data. This is exclusively Gallup’s work – what we have done, in our partnership with them, is to help disseminate the findings so that the public can have a better sense of what Muslims believe – rather than what politicians, pundits and other self-appointed spokespeople would have them believe! In Gallup’s words, the aim of this process is to “democratise the debate” and allow a voice for ordinary people…
If you are interested in finding out more about Gallup’s work, might I point you to ?
All good wishes, and thank you again for taking the trouble to write.
Coordinator, The Coexist Foundation
17-19 Bedford Street
London WC2E 9HP”
I think Mr Skinner is speaking of classical antithesis rather than Hegelian synthesis. Well, thats what I thought before I dosed off……;)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others (as usual)
I think Mr Skinner is speaking of classical antithesis rather than Hegelian synthesis. Well, thats what I thought before I dosed off……;”
– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Mr Skinner only has one binary logic, . . . . classical antithesis, he should be so lucky. I agree, he negates away but he is incapable of allowing any form of differentiation to emerge from the antithetical positions he postulates.
Synthesis . . . we should be so lucky
Phillips is a man that just likes the sound of his own voice, and loves to evoke controversy just to keep his name in the news. The man is a twat of the highest order, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this whole incident was stage-managed because he hasn’t been in the papers for a few weeks.
As for equality and rights, that is a joke. Who says my rights are more important than anyone elses? That a religious status is below a race or sexuality? That some people really shouldn’t even have rights: (Like the burglar that cuts his hands on your window as he broke in). Yet more bureaucratic time-wasting piffle that costs the taxpayer a fortune.
John K, I have just explained why, in response to Vee (4) that homophiles cannot help but hate heterophilia.
The homophile denies antithesis which obliterates the distinction between man and woman. There is no room in the mind of the homophile for the existence of heterophilia; homophilia and heterophilia are mutually antipathetic. You either believe in difference or you don’t. For the homophile, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creatiion is to be fought against – including male- female distinctions.
The heterophiles back in the 60s naively thought that in the name of tolerance they would accept homophilia, little realising that within decades the homophile, using the laws of equivalence would gain ascendancy and dominate the heterophile. The homophile is now intolerant and discriminatory towards the heterophile. He or she has to be for both cannot co-exist. This might explain why many who at present are heterosexual but who think in terms Hegelian synthesis may well also become homosexual. Hegelian grooming of children will most certainly result in an increase in the LGBT population, not through nature but through nurture, through the pressure to conform. This is also why to be consistent with his Marxist world view he will not be able tolerate Joel Edwards as a commissioner of Equivalence and Homophile Rights. He must go.
The tensions that we presently see within British society are being played out in government. The battle is essentially not between left and right but a battle between two world views that cannot co-exist. If the Hegelian view wins and overthrows that of the Christian, society will inevitably collapse, enabling Islam to fill the vacuum and re-establish a system based on classical antithesis, but at great cost, especially for the homophile.
David Skinner wrote
“I have just explained why, in response to Vee (4) that homophiles cannot help but hate heterophilia.”
You have not differentiated the nature of the hate
David Skinner wrote
“The homophile denies antithesis which obliterates the distinction between man and woman. There is no room in the mind of the homophile for the existence of heterophilia; homophilia and heterophilia are mutually antipathetic.”
You do not differentiate any onto-epistemological position from which you base your theory of the homophiles denial of antithesis
David Skinner wrote
“The heterophiles back in the 60s naively thought that in the name of tolerance they would accept homophilia, little realising that within decades the homophile, using the laws of equivalence would gain ascendancy and dominate the heterophile.”
You do not differentiate how the homophile is dominating the heterphile
David Skinner wrote
“This might explain why many who at present are heterosexual but who think in terms Hegelian synthesis may well also become homosexual. Hegelian grooming of children will most certainly result in an increase in the LGBT population.”
Synthesis from a Hegelian perspective is a process, not a body of thought or practice; neither is it some form of contemporary pedagogy.
You fail to understand Hegelian philosophy.
There is no logic or reason to your theories . . . and because of this it is reasonable for me to assume that they are simply based on paranoia
People with hatred in their hearts and bad bad intentions will say they speak in love and will move in unsuspected circles to get to the top just to crush their hated objective.
I hope for your sake and all our sakes John, that it is paranoia. But the fact that it is not a body of thought or pedagogy as you say, more a process, explains why the general population is unable to articulate what they believe regarding existence, morals and epistemology. They are helpless except to follow the flow and this produces paralysis of thought and fatalism. The fact that 70 teenagers were violently killed last year, or the fact that the BT-backed charity ChildLine says it counselled more children for sexual abuse last year than at any other time in its 22-year history, or the fact that the number of suicidal children counselled by ChildLine has tripled in the last five years to an average of nearly 60 a week, or the fact that marriage and family life if disintegrating, or the fact that 200,000 thousand babies were aborted last year …..I could go on and on… These facts make Trevor Phillips Equality and Human Rights Commission a total irrelevance and probably an extremely expensive one at that.
David Skinner wrote
“The tensions that we presently see within British society are being played out in government. The battle is essentially not between left and right but a battle between two world views that cannot co-exist. If the Hegelian view wins and overthrows that of the Christian, society will inevitably collapse, enabling Islam to fill the vacuum and re-establish a system based on classical antithesis, but at great cost, especially for the homophile.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
Hegelian Philosophy is larger a comment on process, it is not a process in its self.
“The spirit of the age”(In the Hegelian sense) . . . this is not something any one person, group or society can have control of or over.
In other words it is the . . . The Zeitgeist
Or more simply . . . What will be will be.
David Skinner wrote:
“I hope for your sake and all our sakes John, that it is paranoia.
But the fact that it is not a body of thought or pedagogy as you say, more a process, explains why the general population is unable to articulate what they believe regarding existence, morals and epistemology. They are helpless except to follow the flow and this produces paralysis of thought and fatalism.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
This is where I agree with you . . . helplessness, paralysis of thought and fatalism, very destructive to growth and development. . . . and perhaps being more aware of these processes might help people to recognise what is happing to them. . . and hopefully allow them to recognise they have choices.
Must go to bed
John, as I have said before very few of us have boned up on Hegelian differentiation or have any desire to; that is where you have the advantage over us, if that is what one can call it. . However your two statements below are perplexing to me. If a group or society has neither the will, ability or even time to understand a process , the zeitgeist, which in the final analysis cannot be communicated through words, since the language that we use today belongs to a dead age that used to think in terms of absolutes and antithesis, how will they become more aware of the process, recognise what is happening and thus be able to make choices?
The zeigeist will surely decide for them . Like swallows swarming we will simply follow the consensus of opinion. We will all be wired up to a central computer and whatever at any second is the consensus, it this that will rule. Or rather it is those at the central committee who will control the computer, the elitists, the party bosses, like the Eagle twins, Maria and Angela and Trevor who as I have shown above will change his tune according to the consensus of opinion.
Our society is paralysed and to optimistically think that somehow people will make choices is pie in the sky. Already in the current political crisis people are talking of relinquishing their choices by not voting in the next general election. As you say they will simply say “Qu’est sera sera. It is no co-incidence that people have a death wish; suicide is on the increase and government is debating legalising euthanasia that will inevitably lead to compulsory euthanasia. Mass abortion as one end, mass suicide at the other end and the walking dead in the middle.
You speak of the “Spirit of the Age” but how can you, a materialist, talk of a spiritual dimension operating in the universe? I doubt very much that you live your life consistently as a materialist but are constantly searching for that which is not yet. A materialist is content with life as it is: “ Here I am sitting, eating this food and that is all there is to existence.” But human nature shows it to be constantly restless, constantly trying to satisfy a spiritual hunger.
(37) “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
1 Corinthians 13
(1) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (2) If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (3) If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
(4) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. (5) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (6) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (7) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
You David Skinner are a man without love however much you shout and try and earn your salvation by being a zealot. You fall down at the most fundamental point of Christianity LOVE. The more you judge us according to the bible the more judgement you bring on your own head.
You are dressing up your own bigotry as religion Skinner get a life.
David Skinner: You don’t half spout a lot of rot.
David identifies as a heterophile -nothing wrong with that, but that doesn’t mean he has to be a homophobe. We can’t control who we love, but we can choose not to hate.
David is also severely limited in his view of reality, no way is the world binary. If he met me he would see a woman who is married to a man and think I’m like him – heterosexual/ heterophilic. But in reality I’m a homophilic pansexual genderqueer person with a straight but tolerant and nonhomophobic male partner. How does that fit your paradigm David?
Sounds like a pretty queer paradigm to me!
David Skinner wrote
“You speak of the “Spirit of the Age” but how can you, a materialist, talk of a spiritual dimension operating in the universe?”
I have never said I am a materialist
I have never said anything about whether or not I have spiritual or religious beliefs.
You have made two assumptions about me . . . ?
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
David skinner wrote
“I doubt very much that you live your life consistently as a materialist but are constantly searching for that which is not yet. A materialist is content with life as it is: “ Here I am sitting, eating this food and that is all there is to existence.” But human nature shows it to be constantly restless, constantly trying to satisfy a spiritual hunger.”
I agree with you to some extent . . .
“spiritual hunger” as you put it, which I would prefer to call the bigger picture. . . I would say can be satisfied in many ways and not necessarily through organised religion or spiritual systems.
Although I agree that some organised religious and spiritual systems seem to work for some people.
“Sounds like a pretty queer paradigm to me!”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Where you using the term queer as a term of abuse,
or queer as a body of critical thought as in queer theory.
Email the Equality and Human Rights commission to tell then whgat you think of Phillips comments. Edwards is still on the commission. That is unacceptable:
Their address is : firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,
I read today that Trevor Phillips has acknowledged the anger felt by LGBT groups at the appointment of Evangelical leader and gay rights critic Joel Edwards to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
While I am glad that Edwards has resigned from the viciously hateful and bigotted Evangelical Alliance I am not convinced that he is a suitable person to be on the EHRC.
Does Edwards still hold facist opinions about homosexuality and gay people? Has he apologised to the gay community for his support of a facist organisation like the Evangelical Alliance. And has he condemned homophobia (whether or not religion allows homophobia)?
While these very serious questions remain about Edwards and his very recent support for a facist organisation like the Evangelical Alliance I fail to see how the EHRC can inspire any trust in the gay community.
Edwards membership of the EHRC is no different to a former leader of the BNP being part of the EHRC. His presence in the EHRC delegitimises your organisation.
Equality is obviously not equal in this sense. Does anyone actually trust Trevor Phillips, or is his position of supposed support on LGBT issues simply a political smokescreen?
His previous work seems to be simply provactive for political fame or reward, and pretty much biased towards race equality issues. Race equality campaigners are generally not sympathetic to LGBT as they favour ethnic conservatism.
I don’t trust him, personally, to support LGBT rights for us.
Trevour Phillips is a sleezy friend of sleezy politisions, he’s not to be trusted.