Reader comments · Gay hate preacher Stephen Green to air views in Channel 4 documentary · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay hate preacher Stephen Green to air views in Channel 4 documentary

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I hate this crap!

    Why is Channel 4 giving this deluded religious extremist an equal platform with an anti-homophobic person? I doubt they would, for example, offer a white supremacist equal platform to an anti-racism activist.

  2. this is depressing…

  3. Normal Human 30 Jul 2010, 12:29pm

    “an Imam who says the Koran is evidence that men and women were created to be heterosexual.” Silly twat! Is my Beano evidence that Dennis the Menace (pbuh) was created to be slippered? Fiction isn’t evidence of anything.

  4. “When asked whether racist views would be given similar airtime, she said he would share his programme with a pro-gay Christian cleric.”

    Huh? That doesn’t answer the question! Come on, Channel 4! Will you be giving airtime to racists? If not, why not? And how about anti-Semites? No? Why not let them talk about their “different perspectives”, eh?


    Contact Channel 4 to complain at the URL above.

    It is unacceptable to give a platform to a homophobe unless they are also willing to give platforms to racists

  6. Deeside Will 30 Jul 2010, 12:46pm

    I just love the jargon used by the anti-gay lobby, don’t you?

    “promoting sodomy to children” = letting it be known that some people – even rugby players – are gay, and so what?

    “homosexualisation of British society” = more and more people fail to see any reason to get screwed up about homosexuality, prefer just to get on with their lives, and regard people like Stephen Green as a boring nuisance

  7. My complaint to C4: “I am very disappointed and to be honest depressed by the news that you will be giving a platform to Stephen Green (the director of Christian Voice). This man doesn’t speak for anybody but himself (I defy you to find a definite and proven figure for the membership of his organisation). He has no legitimacy and he should not be given access to prime time television…

  8. part2: The same goes for ex-gay missionaries whose viewws have been discredited by all major reputable psychological and medical organisation

  9. part3: I am sure you would (justly) not stooped to give airtime to a white supremacist claiming that black people are inferior to white people,

  10. Filed by complaint to C4.

    Suggest everyone else do the same, they can either have a show where they air ALL bigoted views and interview white supremacists, anti-sematists, sexists and homophobes balancing these out with pro-views OR they can stop offering a platform to only one type of hate. Debate is fine, but not when you only allow it to target a certain social group just because its deemed less controversial to hold anti-views against it -_-

  11. I wonder if it’s more to the point to ask C4 whether or not they would allow air time to express strong anti-religious views…

    But in this case, it may not be a bad thing to show the wider public the sort of insanity that underlies the reasioning of Green and the other homophobic religious nutters out there. No-one is likely to be convinced by them, who is not already convinced.

    Let him and the others speak and then slam them with criminal complaints to the police, if what they say oversteps the mark.

    Hoist them by their own petards.


  12. While I despise the bigoted Stephen Green as much as anyone, I think it is fair enough to point out on TV that such people exist, and to examine their bigoted views for all to see. In fact it could be a very useful warning. However, it strikes me that Channel 4’s format for this exercise is utterly wrong-headed. What they seem to be doing is having a series of five minute segments (presumably one a day for a whole week), during each of which they present two radically contrasting views on the subject. That’s a reasonable format for some things, i.e. issues where there genuinely ARE two valid points of view, and the truth of the matter is unclear enough or complex enough that the negotiations of the general public between those two views are as good as any in settling the question. Two things it is NOT a good format for are a) settled moral issues where there is one, obvious, overwhelmingly strong case and one feeble, pathetic, unbearably weak one, and b) examinations of culture, fiction and myth, which are by their very natures far from binary. This whole topic – the views of the religious on homosexuality – falls under both headings, since there is still a widespread erroneous belief that religion has some special contribution to make to the science of morality, and TV producers do very little to challenge this view.

    We wouldn’t make a documentary about the Rwandan genocides by screening five five-minute programmes, each of which has a Hutu militiaman arguing that all Tutsi people should be killed followed by a Tutsi fighter arguing that all Hutus should be killed. We wouldn’t do a series about Greek myths as five five-minute programmes, each presenting first one version of the myth, then the other, and inviting the audience to determine for themselves which is the “true” version that actually happened.

    Basically the upshot of choosing this format will be that Channel 4 are implicitly endorsing homophobic bigotry as a legitimate viewpoint, but only for a specially privileged section of society that believes in bronze-age fairytales. At the very least there should be a strong and visible editorial condemnation of the bigots before or after every programme.

  13. Mumbo Jumbo 30 Jul 2010, 1:20pm

    You can comment on the Stephen Green episode here:

    And on the other episodes here:

    It would be rude not to.

  14. “According to promotional materials, the seven speakers shown this week will offer “radically different perspectives on homosexuality and sin”, including advocating the belief that God can cure homosexuality.”

    God can cure homosexuality of what?

    Of Mr Green “He will also argue that there has been a “homosexualisation” of British society and that gay people are destructive.”

    This sounds very much like hate speech to me, trying to rouse people up to hate homosexuals.

  15. It’s called free speech people – exposing bigots for what they are does not necessarily legitimise their views. Putting Nick Griffin on Question Time did nothing to enhance voting for BNP at the General Election, quite the reverse in fact. Religious tolerance and homosexuality is a topical subject and showing the extremes of view points should encourage debate.
    Wasn’t that long ago that any education around gay issues would have been shouted down for similar reasons being quoted here.
    To quote the old adage: “I may not like what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it”.

  16. “That’s a reasonable format for some things, i.e. issues where there genuinely ARE two valid points of view”

    The problem is, who decides what counts as a ‘valid’ viewpoint on the matter. Surely that is part of the controversy. We should have open debate. Sunlight is the best exposure to bigots.

    I think that there is a double standard in operation here, though. As people have said, would channel 4 dream of allowing air time for a white supremacist?

  17. Free speech? Nick Griffin was exposed by DEBATE, probing of his views, and ridicule, on Question Time. He was forced to explain his views and answer questions.

    These morons are giving MONOLOGUES, in which they can say what they like unchallenged.

  18. I’ve just contacted Channel 4, let’s see if they bother to respond.

  19. We need to take action asap – Channel 4 will not be allowed to get away with this. This is what we can do:

    “How do I contact the Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries Team?

    Your comments are important to us, so if you want to pass on your appreciation, have an enquiry, want to make a complaint, or need to let us know about a problem with your reception, you can contact Viewer Enquiries as follows:

    Phone: 0845 076 0191 (lo-call number)

    We’re open from 9am – 9pm Monday to Friday , 10am – 7pm on weekends”

  20. Archhomophobe Stephen Green given air time? pass the sick bag.

    Ok, so now let’s see Channel4 give a pro-gay Christian an immediate rebuttal slot. How about Archbish’ Des Tutu or UK counterpart for instance. Or, quelle horruer Ms Bin-Laden, there must be a pro-gay Muslim somewhere?

  21. By the way, could we complain to Ofcom? Or, does the programme have to be aired before we are able to do that?

    I’m thinking that we could refer to the hateful comments Christian Voice have made in the past regarding gay people and homosexuality.

  22. Perhaps he gets the horn whenever he thinks about gays and as he’s become so messed up by his perverted version of religious superstition that the guilt he feels drives him to overcompensate by haranguing gays at every opportunity…I mean what else could it be?
    Is he haranguing adulterers for the adulterisation of British society and saying that adulterers are destructive? seems he is fixated on the topic of homosexuality and viewed through the focussing lens of his madness it must seem that the whole of Britain is having a wonderful gay old time…everyone except him of course.

  23. @Pavlos

    I agree. He is like the British version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

  24. A much greater concern is that TV channels (the BBC in particular) will be giving the Pope a very warm welcome when he arrives here in Britain. Mark Thompson would insist on it.

  25. VP: “a) settled moral issues where there is one, obvious, overwhelmingly strong case and one feeble, pathetic, unbearably weak one…”

    Well put. I was thinking about it over lunch and it reminds me of that awful Have Your Say on the BBC News site which seemed to think that the despicable proposed anti-gay legislation in Uganda was a reasonable thing to discuss (‘Hey, what do you think about killing gays, everyone?”)

    Stephen Green is entitled to his opinions, but I don’t see why he should be given airtime any more than some rabid member of the general public who holds offensive views. It legitimises his view point, and that’s wrong.

    Just because he hides behind religion, it doesn’t make his views less horrible nor gives them any more weight. Religion was used to justify slavery and racism, but we don’t let people use their faith to promote racist views or suggest that slavery should be re-introduced.

  26. Complaint to C4:
    I am bewildered by C4’s selection of Stephen Green to appear in the discussion on religious perspectives on homosexuality. Mr Green, whose obsessive and bigoted views are well known, represents only the tiniest section of Christian opinion. Homophobia is the only kind of hate speech for which extremists are routinely provided with a platform in the name of ‘balance’. The right to free speech does not guarantee media coverage; like all media outlets, C4 selects its contributors carefully, and presumably aims to pick those who have something to contribute to public discourse. Mr Green, whose opinions include support for the Ugandan ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill, which would mandate the death penalty for repeated homosexual conduct, has nothing to contribute but misinformation and hatred, and speaks for almost no-one in the UK but himself. C4 needs to be a lot more careful that its homophobic contributors pass the National Front test – would you give airtime to a contributor as racist as this one is homophobic? Mr Green’s inclusion by C4 is distressing to many and his participation cheapens the very real and sincere debate being conducted among people of faith. This was lazy research and poor judgement by a channel of which we expect better.

  27. This is complete nonsense; why on earth put religion on a programme called 4THOUGHT?? religion should not be an excuse to be nasty and feel justified in doing it; it doesn’t validate good behaviour or bad behaviour. Would you have a show on how the universe began contain some idiot reading from a ‘holy’ book? No, because it’s complete twaddle – this is c4 trying to perpetuate the myth that we should care either way what religionists ‘think’ ! We no longer need these nutters’ approval and this bollox would be better placed in a programme about why people believe rubbish rather than one on gay people! They don’t like gay people because they just don’t, the justify their view through religion because they’re thick.

  28. Complaint to Channel 4:
    “Dear Sirs,

    I would like to make a complaint regarding your decision to offer Stephen Green (of the group Christian Voice) a platform to promote his bigoted views about gay people and homosexuality. Christian Voice have previously described gay people as ‘objectively disordered’, an ‘abomination’ and ‘perverted’. What is more, Mr Green recently voiced his support for the infamous Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would punish ‘aggravated’ homosexuality with execution. Clearly, this man does not represent the views of the vast majority of Christians in the United Kingdom. In fact, his views views constitute incitement to hatred and violence.

    The truth is that would never allow a white supremacist or Holocaust-denier to express their views in a ‘balanced’ debate, would they? So why, in 2010, are homophobes being given equal platform to express their views in a ‘balanced’ debate about homosexuality? Is there a debate to be had in this day and age in Britain? Have we not moved passed this? Please do nto defend this on the grounds of free speech. It has nothing to do with free speech! Stephen Green and his fringe organisation have the right to express their views freely. No one, however, has a ‘right’ to go on Channel 4. Yet, you are voluntarily giving this religious extremist an equal platform.

    If the broadcast goes ahead expect numerous complaints to Ofcom and the Metropolitan Police Service.”

  29. Complaint duly maid to C4.

  30. Oops meant made!

  31. Who cares what these people think? Give him enough rope!

  32. Do you honestly think that Channel 4 will care if you complain to them or Ofcom? They live for controversy, it’s the only way their crappy shows get viewers!

  33. Mihangel apYrs 30 Jul 2010, 4:23pm

    “When asked whether racist views would be given similar airtime, she said he would share his programme with a pro-gay Christian cleric….”

    So that means: no the wouldn’t air a racist. Oh C4, moral relativism isn’t ethical!

  34. Mihangel apYrs 30 Jul 2010, 4:36pm

    Voltaire’s aphorism has gained a lot of currency, and superficially is attractive. But must we defend to the death the rights of speech that calls for our extermination? If not it means that the sentiment is relative, and thus dependant upon opinion.

    I will make clear, I do not defend the “free speech” of someone who seeks my subjugation

  35. George Broadhead, PTT 30 Jul 2010, 4:40pm

    VP writes: “there is still a widespread erroneous belief that religion has some special contribution to make to the science of morality, and TV producers do very little to challenge this view.”

    TV producers not only do very little to challenge this view, they actively encourage it which is why God-botherers are routinely trotted out to give their opinion on any moral issues that crop up in the news, and of course this applies to radio as well which is why ‘Thought for the Day’ on Radio 4 is reserved exclusively for religionists of one sort or another.

  36. boycott c4 it’s all sh@t anyway.

  37. Dean – But Desperate Housewives was on C4 – Shame on you!

  38. so him and others will get the chance to push their evil with no opposition and C4 is meant to be better then that! stupid bloody channel! it’s so laughable that many don’t see how much circular logic there is to say it’s from a book so it must be true – Doctor Who must be true based on that crappy idea

  39. BouncerMan in Black 30 Jul 2010, 5:06pm

    Stephen darling; I pray your brakes fail when your going down hill, I pray a flower pot falls from the window sill and knocks you on the head to remove your evil thoughts and memories. I pray that your birthday comes and nobody calls you, I pray your flying High when your engine stalls; just to let you know honey that wherever you are – I pray for you!!!

  40. What exactly is the problem here? One half says the man doesn’t have the right to say his piece, and the other that the debate is one sided anyway.

    I am proud of this countries ability to allow freedom of speech and open debate. The day we start banning them is the day we become a police state.

    As usual, people love democratic decisions as long as it’s in their favour. What are you all so frightened about? If this man is so wrong, and so abhorrent, surely people are capable of figuring that fact out for themselves. Do you seriously think that this man’s ridiculously warped attitude is actually going to change someone’s mind? If you do, you obviously haven’t got much courage in your own convictions.

    Let the man talk, and hopefully others will see the sort of homophobic fcukwits we are up against. He is actually doing us a favour, because he can only reinforce our existing standpoint that we are being persecuted for no other reason than “The Bible says so”.

  41. Watch it, listen to it carefully – and if there are grounds for reporting his content to the Police as a Hate Crime or Incident, then DO SO! Should be interesting if there are police complaints literally all over the UK … and much more effective than name-calling on this site!

  42. Disgusting.

    You Brits are too naive.

    There is a clear resurgence of religion and homophobia in Europe in general and in the UK in particular.

    If you don’t start opposing this madness now you can kiss your hard-fought, newly acquired freedoms goodbye.

    Wake Up!!!!!

  43. @36
    “I will make clear, I do not defend the “free speech” of someone who seeks my subjugation”

    Hear!hear! Mihangel

  44. The fact he will probably be homosexual himself is all the more insulting.

  45. @Andy AS

    Which laws could we rely on in this regard?

  46. Incidentally, do you know he’s also campaigning for the legalisation of rape within marriage? (all on his website) According to him, no matter how drunk, diseased or mad your husband is, whether you are ill, or have just given birth – there are no circumstances in which you can refuse him sex.

    Hmm. Wedded heterosexual bliss Chez Green.

  47. Disgusting. There is no debate on homosexuality. What are CH4 playing at? At least we know CH4 are not on our side.

  48. I wouldn’t say that Ch4 are habitual offenders on this score unlike the Beeb, usually their output celebrates diversity.
    But giving this egit airspace without someone to challenge his views is like giving airtime to the Nuremburg rally minus the historical context, or setting aside a 5 minute slot for Westboro Baptists “God hates Fags” broadcast without an editorial response.
    Just as I don’t believe in blanket repression of freedom of speech, I also don’t believe in the unchallenged expression of hatespeech. Once freedom flips over into the freedom to denegrate entire minority groups and advocate sending them to the gulags, it’s a responsibility of everyone else to tell Stephen Green where to get off.
    Fortunately most people flip channels during these 5 minute community segments at the end of C4 news as they tend to be boring public access dross.
    To paraphrase Voltaire “I defend to the death your right to give Stephen Green a good hard kick in the nuts.”

  49. If he accused me of promoting sodomy, I would sue. As he well knows, the sin of Sodom, as told in the Bible, was that a male visitor (in fact an ‘angel’) to the town was in danger, because most of the men of the town ganged up to rape him. One man gave him safety by offering his daughter to be gang-raped instead, which the text commends. I don’t know if Green has any daughters, but if I were one I’d get out pretty damn quick.

    Also, by the look of him he wears poly-cotton shirts, expressly forbidden in the Bible.

    And who, given the pressures on time today, is going to be watching Channel 4 at precisely 7.55 five evenings in a row? It just shows how up their own arses broadcasters are that they think that putting out these five programmes constitutes balance.

  50. It’s Stephen Green and hate-filled people like him who damage the lives of young gay people like X Factors Joe McElderry, and make it much more difficult for thousands of other young gay people going through a vulnerable time of their lives when they could be driven to desperate measures and even suicide by hate preachers like Green.
    This man is probably severely mentally ill and as such deserves to be pitied but he does not deserve to be given airtime to spout his lunatic and dangerous imaginings and ravings to a wider audience.
    Homosexuality is not a moral issue it is a normal sexual orientation…where’s the debate Channel 4?

  51. @Jay, Ratings, ratings, ratings. Well, isn’t that all is important to television companies now? Switch off the television, and do something more important. If they are giving hate time to ‘peaceful religions’ shouldn’t they be giving bile time equally to the BNP?

    These extremities, including Mr. Green only tend to speak with a polarised toxic tongue as their belief is that life should be black and white, no greys, no ifs, no buts, just compassion and love for a fellow human being.

  52. Why do we have to go through this crap time and time again – This ‘preacher’ will destroy himself by his own petard.

  53. We must not give up or let these situations get us down – the fight goes on do not give up – we will get there and have our full rights :-)

  54. For Stephen Green

    I tell thee churlish hate preacher
    Ministering angels shall my brothers be
    When thou liest howling

  55. My question to Mr Green is that if we are all made in God’s image, does that mean God is straight, gay, bi, male, female…etc? I am a Christian and gay, and I am very proud of the fact. I seem to remember a scripture in the book of Leviticus that says if you wear a garment with more than one material you are committing a sin. Oh dear that means Primark must be Soddom and Gomorrah! Get a life you sad man!

  56. Mumbo Jumbo 31 Jul 2010, 11:25am

    Now he’s shaved the beard off we can always stone him to death.

    (Lev 19:27)

  57. I spunk in his queer hating face

  58. ” I seem to remember a scripture in the book of Leviticus that says if you wear a garment with more than one material you are committing a sin. Oh dear that means Primark must be Soddom and Gomorrah!”
    Best comment of the week so far! BTW I always thought Primark was the devil’s handywork anyhow, and that has nothing to do with the clothes being of mixed fibres!
    Now toasted cheese sandwiches – they’re the work of the Breville.
    But I digress…

  59. “Homosexuality is not a moral issue it is a normal sexual orientation…where’s the debate Channel 4? ”

    Exactly. And although I’m sure many people watching Green will realie he’s a bit of a nutter with extreme views, even so, people will think that this programme gives the green light to (much less rabid) discussion about whether ‘being gay is right’, which implies being LGBT is a lifestyle and up for discussion, rather than simply who somebody is.

    Unless Channel 4 is going to follow this with a discussion about ‘whether it’s OK to be black’, then I don’t think it should go ahead as it once again devalues who we are and allows people to think it’s perfectly reasonable to denigrate us.

  60. Too many Christians – few lions!

  61. All atheists, agnostics and secular people put your hands up in the air and ‘wave em like you just don’t care’ about what this deluded freak has to say lol.

    No, seriously, I’m fed up with religious people and their silly views. Sure, not all religious people are like Stephen Green and the Westboro Baptist Church; however, as Richard Dawkins argues in his brilliant book The God Delusion, these ‘moderate’ reliigous people allow these extremist crackpots to thrive and be offered slots on Channel 4. Religion – certainly Islam and mainstream Christianity – is a threat to, among other things, gay rights. It should, at the very least, be kept in the private realm, if not completely destroyed (through fierce and unapologetic debate and etc, not illiberal violence of course.)

    This is why I’m a member of the National Secular Society and I think more and more people who are concerned about religious influence on public policy and etc should join. It is more important than ever!

    This is their website:

  62. I do not think seeing Green et al on TV for 5 minutes will convert the unconverted: rather, it might alert the right-minded but perhaps complacent that such ridiculous nonsense is still believed in by some people, and therefore that we must not stop campaigning for equal rights. As distasteful as it is to listen to these absurdly contrived interpretations of anciently contrived texts, they paradoxically also have great value for furthering the liberal cause…

  63. Someone try to say “homosexualisation” 10x fast…

  64. #65
    Better still Zoek, try to say “Goplaywithyourselfgreenyoudafgunt!”….x10 fast..


    And no!
    I have not splelted the last too constoplonts ingkerreklie..

    “Dafgunt”, I writed and “dafgunt” I meant.


  65. I didn’t mean ‘constoplonts’ I meant ‘sillybubbles’ but anyway…don’t be so picky..!



  66. In spirit of fairness, will c4 debate whether abolition of slavery was a good thing, since one is endorsed by bible and while we at it, will c4 debate Hamas’s right to harm Israelis? And if the answer is no on both counts (which would be very sensible), then why have debate on homosexuality from point of view of religion set in a format of monologues ? Let’s have proper debate with A&Q

  67. 21stCenturySpirituality 1 Aug 2010, 4:20am

    Why are the views of spiritual and intelectual bankrupts given a platform in the media as being representative of anyone who ascribes to a spiritual view of life. No wonder people become atheists when people like this hate preacher are presented as the advocates of spirituality and religion.

  68. The more these people preach the more they willfully cause the extinction of their own religion.. The more crazy “anti____” stuff you preach the more people go “Have I seriously been taking these people seriously?!” and the more new generations are gonna look at these people and go “they are just crazy…” its a very slow road but its one that you cannot turn around on once you have done the damage.

    And FYI the ONLY reason there is this “religious VS gay” battle as he pretty much put it is because certain religions make it their DUTY to turn it into the next holy-war. They went out of their way to pick the fight. Modern ORGANIZED religions only real purpose is to retard the mental evolution of man kind to varying degrees.

  69. Or maybe Stephen Green is right and all us gays and lesbians should undergo ex-gay “therapy” or be locked up for life for the “crime” of being homosexual…I mean the idea he is promoting is to do away with homosexuals isn’t it Channel 4?
    Kill or cure?

  70. Has there been any news from Channel 4 in response to the concerns reised?

  71. Hate him, hate his views but he should, as a British national, be able to say them and let people make up tehir OWN minds about how wacky he is. By banning him you only give him and his ilk more ammo to say there’s some fictional homosexual agenda working against fredom of speech. Let him spout his filth. Most right-thinking people won’t take a blind bit of notice of this loon anyway. I certainly won’t be watching anywy. I’ll be looking at gay porn.

  72. Here’s some more themes for Channel 4 4thought………

    – A week of radically different perspectives on Judaism and genocide? – for example, why not give some holocaust deniers a program to air their views, and someone who paints Jews as greedy filthy pigs who are only interested in money and power. They could get another who claims that the Jews control the world and that they deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth. And then of course get a Jew who doesn’t agree with any of those points.

    – a week of radically different perspectives on disabled people and euthanasia. They could get someone who paints disabled people as a burden on society, abominations of nature. Someone could argue that disable people should really be put to sleep, that euthanasia is a good idea to end their lives, as they aren’t much use in modern society. And then obviously get a disabled person who obviously says the opposite to that kind of hatred.

    – a week of radically different perspectives on blacks and evolution. They could get someone to argue the case that black people are not as evolved as white people, and therefore they should be slaves to whites, because they are like monkeys. Stupid monkeys who have no right to have any power because their brains are smaller than white brains. They would also have an intelligent black person on to argue against that point though of course.

    And here I am giving channel 4 all these wonderfully hideous ideas that I thought up in 5 minutes which will probably become 4thoughts new slate of commissions.

    Anyone else got any other vile ideas that equate to what channel 4 are programming on homosexuality? All in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ of course.

  73. Everyone has freedom of speech even these silly preachers which I feel sorry for. I think deep down people like this are just trying to supress their own feelings. If you watch him its so obvious this guy would be more suited in heels and cropped tops. Now back to the real world…

  74. @Jay

    How about women and their role in society? You know, we could offer a couple of misogynists and right-wing religious prachers an equal platform to hear what they have to say on this subject. You know, it is all in the spirit of having a ‘balanced’ debate.

    We can also have a debate on slavery. After all, the Muslim religion supports, among other things, the slave trade. So, I’m sure you will find a Muslim who thinks slavery ought to be re-introduced.

  75. @John

    Yes, we all have the right to free speech. We do not, however, have a right to promote our views on television. It is up to Channel 4 to decide what content it is going to broadcast.

    It is foolish to defend this on the grounds of free speech.

  76. I agree with SamB. No one is free to say whatever they want on TV. Every program has an agenda, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to come down from cloud cuckoo land. Someone at Channel 4 has decided this bigoted man’s views are more important than someone else’s views. They have chosen to give a homophobe a platform to share his hate. Freedom of speech? More like homophobic TV.

    They had better portray Mr Greene to be the jerk that he is, I’ll be watching, and if they make him look even remotely sane I will boycott CH4. I will only be happy if they make him wear red contact lenses as he speaks, and put a treatment on his voice that makes him sound like daath vader. The same goes for the homophobic muslim that will be on.

  77. @Jay

    Boycotting is for later. For now, you could make a complaint to Channel 4. The show ‘4thought’ is not on till tomorrow 7:55, so you more than enough time to make a short complaint. The more complaints they get, the more likely they are to realise their mistake and, who knows, they might cancel the whole thing.

    But, like you, I will be watching this 4thought crap tomorrow and if Stephen Green (or the other Muslim idiot they are going to have on) says anything remotely offensive, then I suggest we complain to Ofcom and, possibly, the police. After all, we have laws in this country that makes it criminal to incite hatred or violence on the grounds of, among others, race and sexual orientation.

  78. “After all, we have laws in this country that makes it criminal to incite hatred or violence on the grounds of, among others, race and sexual orientation.”

    I often wonder how some sites get away with what they print online then. Before sending my complaint to Channel 4, I’ve been reading through Green’s site, and feel angry at having to read the vile implications or outright lies there – eg the implication that gay men are paedophiles.

    I bet he’ll sit there all holier than thou going on about god blah blah and seeming as though butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth, but I wish Channel 4 would have a running caption containing quotes from his site or from comments he’s made, so that the casual viewer can see just how nasty he is.

    Jay and SamB, I like your ideas but remember to make sure that your prejudices and hatred are justified by some religious references, then you can be sure that even the most vile things will be broadcast…

  79. Everyone should tune in and listen closely to every word.

    It’s not every day that we get the opportunity to witness the last desperate squeals of a dying member of a species that is on the verge of extinction. Usually that would be heart wrenching and sad but in this case it will be entertaining and fun.

    Pop some popcorn, grab a fizzy drink, sit back and enjoy the fun!

  80. Well on the plus side they only gave him 2 and a half minutes to spout his claptrap. I love how his killer argument was [to paraphrase] “In the book of revelation, among those who will not be granted the kindgom of Heaven are dogs – which is an ancient greek slang term for homosexual”
    Or could it just be a Hebrew term for dogs? Oh wait, that doesn’t fit with the cognative bias underpinning his entire argument.
    ‘Twunt’ on the other hand is a perfectly legitimate contemporary British slang term for Stephen Green.

  81. Flapjack you are right, SGreen’s piece is the stuff of a man who has lost.. enough rope, hang etc. The noticeable warmth of the Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay afterwards makes me think what a sweetheart, kisses to him.

  82. Who wants to be let into ‘heaven’ as described by St John? Eternal, grovelling praise for the great leader and his son – doesn’t it sound like being let into North Korea? A deliverance.

  83. Well having just watched it…heterosupremicist, Islamophobic, homophobic and misogynistic misinformation.
    Not the best use of a two minute slot on Channel 4.
    Anyway with his views about women & Islam shouldn’t he be busy impregnating his woman so she can squeeze out as many mini Stephen’s as she can manage during her fertile years to compete with the numbers of Muslim’s being squeezed out?
    Get back on the job Stephen and stop gabbing.

  84. Pavlos – thanks for reminding me of his other stupid argument… that unless right wing Christians get their way and stop gay people from achieving equality, we’ll be overrun by Islamofacists stopping gay rights in their tracks and we won’t like that either. So either way we’re screwed in the Stephen Green run universe.
    Or just maybe we have the option of not capitulating to either bunch of right wing wingnuts.

  85. I’ve just watched it online. Stephen Green’s argument was total rubbish. It was interesting to see him try to use Revelation to ‘prove’ we were sinners rather than the usual gay clobber passages. Dear oh Dear. Perhaps he should have gone on with Revelation to show how it ‘proves’ the theories about the New World Order? But then, people might start to think he was losing it…

    I watched it here:

    and the dignified words of Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay here:

  86. Verily I say unto thee Steph(anie) Green, thou hast shaved off thine beard and it sayeth in both Bible and Koran that thou must have a beard and never trim it! THou must be be stoned -with pink pebbles (?) – therefore, unless ye return to the facefungus haste post.
    That aside, what a sad git he made on TV, i’m an atheist but the darling black Rev made far more sense with every word !

  87. In case anyone was pondering on Stephen’s divine wisdom, the word ‘dogs’ is slang for male prostitutes (often temple prostitutes). It’s NOT referring to all gay men in any way whatsoever.

    Not that that will stop the fundies obsession but I hate to see them misrepresenting things.

  88. I saw a woman last night patiently guarding an injured fox lying on the road and awaiting the arrival of the RSPCA. It restores your faith in human nature.

  89. Dr Robin Guthrie 3 Aug 2010, 9:45pm

    Why are we even bothering discussing this poor sad insane man.

    Clearly, care in the community no longer works.

    As for CH4 giving this poor deluded fool a voice.

    That is probably due to the fact that they need an audience of any sort whatsoever.

    Bigots, religiosity, misogynists, wife beaters etc.

    Keeps the cash rolling in to pay their inflated salaries.

  90. Jonathan2 3 Aug 2010, 9:57pm

    Pretty disgusting that Ch4 have now become homophobic. I’ve complained and received a stock response. I’ve already told them I won’t be watching Ch4 any more. What happened to the progressive Ch4 of old. And to think they get funding for this. Well, when they get their budget cut I will fully endorse it if this is the sort of filth they broadcast.

  91. Just another bible thumper. I use the bible for toilet paper. And have put a smeared page in the mailbox of a few homophobes I know.

    I’m sure they’ll love the chocolate – corrupted minds often are totally corrupted

  92. The thing I find so disturbing is that people are so quick to label someone “anti-gay” without being willing to accept the label “anti-Bible” in return. In the UK its clear that tolerance only must go one-way, Where is all of your tolerance for people who actually believe what they are saying?? Are they Just “anti-gay” and therefore they don’t need to be listened to? Why do you Hate people who are so different from you? Isn’t this what you all are so mad about??

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.