Hope the view is good from up there.
I very much doubt the CARTOON incites “hatred based on sexuality”. To be honest, if anyone were running a hotel, and a pair that looked like that walked in and requested the Bridal Suite… well, nobody would be thrilled with the prospect. Would they?
why is this cartoon similar to that of certain propaganda depicting Jews?
This is ridiculous, you can’t even see it, Nobody would have noticed, if these touchy little queens hadn’t made a fuss.
I think it is about time people learned to pick their battles, is this really worth it??
James – I’d hope most people wouldn’t judge people on their appearance. But I don’t get the necessity for this cartoon at all. Why choose that subject? Is it to show the supposed clash between LGBT people and Christians? If so, why are the Christians portrayed as innocuous-seeming and the gay couple shown in a way that makes them look intimidating at best? Not to mention the caption., which reminds me of that newspaper headline that insisted on calling David Furnish Elton’s wife. I’ve never come across a ‘bridal suite’ in a hotel – they’re called Honeymoon Suites. If the joke is that a man is going in the bridal ie woman’s suite, then where do they think the groom in a straight wedding goes?
James – my reply there was to your first comment. Yes, I agree it’s not the most important of matters, but the snide, nastiness of it gives me the creeps. It seems so unnecessary.
I’m not sure I’d call the Daily mail a national newspaper; its content and circulation make it more of a nasty pamphlet. Why even read it? I’ve got a copy of one from the 30s which has a headline ‘hurrah for the black shirts!’ it’s the slowest moving paper in the country.
Obviously you can see it, that’s why it is being discussed.
and “touchy little queens” is hardly a neutral label either,
have you issues dear ?
Well, I’m delighted to see that the gay men depicted were not wearing crosses, for then they would be mentally ill!
I just read on the web how gays were depicted in films in the 60s and 70s, it says “gay characters were often represented as dangerous, violent, or murderous.” (media awareness ca) – but that now that isn’t generally the case
Wow – this cartoon seems to be going back to the 60s and 70s….
It also interesting but apparently nowadays it’s ” hard to find films that do not depict Christians as charlatans, dupes, and hypocrites.” (peter Dans)
I wonder what happenned with the depiction of the christians here…
Well I’m with you on this one. Just because people don’t like the term “touchy little queens” doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I think if anyone has issues, it’s them, and they really need to get out more.
Talking of another comment on here, would any touchy little queen like to nit-pick this one for offensiveness?
The Daily Mail supported Adolf Hitler until Septembe 1939.
I think it is reasonable to be worried when an extreme right newspaper with fascist sympathies engages in the demonisation of minorities.
Who actually reads the Daily Heil is what I’d like to know?
I’m one of those touch feely queens you like to slag off from the safety of your pit. Maybe pink news would be kind enough to give us your ip address
You should be put out of your misery
These “touchy little queens” you deem to stereotype were joined but the Jewish community in the complaint. So it wasn’t a case of ‘nobody would have noticed’ really, was it!
Do read the article love or maybe you’d like to openly stereotype and discriminate Jewish people too?!
I don’t think whether you can see the swastika matters or not. That’s just sidelining the main issue.
As I see it, even if two men DID look like that, under the equality law they are entitled to goods and services.
“Key to the bridal suite for mr and mr Smith please, George, dear. And they’ll be wanting breakfast in bed.”
Haven’t read such paranoid conspiracy nonsense since Diana’s inquest. I actually thought the macho representation of gay men here made a refreshing change to mincers. Really, Nick, try getting out more.
The fact the Mail and it’s reader (can’t be more than one can there?) clearly feel the need to mock the legality of Civil Partnerships too, suggests that it is time for Equal marriage for all!
The fact you have to use words such as “mincers” and “touchy little queen” speaks volumes on where you are and what an out of touch wee idiot you are.
If you hate gay people so much why are you here? Unless of course theres more than a slight twinge in those loins of yours. Too many closet cases went to your usual rent boy site and brought down the server?
Are you in or out, make up you mind do!
Whilst there may be no legal fight to be had about this cartoon (I’m sure we’d get compared to Muslims complaining about cartoons of Mohammed), this scenario smacks of stereotyping and unnecessary labelling. It not only paints a picture of intimidating, aggressive homosexuals, but it depicts Christians as being meek and defencesless in the face of such ‘bullying’. Given the bullying by Christians of homosexuals as far as hitorical records extend, it is misleading in every way possible.
If the Bulls’ appeal is successful, gay-friendly hotels should openly ask people whether they are straight or Christian. See the complaints from Christians flood in and then we’ll see it go to court all over again. If they want to play dirty, then fine, but for every ounce of discrimination they show towards us, we will do exactly the same where the law provides for it. Because that would be equality, right?
Get a grip. Now you’re just nitpicking – some people are way too sensitive…
William don’t try to supress my opinion I am allowed to be offended
Good point re mincers and queens. Especially given that the depiction of those men in the Daily Mail cartoon was not one of stereotypical mincers of queens.
I do wonder why James is here too. As an agnostic homosexual, I have no interest in going on Christian web sites and trying to get them to listen to me or read endless quoted pasages form Leviticus (i.e. not REAL law). If gay Christians want to do that, that’s their choice and they can have all the arguments, but good luck to winning over a religion that has deep-rooted homophobic tendencies. Why not take on the Koran while you’re there?
But what is a straight Christian doing on a secular gay web site? To peruse and see what opinions are being expressed, yeah, I could see that from a doctoral student’s point of view or from someone with an interest in politics. But to spend all day trying to win over people who will NEVER agree with him, seems a bit of a waste of his life. I’m here because I’m gay and this news is very relevant to how I can live my life. As gays aren’t interfering in his life, why does he feel he has to come and defend something?
I won’t make assumptions about mental health, indoctrination or personal insecurity of the deepest kind, but…….
the reason you cant use the n word or any of spanners favorite insults is because black people have zero tolerance. you call a black man the n word on the street and he will literally kill you
More realistic would be to show a gay Quaker or MCC couple who had just got married in their own church and who as committed Christians thought it might be nice to stay in a Christian hotel. But I don’t think the average Daily Mail reader would even be capable of getting their heads around such an idea.
Gay people need to have the same attitude if we want respect
I love the daily mail , and read it every morning on the web, would never pay for it. The readers comments are the best, they are so THICK and Stupid. Article on Gay marriage, Comment , this is why I moved to Spain to get away from this type of thing. Gay marriage has been legal in Spain for three years. Ha Ha Ha. All the comments of people moaning about the masses moving here, and live in another country, can they not see the irony??? Roughly 1000 comments posted about the gay hotel case, I was impressed I was expecting more, and on the vote that they do , last time I looked 58 for the christians and 42 against, yet again I was impressed, I thought it would have been less in support of us. SO we have moved on regarding discrimnation. But still a way to go. A lot of people on the mail state they would not support us now, of course they never did in the first place. Lucky for us a lot of this attitdude is in the older generations , who were taught differently , but as time goes by this will change and die away. Good I am single out a minorty now. ALso I find it cute how in the mail all gay journalists target people , but others investigate, Ha bloody ha again. The mail forgets how big a minorty we are and that they do not take into account our friends and family that would support gay rights, that more than double us in numbers. No court in the UK at present is going to make a judgement that allows any one to be discriminated. But on the other hand we must not sit on our laurals and be complacement.
Try to remember that James is religious and is therefore mentally ill. Religious faith is a mental illness, and religious mania is an extreme form of it. This is something that many evangelical Christians exhibit.
I guess if you had your way, you would prefer to issue a fatwah and death threats to Mac and the publishers of the Daily Mail.
Why don’t you go out in the streets and burn a few Union flags while you are at it?
Is it not possible any more to mildly poke fun at people any more without everyone being offended? When I was a kid, we had fatty, darky, four-eyes, ginga, buck-tooth and I was big-ears. We were all good mates and everyone took the names as a bit of fun. If that were to happen today, no doubt we would all be whipped off for correctional psychological therapy.
And I guess you liked it beacuse you were the one poking fun you moron.
That is an EXCELLENT point. We should ask the Quakers for their view on the Bulls….
Why do people forget that when the Jewish people were freed from the concentration camps, the gays were made to stay in them because no one wanted the gays. What about this, what if there was a cartoon of a Jewish couple with a swastika tattooed on them?
I’m VERY surprised by Nick Lowe’s interpretation of the cartoon. So much so, I was puzzling over whether the article was a spoof/joke article, a parody on people who are so sensitive to a particular issue that they find insult wherever they look.
Of course there is still homophobia in the world. But in that cartoon? Really? Did Nick grow up in a different culture to me, that we interpret it so differently? Has he not seen any British or American comedies in the last 30 years, equipping him with the ability to determine sarcasm and irony etc?
Is it not OBVIOUS that the humour in this cartoon is from the turning-on-its-head of the usual stereotype of gay men as ‘fairies’ (a skinhead is the opposite of a camp gay man, of course) and of the Christian couple being completely unbothered by the thuggishness or their homosexuality.
That Nick Lowe got the interpretation he did strikes me as very ‘weird’. As if he was mentally ill, with anti-gay conspiracy theory delusions.
For the record, I’m gay, and very interested in equality and liberation. I just think that Nick Lowe has some serious internal issues which are spilling out onto his ability to see the world clearly, attributing meanings and motivations to people and things which aren’t really there. That’s called projection, I believe…
If the picture had showed the couple as a pair of urbane sophisticated and cultured men like Tom ford or even Stephen Fry it would not address DM viewpoint that were are overbearing (height of the men) ugly (tats and peircings) and unwelcome in their world
I’m not so much concerned about this cartoon, though it does remind me of anti-gay cartoons, and the horrible John Junor’s column, that used to appear in the Daily Express in the 1970s that I found very depressing as a young gay person coming to terms with his sexuality. (“Pass the sick bag Alice!”). One knew that what they were saying about gay people was lies, but there was no way to counter what we would now see as propaganda or explain the truth.
It is sad and dangerous that today we are seeing a resurgence of this sort of propaganda in the Mail and Telegraph, and even now on the BBC news: eg the hotel case – late afternoon news – Sky News was balanced and had interviews with both couples, and the gay couple could be seen to be genuine and nice people; on the BBC all they did was show the owners of the hotel and their supporters from the Christian Institute, and was wholly biased towards the owners. I never thought I would see the day when I considered Sky news was more balanced than the BBC news.
There is no point in looking at the cartoon in isolation, our view of it is bound to be coloured by the rest of the paper’s coverage.
Nor is there any point in becoming polarised against “christians”, the majority of whom are good people who know nothing of what the “christian” far right of America is doing around the world to demonise gay people, made easier with the advent of the internet.
I think it’s rather well done.. A slight irony with 2 butch guys checking into the bridal suite…
I’ve made this point on the other story, but keen to get some discussion going on it.
If you go to Canal Street you’ll see quite a few people who look like those two men in the cartoon. That is, men who adopt the manners, attitude, dress and style of skin head neo-fascists. Do we get offended at that? Well, I do, but I mean would it cause a fuss on something like Pink News. If not, why not? These kinds of far right white groups, that so many gay men ape, have a rather dim view of homosexuals, Jews, blacks, Asians, muslims, (list goes on).
If there weren’t a lot of people in our community who seem to celebrate this disgusting culture, the daily mail couldn’t have made the “joke” in the first place. No?
Ok smitty I see your point some men do dress like that
Not all skinheads are neo-fascists and not all neo-fascists are skinheads.
The fact that some people from two different groups have similar dress sense does not conflate the groups.
Have any of you whingers actually found a swastika on the arm of said cartoon – It’s hardly a swastika, more like a badly drawn cross – And BTW A lot of us are build like that and have shaved heads and body art – we wear boots and could easily be mistaken for Breeders – so what… not all gays are limp wristed nancy boys! – It’s a Cartoon – making a satirical point – taking a poke at Gays and Christians – commenting on our over sensitive reactions to scarcely news worthy stories. If we don’t remember how enpowering humour can be, we are in danger of heading for the same way as the bible bashers and gay bashers – Come on men lighten up!
Dave G, that’s why I specified “skinhead neo-fascists”. I know lots of skin heads, most of them are because they are bald or receding. I’m not talking about hair length, I’m talking about the mannerisms, look and style of apeing skinhead neo-fascists. There’s a “fetish” within our community of people who want to look like racist thugs.
If it’s OK for them to do that, then what’s wrong with the Mail to pillory them with its hate?
@Spanner – not everyone thinks name-calling is fun
neither is it OK to attack others as queens etc
this cartoon is stupid and pathetic but it shows the dm’s homophobia and ignorance
I saw that cartoon the other day but didn’t notice the tattoo.
I am absolutely disgusted by the Daily Fail.
They are currently making the anti-gay psychiatrist a victim aswell.
What a bunch of sick tossers!
The swastika is more obvious and really is ‘emblazoned’ when you see the full size cartoon:
@Justin “For the record, I’m gay, and very interested in equality and liberation. I just think that Nick Lowe has some serious internal issues which are spilling out onto his ability to see the world clearly, attributing meanings and motivations to people and things which aren’t really there. That’s called projection, I believe…”
No it his interpretation of cartoon.
Yes some gay look like these couple but Mr and Mr Smith make sound like average gay couple like them.
Big picture is B&B offer room for rent, can’t turn off people because they are gay. Can B&B turn off Jews? Can B&B turn off blacks? Have sign up NO GAYS NO BLACKS NO JEWS. Not allowed.
Daily Mail try make NO GAYS ok. It not.
so is the 666 666 further up the arm, I suppose that’s his phone number just happens to be close to the mark of the beast or just a coincidence.
Nick Lowe gave an excellent summary. Forget the bloody swastika. I thought this cartoon was massively offensive the second I laid eyes on it, in the form of a small thumbnail (where I couldn’t even see the swastika). This is a story about a couple standing up for their rights in the face of entrenched bigotry, and then this loathsome cartoonist decides to stir up anti-gay hatred with homophobic propaganda of the sort that one might find on a BNP pamphlet.
I can’t believe so many people want to look the other way. This is on the same level as the “melon-headed black man” or “oriental rat-man” pictures that used to do the rounds in newspapers half a century ago. If either of those was printed nowadays, they’re be an outcry over it.
As well as the PCC, I might consider sending an email to this “Mac” person himself (if I can find a contact address for him). He can’t hide behind the Daily Mail’s apron, they didn’t draw it for him. It may be a picture instead of words, but he’s still as culpable as that horrible Jan Moir.
[Posted this in the previous article, where I saw Nick's original post, figured I'd re-post here in case the other discussion dies down.]
I find the cartoon offensive because it’s portraying gay people negatively. If the Daily Mail had a record of writing about gay people in a range of different ways over the years, then I wouldn’t be so bothered, but this is just one in a long line of negatively stereotyping ways that it writes about gay people. The Daily Mail is obsessed with painting gay people as scary, weird, kinky, sex-obsessed odd-balls who are into violence. Yes, a tiny minority of gay people are like that (just as a minority of straight people are like that). But if you read the Daily Mail, you’ll think that all gay people are like that. It’s a spiteful, hateful, ignorant newspaper and should be closed down.
Yes, it IS worth it. I am sick to death of seeing GLBT people portrayed the way the haters like to portray us. This is a slap in the face of all GLBT people and the haters need to be called on it.
No it’s not acceptable. If blacks were depicted in this way, it’d be outrage. Still, we have better things to do than waste out time taking any kind of action against a news paper that, in the past, supported Hitler. Let’s just let the paper rot in its own hypocrisy.
To be honest I think the writer has suffered a sense of humour bipass. You could equally argue that first of all the gay couple are very butch and masculine and fly in the face of accepted stereotypes peddled by tabloid journalists, and furthermore that the receptionist couple are accepting that the couple *are* romantic and are not passing judgement and actually don’t care, the humour used to great effect by the Welsh villagers in Little Britain. it all depends on what context one puts it in. I admit that it being printed in a poisonous rag like the Daily Mail gives some context on the story but in of itself I don’t think it’s something to get too huffy about.
It’s entitled “Mac on… Damages payout for gay couple”
It has to be taken in the context of the paper’s take of the story and the nature of its readers, and how they’ll interpret it…
With that in mind, there is actually nothing humorous about it, other than how ludicrous it seems to a right minded person. Sadly many Daily Mail readers are not so minded.
The comments rather speak for themselves:
“Would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.”
- Sharon, Oldham
“Good cartoon portraying something very sad in the UK. Mr Waldram of Equalities and Human Rights Commission / Quango will no doubt not like it!”
- Gordon Bay, London and Cape Town
“Excellent Mac…………Really fun and to the point !!”
- Bob, Bristol
“Tell them it’s fully booked, dear, and send them down the street to the travel lodge”
- LU, Cambridge
“the receptionist couple are accepting that the couple *are* romantic and are not passing judgement and actually don’t care”
It’s obviously meant as a highly sarcastic, derisory comment – look at the unhappy grimace on their faces – as if a dog turd had been thrust under their noses…
I think Nick got it bang on…
It’s difficult to imagine anything that appears in the Daily Mail that touches on gay people is not inspired by hate. Jan Moir’s article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death–.html on the death of Stephen Gately is characteristic of the sheer unbridled nastiness that appears in it. If articles like hers are sanctioned by the paper, can anyone really believe that this cartoon doesn’t come from the same well of hatred ?
Todays Mail takes it further ;
I don’t think you can legitimately refer to the comment as “dry, sarcastic” given that it is written; the comedic element here is not (IMHO) supposed to be prejudice or inequality, it’s the unexpected reaction of the “little old lady” behind the counter…
bi pass dumbass
The intentions of the Daily Mail editing team, and the author of the piece, may have been different to the comic intentions of the cartoonist. Whilst the DM may well have meant badly, I don’t think the cartoonist did.
To put it another way- if the DM had wanted an ‘anti-gay’ cartoon, I think they made a pretty poor choice.
I’m not at all knowledgable on how syndicated cartoons work- perhaps there is a pool of cartoon submissions that get drawn from, perhaps the ‘resident’ cartoonists are free to choice what topics interest them, perhaps they aren’t, perhaps they give the topics whichever angle appeals to them, perhaps they aren’t…
But I think it’s a mistake to generalise a historic and current anti-gay-rights attitude in the newspaper as a whole to the meaning of a cartoon inside it.
Slightly off topic….
Why do some people write GLBT instead of LGBT? Is there something behind the reversal of the lettering order?
It’s GLBT in the US usually, mmmmmmmm.
I really don’t know what I should be feeling on this matter. It could be me standing on the left in this incredibly unfunny and rather mundane cartoon (albeit with a fewer tattoos and certainly no swastikas).
It’s in the Daily Mail so what do you expect from them? On a more positive note – isn’t it refreshing that they now have more than one stereotype of us? That’s progress!
FFS we all have to lighten up a bit. The joke – which I get is that many gay men adopt an aggressively masculine persona (myself included) and the cartoon juxtaposes this with e idea of a ‘romantic weekend break’. The legal decision was the right one, but by having this knee jerk reaction to analyse everything in the papers through the pism of a second-rate university queer studies course we are in danger of looking humourless and intolerant.
Gus: “…having this knee jerk reaction to analyse everything in the papers through the p[r]ism of a second-rate university queer studies course we are in danger of looking humourless and intolerant.”
Danger? I think that happened a long time back. This bunch of po-faced nitpickers will leap on anything that appears even vaguely derogatory towards LGBT people, whether it is justified or not.
Pink News trawls through the news agencies desperate to pull out even the most tenuous gay connections, and then flings it to the pack of wolves on it’s forums to rip it apart.
@ spanner – why do you come on this site? why do you read comments? you hate everything anyone ever says. You do nothing but slag everyone. Why bother? Is there no where else you can go and troll? And why post in two different names? Gus? And then talk to yourself? You are a really sad person. I feel sorry for you.
next it’ll be the jews having a “knee jerk reaction” to war-era propaganda…
Oh no. “And why post in two different names? Gus? And then talk to yourself? ”
because i am quoting their comment, and then replying to it, just like I am here.
That’s what quotation marks mean.
It’s the Daily Mail – what do you expect? I imagine that if someone is already reading the Daily Mail then their views on homosexuality won’t be swayed by a cartoon. That’s not to say it’s acceptable.. but then, we’re not going to think it’s acceptable because we’re gay!
I can’t see it doing a great deal of damage to progress.
Why do Christians ALWAYS assume ‘GOD’ must be on their side? They always take their prejudice to extremes instead of just being decent with folks, as ‘Jesus’ suggested. Then they whine incessantly at the negative comebacks as if negativity should never happen to them. The woman looked a right sour-faced old bat tbh. She should have been glad anyone would want to stay at her guesthouse given her grim face serving up bangers and mash every day. I’d have fled in horror.
Children as young as FOUR to be taught about homosexuality under plans to ‘celebrate gay community’
Not terribly different then the cartoon dipicting Jews as a giant spiders strangling the world
It helped to get a monster elected in Germany. the rest is history.
Teh one good thing about these cartoons is they help with the destruction of the churches.
Who belief Jesus told us to hate people.
Proud none of my 3 kids are religious, I sure am not, and my wife – I’m working on her.
As for James- honey dear- we know what you are and what you want.
rent-a-boy will come to your aid.
It shows what easy targets Gay people are with the Daily Mail constant negative reporting. Being they are clearly unfair and bias against homosexuality I beg the question…
If this has been targetted at the Black community would this not been seen as provoking racial tensions?
I completely agree with this article. Itr is blatantly obvious that the daily mail often publishes articles that have right wing, xenophobic and homophobic undertones. – James Psychology and Sociology student.
The depiction of gays with tattoos seems to be a continuation of ‘bad’ associated with tattoos and assigned to gays. The guardian carried a tat article with some reader comments relevant to purity of white skin vs marked skin.
knowing the mail’s history which even celebrated abortion for gays after a gene was located (in the 90s) i think the mail uses means within the revised legal limits to continue gay bashing by subversive negative associations
i think its right to be on the over-sensitive side – let our guard down and the backlash will punch.
section 28 was all about preventing positive images – so the importance has been recognised by ‘the enemy’.
They’ve toned down the “Children as young as FOUR to be taught about homosexuality …. ” headline, but they’ve added this piece by Melanie Phillips
I’d love to go through the mail’s cartoon archives. I imagine there are racist, anti semitic, bigoted cartoons of everything from single mothers to watching too much TV. What a sad bunch of idiots daily mail readers are.
No British newspaper would dare to publish a cartoon of prophet Muhammad
AS Adam Blake IN COMMENTS HERE OBSERVED
” The swastika is more obvious and really is ‘emblazoned’ when you see the full size cartoon:
AND ADDITIONALLY IT REVEALS A TATTOO WITH NUMBERS INCLUDING
WHICH HAS BIBLICAL SIGNIFICANCE
SEE WIKI 666 “And that no man might buy or sell”
the cartoonist is surely intentional in associating evil with gay.
why don’t the receptionists carry tats of KKK and NF ?
usual DM shiite
I’m not sure I’d call the Daily mail a national newspaper; its content and circulation make it more of a nasty pamphlet. Why even read it? I’ve got a copy of one from the 30s which has a headline ‘hurrah for the black shirts!’ it’s the slowest moving paper in the country.
DM is 2nd biggest selling newspaper in the UK, 1st in The Sun
Would have been funnier if it were more sexually graphic – Mr & Mr Smith head to toe in leather playing to the cliché of the typical Clones with bags of chains/rubber masks/lube etc. Definitely a place for refuge in audacity.
As it is, it’s a 2nd rate cartoon from a cartoonist out of touch with a large subset of society.