Reader comments · Violence breaks out between Christians and gays in Australian city · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Violence breaks out between Christians and gays in Australian city

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sociopathic Biblical literalists doing what they do best, condemning gay people and trying to make life miserable for gay people while denying this it what they are doing,

    Their anti-gay beliefs and actions are immoral because they do not in any way increase human wellbeing for gay people nor for anyone else, for a belief or action to be morally good it must lead to greater wellbeing not only for oneself but for the common good of all. Persecuting gay people doesn’t do only creates unnecessary human suffering and misery while benefitting nobody, it is immoral and illogical.

  2. they where their to hate otherwise why were they their???…

    Just because some made up book with no evidence “god” even existed doesnt give them the right to go & “preach”..

    1. They are bloody liars, the Bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin…don’t they read the Bible or do they just read modern Bibles that have been commissioned by homophobic groups who have made adjustments to the text to suit their anti-gay prejudice and bias.
      Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible.

      1. Absolutely, Pavlos

        As much as I am sceptical about many passages of the Bible and would describe myself as agnostic … I do agree that there are no passages within the Bible that categorise homosexuality as a sin or condemn (or for that matter endorse) homosexuality …

        1. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 4:20pm

          ..especially given that the word only came into being in the 19th century.

          1. @paddyswurds

            Unless you know something I don’t …. I think there was homosexuality in the 19th century – or for that matter in the years BC – so if there had been particular moral reason to condemn or support homosexuality then it should have been there – it wasn’t

          2. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 9:10pm

            ….read my post again. I was referring to the word only.
            Homosexuality has been around as long as mammals and probably before. Obviously it was there in the nineteenth century as thats when the word came into common use as i said. Did you actually read my post or are you one of these scanners who miss most of what a comment says. They are common on this site and very annoying as they spout a load of shyte as a consequence.

          3. @Paddyswurds

            I did read your comment – your additional clarification is helpful as the initial post could have been interpreted in many ways, such as the one I did – or the manner you presented, albeit in a bitchy and sarcastic manner

            If you wish to avoid what (to you) are stupid comments, then ensure you have clarity and do not leave room for misinterpretation in your comments.

    2. They were there to hate, otherwise why were they there?;
      Just because some made up book with no evidence god even exists, doesn’t give them the right to go & “preach”..

  3. HelenWilson 16 May 2011, 11:14am

    I could go out every Sunday and protest outside the church down the road from me harassing its worshippers.

    But unlike religionists I posses a sense of humanity and decency, so I leave them be.

    1. Well said!

    2. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 11:41am

      Good point Helen.
      I would add that I also have better things to do with my time than preaching them morals, esp on humanity and decency.
      If they ain’t sussed out life by now my helping them ain’t gonna help.
      Maybe if they focused on themselves more instead preaching on everyone else things may get better but then isn’t that the problem.

  4. or get physical with people doing what they believe in…

  5. Christians v Gays. Hummmm. Needs lions too perhaps then potential for a great crowd spectacle. The Christians and the lions down there, the gays in the dress circle – where else?! – watching with enthusiasm! But not in dullsville Adelaide please!

  6. Where did that 8211 come from – I didn’t type it?

    1. I think it does it with certain combinations of punctuation, Dan. No idea why!

    2. I think it’s when you add an exclamation mark perhaps thenI sometimes get the 8211…or perhaps it’s Satan!

      1. Maybe an exclamation plus a comma !,

      2. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 9:17pm

        ….It’s a vagary of the crap open source software used by PN to operate the site. It’s been going on since they changed to this format and Admin seem to be ignoring it. The webmaster probably wants lotsa money to fix it and PN isn’t willing to cough up. Just repost the comment and it will usually be ok.

    3. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 11:54am

      It’s them damn Christian Voice people, it’s a conspiracy… damn numbers… yadda, yadda!!!!

  7. Just bullies with low self-esteem masquerading under the banner of ‘christianity’ to try to justify their pathetic and petty actions.
    They might put forward an outer display of piety and superiority, but scratch the surface and they’re all losers underneath.

    1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 11:55am

      Oh Iris, couldn’t have put it better meself!

      1. Jock since u seem to be some sort of leader, I will tell you what the truth is.
        God detests all sin even the smallest, but loves all sinners, especially the losers. Did He not say” Blessed are the poor, for the Kingdom is theirs”
        Furthermore, the reason why some christians openly protest against homosexuality is because Homosexuals insist on open displays of their desires. As a heterosexual man, I don’t know why I hate open displays of homosexuality. but that is the way I am.

        1. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 10:58am

          Here’s a thing..
          I really couldn’t give a toss what who says about whatever.
          What gets me is that I really am not interested but the likes of you feel you have to force your religious lifestyle down everyones throats.
          Even after being told I don’t want to know.
          FACT – Religious lifestyle is a choice.
          FACT – My sexuality isn’t.
          FACT – We are ALL human beings, nobody is more important than anybody else just because of who they fall in love with.
          This is about who we are, who we fall in love with and it’s the likes of you that gets nasty and vile because of it.
          So who is the Evil one?
          The ones falling in love or the ones doing all to protest and stopping those people falling in love?
          But prey do tell,
          1) What has two people falling in love got to do with you, if one of them isn’t you?
          2) If your mind so far in the sewer that you can only know people by what they do in bed?

        2. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 11:00am

          PS confused how me making a response to Iris, agreeing with her comment makes me “some sort of leader”?
          A whole load of summink going on there but not quite sure what it is.

        3. Oh the bullsh!t I just don’t want to see it arguement. I see straight men and women showing there affection all the time and noone say’s anything however if I kiss my bf people think they have the right to tell me that they don’t want to see 2 guys kissing. When you can’t shove your sexuality down the throats of everyone then I might decide I won’t display mine publicly.

          1. Kitty Lovett 1 Jun 2011, 1:30pm

            And if I were to kiss a girl, there’d be no THAT’S DISGUSTING. Plenty of boners, though.

            Ronnie, I’m just going to let you know – we could not give an ass what you have to say about God. Does not the bible say, judge not, lest ye be judged? “Love thy neighbour as thyself, there is no command greater than this”?

            Get over yourself. Don’t like open homosexuality? Think it’s wrong? Then get your fat ass off this website.

    2. Exactly, in a nutshell, hiding behind religion to legitimize their festering self-absorbed hatred of humanity.

  8. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 11:32am

    “…it might sound like we’re condemning people but we’re not we’re just preaching the Bible.”
    Right so just making excuses that allow them to condemn people.
    Nothing new there then.
    Religion is the bane of society.
    It will Never allow people to just get on with their lives.
    Ironically they talk about Evil yet they are the Evil they preach about.

    1. @Jock S Trap

      I know these are issues we rarely see eye to eye on (despite agreeing a lot elsewhere!)… but I think I agree almost entirely with you …

      The metaphor that I would use is that when slavery was accepted as culturally normal in Britain there were often cries in favour of slavery that it was both legal and justified in law and that it was Biblical …

      We managed to deal with the issue of the law being wrong …. we accepted their argument but said that morality was not established because of legal propriety … the law can be changed to establish morality …

      However, the Bible can not be changed …

      Nonetheless, it does not mention homosexuality – so I fail to see the big argument ….

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 11:05am

        This is where there is blinding differences.
        The Bible encouraged bad feeling towards Black people.
        The Bible encourages women to be treated differently to men.
        Yet it doesn’t mention homosexuality.
        Instead people have chosen to use the Bible to excuse there homphobia.

  9. I have lived in Adelaide on and off for the pat 12 year and I have never in all that time seen the community untied in out rage as they are now.

    The ABC story also had this to say:

    Lesbian and church minister, Reverend Sue Wickham, says it was an awful end to a peaceful demonstration.

    “I feel sad that it happens. I feel sad that there is still a vocal minority who always seem to be in the media who don’t necessarily represent the view of the whole church,” she said.

    “Anyone who carries a banner that begins with the two words ‘God Hates’ is to my mind is not representing the Christ that Christians believe in.”

    he ABC story also had this to say:

    1. Well said Sue Wickham

  10. These people are bigots. They are not Christians. Jesus did not hate.
    The Australian Prime Minister has shown no leadership on this issue – instead she panders to these horrible people. Until we have some proper leadership from above, people such as these will continue to think they have popular support.

    1. Galadriel1010 16 May 2011, 3:32pm

      Unfortunately, she has shown leadership. It’s all been in their favour, though

    2. @Peter

      When you say leadership from above … do you mean …. from above?

      1. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 9:27pm

        @ Stu …
        ….when You say …..from above?, what do You mean
        Agnostics are such cowards, sitting on the fence just in case. Are you sure the Earth isn’t flat?

        1. @Paddyswurds

          No I mean as an agnostic I dont believe science has all the answers and I keep an open mind – unlike yourself who seeks to attack and ridicule at every point (sometimes to the extent of looking ridiculous himself)

  11. Peter,
    They ARE christians. And really, Jesus didnt hate? He commited grievous bodily harm on the money changers out of love? These people are as Christian as Desmond Tutu, The Pope, Rowan Williams and Fred Phelps. Being a Christian doesnt make you good or bad, it makes you a Christian.

    1. grievous bodily harm on the money changers? He tipped over their tables and drove them out of the temple. How is that GBH? And don’t put Fred Phelps in any category with Tutu, Williams, or Gene Robinson for that matter. He is welcome to sharing his hot air balloon with the former Hitler Youth guy though.

      1. Tutu is one of the worst. He knows his people had their land stolen by christians and he still preaches

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 1:06pm

          Desmond Tutu is one of the better ones whose never been afraid to speak out against homphobia in Africa.

          1. Well said Jock S Trap

            Tutu is one of the most positive supporters of LGBT rights in the African church

            Sure he has made errors of judgement, but I can’t think of any example of homophobia or bigotry that I would link to Tutu

      2. read that again. he created and used a scourge on them. thats a flagrum. the razor tipped cat o’ nine tails the romans used on jesus (as seen in the passion of the christ)

        and their all christians. like them or not.

        1. Or pity them.

        2. Kitty Lovett 1 Jun 2011, 1:34pm

          “As seen in the passion of the christ”

          Not seen in: The Bible.

    2. Xaria, please refrain diplaying your ignorance by dumping Desmond Tutu with Fred Phelps, or the Pope. A simple search of this site, will show u how often he has stood up for gay & lesbian rights (sometimes at the cost of intense criticism from fellow bishops). As much as i have issues with religion, i do believe in giving credit where it’s due.

  12. I am always amazed at how many christians seem to behave in the most un-christian way possible, and still say its what god wants.

    Its only more proof of the hypocrisy of religion, I suppose.

    1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 1:07pm

      Religion, Bible, Koran etc, etc, etc all excuses used by people to justify their bigotted discrimination.

      1. Actually that’s not correct.

        I’ve been chanting ‘nam myoho renge kyo’ for 21 years now and Nichiren taught in his teachings that we are all equal.

        1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 3:58pm

          ok for some but Muslims try to convince us that women are equal while forcing them to be covered head to toe.
          Christianity convince us women are equal but still we’re fighting for women to be bishops.
          It seems all religions seem so try to convince that all are equal but underneath it all it is basically only a certain type, usually white, male and definitely not Gay.
          Truth is most original religious texts probably mean us all to be equal and most don’t even mention homosexuality but over the centuries male egos have gotten the better and these works of fiction have been changed to suit the bigotry, hate and a separate society.

          1. Kitty Lovett 1 Jun 2011, 1:37pm

            Islam does not force women to be covered head to toe, Jock. At the age of puberty, the woman is allowed to choose if she will wear a full-body veil, a facial veil or a headscarf – or any kind of headcovering at all. It’s purely a misconception that there is no choice. I know many muslims who choose not to wear any sort of covering – oh, and the Qu’ran says men are to be dressed just as modestly.

        2. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 9:33pm

          ….. “I’ve been chanting ‘nam myoho renge kyo’ for 21 years now”
          Why exactly. Would your time not be better used doing something charitable for instance??

    2. @ Will

      Actually I think it only demonstrates the hypocracy of individuals and their false contention that its due to “religion” or faith …

      When you see the reality of caring, loving honest, non-judging people of faith and contrast it is very different

      Some do openly condemn the actions of bigoted people of faith – I wish their criticism such as that of Tutu and Sue Wickham was more effective

      1. I agree somewhat, but religions tend to “do better” when the employ the “enemy in the mist” concept, and hence then to be run more by people who espouse this mentality. The belief in god given superiority and self proclaimed “divine rights” lead to the tragedy, among others, of the Inquisition and death camps.

        1. Yeah I do agree, but I also think that those groups (such as LGBT communities) which are marginalised by the comment and action of those who push more bigoted concepts of faith can be almost pushed into a polar opposite whereby they condemn all people of faith regardless of the views of the person who has faith – almost as if suggesting that anyone with faith is a WBC activist. Its a much more sophisticated situation that that. Not for a moment trying to justify the hatred and destructiveness of the bigoted religious.

  13. Chucky Baer 16 May 2011, 1:47pm

    And if I was that ABC reporter I would have asked this “good Christian” to show me where Jesus Christ spoke about gays. In fact I would want to know where he even mentioned lesbians. Then I would have asked him what part of the Bible are you preaching. I am not a violent person but I was gay bashed and beaten in 2000 by three “good Christians”. It’s about time fellow gay folk start standing up to these bullies. Jesus would be more concerned with people starving in this world not two people of the same sex loving each other. Bravo to the people that stood up to these freaks- it’s about time we start doing that worldwide.

  14. Christians have a right to express their views, its called democracy. It looks like gay protesters have lost their cool and attacked counter protesting group. And for a maximum publicity/sympathy blamed that group for an assult on the wheelchair user.

    1. You confuse the right to advocate views with the right of others from being protected from them – its a common mistake made by religious and less intelligent people who do not understand democracy. You biased statement belies your blindness to the facts presented here, the “christians” clearly went to the anti-homophobia protest with the intention to aggravate. Personally I think its beyond ironic that christians would go to an anti-homophobic rally to promote homophobia in the name of a “loving god”, but hey.

      And as for your insistence of “sympathy” becuase of the wheelchair incident, perhaps I suggest you take your head out of your bible/arse and look beyond your daft bias:-

      1. ‘You biased statement belies your blindness to the facts presented here, the “christians” clearly went to the anti-homophobia protest with the intention to aggravate’

        Its an opinion of gay organiser, not a fact, I think it is you that confuse something here

        1. And the police went along with this ‘opinion’?

          1. clearly things got out of control

          2. You think? Christians with lack of control. Who would ever have thought. Maybe next time they should just stay at home rather than promoting the anger they cannot control?

          3. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:51pm

            Well said Will.
            Truth is what does it say about the Christians here who are harrassing, abusing and attacking innocent people rather than sort out their own clearly tragic lives?

          4. All you have to do is watch this video and you can see the kind of people who where protesting against the gay rally. you see people like this at all protests they’re there just to cause a drama plain and simple

          5. Yes, kane, it does seem that things got out of control – ie some among the ‘christians’ couldn’t control themselves. Not very impressive, is it?

        2. And I think you are confusing your own bias with the reality of what possible purpose would these “christians” have other than to antagonise. Do not insult the intelligence of those on this site with your pandering to these morons simply becuase of your own less than erudite beliefs system.

          1. your interpretation of what constitutes an intelligence is of no relevance to facts presented

          2. Oh, but it does. Intelligent people would understand the difference between the right free speech and totalitarian theocracy.

          3. ‘totalitarian theocracy’ in Australia? Another so called fact

          4. Er, I was referring to you and your daft understanding of “freedom of speech” when it comes to those who would like to enforce a belief system on others to aggressively means. Are you finding it hard to keep up, or is it simplistic stupidity?

          5. you assume some hypothetical scenario and than try to present it as a fact and then you argue it as if your life would depend on it

          6. YOU made an initial hypothesis, kane. You speculated, with no evidence whatsoever, that the aggressors were the gay people. Will is right – you’re betraying your own bias.

          7. ‘YOU made an initial hypothesis, kane. You speculated, with no evidence whatsoever’

            Iris dear read my initial post I said IT LOOKS LIKE, never claimed it as a fact, and anyway my main point was about democracy

          8. Oh lets look at it, shall we?

            “It looks like gay protesters have lost their cool and attacked counter protesting group. And for a maximum publicity/sympathy blamed that group for an assult on the wheelchair user.”

            You make no mention of the “christian” protesters, their actions, or their presence there to inflame and insult – but you do make assumptions about the LGBT protest as “losing their cool”. You assume, without fact or merit, the person pulled off the wheelchair by the “christians” was an act of sympathy gaining, yet you offer no facts for this. Adding the words “looks like” means nothing when you simply make sweeping statements like this to defend these cretins.

            Yes, indeed Kane, quite the unbiased view there. How could we get it so wrong, eh?

          9. @Kane

            Whilst I have no doubt that some in the antihomophobia rally will have lost their cool, and this is regrettable – I also have no doubt (having viewed lots of images on youtube and Australian media outlets) that the antihomophobia protesters were provoked and I suspect that the person in the wheelchair was dragged from their chair by people shouted homophobic God hates type slogans.
            I have no doubt there were some elements of rentamob within the crowd (possibly on both sides) and it is naive (particularly of the church given that they were counter protest) to not recognise that provoking confrontation will attract an element that will seek to turn situations into a violent outburst – or maybe thats what they desired.
            Ultimately, this was a peaceful protest for gay rights that was infiltrated by a hate filled group that do not speak for the majority of Christians within Australia or elsewhere

          10. Oh please its a gay site, you get truck loads of bias in support of gay view, so it is not shocking that I try to present the views in way that might balance off that bias

          11. my previous comment was at will

          12. Stu, it is a very possible scenario

          13. kane, assuming that gay people were the aggressors isn’t exactly providing balance. Are you a Christian? If so, explaining that not all Christians are aggressive, etc, would be a nice way to provide some balance perhaps?

          14. Kane, the bias of others does not validate yours.

    2. They can’t have turned up with a ‘counter-protest’ since the rally wasn’t a protest to begin with.
      Instead it looks as though the “Christians” turned up specifically to protest against those meeting to mark IDAHO. Which implies they’re in favour of homophobia, really.

      1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:21pm

        Exactly Rehan, Well said.

      2. @Rehan

        Its a play on words whether it was a counter protest or some other type of action …

        The reality is that the LGBT groups were seeking to publicise their desire for equality

        The “Christian” group seemed determined to disrupt, attack (verbally or otherwise) and damage the peaceful message that the LGBT groups were sending

        Whether the violence began from Christians or from the provocation of Christians or from rentamob is virtually irrelevant – the reality if that none of this violence would have occurred if the “Christian” group had not sought to provoke, damage and harass peaceful campaigners

    3. Christians don’t have personal views to express they have dogma that is dictated to them and that they in turn try to impose upon everyone else even upon those who are not Christians. These Christians who hsave no respect for reality, evidence or other peoples boundaries need to control themselves or be controlled.

      1. lets call it views based on religious belief, as to your proposal of a control; today we gonna control Christians, tomorrow, its gonna be freedom of speach

        1. Freedom of speech is not the right to attack others for their right to non-interference nor is it the right to impunity to ridicule or challenging of those beliefs. These are very simple concepts in democracy Kane, yet you seem to have such difficulty understanding them. I suppose those with religious beliefs who think they know all the answers rarely have the intelligence to ask the questions – In short, proof the more religious you become, the less intelligent you are likely to be.

          1. clearly it is your version of what freedom of speech means, and clearly I disagree with that interpretation

          2. Irrelevant. Its not the view of the majority, or governments, or anyone rational.

            Stick to your preaching, Kane, its the recourse of the ignorant.

          3. Far be it for someone of my abilities to be educating the religiously inept in our society, but here you have a commonly recognised definition to counter your “opinion”:- According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the “harm principle” or the “offense principle”, for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.

            Simple, isn’t it, when you take the time to read something other than a bible of fairy stories.

          4. expressing common religious beliefs falls under freedom of speech, so not sure whats your problem

          5. No Kane thats not his interpretation of freedom of speech thats the official meaning of freedom of speech you can say what you want unless what you say counts as stirring up hate which this clearly is

          6. And what’s freedom of speech got to do with this alleged attack by ‘christians’ upon gay people? I think you’re diverting the discussion, kane, because you’ve realised that it’s likely the ‘christians’ WERE to blame here.

          7. Iris you already accused me of speculating, while doing exactly the same

          8. “expressing common religious beliefs falls under freedom of speech, so not sure whats your problem”

            But not the right to impose it on others, by any means, or by discriminating.

          9. what do you mean imposing?

          10. What do you think it means?

          11. Its rather rude to answer question with question.

          12. Its rather rude to argue in circles. Read all the previous posts, twice perhaps, then get back to us. What has needed to be said has been – you’re just not listening to it…

          13. Kane, I didn’t speculate – I reacted to what was reported here. That is, the detention of ‘christians’. However, YOU read the same article and somehow interpreted it to mean that gay people were the aggressors and trying to frame the ‘christians’. Why do you think that was the case?

        2. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:38pm

          See now your just talkin out of your butt!
          So just because We actually have the mind to have our own thoughts and expressions that aren’t controlled, that aren’t dictated to via a book, that don’t conform to your religious ‘beliefs’ it is us that is trying to control Christians and freedom of speech.
          Don’t make me laugh.
          All you are showing is a classic case of transference.
          It’s what bullies do or people who use violence against a partner.
          In your case we’ll change bully to Religious person, though little different really though.
          Because you no longer have control of people you now are throwing tantrums and accusing others of doing the things you’ve gotten away with for so long.
          It’s because you have lost control that you are now lashing out in a desperate attenpt to try to regain control but you know you are loosing it so you smear instead.
          You can’t even see that nobody, esp in the LGBT is doing anything apart from getting on with our lives.

          1. wow, thanks for in depth analysis, not sure what you are getting at. I was just underlining importance of the democracy and freedom of speech, some of you confuse this with condoning violence

          2. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 3:12pm

            But the whole religious belief is about control.
            Control of everybody.
            Christians are loosing that control and as for democracy and Freedom of Speech, religion doesn’t believe that either.
            It’s only because they are loosing control that the whole Freedom of Speech thing is being used.
            It’s why Christians believe they should be above any law of the land because they think Their religion belief tops everything.
            They don’t care about Freedom of Speech because they feel they should be able to do and say what the hell they like, with absolutely no consequences.
            Now they have lost control of the population they are like little children throwing temper tantrums to get the attention they so desperately crave.
            It’s pityful, really.

          3. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 3:22pm

            There is absolutely no reason why that Christian group felt the need to quash a peaceful protest other than the fact it was being done by a LGBT group.
            That is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech but Everything to do with incitment to hatred.

        3. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:38pm

          They’ll be no end, nor the depth you lot will go to to try to regain control of the population.
          It’s too late, you and your religion have failed.
          Give it up and leave us be.

        4. @Kane

          Even if for a moment I accepted your argument that this was a Christian group seeking to exercise their freedom of speech (which I do not) then I would still have problems with it …

          Freedom of speech is an important human right – but with human rights come responsibilities – that includes being aware of the implications of their speech and not denying others rights including others right to free speech, others right to a peaceful life, others right to a family life, others right to security …

          It seems that the group seeking to assert its right to freedom of speech from a church in Adelaide paid no heed to their responsibilities and either deliberately or through naivety have resulted in significant impact on the rights of both the LGBT communities who were campaigning and the general populus of Adelaide whose peaceful life was disrupted in a horrific and appalling way

        5. Its rather rude to argue in circles. Read all the previous posts, twice perhaps, then get back to us. What has needed to be said has been – you’re just not listening to it.

          1. Now arguing in circles is what Oliver/Ollie used to do, isn’t it? Strange

          2. Indeed. If you don;t agree, or can’t understand, just chase your tail. No doubt the string of insults and twisted truths will follow, but that only lends weight to the fact those who defend the actions of these Christians don’t usually deal in facts.

          3. @Will

            Was that comment directed at mine?

          4. No, sorry Stu, it was directed at Kane.

          5. (In response to Iris’s comment)

          6. @Will

            Thats cool. Just checking, sometimes difficult to keep track on here ….


        6. Kitty Lovett 1 Jun 2011, 1:43pm

          I’m going to say this nice and slow.

          In Australia – the country this incident happened in, the country I was born and I live in – does not have freedom of speech assured under its constitution.

          Let me repeat that.

          Australia. Does. Not. Have. Freedom. Of. Speech. In Its. Constitution.


      2. Indeed, but many ‘christians’ also find religion a convenient little cloak for their own nasty views.

    4. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:19pm

      Funny how you link Christians and democracy considering most of these Christians Preach as dictators rather than free will and free expression.

      1. Are you advocating an idea, that Christians shouldn’t benefit from democracy

        1. kane, not being rude but I have no idea how you got that from Will’s comment at all.

        2. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 10:53pm

          ….the jist of the matter is that a group who hold belief in a fictional deity attempted to disrupt a rally being held by a group who were born a certain way and have no choice in how they are. The deist group claim to advocate love. How did they manifest that claim in what they attempted to do in Adelaide, exactly?

        3. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 11:12am

          Not at all.
          Christians are justas entitled to Freedom of Speech and Democracy.
          What I am saying is many of them are hypocrites because they only believe Freedom of Speech should Only apply to them and that democracy should be replaced by dictatorship with everyone accepting them and doing what they say.

      2. And you are advocating an idea that freedom of speech is the right to discriminate.

      3. @Jock S Trap and Kane

        Of course Christians have a right to preach

        Of course the LGBT communities have a right to campaign for equality

        Of course both groups have a responsibility to ensure that the other groups (and those coincidentally affected by the exercising of their rights) don’t have their own rights to liberty, freedom of speech, quiet life, security etc impinged by them exercising their rights

        Its is obvious to me that in the Adelaide situation was as the result of the church group failing to understand the impact their actions could have or deliberately acting anyway ….

        1. Im sure Will could learn a lot from your answers not least how to formulate proper argument. I agree people will clash when presented with extreme opposing views, and as a result freedom of speech may suffer, but then again we have justice process to address that issue

          1. What a lame insult, Kane. You’ve been given the facts, shown your bias and incorrect statements were, you just refuse to believe them. That is your difficulty, not mine.

          2. @Kane

            I think Will has posed some very valid points

    5. Pure speculation – or wishful thinking. The police detained some of the ‘christians’ NOT the gay people. And who do you think assaulted the wheelchair user then? What exactly are you implying?

      1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:23pm

        Erm, it was probably the EDL doing it to stir up Christian/Gay relations.

      2. Im not implying anything, just looking at evidence available in article

        1. The read other articles on the story.

          1. surely it is not a verdict on journalistic abilities of PN on your part

        2. Not at all. Just hoping you can see past your own narrow limitations imposed on your though processes by your choice of religion.

          1. My religion? You tend to assume rather then conclude, clearly your favourite tactic

          2. I’ve seen your earlier posts defending christians as assuming their active discrimination is a “right”. A assume nothing.

          3. ‘I’ve seen your earlier posts defending christians’
            Oh such interesting thinking, lets expand it, lawyer defending child molester must be a child molester himself, interesting thinking indeed

          4. Stupid statement to make. When you defend those actions, you condone them. As you do by defending co-called christians who commit acts of violence and discrimination under the auspices of “freedom of speech”

          5. I just expanded on stupid statement made by you, so obviously expansion would resonate that stupidity. And again Im not condoning violence Im just simply advocating virtues of democracy

          6. “lawyer defending child molester must be a child molester himself, interesting thinking indeed” that is such a random comparison. It’s a lawyers job to defend people even if they have done wrong they take that on as an inpersonal thing where as it would be safe to assume that someone who defends a child molester see’s no problem with the child molesters views regardless of wether or not he’s a child molester

          7. @Kane

            As much as I have disagreed with Will and others on here previously when I have tried to take a moderate approach to faith groups, seeing the difference between bigotry such as that in Adelaide and those who are welcoming of LGBT rights.

            The comments that you have made in this thread can be seen as doing nothing but endorse the provocation of violence, the lack of responsibility exercised by the bigoted church members and the outrageous lack of respect for others rights.

          8. Kane, we’ve been over this. You wither refuse to accept establish definition of free speech, or you’re just stupid. I am making a judgement either way, as its irrelevant.

        3. And the article clearly says that the police detained some ‘CHRISTIANS’. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

          1. And whats my own facts Iris?

          2. “It looks like gay protesters have lost their cool and attacked counter protesting group. And for a maximum publicity/sympathy blamed that group for an assult on the wheelchair user.”

            You statement. You make quite an assumption here, in defence of these people, contrary to the information at hand. Just made them up, or simply desperate to defend the so called christians? Hmmm. What to think, what to think….

          3. Making assumptions is not the same as presenting those as a facts, so not sure whats your problem

          4. You keep saying this as it means something. You presented no facts. I’m at a loss how this simple concept eludes you.

          5. @Kane

            You can try and wriggle out by saying you were only making assumptions … when it is perfectly clear from the veracity of your comments that you regard your opinion and the assumptions you make as being factual and you intend to publicise them as such – its fatuous, unintelligent and arrogant to suggest otherwise.

          6. What’s your own facts, kane? Well, ignoring the fact that ‘christians’ were detained and implying that the true aggressors were gay people. You seem to want to ignore the fact of the police detaining the ‘christians’ and substitute your own ‘facts’. So much so that you went on to concoct a scenario where the person being pulled from the wheelchair was some kind of sympathy stunt by the gay people.

          7. Stu my assumptions where formulated for the benefit of argument, that gay people are always seen as victims in confrontations with opposing views, and at the same time almost always accusing holders of those views of abusing the freedom of speech

          8. ‘So much so that you went on to concoct a scenario where the person being pulled from the wheelchair was some kind of sympathy stunt by the gay people’
            Oh yes gay people are modern saints

          9. That is an irrelevant statement, or in fact an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. What gay people are “like” as a feeble generalisation only shows up your bias further, and lack of any evidence to support you’re now foolish position, Kane. Either stick to the issue and the facts, but do not throw around argumentum ad hominem to make a point.

          10. “Oh yes gay people are modern saints”

            And how did that answer my point, kane? You implied that the alleged assault on the gay person in the wheelchair was some kind of set up by the gay people. That’s not ‘providing balance’ at all. It’s pure speculation, if not wilful fabrication.

          11. Will, Im bored with your sudo intelectual patronising. Your arguments lacks merit, please contact Stu on how to make valid points

          12. If we dislike Christianity, Christians and do not believe they have a right to particpate in public life. I think the real issue, is that we think that right should be based on merit, and not an inalienable right to influence the public sphere based on some spurious, unquestionable notion of divine legality

          13. Well, of course you’re bored Kane, you lost what irrelevant and biased argument against gay people ages ago.

          14. A tip, kane. Don’t make derogatory comments about other people’s abilities when you can’t spell ‘pseudo’. (Er..or intellectual!)
            You randomly have a go at Will and tell him to contact Stu, but Stu doesn’t appear to agree with you either – or did you miss that bit?

        4. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 11:20am

          And the evidence shows that is was the Christians muscling in on the peaceful LGBT protest and attacking people in wheelchairs.
          Typically there style when they can’t get what they want.
          Nothing but thugs in this case.

  15. I find it breath-taking that religious bigots never go after straight adulterers and demanding a ban on their re-marrying. Whatever happened to “thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife”? Why aren’t they calling for the killing wives who commit adultery and their children for insolence? Why don’t they pluck out their own eyes if we offend them while they’re at it. Its all admonished in their book of fairy tales but they don’t practice what they preach or believe. Hypocrites and bigots, all of them.

    Ghandi was far more of a christian than these people will ever be and he was a hindu of course.

  16. Spiritbody 16 May 2011, 1:59pm

    Well Im gonna have to defend the Christians a little on this one Im afraid. The gays should have just gotten on with their rally and let the Christians get on with their demonstration. It needent have turned into anything physical. If we want the world to show us tolerance we have to show it.

    1. “If we want the world to show us tolerance we have to show it.”

      Sorry, but christians going to an anti-homophobic rally to promote homophobia (and clearly physical aggression) in the name of a “loving god” is not deserving of tolerance. It deserves no less then condemnation and exposure for the hypocrisy it is.

    2. martyn notman 16 May 2011, 2:04pm

      easier said than done, ive had (back in my demo days!) some quite aggressive christians physically try and put an end to our demo. If they really did try and push a lady out of her wheelchair then what are they supposed to do? fight back? I would…

      1. Yes, I’ve been at the receiving end of ‘christian’ physical aggression too. There are many damaged people among ‘christian’ protesters, people who have many issues and a great deal of internalised anger.

    3. These “Christians” in Adelaide are behaving exactly like trolls on a discussion site, they have nothing useful to say but merely want to flame and antagonise in the hopes of getting a response and hurting or upsetting some other people, they are seeking attention mostly, they don’t/can’t engage in reasoned debate or discussion but simply want to impose their arrogant and totally erroneous beliefs upon others through intimidation.

    4. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:25pm

      Clearly the Police disagreed Spiritbody and thinking that Australia is less tolerant than here in the UK i think that says a lot.

      1. I have to say the Australian police are well regarded in their ability to handle demonstrations – having handled many issues in the past including Aboriginal problems, Immigration issues etc – they have a reputation internationally of encouraging freedom of speech but stamping down harshly on provocation, aggression and violence. Given that the only people reported as being removed were from the church – its seems perfectly clear who the police regarded as being the aggressors and needing to be dissuaded from continuing

    5. Paddyswurds 16 May 2011, 11:01pm

      ….and that is exactly what the GBL group attempted to do, but thugs within the deist group began pushing and shoving their banners right under the noses of the GBL group Look at the many video clips of the incident on the Interweb and you will see why the police arrested members of the deist group. If the deist group wanted to exercise their freedom of speech why do it on the exact same spot as th GBL group. Adelaide has adequate space for both groups. They set out for confrontation and thats the fact of the matter whether you like it or not. The evidence speaks for itself.

      1. @Paddyswurd

        I agree the church group were the aggressors and to blame in this action

        I must correct an inaccuracy in your comment – the Australian police made no arrests at the incident in Adelaide … they removed some church members but no one was arrested

        Your comment about space is a key one however, I don’t know the law on public assembly in Australia but if this happened in the UK then the police would have to be informed by both groups in advance otherwise the senior police officer at the scene could direct groups without permission to leave the area and have them arrested if they refused to comply. The solution would be to facilitate public protest / public assembly in two separate locations usually.

  17. Don’t tar all religious types as extremists – the majority are reasonable people with everyday views. Some Christians, such as myself, and the minister mentioned in the article, are even gay…

    1. Some “Christians” are dominionists and biblical literalists who claim belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and that civil law should be based on their interpretattion of religious law,that business should be run according to religious laws and you will be aware of this…so instead of excusing yourself for not being one of those “Christians” you might excuse yourself better by condemning their extreme views and aims and the way they attempt to realise them.

      1. @Pavlos

        Some Christians are literalists and they need to be challenged – unfortuantely often challenge does not work as rationality and logic often does not engage with literalism. So even those Christians such as Jackie, Tutu and the minister mentioned in the report (and many others globally) who do encourage more rational debate and action to ensure equality are unlikely to impact on literalists completely (if at all) and they should not be criticised for this.

        I welcome that we do have Christians who are supportive of LGBT equality … I condemn wholeheartedly and without reservation the bigotry and evil sort of literalist Christianity that leads to the appalling and tragic scenes in Adelaide

    2. Dave North 16 May 2011, 2:50pm

      Which is about as logical as being a Jewish Natttsi

      ( Spelt to prevent the filters blocking the post )

  18. There is a HUGE difference between, “Violence “broke out” between Christians and gays” and “Christians brutally attacked gays who were peacefully demonstrating”!

    THEY attacked a woman in a wheelchair. Threw her to the ground and then THEY claim that THEY were the victims?

    It’s been the same from the charlatans and assholes for over two thousand years now. They attack and then play victim.

    1. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2011, 2:41pm

      Yep, hard to see how they’ll change.

      1. From what little I’ve heard though from friends, gay guys gave as good as they got, it wasn’t really peaceful. On a side note, the incident with the wheelchair was disgusting

        1. As I have said above, having been at many protests in the past I am sure there will be potentially fault from four groups – the church, the LGBT communities, the police and rentamob. It appears the police were keen to prevent the situation escalating further which is to be applauded. The wheelchair incident is demeaning and horrific. I still feel the vast majority of the criticism is justifiably levied at the church

  19. I live in Adelaide and was going to go to the rally but didn’t in the end. The only thing I can say is that I’m really surprised about the Christian protesters: never have I seen such vitriol from groups like this in Adelaide and nor did I expect it. You would expect that to happen in larger cities where there are more extremists, but it seems they have come to sleepy Adelaide which used to be famous for its progressive politics :(

  20. Between Christians and gays? ? ?

    I am sure some of those gays will have been Christians too.

    1. martyn notman 16 May 2011, 3:27pm

      well yes the headline is a bit like “christians and lions”..not helpful- there are a lot of gay and lesbian people with a faith. They just dont go ranting about it in the streets and trying to impose it on the world thats all…

      1. because deep down you know its all boll’#ks! – God is simply a device to cover ones general lack of knowledge – present a real argument and rational thinking people may listen – but let’s be honest – no faithful superstition holds up in the face of facts and reality. Does it!

        1. @JohnD

          Whether or not it is mumbo jumbo as you believe and I tend to err on the side of, what is the harm of it with regards the more liberal and rational of those with faith if it supports them and gives them a sense of well being …

          I appreciate there are bigots with faith – and they use their faith to drive their bigotry further – but its not the faith thats at fault there – its the bigotry …

  21. Embracing Religion (or being brainwashed from birth) is a LIFESTYLE choice – being born GAY is not! – So why are we Still hearing stories about bullies who cloak their bigotry and hatred in ‘God says…’
    A lifestyle choice is not essential to healthy living – ALL wars are brought about by one faith denouncing another – OUTLAW them all – and lets get on with Humanity embracing each other

    1. Galadriel1010 16 May 2011, 4:09pm

      If you think that wars are over religion, you’re as deluded as you think religions are. Wars are fought over property, always have been, always will be. Religion only comes in to deciding wihch side you’re on, and wars would be fought quite easily without them

      1. Your grasp of history is somewhat lacking, history is littered with examples of religion used to oppress. Wars over dogma are fought over control, more then property. Many wars were fought in “gods name”. The point JohnD is making is ideology being used to oppress and subjugate, of which religions have been quite influential in giving wars validation.

        1. @Galadriel1010

          As much as I usually think your comments are very level headed – I have to disagree, there are plenty of examples of wars being “in Gods name” or jihads or for the glory of God – where territory or property often isnt the primary objective

  22. As mentioned in a previous posting:

    “Nichiren Daishonin states,

    “Cherry, plum, peach and damson blossoms all have their own qualities, and they manifest the three properties of the life of the Buddha without changing their character” (Gosho Zenshu, p. 784). Simply put, each one of us contributes our own unique qualities through the role we play in society.”

    That’s why I chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo and having been doing so for 21 years now.

  23. JohnD, science tells me more about life and our existence than anything concocted in that book of fairy tales called the bible which claims the world is only 6,000 years old, while human civilization apparently is 165,000 years old which puts that Adam & Eve fable to bed, permanently, and that’s just for starters.

  24. Galadriel1010 16 May 2011, 3:43pm

    Pardon me whilst I headdesk.

    If you believe in a god who condemns love between two people, why would you worship them? I believe in Fred Phelps, but I think he’s a tosser who needs to decide that life as a hermit is the best way to go, even if he thinks he’s the best thing since sliced bread. I wish christians would think with their heads instead of their hearts and realise that either they’re taking the bible too literally, or their god is an asshole.

    1. More than taking the bible literally, I’d say, more like interpreting it wrongly as there’s nothing in the bible condemning loving, consensual gay relationships. I don’t really think they’re using their hearts at all, nor their heads, as you’ve already said.

      1. Agreed Iris, you can only interpret the bible wrongly. If you take it literally, everyone that cuts their hair, eats “abominable” shellfish, and thinks women are at fault for taking one of their 5-a-day from a talking snake, are going to end up in the pits of hell by order of a petulant god with anger issues.

        1. Yep, and they’d also be marrying off women to their rapists; killing their own children if they answer them back; killing women who aren’t virgins when they marry on their father’s doorstep, etc etc.
          The truth is they piously claim to follow the Bible, yet they only choose to follow the bits they wrongly think allow them to act on their own prejudices – or rather the prejudices that they think today’s society will allow. They’ve moved on from racism and misogyny, and now their latest obsession is gay people.
          You have to wonder about anyone who feels the need to have some biblical reason to pick on other human beings. It shouts ‘low self-esteem’ to me.

      2. So right Iris, they do interpret the Bible wrongly but they believe entirely and literally in their interpretation as being the inerrant word of God.
        Unfortunately there is no rational discussion or debate to be had with these nitwits.

  25. Spiritybody, there’s one big difference betwee us and “them”. We don’t go to their places of worship, stand outside and harrass them as they do to us. So any empathy for these so called “christians”, which they are not because they don’t imitate the life of Jesus Christ in any way shape or form, doesn’t hold water. In fact, most “christians” aren’t christlike at all. Ghandi was far more of a christian and he was a hindu.

    Chucky Bear, quite! In fact, all of the negative references to gay people is found in the old testament, the jewish part of the bible. Its interesting that of all the irrational verses in that part of the bible, these so called “christians” ignore killing one’s wife for adultery, or their children for insolence among many others, yet single out a verse in Leviticus to justify discrimination against us.

    In the new testament, I’ve not come across any negative comment by Jesus Christ in regard to gay people let alone judging us. They make it up as they go along

    1. Spiritbody 17 May 2011, 4:01pm

      Not sure why this was directed at me. I agree with everything you’ve said, and nothing that I said implied otherwise as far as Im concerned. I just suggested that I would like to see us set an example of tolerance towards people who dont show it themselves, transcending their attacks.

  26. @Kane

    I fully accept that on occasions there is a “victim mentality” amongst some in LGBT communities

    However, the evidence from the Australian police, from some Christians and various independent media outlets all demonstrates that in the Adelaide incident – the LGBT communities were the victims

  27. This is a technique which the Australian anti-gay lobby has borrowed from the US.

    1. Shout hateful and hurtful comments and display them on banners; get close to pro-LGBT demonstrators for maximum intimidation and distress.
    2. If necessary, initiate a physical confrontation with pushing, shoving, grabbing banners etc.
    3. Wait for the media to report that scuffles took place; exaggerate the seriousness of the incidents and attribute hateful speech towards pro-LGBT demonstrators without any evidence.
    4. Media cannot state definitively who is at fault; general public assumes good Christians cannot be violent.
    5. Joe Public assumes LGBT community is a bunch of thugs.

    This technique is mendacious but effective. Any physical altercation makes us look bad. However cruel the provocation, we can only win the media war by keeping our cool and being loving and peaceful.
    On a demo, always remember the advice of one famous social activist – Jesus: whatever happens, turn the other cheek.

  28. F@@king Christians again. loathsom creatures. I thought Australia was more liberated and free. I hate them as much as the Mussies.

    1. Religion always molests adherents autonomy of their own morality and how they view others. There is no country liberated and free for gay people.

  29. johnny33308 16 May 2011, 9:10pm

    These so-called Christians will never leave anyone alone. They feel it is their ‘right’ to inflict their hate-filled message upon anyone and everyone. This is why I call them KKKristians-this name is more accurate for these sorts of evil hate mongers. They are not interested in kindness and compassion-they are interested in bigotry and hatred, exclusively. They need to leave people alone and mind their own business, not ours.

  30. Art Pearson 16 May 2011, 11:34pm

    It’s a shame that these ‘Christians’ haven’t done their Bible studies. If they had, they would find that the Bible doesn’t support thier fundamentalist theology.

    1. Absolutely, Art

      Not only does the Bible not support their fundamentalist theology – it argues against such dogma

  31. I didn’t realise there were such religious people in Australia. Admittedly, I’ve never seen anyone preach against gays in England and never received discrimination from Christians. I have been told I’m going to hell when I posed a question about gay and/or Atheist good-doers, but as I don’t believe in hell, I’m not too concerned!

  32. The Christian Street Church’s Damien Gloury AKA Mr Street Evangelist said “We’re just preaching the Bible, we’re quoting the bible and it says that homosexuality is a sin.” Mr Gloury “knows” the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible 1611 is the TRUE word of God. Remember Deuteronomy 21:18-21 being disobedient to your parents “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son….shall stone him with stones, that he die” It’s obvious now that to get to heaven all we really need is His Holy Bible and a lobotomy. All we need do is let God do the thinking and we do the obeying.

  33. Atheism rules. Rid the world of christians. All the world’s problems are caused by religions. That book is not worth the paper it is printed on. The world would be a much better and peaceful place if we could get rid of religions.

    1. But you are speaking for yourself radical52, you don’t represent atheists. As a secular atheist myself I know of no atheist plan to rid the world of Christians, atheists are not sociopathic murderers as far as I know and they are not planning a pogrom on Christians, Muslims or anyone else. Atheists are free of the debilitating handicap of belief in God /gods that can make an appreciation of reality difficult for religionists.

    2. So radical, is your idea to rid the world of christians your final solution. How do you propose we do that? Gas chambers? Should we have a war between atheists and monotheists? I’m no fan of religion, but do you really think the world will live in peace and harmony when there is no religion? You sound like an atheist fascist to me.

      1. @Eddy Two

        Absolutely, whislt I am no fan of religion – the most dangerous things this planet has ever seen are attempts to eliminate religions … Wrong Wrong Wrong

  34. Christine Beckett 17 May 2011, 8:23am

    Wonder how long it will be before they start killing us, to “save our souls”?

    It’ll all be done with “love”, of course, and so they will be doing their god’s work.


    1. You mean like the Christian evangelist’s have proposed to do to gays in Uganda?

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 5:24pm

      Yep they are nothing but a bunch of ol hypocrites.

  35. The dark side of christianity rears its ugly head again.

  36. It’s thinly disguissed hatred sadly. There are so many things Christians should be helping people with – and we should be spreading the Good News of how people can turn from sin and enjoy a life more abundant. These people are so obsessed with what they see as other people’s sin I wonder whether they ever deal with their own failings. IT IS ALWAYS OTHER PEOPLES SWIN THAT IS SO BAD…. lets not copy their attitude and deal with what is wrong in our own behaviour towards God, this planet and how we treat other people.

  37. And lo did Jesus verily bash the sodomite over the head with his placard which read “I am the Way. For everyone except you, you dirty homo.”

    And the sodomite did shrug, and lo he did proclaim “whatever mate, you’re the one in the dress” and went on his way.

  38. Well, this Street Church that starts its list of core beliefs with “The pope is the antichrist” , which believes all other Christian churches are wrong and that the city council and police of Adelaide are at war with them is surely not representative for Christianity – I’ve found no sign that anyone but themselves takes them serious. That’s outer fringe of the outer fringe of Christianity.

  39. soapbubblequeen 17 May 2011, 4:06pm

    Slap a Christian! Go on! Slap them!

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 May 2011, 5:24pm

      So wrong but couldn’t help having a giggle.

  40. Obviously a handful of church-goers feel a little overwhelmed by the sight of same sex couples embracing in a mutual feeling of love.

    Nothing wrong with showing a bit of bonhomie is there?

    It really is quite simple; if you are anti-gay, go back to your cave, brick up the entrance and scrawl your messages into the chalk.

  41. it might sound like we’re condemning people but we’re not we’re just preaching the Bible. Quote

    Didn;t hitler blame the guns for the killing and the ovens for the holocaust?

    FYI- truth about how the catholic church hid for decades / centuries the endless molestation of children. Chane its name to the Godfather of Pedophilia.

    this is link to Philadelphia grand jury report on catholic church child abuse

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.