Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Scottish MPs complain over invitation to anti-gay speaker

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. martyn notman 16 Jun 2011, 4:05pm

    why on earth should people who refuse to treat others with respect be given any themselves? This man shouldnt even be allowed in the country. Together with the Knighthood to Brian Souter this is showing the SNP’S true colours..

    1. and the true colours of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservatives who remained silent.

      1. martyn notman 16 Jun 2011, 5:40pm

        agreed..but none of that explains or in any way makes up for the increasing homophobia shown by the SNP now they think they can get away with it…

        1. Tricia Marwick = moron.

          Need I say more?

        2. such as already beginning the consultation process for marriage equality?

          1. A consultation is often a way for a government to put off dealing with an issue they don’t want. A petition for marriage equality was submitted to the Scottish Parliament in the SNP’s first term by the LGBT Network which was supported by the petitions committee. The SNP government, however, refused to take any notice. I am not connected to the LGBT Network, by the way. Peter Tatchell recently said that you don’t consult on equality, you do it.

            http://my.lgbtnetwork.eu/?p=167

          2. And the consultaion hasn’t begun. Nicola Sturgeon said recently, when asked by Patrick Harvie, that it would begin as soon as practicable which is somewhat vague, if you ask me. She gave no timeline at all. There is no mention of it on the Scottish Government website, on the Consultations page.

            http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/06/06/scottish-government-pledge-to-begin-process-of-consultation-on-gay-marriage/

          3. And Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have said that they recognise there are a range of views on same sex marriage. Surely there are only 2 viewpoints, those who want it and those who don’t. The ones who don’t are homophobes and their views shoudln’t be taken into account. After all, the views of a racist wouldn’t be taken into account when considering race equality legislation.

          4. @WTF:

            How is that you believed the consultation process for marriage equality in Scotland had already begun??

            Can you offer any kind of concrete evidence that the consultation has begun; a date, a headline, anything??

            I’m not arguing with you; I’m curious, that’s all.

          5. @ Jonpol

            No because it was a rhetorical question, trying to give you a ‘step for a hint’ in your argument since you don’t seem to have any examples to substantiate your claim i.e. actual party policy (of which marriage equality is an example). To imply that the SNP are homophobic I would be interested to know what policies this party has that are homophobic.

          6. @ BennieM

            Not everyone supports marriage full stop. Personally I think it is a heinous institution we would all be better off without. Civil Partnerships are a much more modern, equal union without all that marriage baggage. I would not support ANY expansion of marriage to anyone. Many in the gay community feel the same. Guess that makes us the homophobes you talk about.

          7. @WTF:

            Sorry, but you did not answer the question, and you did give the distinct impression that you thought the consultation process had already begun.

            Also, whether or not you support marriage is completely besides the point, and you know it.

            You are also intelligent enough to know very well the nature of the real issue here.

          8. @ jonpol

            A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply.

            Yet you want a reply.

            The distinct impression was the rhetorical part.

            One could criticise the SNP for not giving a definitive date for the consultation on marriage equality when asked by Patrick Harvie. That would have been an actual ‘example’ (I hoped you would get it) of perhaps the true colours you refer to and not the example you give which are speculative and circumstantial (in my view)

            Re Marriage. Actually I get the point. It’s all about equality. If they have it we must have it. However if you view it as a bad thing, why spread it? I’d much rather campaign to allow opposite gender couples the right to have a Civil Partnership.

          9. @ jonpol

            And since you seem keen at avoiding questions asked of you, would you care to answer mine?

          10. WTF – Just because you don’t support marriage doesn’t mean gay people shouldn’t be given the option to marry if the want. Look where that attitude got Stonewall. At present only straight people can get married and gay people can only choose a civil partnership. The situation is unequal and whatever your or my personal views are, it must be made equal.

          11. rhetorical question, my *ss..

          12. whatever

          13. WTF – Jonpol is right, you gave the distinct impression that the consultation had already begun.

  2. Tricia Warwick is ignorant if she feels that a spokesman for a homophobic institution should either be welcomed to speak in a free democratic parliament or that if that does occur they should not be subject to scrutiny – its a shameful day on the Scottish parliament and the presiding officer has failed the LGBT community.

    1. Indeed Stu.

    2. Are there any doubts now that homophobia is on the rise in Scotland?

      Thank you PN (Jessica) for running this story and please shed light on Scotland’s homophobia more often.

      1. Well if you examine the UK Social Attitude Surveys, Scotland is increasingly more tolerant than the rest of the UK towards gay people.

        As much as I disapprove of the speaker in this instance, I hardly think it unique in British politics.

        1. Just because this isn’t an isolated incident in British politics, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge it. We need to speak out everytime gay people are discriminated against, no matter how slight it may appear, and wherever it occurs, whether it be the Scottish Parliament, Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, Stormont or a local council. All politicians, of all parties, need to realise that homophobia cannot be tolerated any longer.

          1. I forgot the London Assembly! I think that’s all political arenas in Britain covered!

          2. I think you might find the word ‘disapprove’ there somewhere. It was perfectly right to challenge or disapprove of this speaker. One could argue that the Pope is a homophobe yet his State sponsored visit provided an audience for many a politician throughout the land including support from the overwhelming majority in the Scots Parliament. It doesn’t somehow mean that Scotland has all of a sudden caught some kind of homophobia plague as Jonpol seems to think.

        2. Can you give a link to the UK Social Attitude Survey?

          It’s not that i disbelieve you, but so many of your comments have been vague and unfounded, haven’t they?

          1. Google it like I did…lazy.

            Oh and you have substantiated……let me look…..nothing so far!

          2. So you don’t have the link then?

          3. You don’t have Google then?

            here is your precious link: http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2011-press-releases/scotland-takes-relaxed-attitude-to-sex

            58% of Scots believe same sex relationships are rarely or never wrong compared with 53% in England. That’s the most recent figures published in 2011.

  3. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 4:25pm

    Shameful.
    Surely these oppressive people should be invited to speak in a democrat parliament.

    These people shouldn’t be given a platform.

    And so it begins…

    1. Thank you Patrick Harvie and Margo McDonald. Excellent work.

      1. Are Patrick and Margo the only MSPs in Holyrood with principles? Most MSPs, of all parties, will claim to be in favour of gay rights yet why do they all tolerate things like this?

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2011, 8:42am

      Oops, I did mean of course that oppressive people shouldn’t be invited to speak…

      Sorry for that.

  4. Tricia Marwick is clearly useless at her job if she believes that foaming bigots are appropriate guest speakers.

    She needs to be fired.

    1. A well-informed, intelligent and loving group such as “Affirmation” would have no reason to exist if homophobia (a mental illness which has deadly effects on all levels of a community) were not ingrained in mormon exegesis and theology:

      http://www.affirmation.org/

  5. Why were the complaints dismissed? That implies the complainants were making a fuss about nothing when clearly they had a valid complaint which should have been responded to properly.

    1. I’m guessing Tricia Marwick has been indoctrinated by the Mormons.

  6. This Tricia woman needs to apologise or be sacked. What the christian mormon church do to its gay youth that are born into their faith is abuse. They actually still use ECT (and other forms of torture) to try and cure gay guys as if homosexuality is a mental illness.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700

    We may have been declassified as a mental illness 30 years ago by the psychiatric council, but this christian organisation still treats gay guys as if they are sick in the head. Mormons are virulently homophobic, and this mormon should never have been asked to speak. Disgusting.

  7. Brian Adams, another charming SNP character.

    Seriously if you would vote for a party that thinks a man who believes jesus visited america and turned the native americans red as a punishment, is suitable for public office, youre an idiot.

    1. Don’t recall reading any of that in the SNP manifesto. Perhaps Mr Adams personal views.

      1. @WTF:

        Are you being intentionally naive?

    2. They nominated him, they put him as a minister, therefore they must believe he is a man of intelligence.

      1. so what are you implying, that the SNP discriminate against him on the grounds of his religious belief? That would make an interesting employment tribunal. They should perhaps go further and remove all Catholics and Muslims too?

        1. If someone believes that jesus turned the native americans red as a punishment, that person is crazy, and hence unfit for public office.

          1. We should apply Scott’s argument to people who believe in any religion! After all, if a politician said they believed in aliens they’d be called a nutjob, yet most of them believe in a guy with robes and a white beard who lives up in the sky or whatever the equivalent view of a god in non-christian religions is. How mad is that?!

          2. So you are a medical expert having made that prognosis of mental illness. Fair enough. If he is insane then that would probably disqualify him from office. On the other hand to suggest he should not have been selected as an MSP ‘on the grounds of his religion’ would be ‘actually’ (not made up) illegal.

          3. A person should not be allowed to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against gay people. This is even more important when that person holds poitical office and is a position to make laws. Look at Roseanna Cunningham tabling an ammendment to make it illegal for gay couples to adopt. What if that ammendent had passed?

        2. Ideally, a democracy ought to be secular, right?

          Do democracies promote the separation of church and state, or not?

    3. Paddyswurds 16 Jun 2011, 11:01pm

      @Scott…
      …….now here’s a thought. If Jesus was the “son of god” how come he didnt know about the Americas and Australia and all the other places that werent discovered for over 1500 years after his time. Also how come he didn’t set us straight as to the true nature of our solar system and to a wider extent the Universe, supposedly “gods” greatest achievement.

      1. hello Galileo…

  8. It was holding the parliament, its officers and the speaker to scrutiny – surely the cornerstone of democracy – to deny that is oppressive, dishonest and undemocratic and sends a message that the Scottish Parliament does not care about homosexuals.

  9. Wonder if anyone brings this up in Question Time which is in Aberdeen tonight?

    1. any update on that, Stu?

      1. @Jonpol

        I must admit I fell asleep 45 mins into the programme so there may have been a late question but not earlier on.

        1. I watched the whole programme, there was no mention of it or Brian Souter’s Knighthood and I was surprised at this given Alex Salmond himself was on the panel. In fact, they didn’t even mention the issue of Salmond having a go at judges and lawyers, the main news story at the time. It was as though the programme was deliberately steering clear of that issue.

  10. And we expect marriage equality under the SNP? Maybe Warwick is a homophobe herself for acting as an apologist for bigot elder Samuelson.

    The Mormon Sect contributed more than $22 million to defeat marriage equality in California and I’ve no doubt they’ll find some way to do the same in the UK through third party sympathisers.

    1. The homophobic role that the mormon church played in the marriage equality issue in California has been documented in a film called “8 – The Mormon Propo$ition – Equality for Some”, produced and directed by Reed Cowan and narrated by Dustin Lance Black, Academy Award winning screenwriter of MILK, Red Flag Releasing, 2010.

      This documentary is “a searing indictment of the Mormon Church’s historic involvement in the promotion and passage of California’s Proposition 8, and the Mormon religion’s secretive, decades-long campaign against gay rights”.

  11. I hate to have to point this out to a news organisation but MSPs are not Scottish MPs. The former are members of the Hollyrood Parliament, the latter are members of the Westminster Parliament for constituencies north of the border.

  12. Christine Beckett 16 Jun 2011, 8:41pm

    So let’s see.

    Invited by a mormon SNP minister, and the complaint slapped down by Tricia Marwick, who was also SNP before she was appointed Presiding officer.

    Anyone recognise a pattern here?

    chrissie

    1. I think some muck raking needs to be done in The Scotsman

      1. The need has been there for some time – why are there so few voices challenging the prevalent homophobia in Scotland??

        1. perhaps because it’s not as prevalent as you make out?

          1. are you in denial, or what?

          2. I just don’t berate my country like you take pleasure in doing.

          3. On the one hand I can admire you for not berating your country; on the other hand, no political party in a democracy is above scrutiny.

            Also, I am not the one promoting an anti-gay religious sect, am I?

      2. Letter sent to editor of The Scotsman – bet its not published

        1. I e-mailed the 8 MSPs who represent me (constituency and regional) about it. I’ve only had one reply so far, from a Scottish Conservative who thanked me for my e-mail and insisted he’d taken my comments on board but said he had nothing to add to the Presiding Officer’s remarks. Not a big surprise there!

          1. Why am I not surprised …

            Is it any wonder there is the sectarian issues if the presiding officer of Holyrood can not see her comments would be seen as offensive, divisive and homophobic

            I fully appreciate sectarianism is a very different issue before anyone comments, but it does have some correlation given attitudes and thought processes.

        2. I’ve now also received a reply from my SNP constituency MSP. She agrees with Tricia Marwick that any guest of the Parliament must be treated with respect and said the Corporate Body, who approve the speakers to Parliament, have a representative from all the main parties.

          1. How was “the guest” not treated with respect?

            If they are a guest does that “respect” mean their views should not be subject to scrutiny?

            Harvie was respectful and honourable in everything he said. Unfortunately, Marwick did not show respect for Harvie – after only seconds of introducing his point of order (which Holyrood rules allow 3 minutes for) she interrupted and aggressively asked him to come to a point, which again Harvie politiely responded to.

            This response reinforces my perception that the SNP has an insidious level of homophobia coursing through the organisation and it will have to work incredibly hard to alter that.

          2. @Stu:

            I agree..and I have presided local democratic committees and councils long enough to know that Harvie was perfectly within his rights to speak for the entire 3 minutes, and also had every right to question the presence of an openly anti-gay religious element in the Scottish parliament.

            To add insult to injury, Marwick’s lack of patience and diplomacy does indicate her fear (homophobia) to allow scrutiny.

            I urge anyone who doubts that the mormon sect is a deadly threat to society to read what gay mormons and gay ex-mormons have to say about their personal experience:

            http://www.affirmation.org/

          3. I agree with everything you say, Stu, especially about the SNP and it’s tacit acceptance/toleration (call it what you will) of homophobia.

        3. I’ve received a 3rd response out of the 8 e-mails I sent to my MSPs. This one, from Annabel Goldie, says her researcher contacted the Scottish Parliamentary Information Centre about it and she got this reply:

          “Thank you for your enquiry where you asked for information about who decides within the Scottish Parliament who is invited to speak at time for reflection in the Chamber.

          The answer is the Presiding Officer decides this and a proportion of religions/faiths are selected according to the census and then members must write to the Presiding Officer to request who they want”.

          So it’s pretty clear that it was Tricia Marwick who had the final say on this even if it was Brian Adam who invited this guy in the first place.

          1. That last paragraph in my comment aobve about it being Tricia Marwick who has the final say was my own words, not a quote from the e-mail I got from Annabel Goldie. For some reason the inverted commas at the end of the quote didn’t appear!

          2. I forgot to say, she suggested I contact the Presiding Officer direct to raise my concerns. It seems so far that nobody wants to actually do anything about it, apart from Patrick Harvie and Margo McDonald, and we know how far they got against Tricia Marwick, who seems to have an awful lot of power in the Scottish Parliament as Presiding Officer.

    2. I’ve also been concerned about the SNP and homophobia. I used to vote for them until 4 years ago when they took half a million quid from Brian Souter. That alone was enough for me to stop voting SNP and since then I’ve looked into it and been shocked by the sheer amount of homophobia that goes on within the SNP.

      1. such as?

        1. Such as the fact that the SNP who are funded by one of the biggest homophobes in Scotland, someone who’ve they’ve already dropped a policy for – the bus re-regulation policy. The SNP has some high profile people who are known to support discrimination against gay people, such as Fergus Ewing and Roseanna Cunningham who are both in Alex Salmond’s government. Both have publicy stated their opposition to gay equality. The SNP never actively initiated any gay equality legislation over the last 4 years and actually went out of their way to by-pass equality legislation from Westminister, the Sexual Orientation Regulations – the SNP government helped a catholic adoption agency in Glasgow to avoid having to comply with it and then gave it £20,000 so it could adapt to it! When the SOR legislation was being voted on in Westminster, only one of the six SNP MPs voted for it. Four of them, inculuding Alex Salmond, were absent and one, Angus McNeil, actually voted against it.

        2. Also Kenneth Gunn of Borders Council who made homophobic remarks on BBC radio. The SNP intially dismissed his remarks as personal, something they wouldn’t have done if he’d been racist. The SNP only disciplined him after it caused a bit of an uproar in the press and even then they merely suspended him for 6 months. He’s not a full member of the party again, and don’t try to say that he’s changed his views and is now supportive of gay people. He should have been kicked out of the SNP.

          1. My comment about Kenneth Gunn should have said he’s now a full member of the party again!

        3. And the SNP government’s refusal to bring in marriage equality legislation during their first term, which I’ve commented on in more detail in an earlier post.

        4. Before anyone accuses me of being a Labour stooge or a Brit Nat, I voted religiously for the SNP since I was 18 years old at every election – council, Westminster, Holyrood and European, even when they were getting nowhere. When they accepted money from Brian Souter 4 years ago, I was dumbfounded and haven’t voted for them since. The man is an evil homophobe yet the SNP see nothing wrong with accepting his money. Would they do the same with a racist or anti-semite? NO. At the time, Alex Salmond was asked on the news if he’d thought about the implications of accepting Souter’s money and he replied, “Not for a second.” The SNP do not care about gay people.

          1. Everyone in the SNP, members, MSP’s, Councillors, voters? What exactly? Are you suggesting the organisation is institutionally homophobic? What do you mean by ‘the SNP do not care about gay people’???? Like jonpol, you make such dramatic and sweeping statements but don’t really say what is meant by it.

          2. @WTF:

            Have you noticed that nobody is paying any attention to you? I have.

          3. The fact that everyone in the SNP is happy to be a member of a party whose main donor is a homophboe speaks volumes about them. Not one person in the SNP has spoken out about it publicy or left the party over it. How can they claim to be pro-gay when they’re only in the position they’re in because of a homophobe’s money.

          4. well jonpol you’re hanging on my every word!

        5. @BennieM

          Add to those Alex Salmonds reluctance to enter into debate or discussion on LGBT issues

          1. Exactly, Stu, quite right.

          2. Even though he publicly spoke out in favour of same gender marriage

          3. @WTF

            He refused to take part in debate on the issue though. He made a very brief comment and then rapidly changed subject

          4. If Salmond is in favour of marriage, why did his government not bring in legislation during the SNP’s first term? They had the perfect oppurtunity with the LGBT Network’s petition which was supported by the petitions committee, yet they did nothing.

          5. It wasn’t in their manifesto. Now it is. I’ll reserve my judgement until this parliamentary session ends rather than on promises never made.

          6. A manifesto isn’t a legal document that parties have to stick to – just look at the ConDem coalition. If the SNP had really wanted marriage equality, then they could have taken forward the LGBT Network’s petition which was recommended by the Petitions Committee.

        6. Read what Roseanna Cunningham says about sectarian hatred in this Guardian article.

          Cunningham said the events demanded immediate action. “There is no pot of fairy dust – I cannot sprinkle Scotland and have it change overnight, much as I would wish that to be the case,” she said. “But what we do have, as a society, to do is to address it, stop tolerating it – I think that has been one of the problems in Scotland. It shames us and it shames us in the eyes of the world and we have begun to see that and understand that and and it is time we really began to tackle it.”

          It’s a pity she doesn’t feel the same about homophobia given that she tried to make it illegal for gay people to adopt as it went against “1000 years of nature’s design.” Her exact words.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/17/scotland-religious-bigotry-bill

          1. It seems that some things such as sectarianism are not to be tolerated in Scotland yet homophobia is quite acceptable.

          2. Re Catholic Adoption Agency. It was Labour’s Peter Peacock and Robert Brown who began this controversy by promising the church ‘exemption’ from the westminster legislation back in September 2006.

            Labour backed (and paid legal costs) for Miranda Grell who carried out a homophobic smear campaign against a rival Lib Dem candidate in 2010.

            David Bradley, prospective Labour councillor was sentenced to 8 months suspended sentence for bombarding a rival candidate with homophobic text messages such as “Bearded gays should be buried alive in industrial-sized dog poo holes”. The trial was in January 2011.

            After the General Election in 2010, Labour held talks with the DUP (who have many outspoken homophobes) in an attempt to bring them into a Lab-Lib coalition.

            Mohammed Tufail, Labour activist in Oldham and preacher of gay-hatred.

            Labour’s treatment of Ron Davies and dismissal for bringing the party into ‘disrepute’ (i.e. was found on Clapham Common).

          3. Labour’s Ruth Kelly, member of homophobic Opus Dei

            Labour’s Ken Livingstone invited Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who describes homosexuality as an “unnatural and evil practice” to city hall as an ‘honoured guest’

            Former Labour MP for Falmouth Candy Atherton attempted to smear a gay Conservative candidate in the run up to the 2005 General Election.
            Her researcher claimed that he was asked to ‘dig the dirt’ on her opponent based around his gay lifestyle. No action was taken against Atherton by the Labour Party disciplinary body.

            Labour’s Stephen Pound MP was caught shouting homophobic abuse at Sol Campbell during a football match in 2010

            Cllr Liam Smith for Barking and Dagenham is notorious for his homophobic views attacking one woman verbally for being a ‘dyke’ in 2008, something for which he was cautioned by the police for. Cllr Smith now leads the local council on behalf of the Labour Party.

            ….and so the list goes on.

            I haven’t even started on the other main political parties.

          4. No doubt your list can include the SNP.

            As with any political party there will be some elements who should rightly be criticised and in my view expelled for not adhering to the principles of equality and diversity across the board. I will not however tar everyone in any party with the same brush as these idiots. Except perhaps for the BNP.

          5. @WTF:

            Pity that “some elements who should rightly be criticised” are neither criticised nor challenged in Scotland, isn’t it?

            Nobody here, including you, has tarred everyone with the same brush.

          6. @WTF

            I accept most of the examples you give of the Labour party smearing people on grounds of homosexuality or being part of or affiliated to homophobic groups.

            That does not mean that this example linked to the SNP is acceptable

          7. I’ve never once endorsed Labour or any other party. I’m simply pointing out some examaples of homophobia within the SNP. I have done so as I feel particularly strongly about this as I used to be a strong supporter of the SNP and I was very dissapointed to find out the party I supported took money from Souter without giving it a second thought. That alone was enough for me to stop voting for them. I’m simply trying to point out the examples of homophobia within the SNP I’ve found out about over the last 4 years.

          8. I’m not criticising your comments about a few instances of homophobia by members of the SNP. I would also add that I think that the party should have been more thorough in dealing with them (and been quite public about that). What I cannot accept is the assertion that the SNP is a homophobic party. Yes it does have examples of homophobic behaviour by a tiny minority, as have all the other large parties. As far as I am concerned they are no better or worse than the rest.

          9. And yet this tiny minority of homophboes in the SNP is never challenged by the majority of members. Why don’t they speak out about Souter’s money or Salmond promising the Catholic Church that he’d do everything he could to exempt them from Westminster equality legislation? Why don’t they speak out about Roseanna Cunningham being a minister given that she is a homophobe? As long as nobody in the SNP speaks out about these things, and all the rest of it, then I’ll brand the party homophobic.

  13. Christine Beckett 16 Jun 2011, 8:58pm

    If anyone is interested, the Honor (sic) Code of Brigham Young University is to be found at the link below.

    There is a whole chapter on Homosexual Behaviour, but the whole ethos is really rather scary and sick.

    Abiding by this code and the values it espouses is NOT going to produce a well-adjusted and free-thinking human being. It’s going to produce a fanatical monster.

    http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2010-2011ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php#HCOfficeInvovement

    chrissie

    1. The section on homosexual behaviour is probably an improvement over previous versions of the code, in that it lays out exactly the university expects from LGB students. And I can only hope, that prospective students who suspect or already know they’re not straight, will read this code before applying to BYU. The code is homophobic, and also – by implication – is the organisation whose policies the code embodies. Homophobic, in that the code bans activities such as holding hands and kissing, which would not be banned between students of the opposite sex.

      Many of the petty rules in the code are no different to those applied to schools in the UK, such as those governing dress, hair styles, use of foul language etc.

      When applied to grown adults it’s a different matter. The whole thing seems reminiscent of countries like Saudi Arabia or North Korea, countries which in their own ways also seek to control minute details of their citizens’ lives.

  14. So because he has an opinion you dislike he shouldn’t be allowed to speak? Disgusting. The cornerstone of a free society is tolerances of all views, not just your own narrow minded ones.

    1. Christine Beckett 17 Jun 2011, 9:04am

      Well, according to your simplistic definition, no country in the world is a “free society”.

      Name me one country that allows total tolerance of ALL views….

      Just one.. ?

      Nope. Didn’t think so. And that’s for good reason. History has taught us that some views should NEVER be accorded tolerance.

      chrissie

      1. Well said, Christine!

  15. Here is the Official Report of the Meeting of Parliament for Wednesday 15 June 2011.

    See pages 5-6:

    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/ORSearch/ReportView.aspx?r=6291&mode=pdf

    1. Thanks for linking to this Jonpol. Tricia Marwick comes across as being arrogant, telling Patrick Harvie to stop making a speech and get to the point. Maybe she only likes homophobes to make speeches!

      1. Her comments are arrogant, dismissive and give no sense of understanding what others may perceive.

        She lets down the Scottish Parliament – shames it by allowing an extreme homophobe to “preach” and then has the gall to say no one could be offended by that.

        She either is homophobic or tacitly homophobic by her actions and as the person responsible for time of reflection she colours the parliament with her own homophobia.

        Time for her to go

        1. The power has obviously gone to her head!

  16. jamestoronto 17 Jun 2011, 4:08am

    Holyrood’s speaker “dismissed the complaints and called for speakers to be treated with courtesy.”

    Too bad the Mormons don’t treat gays with one iota of that same courtesy.

    1. touché…

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all