cut the bullshlt. islam is homophobic.
Indeed it is.
So this is one of how many Mosque’s in the country?
Which are not homophobic
May I ask how you know personally?
For goodness sake. What did anyone expect? ELM has made these promises over and over again. They have no intention of keeping them. But this mosque hardly matters now – east London has been de-gayed (75% of the gay population has left in the last 20 years). The English Defence League is now having a competition for those who claim east London is not a dangerous place in which to be gay. We invite same-sex couples to get a friend to use a mobile phone to video the couple walking hand-in-hand from Aldgate Station to Stepney Green Station, right passed East London Mosque. To make this safer, we invite you to do it in daylight. The video that shows the tolerance of muslims best, will be the winner. We can’t lose – if we are proved wrong, then we can take heart from the fact that we have some additional years to save our country from islamisation. Please feel free to put your entries on YouTube and share with the world. Arabs in jalabas or shemales in burkas need not apply.
Firstly, this is not a comment in support of anything Muslim before anyone jumps down my throat – thats not appropriate here given the ELM conduct.
However, where did you get the figures and statistics to say that 75% of the gay population has left East London in the past two decades. Who collected that data? Recording of orientation in official statistics has never occurred on a census. I am intrigued about where this figure has come from. I am not saying it is inaccurate – as I cant prove it one way or the other. I would be interested in examining the methodology of how the figure was determined so it can be assessed for reliability and comparison to other statistics elsewhere.
Indeed, it is rather convenient for those who would claim that the statistics on homophobic hate crime show that the incidence is lower in Tower Hamlets than Soho or Vauxall. But the fact of the matter is that in 1991 there were 15 or more gay bars in Tower Hamlets, but in 2011 that figure is down to 4 (and soon to be fewer). Yet the number of bars in Soho and Vauxhall has increased markedly (so it ain’t because people have stopped using bars). So, let’s forget East London, and rejoice in the fact that there are virtually no mosques in Soho or Vauxhall, compared with the plethora of such worshipful buildings in Tower Hamlets. Indeed, the maps show an inverse relationship between mosques and gay venues – even within Tower Hamlets now, if there is gay bar in an area, you can be sure there are few mosques nearby. The comparative maps can be found among the photos on the EDL LGBT on Facebook.
you walk hand in hand in most of London outside zone 1 and you will get some greif. Muslims are homophobic but they’re not the only ones. Do the same in Bermondsey or Dagenham and see what happens
James! that may as well be (I have walked hand in hand through Walworth and Brixton, and had some surprised looks). But the point is, that east London has been de-gayed. I’m just pointing out the demographic shift. There are plenty of people who write on here who don’t support EDL, but they would not live in East London. Indeed, my concern is not principally with muslim homophobia – I’m also concerned about muslim racist violence (which is massively under-reported). Kriss Donald. Vicente Delgado. John Payne. No good can come of allowing islamic supremacism to keep on spreading. There is (rightfully) a park in memory of Altab Ali (a victim of a racist killing). But no memorial to Kriss Donald or Vicente Delgado. Why is racist violence only bad when perpetrated by white people?
Dont ask me
Anthony Walker got a ice pick in his head he hasn’t got a park named after him. Damilola Taylor was murdered cause he was thought to be a “battyman” and the press and ken livingstone ignored that point.
Agreed james, if you don’t get hassle its covert dirty looks just for having a snog . Thats why i have never seen gay men being openly affectionate outside soho , its very sad . I’m sure the denial crew will make up some “personal” story to try to prove otherwise but you ask any person on the street have they seen public affection by gay peeps , answer is no.
No, rapture … none of my personal reflections about snogging my ex (and other guys prior to my ex) in various parts of London are fabricated.
Judge people by your own standards …
Out of interest, I have sent a message on facebook to 5 random heterosexual friends of mine who live in greater London – and 4 of them have seen openly affectionate gay men – in Croydon, Enfield, Dulwich and Holloway.
Now, I don’t know if I socialise with people who are more observant than you, whether they are more open minded than the people you seem to know – or if fate has just transpired that you have not seen such things – or maybe the reality is you are the one in denial – blocking out what you have seen because it doesnt fit into your stereotype of a ghetto, homophobic, negative and pessimistic.
i agree, racist murders/crimes or paedophile crimes by muslims on white people seem to go largely unreported by media.
last comment was for edl supporter.
I know from casual observation that there are fewer gay bars in East London in the last 10 years (I have no knowledge of East London prior to that, personally).
I still don’t see how where you got your 75% figure from, however.
We will disagree (possibly from divergent experience) about the ability to walk hand in hand in certain parts of London – having done so in Croydon, Highgate, Hoxton and Hammersmith – as well as places in Zone 1 – its not my experience, although your experience is clearly somewhat different.
I do wonder how much this is want the police euphemistically refer to as the “fear of crime” as opposed to the reality … Just a thought – it may or may not be the case.
Also, how do you want us to tackle this homophobia – should we particularly target one group or be more generalist? If we choose one group should it be Christians, Muslims, right wing extremists, Jews or another group? What method should we use to tackle the homophobia?
We tackle it by doing as Pat Condell suggests – we name the poison. Whether that poison is islam, fascism, nationalism, racism, whatever. In 1989 when hundreds of British muslims followed the orders of an Iranian Ayatollah, to kill Salman Rushdie, we should have known we were dealing with something extremely unknown. (That they failed is another matter). We don’t need violence – we need understanding. Understanding of the nature of islam and of the nature of the experience of immigrants. Even (yuck) Melanie Phillips in Londonistan acknowledges that the failures are mostly those of the host society not provide an integrative identity. Kenan Malik’s point is even more poignant — he indicates how the Left have used muslim identity for their own purposes. The communists behind the UAF have no real interest in islam or muslims — only to use them as tools in a revolution. As gay people we never trusted the SWP or the UAF, and neither do most muslims.
I am not a particular fan of Pat Condell, partly because his satire and serious points sometimes are interwoven. However, exposing hatred and fascism, racism and homophobia etc is clearly a good thing. For two entirely different reasons (and probably more) it needs to be handled with care when such negative behaviour is confronted so as to not inflame the situation any worse than it already is (be that for whatever reason, including failure to act earlier) and to protect the integrity of the fight from unwarranted criticism. A sensible balance of criticism, action and dialogue is the best way (historically) to win most equality fights and other battles. I think it is speculation as to how many Muslims would have been prepared to engage in the fatwa against Rushdie – regardless it was stopped – but should be something that we acknowledge as a potential threat to the UK. It is correct we need understanding – how we achieve that is difficult and requires dialogue….
@Stu What a surprise you don’t like Pat Condell.
His style of comedy just doesnt always work for me …. Therefore, I tend not to register what he says when he is serious too …. Nothing more than that …
I’ll say it. The figure is absolutely made up. Its use lessens and cheapens a legitimate arguement against (some) muslim culture and teachings
http://s1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/gayfreezone/gay%20free%20zone/?action=view¤t=gay-east-london-1991.png How is that made up, you craven closet-case. Do you even live in East London? How do you know what life is like there? You would have lived outide Auschwitz and said “I can’t smell any burning flesh – it’s a lie”.
To be fair, none of the data is referenced. It makes no explanation as to how the number of bars links to population changes, homophobic offences or population or attitudes of religion. It doesnt consider other influences. It doesnt explain how the data was collected, who by and how verified …
Islam is not a single adjective.
Its more of an umbrella term
If you are asking what I mean by umbrella term then I mean that in terms of Islam – there are Sunni and Shi’ia Muslims, radical and liberal and many other factors …
In the same way in Christianity there are RC, Methodists, Quakers, Evangelicals, Baptists, Salvation Army
In the Conservative party there a liberals, anti Europeans, Pro Europeans etc
There are umbrella terms
So using an umbrella term enables anyone to say whatever they like because in some respect it will always hone some truth?
Eddytwo wrote islam is homophobic.
It is wrong.
It is right.
Shall we flip a coin or grow up?
I think in some situations using umbrella terms is dangerous and alienates people from one segment of an umbrella group despite the comment arguably being applicable to other members of the umbrella group.
Its not this simplistic, but saying Islam is homophobic is similar to jumping to the conclusion that all Labour party members are Roman Catholic because Tony and Cherie Blair are – its a ridiculous link to make. That said, just because Jeffery John is supportive of LGBT rights does not mean that the Church of England is also always supportive nor does it mean that the CoE is never homophobic – it sometimes is.
To be honest, it is one of the most homophobic religions out there. We shouldn’t make believe that it’s not.
Peace and tolerance is all very well but if people don’t agree with it at the core of their beliefs then what the hell is the point?
Absolutely, East London Mosque must be severely criticized for both encouraging homophobia (in the guise of a debate on sex education – sounds familiar to certain government policies in the 1980s!) and for failing to comply with their own undertaking to ensure that homophobia had no place within that specific mosque.
Certainly from a public perception point of view and from fudnamentals of how many interpret the religion – there is a sense of homophobia within Islam.
I would contend that homophobia is not one of the core principles of the religion and thus not all Muslims are homophobic. Many are, however.
There has to be a balance between the peace and tolerance (where this is appropriate) to establish a society that has mutual respect and honesty and challenging dynamically rampant homophobia and discreditable conduct such as the hypocracy of the East London Mosque.
What’s with the concern with ELM? The islamic fascist party Hizb ut Tahrir is having their 25th annual conference, just up the road from ELM (9th July). They used to hold their conferences in The Troxy (also in Tower Hamlets), but intervention by the EDL last year meant that venue is now closed to them. This year Hizb ut Tahrir did not announce their conference until 14 days after the EDL announced they would be busy with 5 national demos on 9th July. In the last 25 years, the only group to protest against the murderously homophobic Hizb ut Tahrir, was good old St. Peter of Outrageous Politics. In the whole 25 years, Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, and UAF have NOT ONCE protested against Hizb ut Tahrir (goes without saying no muslims ever protested). So why not get your knickers in a twist about Hizb ut Tahrir, and Leave ELM Alone! According to a recent document from Quilliam, HuT is “genocidal and fascist”. So calling them “fascist” is rather mild, really.
Fascists pointing the finger at others… you EDL fascists do nothing but create hatred and spread lies. It is equally shocking that nobody bothers to condemn the blatantly racist comments and fascist agenda the EDL is espousing pinknews forums.
Islamists and EDL deserve echother I just wish they’d keep their crap to themselves
Whilst my feeling is that EDL are generally racist (there may be members who are not overtly) and having encountered them in a professional context, I know they can be manipulative and accusatory. However, on this thread with some exceptions the conduct of this EDL supporter is based in reason (which makes me somewhat uneasy) – although I still struggle to see either where the 75% figure came from – who counted – who worked it out? and then how you relate that to Muslims, extremism, the economy, a remodelling of the London gay scene and wider remodelling of London, etc etc – there isnt a single issue, its complex. I prefer to condemn an individual on evidence they give or agree on evidence they give. I dont trust the EDL and they dont represent me, but some of what this person says is reasonable.
I used to be a member of the UAF (I quit over there alliances with certain groups that where homophobic) and trust me I saw plenty of EDL members who weren’t particularly racist more just misunderstanding the difference between muslim extremists and the rest of the islamic faith. However there’s a whole load of racist’s, known Naz!s and thugs to make me know that anything the EDL say is just another front for another form of fascism.
I agree some Islamic branches are quite fascist and I will stand up against fascism wherever I see it but if the EDL are protesting it I can’t as I don’t want to support them.
I guess I am in complete agreement with you – but I can have a discussion and debate with an individual EDL member and agree on some things and disagree on others
Surely it isn’t the media that have singled out the East London Mosque. They singled themselves out by making their pledge not to host any speakers who have previously expressed homophobic views.
They can’t declare that they are going to apply a new standard and they get upset when people hold them to account for evidently failing to uphold it!
Absolutely. Even people who urge caution in lumping everyone with a label into the same pot and urged the opportunity for ELM to be given a chance to succeed or fail regarding its own words on homophobia (and I was one of them), must recognise that this is of the ELM’s own making. They set themselves a standard (that wasn’t too difficult to achieve – make sure homophobic preachers aren’t welcome in the Mosque and organisations suipporting homophobia are not permitted to use the Mosque – quite simple really) and failed at a very early stage.
Now, is a very appropriate time to fervently campaign and raise the profile of this insidious Mosque for what it is. If there is any organised campaigning by a reputable organisation please let me know.
They are not being singled out (it was only a couple of weeks ago that a christian church was being picketed for hosting a reparitive therapy conference).
“Why are we being singled out….” is simply a stock victimhood phrase from the Book of Deflection (not sure which testament or holy text). It like most stuff they spout is not true but it serves a purpose in trying to deflect any criticism. In the secular world it is called “whataboutery”
I agree they are not being singled out – other than they have been identified as being homophobic, there is evidence of the fact and there is evidence of their hypocracy with that.
That is no different from the protest you mention in Northern Ireland 2 or 3 weeks ago, or campaigns against WBC etc etc
In all honesty – did we really believe them?
I know I was extremely sceptical.
I was skeptical too, Ian – but wanted them to not be able to say that we hadn’t given them a chance to succeed. I hoped I would be wrong but suspected I wouldn’t. They had a chance – and failed. This mosque is acting in a homophobic manner by allowing a voice to a homophobic organisation which they categorically stated they would not do.
Only the allies of islamisation believed them. You know, UAF, Searchlight, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems. Perhaps Fiyaz Mughal could pop up again and issue some soothing noises. Meanwhile, a man who painted “no mosque here” has been convicted of racial hatred. He could have painted “no gays here” in 100 different locations – no-one would have cared. http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/06/words-no-mosque-here-are-racist.html
Its not as black and white as you portray. However, I would expect such attempts to foment civil unrest and anxiety in society from someone supportive of the EDL.
These people are playing games. They will raise any smokescreen which permits business as usual. Liberal society requires that they should be allowed to preach their bilgewater. But when they call for our deaths – which I think they do far more than these propagandists admit – they should be closed down. On that point society has been far too indulgent.
I don’t know why I find the prospect of closing down a Mosque a particularly difficult issue to accept, other than the damage to the local area by the initial public disorder that would be inevitable, or the “community” relations damage that would be done. I think the rhetoric and vitriol from ELM is undoubtedly damaging to the LGBT communities and needs to be stopped as soon as practicable. I also fully endorsed the close down of sects such as Waco and others when child abuse and other offences were taking place. I just have a real sense of uneasiness about closing down a place of religion and the accusations that could ferment as a result. I do entirely agree the strident homophobic actions from and in the name of ELM need to be stopped (if that means closure, I guess I would support it – but am concerned we need to assess the risks with that first – not that inaction is defensible).
They do not call for our death. That is criminal and you are being a propagandist in this moment.
It is interesting how the majority of people speak about Islam on here and display all of the tropes that they seem to be against.
You can be in solidarity with groups and people and disagree, it is called maturity.
It is you who is condemning!
Nice to see some common sense and reason on here. I do agree it is possible to be supportive and befriend some people in a group and disagree with others in a group.
I do think there is reason to be fearful of some Muslims in a way that is different of other faiths (currently).
I do think some people of all faiths whether intentionally or not demonstrate homophobia by their controlling and power hungry behaviour – or sometimes just out of sheer homophobia.
I do think it is right to confront and condemn such homophobia.
I also think it is right to support those who are liberal and that this is not mutually exclusive from condemning bigotry. Sometimes the use of an umbrella term such as Tories, Christians, Muslims, the Japanese, the Germans etc if offensive because it stereotypes the entire population of those umbrella groups or who identify themselves as being in those groups as being something only a proportion are.
I think we over use the word homophobic. I don’t believe that these people are very fearful of homosexuality. I do believe that they are just plain intolerant of difference and try to use any myth, lie or made up rationale in an attempt to control anyone or group that does not conform with their view of the world. They are into plain old power and control – divide and rule through supporting inflaming hatred of difference. .
I agree that the word “Homophobia” is over used. Personally, I think it would be better replaced with the more accurate term “Sexual Prejudice”, but even in academic circles the word sexual prejudice tends to be eclipised by the term homophobia.
Yes John thats the problem
From the point of view of someone who believes he (she) is chosen by a deity, dissimulating his strategy from the infidel dogs can hardly be considered a sin, can it?
Th extremist is not only homophobic and sexually prejudiced, he needs to be prejudiced against every living thing that is not Islam.
‘Homophobic’ means dislike of LGBT people.
The argument that it means ‘fear of homosexuality’ (or literally fear of sameness) is, in my opinion, used by Christians to undermine our case, and I’ll have none of it!
Perhaps instead of ‘Christians’ in my post I should have used the word ‘homophobes’
I kind of see what your saying. I see homophobia as a fear or contempt of homosexuality, an extreme aversion.
In the sense that I doubt the fear, I can understand the use of the word to relate to the contempt or aversion – but for me there is a difference in emphasis between the fear and other reasons for the use of the word homophobia.
Nonetheless, I think the word is overused but convenient. I also think motivation has to be considered and for those of all faiths who condemn and (sometimes) attack homosexuality there is a sense of seeking power and control.
Absolutely. I agree.
I think the use of the word homophobia actually is what causes the interesting debates on some of these threads. There is clear homophobia from some religious people, Muslim, Christian and otherwise (and of no religion). However, where there is intolerance (and worse) of homosexuality in religions it is less about fear of our orientation (usually) and more about power and control.
An interesting attemp look at the viccissitudes of homophobia versus the sexual prejudice debate, can be found in much of the work by Gregory Herek, a leading authority on the subject.
Jesus wept! The Mosque has clearly said it will no host homophobic hate preachers. We all agree that that is a good idea. Perhaps Pink News should now agree to ban all Islamophobes from comments.
NOT all Muslims are homophobic. Christian, Jewis and Islamic traditions all share the same biblical ideas that have been interpreted as opposiing gay practices.
I have just returned from hosting a club in Paris – a gay Arab club called Total Beur where the vast majority of clubbers are happily gay and muslim.
I also campaign against homophobia by Christians, Jews and Muslims and have also made allies and friends of the gay community within these faith groups.
Please if we expect toleration and acceptance perhaps we should off it to others.
Lets not generalise about about this. Getting a major faith centre to agree to no longer host hateful homophobes is a great step.
Lets build on this & show faith groups that we are not a bunch of hysterical, paranoid islamaphobic queens!
I am with you to an extent. I also campaign against homophobia from Christians, Muslims, Jews and others. I fully accept there are gay and gay friendly Christians, Jews and Muslims (and atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Sikhs etc).
ELM did say it would stop homophobic preachers – they did also say no homophobic group or content would be permitted on their premises. They have clearly failed. They need to understand thats not acceptable and will not be tolerated. We need to work with people who our allies and hold faith – but we also need to ensure where there is severe or repeated anti gay rhetoric or threats particularly it demonstrates the hypocracy of a claim by an organisation that it is vehemently and urgently condemned and exposed.
I agree that we should generalise about all Christians, etc. But let’s not make the other mistake of conusing attacks on gays (who are born that way) with (verbal) attacks on people of faith, who make a conscious decision (a genuine lifestyle choice) to adhere publicly to institutions (such as most mosques and the Catholic Church) which assert that what we are is immoral. It’s no differnet from verbally attacking and disrespecting someone who has joined the KKK or the BNP.
So when does the East London Mosque host pro-gay speakers, it never does and it never would. The only way Islam deals with homosexuality is to defame and condemn homosexuals.
Of course there are non-homophobic individuals but we don’t have a problem with individuals, it’s those religious leaders and speakers with influence who incite others with their hate speech that create an anti-gay culture in a neighborhood andf lend legiticacy to youths who go out gay bashing.
The problem though is our use of language sometimes. I suspect no one on here (although I am open to be corrected) actively harbours grudges or contempt for anyone who purely because of their faith – particularly if they are gay themselves or are gay friendly. If we then say Muslims are homophobic or Christians are homophobic then we include by the language we use those who are gay or who welcome LGBT people. Its arguably tenuous but it does impact on our allies and demonises them inappropriately and unfairly.
Now, on the particular issue of ELM – they demonise themselves by their actions and their hypocracy and their lack of positive action.
So when does the East London Mosque host pro-gay speakers, it never does and it never would. The only way Islam deals with homosexuality is to defame and condemn homosexuals.
Of course there are non-homophobic individuals but we don’t have a problem with individuals, it’s those religious leaders and speakers with influence who incite others with their hate speech that create an anti-gay culture in a neighborhood andf lend legitimacy to youths who go out gay bashing.
please excuse double post.
I do sort of agree with you about there being a distinction between being offensive to a LGBT person (or people) and those who make particular choices in terms of lifestyle (be that religious, political or otherwise).
I do think that if we are overtly aggressive and offensive in our language then it leads to two problems – i) it alienates those Christians, Muslims, Tories, SNP members or whoever who are supportive of LGBT issues or indeed are LGBT themselves and ii) it almost grants permission to respond in type to the LGBT communities.
I do agree we need to condemn, confront and expose homophobia – in whatever form and wherever it is. Sometimes that needs dynamism and vehemence. Sometimes a more measured response serves the LGBT communities better in the longer term.
When the ones who are not speak up i’ll take notice until then i’ll go by my personal experiences
I would like to see them do a hell of a lot more.
Try Turkish Pride or any of the following:
and they are just a view vivid examples of the positive stories there are – but all we hear are the ignorant homophobia.
There should be more positivity from gay Muslims and pro gay Muslims – but is there any wonder when gay Muslims are condemned by other Muslims for being gay and condemned by other gays for being Muslim.
The problem is not with gay muslims or pro gay muslims, the problem is with the anti gay muslims. Stop blaming us
Read what I just said. I haven’t blamed me, you or the wider LGBT communities for Muslim people who are homophobic or the gay Muslims who fail to do more. I have tried to understand why gay Muslims do not do more. I have also repeatedly and consistently condemned homophobia.
“ban all Islamophobes from comments.”
You can either oppose the criticism of ALL religions or not at all. Stop playing favourites please.
Criticising the abuse of LGBT people in the name of Islam has a valid purpose, it is not simply ‘Islamophobic’, so you can put that label to bed, thank you very much.
Be careful about how you use that term: be very careful.
I don’t think it means what you think it means
You see what they did there? The same thing homophobic Christians do. They pledge not to allow hate speakers to speak but then claim that it’s not hate speech if it’s part of their religion and that many in their religion have the hateful belief that the speech is promoting.
We see it from all the desert cults. NOTHING is hate speech if you preface it with the words: “My God says…”; “My religion says…”; “The Bible/Qur’an/Torah says…”; “Jesus/Mohammad/Moses said…”; “I believe…” or any other such tripe.
It’s one HUGE escape clause from their so called pledge.
well the mosque is technically right about being single out for the critique there isnt much that seperates islamic and christian homophobia, one is crude and crass and the other one is sophisticated and well organised, catholic churches dont hold much when talking about homosexuality and dont even start me on orthodox jews community and their homophobia
I’d like to point out an interesting observation. When anti-gay Christian/Muslim/Jewish leaders and followers express an anti-gay opinion they say, “It’s not MY opinion; it GOD’S opinion”.
When the Dalai Lama, the leader of a relatively small sect of Buddhism, made a comment a number of years back that he didn’t feel that homosexuality was natural and good because it differed from the norm and didn’t produce children, when challenged to back up his statement from a BUDDHIST prospective (from the teachings of the Buddha or from Buddhist scripture) immediately confessed that it WASN’T the teaching of the Buddha or Buddhism that said informed this belief, but instead was HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION; an opinion that I’ve heard has changed considerably.
Even if I disagree with the Dalai Lama I can at least appreciate that he takes ownership of his own opinions/biases/bigotries and doesn’t try to blame them on his religion. Of course Buddhism having NO anti-gay texts helps.
It helps that Buddhism isn’t, strictly speaking, a religion as such, since it doesn’t worship gods – or at least not in its purer forms, where it is really a philosophy (that’s not how it’s always been interpreted, admittedly).
The East London Mosque says that this meeting is “part of a joint event organised by a Christian organisation.”
The “Christian organisation” is the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC).
SPUC is a very very extreme Catholic group indeed. It even opposes early stage (i.e. “morning after pill”) abortions resulting from rape, for example.
Here is the Director of the SPUC, attacking Catholic Voices for suggesting that homosexuals can be good Catholics as long as they don’t have sex. His argument is that even this position contradicts the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
So, in a nutshell, you have two groups – one Muslim and one Catholic – which are at the most extreme end of the spectrum of both religions. Both disgusting.
The difference is that the East London Mosque is a publicly funded institution.
Plus, the SPUC hasn’t made a promise to oppose homophobia.
Link to the SPUC article is here:
Its truly remarkable that people like the Dalai Lama personally believe that being gay is wrong because it doesn’t lead to procreation. Would he then think it wrong if straight couples marrying can’t procreate or choose not to but still marry? I don’t understand the logic in that, assuming there is any. Its the same argument most other denominations make when they oppose same-sex marriage. What makes religious opponents think their beliefs can be imposed on others in matters that are purely civil and outside of religion? Civil marriage isn’t religious marriage, the two are totally different and there is no mention of civil marriage in any religious text that I know of.
I know this might not be popular and I know that people will be upset about how intolerant this may sound but has it occured to anyone that religion is just merely one tool used as a control mechanism?
We’re taught to believe in some surreal, omnipotent patriarchal figure sitting in the sky (which also doubles as an ethereal plane). We’re taught that we are there to procreate, marry and procreate more. Homosexuality goes against that so it’s not tolerated.
At the end of the day I’m all for people having whatever belief they have, what I am against is that time and again we’re forced to adhere to it, creating messy situation after messy situation, men and women around the world living in fear because they’re gay or trans and on occassion if they’re not attacked and killed they’re topping themselves in abject despair.
Yet when we complain? We’re classed as villains and told to be tolerant? No actually, I don’t want to be tolerant anymore.
I want to express my right to live with and love WHOM I want. I don’t give a damn who cares and who doesn’t but I do have a right to live in peace, security and happiness.
Of course there are people of faith whol believe just that too, but perhaps it’s time we didn’t look at the smaller picture and put our attention to the larger playing field. It’s not a question of tolerance, it’s a question of right and I am sick and tired or the ignorant having free reign to attack me yet I’m criticised when I sling it back?
No way. Wake up people.
I would like a law that says they can teach and say what you want in the mosque, church and temple but if they take that into secular society (the streets, work, shops, schools and hospitals ect) they face two years imprisonment for hate crimes.
I do like your suggestion but suspect it would take a great deal of working on. Part of the problem would be this governments desire to see religious groups working in secular society as part of the The Big Society.
I get worried about stories like this because it plays into the hands of those who make us out to be illiberal bullies.
How do you see that, HelenWilson?
I am sure there are some illiberal bullies in the LGBT communities as much as there are some in religious communities.
However, I think most of us in the LGBT communities seek fairness, freedom and integrity
No! Surely not!
Some idiots were actually soo gullible, they believed elm’s crock of crap. Taqiyya being executed.
Or alternatively they wanted them to have the opportunity to choose to succeed or fail. That failure compounds the homophobia and makes the homophobia worse (in that they tried to pretend it didnt exist in a flagrant act), it also gives evidence to demonstrate their breach of their own promises. Sometimes if you perceive someone is against you, you have to let them prove it.
I guess they can not be trusted to keep their word, but really are they any different than the Christians who rant and rave against gays all the time?
Yes. Because for all of its stupidity and worship of a mythical man who died on a cross wearing a nappy, Christianity has no scriptural mandate for world domination. (Although every faithhead hopes that their particular brand of useless nonsense will win out in the end.)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The best mosque is an unbuilt one, or a demolished one – or one that’s being used to house and feed pigs. Never trust the Bangladeshi and Pakistani sewer rats that dwell therein now. They have brought havoc everywhere that they’ve been.
The same can be said about Churches and BNP book shops…..Still not seen any rivers of blood Enoch..looks like you was wrong.
And I agree with you. But the subject under discussion is this toilet in East London. :-)
For rivers of blood, Helen, you’ll have to look to the Middle East, and wherever else Islam has a foothold. I hope they never flow to here. Really.
Rivers of blood aren’t limited to religious battles – try Pol Pots regime in Cambodia.
Very true. You’re more concilliatory and commonsense than I could ever be, Stu… but I think we need drastic antidotes to madness of this sort. You can only be accommodating and constructive for so long. The Koran should be banned as hate speech. There would be unrest at first, but the message would be sent out globally that this filth is unacceptable in this country. Are you aware that Jihad translates into German as Mein Kampf?
I wasnt aware of the literal translation of Jihad into German – although had read somewhere of a connection between the word and Mein Kampf
I don’t think either of our approaches to trying to resolve this difficult and complex issue are mutually exclusive. Firstly, when drastic antidote is taken (if that occurs), then there is still a role for diplomacy, concilliation and reassessment – to maintain perspective and proportion, to allow review and redress and an opportunity to rebalance, to gather information and to support those who are LGBT people within the Muslim communities. The issue is deciding what form of drastic action, and the timing. I know many will be impatient – believe me, I am very impatient for equality – but it is imperative that if we were/are to take drastic action that we dont suffer (apologies for analogy) from premature ejaculation.
If we’re going to ban the koran then we must ban all religious books and as for the Jihad into german say’s Mein Kampf I highly doubt that, sounds like manipulative wordplay to make us view the Islamic faith as fascist which its not all just as with all religion certain bits of it.
@hamish, “certain bits” of islam are “facist” ? according to you, does that make it acceptable then as a chosen ideology?
Why blame muslims? Blame successive governments, blame the media, blame the Left. Muslims are (in a way) victims in this too. http://www.kenanmalik.com/papers/fatwa_intro.html Instead of providing them with integration and a strong sense of a (progressive) British identity with which to supplant a (religious) muslim identity, we have come to treat “being muslim” as “being black”. I’m pretty sure that 90% of “muslims” in Britain are not really religious – but they have no other identity than “being muslim”. Which suits political parties very well (they know who to address in order to win seats), and it suits islamic extremists very well. If we had had informed debate about islam 30 or even 20 years ago, instead of a media blackout, many more muslims would be calling themselves “ex-muslim” or “lapsed muslim” or even (as Kenan Malik points out) “asian”. Allowing the spread of toxic islamic fundamentalism just shores up the homophobia that many straight people feel anyway.
I (with reluctance) knowing the tenacity of EDL from old, to sometimes misrepresent and twist things acknowledge that there could have been better government action consistently over the years in terms of promoting a British identity and pride and patriotism and for this not to have been seized on by right wing extremists as their badge – Churchill would have been horrified (although I suspect we might disagree at what he would be horrified at).
I agree with you that Islamic extemism shores up homophobia in some. Islamophobia also shores up radicalism in others. There are liberal Muslims – although my experience tells me their number may be few (fortunately like LGBT radicals). I’m not sure with your figures eg the 75% reduction in Eastend gays or the 90% of non religious Muslims, but there is a situation in the east end and elsewhere that needs dealing with and festering anger on both sides does not resolve it.
Thanks for sharing that … I appreciate you might not have access to it but it doesnt explain how a reduction in gay bars leads to a figure for LGBT population reduction.
I agree that (if the figure is accurate) it is a very useful tool in demonstrating a move of LGBT people away from an area – what else it proves and the reasons for this could be the subject of debate and analysis. That may or may not be useful in progressing a campaign for a fairer more equal society
But, of course, with all the resources open to the UAF, The Guardian, Hope Not Hate, Tower Hamlets Council, Rainbow Hamlets, etc. It was only the EDL who bothered to do the research and build the maps. And what is most revealing is the other map that shows the inverse relationship between mosques and gay bars – gay people have relocated their social lives to places were there are no mosques. In 20 years East London went from being one of the most gay areas to one of the least gay areas. And those who destroyed EEGP (IMAAN, Rainbow Hamlets, etc.) are the enemy. EEGP was not a front for EDL – no-one in EDL had any involvement, and we were not attending. But now EDL _ARE_ going to Tower Hamlets (Sept. 3rd). EEGP organised their pride demo in a matter of 2 months. Yet 6 months after the Gay Free Zone declaration, Rainbow Hamlets/IMAAN have still not organised an EEGP. So, get on board, or get out of the way.
Interesting theory, but where did you determine the figure for the population of gay people in the East end 20 years ago and today from?
ooh, possibly lying for allah. why am i not surprised?
When will we learn? Islam and its follower can not be trusted. They are everything phobic and they don’t belong in modern western society. Eventually they will rule the world and why? Because we are letting them win.
First Israel, then Europe, aided by some gay facilitators. Shocking.
Well the Christians are doing a good job to murder them in their Holy War (war on terrorism).
The bottom line question regarding this topic is where is the law??? Where is the protection from hate speech or preaching from any organisation, religous or otherwise? If its in place, then why is it not being used? Does it not have the effect we demand? If its not, then that is where we have a gapping hole in our protection. A recent Panorama programme found a distribution centre for many mosques, handing out books and leaflets promoting the death of homosexuals, and then found the same materials in some mosques. Why have no prosecutions taken place? I don’t understand? If i was to make such hatred statements against any one person of group i would be either out of a job ,before the courts or both! Where is the Justice? Where is the Law?
There was a story on the BBC news website this week about a witch in Devon who was being repeatedly sent extreme Christian literature telling her she was going to hell. To be fair I believe Devon & Cornwall police are investigating to try and establish who is sending it. However, the BBC had identified the publishers who they approached and the publisher denied they were involved in, conspiring to or condoning the spread of hate related literature. The publisher even congratulated the people harassing this lady for “trying to save her”. Now, if the BBC can identify the publisher – why isn’t Devon & Cornwall police considering if an offence relating to distribution of this literature is in place (maybe they are …).
I do find it concerning that there is an appetite to enforce racially or religiously aggravated offences by police and CPS but there is little evidence (with only two cases nationally that I have seen in the media) of the new homophobically aggravated offences being …
…either enforced or prosecuted.
Surely this is also more of a CPS error than police because even if police charge the wrong offence (for example a simple public order offence) but the CPS can see from the evidence that it is homophobically motivated, they should alter the charge at court.
That’s a very interesting news report. Why does so much of religion seem to involve what OTHER people do, and not concentrate instead on the self?
Homophobia, along with anti-semitism, is built into the fabric of Islam.
It is time to start prosecuting mosques which host hate preachers, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. Unfortunately the police are deterred from taking action for fear of being accused of racsim, and this has to stop.
I will hold my hands up and say I have no evidence to support part of what I am going to say and it is speculation on my part.
I do recall when I was a police officer and new racially aggravated offences and religiously aggravated offences were brought into force that every officer in my area had to attend a training session on them and complete an intranet assessment of them. That helped reinforce a culture of being strong on racist crime etc.
I do wonder (maybe partly due to budget cuts) if the same emphasis and priority has been placed on the new homophobically motivated offences – and if indeed many police officers are simply ignorant of their existance.
Its a claim. It is a claim.
Stop addressing it as fact.
A mosque, a church, a synagog have organisations come in and speak on a whole sleuth of topics. Sometimes marriage is one of them.
There is nothing wrong with a religion holding its core values and teaching them. I don’t happen to agree with a lot of what is taught but i am not part of that religion. When we see a gay person struggle in a religion and the only advice we have is ‘your religion is homophobic’ we are not there being supportive but displaying our own fascist tendencies of dictation.
No, we are showing up the religion for what it is. Nonsense.
Are you a royalist? A nationalist? Where is your allegiance?
I can easily make yours nonsense!
Or we could pitch up compassion and understanding and allow for that to be our legacy;not replicate what you call nonsense in a nonsensical sense x
Is anyone even remotely surprised by this? Not me – the ELM has form as a bunch of lying bastards. They should now be deprived of every penny of public money they receive and if they then can’t pay the bills, closed down.
From my experience the most aggressive and angry people are the religious ones. Still having a life full of oppressive rules cant be fun. Im refering to lots of religions btw.
if you want to live in a more loving, more accepting and more peaceful world then one thing that needs to be taken out is religion. All it does is breed hatred and bitterness.
Religious texts dates back to times when there were no (effective)police or CCTV or judicial system – people were forever under threat from one another and invasion from other groups/nations. You could be raped,robbed or murdered and theres a fair chance the culperet would never be known or prosecuted…… so a big man in the sky was invented to watch over us all and to punish those that got away- though he saves that till there dead and no one can see this punishment. All im saying is religion was nothing more than an archaic safety blanket. One man talks to an invisible person he’s crazy a lot do it and its called a religion.
Hey-ho – it seems that Andrew Gilligan has been lying about the goings on at the East London Mosque recently: