Reader comments · ‘Startlingly homophobic’ Daily Mail column removed · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


‘Startlingly homophobic’ Daily Mail column removed

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jennie Kermode 16 Apr 2012, 11:25pm

    This is good news. :) I didn’t know you were running a campaign but took it to the PCC anyway. The author is entitled to his opinion but not to his own facts, and those statistics were indefensible.

    1. Michael Mason 17 Apr 2012, 6:48am

      No Jennie, the campaign was launched by a Facebook user. Pink News simply tried to muscle in and claim the credit – saying truthfully but with the intention to mislead that the Mail article was taken down “after complaints from readers”. Congratulations to Stephen for his initiative in bringing the article to public attention; he touched a nerve.

      1. The Pink News report would almost certainly have given the campaign a great deal more publicity amongst an important target group.

      2. Paddyswurds 17 Apr 2012, 2:00pm

        ….Would y’all get it into yer thick heads that there is no such site as Facebook. There is however, a social networking site called facebook and it was on that site the campaign was started and is ongoing. Stephen Donnelly is to be congratulated for his quick off the mark actions to gag this bigoted homophobe, Boot.

        1. Patrick Lyster-Todd 17 Apr 2012, 3:07pm

          What twaddle lol. Does it really matter whether ‘facebook’ is capitalised or not and a ‘site’ or a ‘social networking site’?

          1. Paddyswurds 18 Apr 2012, 12:29pm

            ..I would imagine it matters a lot to Mark Zuckerberg as he probably put a lot of work into coming up with a unique name and logo and in this case the name is also the logo, hence the lack of capitalisation…… Facebook with a capital F doesn’t exist on the web as far as I know so I am unable to say what sort of site it might be, but i do know that facebook is a social networking site so stated that and I am also aware that they present their name as facebook, not Facebook….however if you want to get into a debate with Mark about that feel free.

  2. We are living in the 21st century aren’t we? With this and the church it’s beginning to feel like the dark ages!

    1. This is proof we are capable of time travel, taking us back to times when crazy illusions of insane people were promulgated as reality.

    2. Mumbo Jumbo 17 Apr 2012, 9:42am

      If you’re interested, BBC 4 are re-running the excellent “Inside the Medieval Mind” series at the moment (available on the iPlayer). Apart from being very watchable, it’s highly educative and not just in the historical sense……..

  3. The Daily Mail Alexander Boot article was ignorant and disgraceful. But compare the comments regularly posted under Daily Telegraph online articles by a rag-bag of religious bigots, fascists and other assorted homophobes. There are posts referring to homosexuality as a ‘perversion,’ to gays as ‘disgusting,’ as well as people relishing and joking about the thought of us being murdered by being thrown off cliffs and in other ways by extremist ‘Moslem’ fundamentalists, assertions that it is a ‘well-known fact’ that most gay people suffer from intestinal worms as a result of oral sex, that we are child molesters, and many other extremely offensive comments, some of which are very surprisingly left intact by the moderators.

    One of the latest:

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2012, 11:43pm

      Exactly right, in fact it’s almost a daily occurrence. I hope it eventually goes out of business and the Telegraph too.

      1. The way to stop the Daily Mail and Telegraph and others of their ilk from presenting the viewpoints of bigots is easy…let the public encourage a very rich gay person to buy out the newspaper(s). If a liberal-minded person bought out some of Ruport Murdochs papers (in a hostile buyout or otherwise), the bigots and conservatives wouldn’t have an avenue for their voices. I don’t necessarily agree that bigots are entitled to their opinion, to me it’s not all that facile: like new teachings on domestic violence, where offenders are taught that emotional abuse can be as damaging as physical abuse (and one often leads to the other) – saying horrible things about gay people can lead to depression and illness from gay people internalizing that. So let’s think about cutting off the vocal pipeline’s of bigots — where are the rich gay people in Britain? Maybe it’s time Elton John thinks of buying a newspaper company. Is that such a bad idea??

        1. cancel your sky and do not visit the sites

      2. Well, I do too, but sadly it’s one of the more popular UK papers.

        1. The Sun (7,772,000 readers)
        2. The Daily Mail (4,741,000)

  4. You have to give them credit – they’re persistent. I wonder which angle of attack they’re going to try next.

  5. This is of zero significance. The mail has a history of hate, why bother pulling this one article? The views of Boot, an out-and-out nut, we’re already vilified in the DM comments, of which there were a grand total of nine. My concern is to ensure the BBC hold extremists to account when they are on the air. Silencing opinion never changes attitudes. It just makes people slaves to their opinions, which can never be scrutinised because they can never be uttered.

    1. There were only nine comments under the article, but that was because further comments weren’t being published. I submitted two, neither of which appeared. I think there were so many comments attacking the article that the moderators/ online machinery couldn’t cope. Or else they realised they were going to have to pull the article. Did you notice that one of the nine comments published criticising the article had over 1000 ‘thumbs up’?

      1. All the more reason to keep the article up – so people could see how heavily criticised it was.

    2. David Wainwright 17 Apr 2012, 1:20am

      I managed to access the article prior to it being pulled and the comments were suspended tho 9 comments appeared of which those attacking the article from a pro LGBT perspective were green arrowed in their thousands and those few which were in praise of the article were red arrowed in their hundreds .

    3. Silencing opinions does change attitudes. Human’s are the great imitators – the majority just repeat what the minoirty in power say. If you get someone with a strong enough voice in power they can convince an entire nation that it would be a good idea to put an ethnic minority on trains and gas them. If you silence those people, it doesn’t happen. People are slaves to opinions, always will be – that’s part of being human. And the minority in power choose which opinions the majority are slaves to.

      1. But in a culture where that happens…people start getting unhappy and won’t trust those that seek to silence.

      2. I absolutely agree. We have come to the point where we have won the argument. We don’t need to continue to engage with these hate-filled people any more than black people should engage with racist hate-filled people. We’ve gone past that point.

  6. gattagiudecca 16 Apr 2012, 11:35pm

    I’m really happy it has been removed. However, why they ever felt it was acceptable to publish this in the first place is beyond me. No doubt they will start talking about the pink mafia forcing them to remove it and going on about freedom of speech etc etc etc.

    1. They felt it was acceptable as they are a neo-fascist newspaper.

      The Daily Mail is the paper of choice for the BNP.

      1. I am a BNP supporter and most BNP supporters including myself utterly DESPISE that repellent rag. The reason for this is quite simple ie many of its articles and editorials appear to support traditional values ect but when you read ‘between the lines’ so to speak you realise that the paper supports the PC status quo and the globalist liberal-left Establishment. Personally, I suspect that this stance of the paper is because its owners still want to live down its infamous support of Adolf Hitler in the 1930’s and that famous headline in 1934 which read, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”. It is, in short, trying to keep some credibility with the other PC newspapers.

  7. I, for one, would like to tell this Boot character, “I may or may not have been born gay. I don’t care. Call it a choice – its a choice I make and am proud of. Now sod off and mind your own business”. The ‘born with it’ debate just sounds like a defence to me, and I don’t have anything to defend, I’ve done nothing wrong!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2012, 11:47pm

      Dan, we are born gay just as bigots like Boot are born straight, although in his case, he might be a deeply closeted self-loather. Implying it may be a choice gives ammunition to the ex-gay theory of praying away the gay as many of those christo-fascists believe who support C4M.

      1. “we are born gay”

        Any concrete evidence to support this assertion?

    2. Thing is, both angles have been used in the past to promote tolerance and inclusivity. In the 60s and 70s, before much actual science had been done on the subject, there were highly vocal gay rights campaigners who argued something like the following: Being gay is a choice, That means it’s possible for anyone to choose it. That means the propensity and capacity for being gay is universal and latent in all of us. That means we’re all the same and your homophobia is just as much an attack on yourself as it is on us. To such people the claim that sexuality was fixed and inborn was deeply uncomfortable, because it suggested that there really was something irrecoverably different about us and negated the force of their campaigns.

      Whereas the more modern “we’re born that way” campaigns argue slightly differently. They point out that being gay is as natural and as normal for us as being straight is for them. And there is..

      The problem with that was that all the science shows otherwise.

    3. … also an element of trying to calm the other commonplace homophobic fear that we’re out to convert or recruit straight people.

      Of course, the morality of the situation is nothing to do with causes, and all to do with consequences. Is it harmful? Clearly not. That’s all we need to know.

      So, on balance, we should promote the idea that we’re born this way – not because it is politically and rhetorically convenient but because all the scientific studies point to it being true.

      1. VP is right. I think suggesting that being gay is a choice, which it isn’t, weakens our stance against these kinds of attacks.

    4. David Wainwright 17 Apr 2012, 1:23am

      you may tell him in person, his blog requests feedback and

  8. Good! The Boot is on the other foot now!

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2012, 11:38pm

    I see the Daily Mail running like the cowards they are, not taking any responsibility for their actions and their blatant homophobia like the majority of its readers. The paper should be shut down.

    1. Let’s all pray for a change of heart by the Mail and Telegraph, and see if it works.

      1. Prayer will achieve nothing.

        I prefer targetting the Heil’s advertisers and asking them why they are associating with neo-fascist, homophobic scum like Paul Dacre and the Daily Heil.

  10. Archbishop of Taunton 17 Apr 2012, 12:04am

    What a grotesque aberration of journalism that article was.

  11. David Wainwright 17 Apr 2012, 1:24am

    The offensive article may still be read here

    1. David Wainwright 17 Apr 2012, 1:25am

      Mr Boot would be delighted to hear from anyone concerning his work and writings. He states
      Please use the form below – I will respond as soon as possible.

  12. I guess it would be expecting too much to think that the Mail was actually truly sorry about this article.

    Will they have the decency to apologise? Will there be any repercussions? Doubt it.

    Everytime I try to comment on the Mail’s articles it never gets printed. I’m sure they just write their own homophobic comments and put a massive figure next to the likes for it. I think their using the comments sections as much as the articles themseleves to influence people.

  13. This is good! The article is disgusting, there are so many things wrong with it
    -Even if you put all the gay people in one place, more would show up
    -Homosexuality is not an aberration. There’s nothing wrong with it.
    -About 5% of the population is homosexual, with lots more bisexual.
    -Being a hero is living your life in a way that makes you happy and doesn’t hurt you.
    -There’s nothing immoral about homosexual sex.
    -The story of Sodom in the Bible (along with the rest of the book) is fictional
    -The reason statements like those aren’t allowed is because they’re damaging and untrue, you can’t change your orientation.

    1. To add I’m not going to abstain from sex with a woman just because your evil religion is against it

      1. Good for you, sweetheart.

    2. Matt Westwood 4 Jun 2012, 10:13pm

      Might have been fictional, might not. Probably based on fact: probably was a city down there somewhere to which a natural disaster happened. A few people happened to be leaving the city when it happened and told a blethering cock-and-bull story, including sending his daughters out to be raped to death by a mob and all sorts of other unsavoury stuff. But if you read the guhd buhk you find that the real reason gahd wiped them out wasn’t because they were buggering each other but because they weren’t looking after their widows and orphans properly. Which actually gives you a full armload more ammunition against those effing xtians who insist on playing the Moral Hypocrite card on you, may they rot.

    3. I agree with you. But I think there are things in the Bible based on true stories. Not all the supernatural things (am an atheist), but as someone said below natural disasters dressed up to be something mystical. There’s a lot about human nature in there nothing so immeasurably good that one should dedicate themselves to it.
      Thing is Lumi, I am willing to protect your rights, but with your previous comments, you are not willing to protect mine (as well as those for others like me) and you dish out comments that are untrue as well but you try a little emotional blackmail if people want to silence yours.

  14. Mr Boot states that an ‘aberration is a departure from what is normal or desirable’. What is normal? One could argue that green eyes are not normal. Red hair is not normal because a low percentage of the population are redheads. What is desirable? Desirable to whom? Boot sounds like he came out of 1930’s Germany

  15. Pint something offensive knowing it will generate massive website hits thus boosting ad revenue. Remove article, job done.

    Anyone who read this article on the Mail website has fallen for this nasty litttle revenue generating trick yet again.

    1. Dave North 17 Apr 2012, 9:21am

      Actually, there were no ads on that page.

      I think they were too scared to offend their own advertisers.

  16. ‘While gays should not be reproached or punished, they can, Mr Boot wrote, “be legitimately asked not to act on their aberrant tendencies”, equating homosexuality with kleptomania and physical violence.’

    And there’s the rub. Kleptomania and compulsive violence have victims. There are no victims if two people of the same sex decide to play with each other’s bodies.

    These “christians” simply hate. And they look for a target for their hate. The churches should simply kick them out or excommunicate them or whatever they do.

    1. Dave North 17 Apr 2012, 9:18am

      Yes, but this kn0b would argue that there are victims.

      Namely him and his ilk, as we clearly offend their christof@scist sensibilities.

  17. Of course, he will protest he is a polemist, but sounds like he was protesting too much, and we all know what that signifies. They must think everybody is really stupid.

  18. The Daily Mail is a neo-fascist newspaper.

    It is the newspaper of choice of the BNP.

    It is no wonder that they chose to print this scurrilous drivel.

    They have removed the article from their website hoping to avoid PCC censure.

    Which is a joke. As the PCC itiself is a joke.

    Independent, outside regulation is needed for the British press.

    Self-policing is clearly inadequate if neo-fascist scum like Paul Dacre is involved in it.

  19. I like this chart of church attendance in the UK.

    It suggests that there are actually more gay people than church-goers. Ha!

    1. BBC Newsround reports twice as many kids today say that religion is “very important” than 40 years ago. Their poll doesn’t seem (on the face of it) to match the trend.

      1. There are probably a lot more other faiths around these days.

        Was it just Christians?

        1. I was aware of that issue. I did ask more details, but the BBC is reluctant to say very much about the survey.

      2. Matt Westwood 4 Jun 2012, 10:25pm

        Yes but that’s kids. They grow up. If they grow up with brains, they wise up.

  20. Labi Siffre 17 Apr 2012, 10:53am

    NOT “Startlingly homophobic”. Just the usual, widespread, craven, factually, intellectually, & spiritually bankrupt homophobia.

  21. Anglican Mainstream has prominent links on it’s website to resources from listed hate group The Family Research Council entitled “Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality” it can be found under Resources for Same-sex and Transgender Issues.

    The Family Research Council is listed among others as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre most of these are religiously motivated groups that have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Apr 2012, 12:18pm

      If The Family Research Council is officially listed as a hate group, then I think the Home Office should be informed if there are links to Anglican Mainstream. Who knows if they are funding the rabidly homophobic right wing groups in the UK? I wouldn’t mind betting C4M has direct links to it as well. This should be investigated.

      1. Particularly when some of those linked to Anglican Mainstream (and others link to other hate organisations AM are linked to on their website, including but not limited to the Family Research Council) have made a call to arms to combat LGBT people – the Home Office should definitiely consider the issue of Christian terrorism.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Apr 2012, 4:02pm

          Here’s a link to the Home Office where we can lodge a complaint.

  22. The Dail Mail piece by Mr Boot was a stark example of prejudiced attitudes, and it was rightly criticised as such.

    We should also not forget examples of insidious discrimination, such as deliberate invisibilisation, which prolong homophobia in society.

  23. the prospect of daily hatemail’s editor Paul Dacre having to attend another rendezvous with Lord Justice Leveson under nervous watch of paper’s lawyer did the job.

    1. Well, I know I wasnt the only person who made sure the Leveson Inquiry also received my complaint.

    2. Paul Dacre is dangerous, neo-fascist, extremist, scum.

      A hateful poisonous little bigot who brings even greater disrepute to already beleaguered British press

  24. Good it has gone, but still available on his own website! Says so much about the man himself and the vile paper rag that gave backing to print the offensive homophobic rant in the first place. Sums up the DM ( i refuse to even mention its name in full) and its output!

  25. Just received 2 emails this afternoon regarding this matter.

    The PCC have acknowledged receipt of my complaint – and stated they have received a large number of complaints about this matter and commenced an investigation.

    The Leveson Inquiry have acknowledged receipt of my information and promised they will consider the information that I have supplied and act further on it should they determine it to be necessary.

    1. lets hope it wont be another whitewash

  26. The Daily Mail should be removed!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Apr 2012, 6:26pm

      I agree, along with the other bearer of right wing sensationalism, the Telegraph. No loss either.

  27. Just received this email from the Daily Mail

    “Your email to the Editor has been passed to the Corrections department. We are sorry if you found the article by Alexander Boot to be offensive. That was not the intention. The one per cent figure quoted came from the Integrated Household Survey of September 2011 published by the Office of National Statistics, based on questions answered by 413,000 people.

    We do not accept that it was prejudicial. It was a carefully worded debate, supporting freedom of expression and tolerant behaviour, disagreeing with the advertising campaign by the Christian group which suggests that homosexuality is ‘curable’ but also examining what the writer describes a ‘the traditional Christian attitude to homosexuality’.

    In the light of your comments, however, we have taken it down from the website.”

    1. Thanks for marking me down, whoever that was – that is the response I received from the Mail.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Apr 2012, 6:25pm

        Stu, I find the DM’s response rather feeble. I don’t for a minute believe it took down the article based on your comments. It took it down because of a potential lawsuit more than anything else I would think. Cowards!

        I have no idea how this thumbs up or thumbs down thing works. Maybe someone could explain how it’s controlled?

        1. I agree the line from the Mail is disingenuous.

          However, I thought it was worth publicising their response.

  28. The Arrogance of this creep with his: “Abstaining from sex for moral reasons is tantamount to heroism,……”, as if Christian morality is the only morality.

    It also annoys me when people use ‘the norm’ not just as a description of a statistical generalization, but as if it were a prescription. The fact that a relatively small percentage of the population is gay says nothing about how things ought to be.

    As for the: ‘if everyone were gay, it would “spell the end of the human race’, it just illustrates his idiocy.

    1. Matt Westwood 4 Jun 2012, 10:19pm

      It might be the salvation of the human race. Children would only be born that were wanted, and the population might get a chance to get down to a realistically sustainable number.

      There is evidence in nature (dunno where, I “read somewhere”) that when a population of animals becomes overcrowded, incidence of homosexuality increases in that population. Not sure if the chain of cause and effect was fully established, but it’s probably worth investigating, had I the opportunity.

  29. Judith Iscariot 18 Jun 2012, 6:30pm

    Do we honestly need a reason as to why they removed it? I think that should be pretty obvious.
    The question that really should be asked is why did they post such an obviously inflammatory “column” in the first place?

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.