Reader comments · Football Association’s new Equality Adviser apologises for calling gays ‘detestable’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Football Association’s new Equality Adviser apologises for calling gays ‘detestable’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I’m not sure who sickens me more, this religious bigot, or the FA for employing him.

    I don’t believe the apology for one minute – it was solely a career-driven soundbite.

    One wonders if the suit he was wearing bore mixed fibres….

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Jan 2014, 10:11pm

      I going with the FA on that one. The question may well have caught him off guard and with a bit more thought he’d have given a less stupid reply. However the FA invested (I can only assume) a great deal of time and effort engaging in a process to appoint this guy. It was (or should have been) a much more measured affair than someone shoving a mic in front of them shouting, “Say something”.

      Its a farce.

      1. barriejohn 2 Jan 2014, 11:20pm

        The programme was an edition of Sunday morning’s “The Big Questions”, hosted by Nicky Campbell, so it was HIS choice whether to appear or not, and he must have known in advance what sort of questions he would have been asked. Claiming that he had been caught off-guard in a situation like that is the most ridiculous cop-out that I have ever heard!

        1. If you are willing to appear on TV in whatever capacity, especially as an EQUALITY ADVISOR, then you should be ready to answer ANY question.

          1. barriejohn 3 Jan 2014, 2:12pm

            In fairness, he was not an equality advisor at the time that he made his comments (2012), but if appearing on a programme about ethics in football he should have been prepared for such questions – and in any case, didn’t his remarks reflect just what one would expect from a “Bible-believing Christian”? Most would say just what he said then, without reservation,


      2. stop making excuses for his bigotry , makes you sound like a bigot also or at least an apologist of such.

  2. Perhaps he’ll be given a job as Equalities minister next.
    Maria Miller, Ruth Kelly….
    Religious fruitcakes with an extra spoonful of nutter.

  3. Jobs for the boys: the FA, like lots of other organisations, looks after its favoured sons. This man was obviously not given this job because he had a burning desire to improve the lot of non-white straight males in British football, but because he knows the right people on the inside.

    I agree with the statement that if the FA were truly serious about driving change they would do more than appoint ex-footballers to these sort of initiatives.

    1. Screw the non-white straight males. If you want to support the UK it’s the men from Isaac Newton to Alan Turing to (even) Brian Epstein who were the important ones. But even the politically-correct English gays will get angry at me for saying that, because THEIR version of p.c. is lowering their standards to support all these morons, if they are non-white, no matter how much they bring down the standards of the UK. Look how gays even danced and stood on the rioters’ sides a few years back.

      1. Bookmarked this comment for the next time someone tells me the UK gay community doesn’t have a problem with racism.


      2. barriejohn 3 Jan 2014, 2:01pm

        Would you mind rewriting that in English, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever!

    2. I wonder if he’s a Freemason? I believe football and The FA is well stocked with The Brotherhood ……..

  4. This man is unfit for purpose. It’s a blatant insult to appoint him as an equality’s adviser – just shows how grossly homophobic the FA are.

    This is why I avoid professional sports – they’re too invested in despising us

  5. He should resign -disgraceful

  6. How come these people always end up on some kind of advisory board for equality when they don’t support it?

  7. So does he now longer hold his religious beliefs … or is he simply saying the right thing to keep his job? Surely there were more suitable candidates out there ….?

  8. First off let me say I think it was a poor choice for the position. Saying that he does state that his views have changed and that is something that should be promoted. During the civil rights struggle in the US many politicians views changed and even Obama changed his views to support gay marriage. There is now an onus on him within the FA to focus on homophobia and hopefully he will do so.

  9. I was outraged by this until I read his response. I believe him that he has been radically transformed through education and experience. I also believe that he is especially qualified to address the issue of changing hearts and minds due to his own journey. I say this as a man who grew up in rural Mississippi. I was marinated in racism and xenophobia. It was all I ever knew. I learned it in school, in church, at home, among friends and family. Through experience and education I shed the ignorance, lies, distortions, fear and hate that I had grown up with and became a VERY vocal and active civil rights activist. I was, and am still today, particularly and specially qualified to address issues of racism and how to get through to racists. I’ve been told by so many people that they are amazed at how I am able to get through to bigots and get them to reconsider their ignorance and fear based bigotry. I think this man can likewise be effective…

    1. …therefor I will support him until/unless he proves himself to be unworthy of the second chance given to him.

      I also encourage others to think of times that they were given second chances. If we don’t embrace formerly homophobic people and support people who evolve and become supportive, what incentive is there for them, or others watching, to change? And if we attack and sack someone who has changed what message does that send to others?

      1. I wholly agree with you that the convert to a cause by a previous ‘unbeliever’ can often be more persuasive than those who’ve had faith from the outset – Christianity would have probably got nowhere without Paul, for instance. Given all the publicity and observation he’s now under because of his previous statements, this guy will have to make special efforts to prove he’s not an homophobe, and that can only be helpful. As for whether or not he has genuinely changed his views, for the above reason it’s at least worth giving him a try/ If we do not believe that changing minds is possible, then why on earth would we bother campaigning?

      2. @ Hayden – at best your comments are naive – at worst you clearly support your bigoted brother and therefore have nothing of any worth to share here – so go watch some CBBC’s it’s probably more your level!

    2. A second chance hardly merits being put on an Inclusion Advisory body! They couldn’t have found someone who ISN’T a bigot trying to prove he’s changed? Is that all it takes to be qualified to battle major institutional homophobia?

      And if it turns out he’s not worth a second chance, he’s in a position to do damage while we find that out

      Or his spot could have been taken by someone with a track record of working for equality and actually respecting us.

    3. I’d believe your hokey tale about as far as I could throw you.

    4. Sure – his response is good… Just as it would be good if a person who in 2012 said they thought JK Rowling wrote Romeo and Juliet now released a statement saying they realised it was Shakespeare… but ‘their journey’ wouldn’t be sufficient for me to offer them a job as English teacher. I’d pick someone who WASN’T an idiot up until a year ago.

  10. So he says what he thinks will get him the job but in reality doesn’t believe it at all.
    A complete liar

  11. Mark in Halifax 2 Jan 2014, 11:17pm

    As far as I am concerned, this man spoke his version of the truth to the BBC. No amount of back-tracking and spouting rubbish about how he’s learned from this experience will change his version of the truth. His position is therefore untenable on this Board and he should resign. Simple as!

  12. UglyGeezer 2 Jan 2014, 11:20pm

    We really need to make some noise about this, it’s completely unacceptable. What on earth are the FA thinking?

  13. I did blog about The Big Questionsprogramme in March 2012, when he also talked about his son being racially bullied at school. His views on racism and homophobia were shockingly different at the time –

  14. If we didn’t know better, we’d cynically assume that the FA had no interest at all in tackling homophobia.

  15. John Ridley 3 Jan 2014, 12:17am

    Lets be honest here shall we – how many black people recently have been in the news for deeply offensive views towards homosexuality – from registrars to this man – it seems its ok for black people to have civil rights and be treated with respect but to hell with the dirty gays who are sub human.

    I am really sick of these people.

    1. UglyGeezer 3 Jan 2014, 12:22am

      I can think of an equal number of white people as well

    2. Staircase2 3 Jan 2014, 3:58am

      You do realise that black people are gay too right…?

      1. Which negates nothing about what John Ridley said. There are Iranian gays too, which doesn’t negate that the majority of straight Iranians hate gays enough that they execute them.

        1. it is irrelevant what straight iranians think about gays (not that you would know anyway). iran is ran by religious dictatorship, that doesnt give flying fak what its citizen think. anyway, bnp/edl much?

  16. Brett Gibson 3 Jan 2014, 12:53am

    Certain black people seem to have VERY short memories. They also seem to have forgotten all knowledge of how Christianity came to them. Read a book you dumb arsehole.

    1. They forget how Islam came to them too (and still does). But they’re mostly such live-for-the-moment idiots, so…

      1. “They’re mostly such”? Wow, how to comment on bigotry with even greater prejudice.

        Islam “came” to “them” in no different a manner from the way it “came” to most people; and is, at the very least, characterised by a colour-blindness unusual in other organised religions.

        1. Through slavery, yes.

          1. You are very ignorant.

          2. Mohammed was a slave owner, among other terrible things. Not many religions can say that about their founder/role model. Anyone who points out such facts is of course ignorant, bigoted…blah blah blah

          3. Oh really, PMB? IF Siddharta Gautama (the Buddha) didn’t own slaves himself, his royal father certainly did; and if the person said to be Jesus of Nazareth didn’t own slaves it’s probably because he didn’t come form a rich enough background – Constantine the Great, who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, certainly did. As did the Viking rulers everywhere, along with pretty much all developed cultures worldwide until the Middle Ages at the very earliest.

            It is certainly ignorant to imagine slave-owning was restricted to Muslims, yes.

            What real relevance this has to the subject in question is not very clear – except perhaps in trying to match ignorance with ignorance.

    2. As short as some gay people, it would seem.

      Perhaps you mean another book? He has already read a book – the bible. Therein lies the problem.

      1. No YOU’RE the ignorant one, here defending a religion as ridiculous as Islam as opposed to the greatness of homosexual men throughout history. You’re the type who’d let your boyfriend be hanged in Iran before you’d be politically-incorrect. (And, yes, Islam was spread through slavery both before AND after Christians got in on the act). And I DARE you to look up info. on the modern day slave trade in central Africa today.

        1. Recognising that Islam is less prone to colour-based racism is hardly “defending” it: you seem prone to rather hysterical extrapolations, perhaps blinded by your equally hysterical prejudice.

          You are also pitiably ill-informed about the history of slavery (“before” indeed!).

          1. Yes, before. Look it up !! You’re the one with no knowledge of history except for what some self-hating UK gays (ones who secretly WANT to die at the hands of black Muslims) told you. You simply cannot change history just to suit your self-hating agenda and think other men-who-love-men will just lie on the floor and surrender along with you.

          2. Riiiight, so Christians learnt how to deal in slavery from Muslims, as opposed to ever having owned or traded in them before. So you think the slave children whose beauty Pope Gregory I remarked on were taken and traded by Muslims, do you? (Shame Islam hadn’t been invented when at the time, but don’t let facts get in the way of your story, will you?)

            Blimey, the decline of public libraries in the UK has a lot to answer for.

          3. de Villiers 3 Jan 2014, 10:24am

            MJ: “You’re the one with no knowledge of history except for what some self-hating UK gays (ones who secretly WANT to die at the hands of black Muslims) told you.”

            I have read people on this board write about self-hating gay people – mostly it is the people who write such words who appear to be the biggest haters. It is a casual term of abuse thrown at those who disagree with the political left.

            But – reading unthinking comments about people being self-hating is tiresome; reading that there are gay people “who secretly WANT to die at the hands of black Muslims” – and note the idiocy of the comment of “black” muslims – is delusional and sounds unbalanced.

            Not only does Rehan have a better knowledge than history than you, he also has a better sense of reality of the present.

  17. alwaysniceman 3 Jan 2014, 1:08am

    It is obvious that the person is obviously not competent at all and should be fired immediately. No homophobia should be allowed and such a person of a very limited sense of responsibility, driven by personal views, will only leave room for displays of anti-gay violence.

    On the other side: I often read that because of a few idiots cited in Pinknews articles, Poland is a “Soviet country”, which it never was (it was allied with the Soviet Union and supported by it, just like the UK was allied and supported by the US), or lies in eastern Europe (which it geographically never was – it is in fact western European, and culturally Western European, or Central European, to be specific), or that it should be not allowed into the EU.

    Now: how about Soviet Britain in eastern Europe that shouldn’t be allowed into the EU. How does that feel.

  18. and history goes around and around. What short memories some people have. Not many decades ago this man would not have been given a voice, he also would not have had equal rights. It is so sad that people who have been prejudiced against forget their humble beginnings.

  19. Anthony Watson 3 Jan 2014, 1:32am

    Michael Johnson bigotry is simply not acceptable. If you recall Paula Deen in the USA lost EVERYTHING (and rightly so) when she admitted in court last year she used the “N” word, once, 20 years ago. Her bigotry was simply not tolerated. Yet it seems ok that Michael Johnson- who is FA’s equalities advisor for goodness sake – is allowed to call the LGBTI community “detestable” Why is Johnson allowed to express his bigotry freely and without consequences? Why the double standards? The FA needs to take action NOW!

  20. You think for a moment this uneducated fool wrote that apology statement? The work of a damage control expert.

  21. But this news is 2 years’ old. What’s happened to him since then and why wasn’t it reported in the news at the time? Seems a bit late to be calling for action, or wasn’t the programme aired?

    1. O hang on – he’s only just been appointed to the new board but this was a comment he made 2 years’ ago. Got it (puts down the Christmas cooking sherry).

  22. Things always backfire on the politically-correct fools.

    1. knowing your racist inclinations i expected something like ; ‘Things always BLACKFIRE on the politically-correct fools.’

  23. The utter nonsense is highlighted by comparing it to this hypothetical statement from the newly appointed president of the Men’s Club for Male Superiority: “Two years ago, I believed in the equality of men and women but after careful contemplation and insruction, NOW believe that men are superior in every way.” Was he living in a monastic cell in a cave for his life, cut off from TV, radio, and print media? Even if he didn’t know any gay people, did he never weigh the arguments in the battle for equal rights by LGBT community? How could someone that oblivious even be considered for any public role?

    (Of course, it’s possible that his invisible deity whispered in his ear that s/he’s been wrong for two millennia and those icky gays aren’t really so detestable!)

  24. In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the “curse” and the “mark”, associated the curse of Cain with black skin.[20] Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis (“And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.
    In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face”. (wiki)

  25. Gen 4:5
    People once believed the mark on Cain was dark skin, God changed the colour of Cain’s skin to black to mark him out for killing his brother Abel, Cain also received a curse, the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed.
    In the past the “mark of Cain” teaching was used as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black/dark skin.

    1. Okay. But I don’t need the Bible to see who the most dysfunctional (yet homophobic) race is. It’s obvious to anyone honest.

      1. Well if you going down that past you could say all serials killers and peadophiles are white men

        1. They’re not, though. I’ll start listing serial killers and convicted pedophiles to show you they make up EXACTLY the same percentage of their race as any other.

      2. ‘…dysfunctional…’??? oh, please, do elaborate.

        i would find your ‘quirky’ thinking quite amusing if you weren’t so sociologically dysfunctional

  26. Past president of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Brigham Young said,
    “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”

    The things that some sexist / racist / homophobic folk are liable to read into the bible and hold onto with great certainty as beliefs … they are not necessarily so .

    1. That’s hilarious. I’d never seen the full quote before.

  27. With everyone from Solon to Pindar to Plato to….DaVinci and Michelangelo…and Francis Bacon…….etc etc etc, molding civilization, why should we care about the opinion of this person descended from people of so little imagination that for centuries they looked out across the oceans and never thought to build a boat ?

    1. Wow you filty racist pig and you’re so stupid you dint even realise you have the same bigotry inside you. I pity you

      1. You don’t pity me. You hate me. But history proves me correct. (You’re probably a black homophobe anyway).

        1. Where did you learn history MJ, Mississippi?

          Only someone really rather ignorant would refer to Leonardo as “DaVinci”.

          1. No, in Mississippi they probably try to teach that all races are equal. When I grew up I read real history. And Charles Darwin. If you can find anything to show I’m factually wrong, historically……..but I won’t bet on it. Here’s another for you : look up written languages in sub-saharan Africa. Then compare it to ancient China, India, and the homosexuals of ancient Greece . (But you won’t. You can’t handle real truth).

          2. I don’t believe I can take lessons in “truth” from a racist ignoramus, thanks all the same.

            BTW, the Polynesians of the South Pacific, eg the Maori, built and rowed boats across literally thousands of kilometres of ocean, yet had no written language. Now, which of your fatuous points above do you think that proves? Or are Polynesians, as “people of colour”, categorised with sub-Saharan Africans in your fevered little mind?

        2. James! is right – it’s possible to hate ignorance and stupidity, but it’s best to pity those who are crippled by them.

          1. Again, you just said NOTHING to negate the truth of my statements. You just……can’t. If there was anything to you, intellectually, you’d say, “Well…maybe Africans were too comfortable with the climate to want to seek other lands through seafaring…”, or come up with SOMETHING, like certain historians have tried to use to debate me, but you come up with nothing at all. And then you act like I’m the villain for saying I’m not going to accept being put down, because I’m homosexual, by some silly fuzzy-headed riot-crazed non-achieving boo.

          2. de Villiers 3 Jan 2014, 10:28am

            Central parts of our basic mathematics were formulated by people who were not white Europeans.

          3. For F U C K sake this bitching you two have embarked on has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a blatant homophobe can make a public statement like this hiding behind a book of fiction he has probably never even read – and be in a position of Equality Adviser when he is as prejudice toward Gays as some of these comments are to other races –

          4. You started it, sweetie, with your disgraceful white-supremacist drivel.

          5. Reham don’t try and reason with it. Feel sorry for it with all that bile and hatred.

      2. You also didn’t say whether I’m “racist” because I’m praising gay white men who made great gifts to civilization, or pointing out that sub-Saharan African boat thing (?)

        1. You are racist because you extrapolate certain abilities and characteristics, or lack thereof purely on the basis of skin colour, and because you imagine that a billion or more people all behave in the same way, also because of the colour of their skin – though without making similar generalisation about under a billion “white” people. (This should have been perfectly obvious to you if you were even reasonably educated.)

  28. Tatchell is right: why the FA appointed someone with this man’s type of “faith” to such a position is what should be questioned.

    I don’t understand why this is news if the broadcast was 10 months ago. What’s suddenly brought the issue to light? (I don’t recall reading about it last year.)

    1. Because they’re people like you, assuming no person “of color” can ever be wrong about anything. Ever.

      1. Actually I try to avoid vacuous generalisations as much as possible, unlike you.

        1. No you don’t. You just generalize how YOU want things to be in your weak p.c. gay ghetto world where you’ll roll over and let yourself be beheaded by any immigrant of color.

          1. It’s clear the only person in a ghetto is you, MJ.

            Well done for assuming I’m not an “immigrant of colour” myself, by the way.

    2. Michael Johnson has been newly appointed since the tv show was aired, the Inclusion Advisory Board will meet for the first time this month, that’s why it is now news.

      1. Oh, I see – thanks, Pavlos.

        1. If you ARE an immigrant of color, that explains a lot. Also explains why your butt should be kicked off to some country on the African continent where you’ll be more aligned with everyone else. The UK is too high I.Q. for you.

          1. Bless. And you can’t even work out how to link a reply to a comment here.

            (“Read” history, my arse. It’s perfectly obvious just how much you’ve read, poor wee thing.)

          2. The UK is too high I.Q. for you.

            Incidentally, MJ my pet, what do you know of the UK? You’re obviously from the US or one of its satellites, judging by your spelling (neighborhood, color, generalize) and vocabulary (butt, DaVinci). Your ‘reasoning’ suggests Alabama, if not Mississippi, or perhaps the further reaches of West Virginia – ?

          3. Your ‘reasoning’ suggests Alabama, if not Mississippi, or perhaps the further reaches of West Virginia – ?

            Rehan, you were providing the better argument up until that comment. You do realise by making such a comment you are showing just as much prejudice as MJ?

          4. Not really, jake28 – I’m guilty of generalising about states perhaps (on the basis of the well-known attitudes that prevail in them); but if I were as prejudiced as poor wee MJ I’d have made that statement about all white people. I try to an avoid generalising about hundreds of millions of people as much as possible, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

          5. “Actually I try to avoid vacuous generalisations as much as possible, unlike you.” (Rehan)

            “I’m guilty of generalising about states perhaps (on the basis of the well-known attitudes that prevail in them)”

            C’mon Rehan…I think we all know what you meant…redneck white trash. I really don’t see much of a difference between generalising about hundreds of millions of people or tens of millions of people. Prejudice is prejudice.

            Have you ever thought of entering politics?

            I think Kane’s comment below sums it up.

          6. Just for clarification…states refer to geopgraphical locations so they cannot have prevailing attitudes…only the people that reside in those states can.

          7. Yes, thank you for the helpful clarification jake28. You and I will have to disagree whether or not my admittedly not-entirely-necessary remark is quite in the same league as MJ’s colour prejudice. But maybe you agree with him? I note you question only my remarks and not his.

  29. I don’t beleive him. I’ve see to many black men with pure hatred for for mr to beleive a lifetime of hatred can be turned around in such a short time. Even the most foolish bigot know they should keep their mouth shut.

  30. ”Because of my beliefs, because of the Bible that I read, in the Bible it does state that the Lord put a mark upon Cain, which is the flat nose and black skin and the Bible also states that those of the black race should be the ‘servant of servants’ as cursed by God.
    Naturally I have decided I will apply for a position as the FA’s Equality Advisor”

    That’s how absurd Michael Johnson’s appointment really is.

  31. It’s ridiculous that the FA would employ someone who has a conflict between his superstitious beliefs, and EQUALITY which is what his damn job is all about.
    I don’t give a flying foot what his religious beliefs are….. until they get in the way of doing his job.
    It’s obviously going to be a problem for him. Fire his ass and employ someone who CAN do their job.

  32. Young gay dudes out there : Remember : you are in a category with the greatest men in history. This FA ape calling you “detestable” means nothing. Never let certain other gays, with their self-hating schemes for a multicultural society (and their love for anyone traditionally non-English), tell you black homophobia is acceptable. Hit the homophobes back, and hit hard.

    1. de Villiers 3 Jan 2014, 10:30am

      Referring to a black person as an ape is what is detestable on this board.

      1. But he is !! Do you disagree with that ? Listen to you…you’re more concerned with the FA guy than in the welfare of young gay men who have to HEAR this ape .

      2. And not only that, but…..gays restore houses and neighborhoods. Blacks destroy them. Yet HE is calling gays detestable. And YOU will take HIS side over mine.

        1. de Villiers 3 Jan 2014, 11:01am

          Your racism is, of itself, detestable – and is separable from the person to whom you are referring.

        2. gays restore houses and neighbo[u]rhoods. Blacks destroy them.

          Heh. Are you capable of thinking beyond stereotypes and generalisations, MJ? In fact, are you capable of thinking? (On the evidence presented on this thread, apparently not.)

      3. We humans are all a species of great ape and I don’t see anything wrong with being an ape, the implication in his calling Johnson an ape is that MJ doesn’t seem to think he too is an ape himself…what a chimp.

  33. The FA would never appoint or support someone who was a white supremacist two years ago, however much he claimed to have reformed. The middle aged, white, straight guys who run football probably think gays don’t watch or play it. Well, they do. And it’s time the FA took homophobia seriously. It could start by sacking this wholly unsuitable appointee.

  34. I looked it up – the word detestable is NOT i repeat NOT in this Evil book of superstition and fiction –

    I have had enough of these backward, religious, Neanderthals misquoting their book of nonsence – to hide behind their out and out bigotry and bloody ignorance.


    An Equality Adviser that backward should not be in such a position – it is a Hypocrisy!!

  35. I don’t think the current controversy has even been reported by the BBC, Has anyone seen anything about it on BBC TV or on their website?

    1. Never watch the inferior bbc news . They have such bias in favour of homophobia. Wish they would privatise the rubbish station, hate paying for something of no use to me.

  36. Godric Godricson 3 Jan 2014, 11:24am

    Sack him. Simple as that!

  37. This is inbelievable. “I’ve changed my mind” just doesn’t do it for me. Did he change his mind before he got offered the job? If so, where was the public apology for his despicable remark? I don’t believe a word he says.

    1. I actually do know how to spell unbelievable. Hasty spellchecker to blame.

  38. GingerlyColors 3 Jan 2014, 11:56am

    A black guy makes destestable comments about gays and in return I see a lot of destestable comments about black people. I know that it is the worst cases of homophobia occur in countries like Uganda, Jamaica and Zimbabwe which are mainly black and many black migrants to countries like ours and the USA hail from rabidly homophobic countries but those who settle here and their offspring become more enlightened as they adapt to our culture. Black people living in the UK are now assimilating quite well and many of them enter into relationships with white people which is more than what I can say for the Muslims. And I must stress that unlike being black or gay which is NOT a lifestyle choice, being a Muslim is, as is any other religion. The passage in Genesis in which God is said to change the colour of Cain’s skin to mark him as a killer holds as much credibility as the book of Leviticus and should be disregarded as they serve no purpose but to promote racism and homophobia.

    1. it seems some on have their favourite hate pet. for some it is race for others certain religion. what they all have in common is bigotry and closely associated with it hypocrisy. quite hypocritical, dont you think, to have a go at someone for saying something and then to go on and say exactly the same.

      1. That has to be the best comment on this thread.

    2. barriejohn 3 Jan 2014, 2:57pm

      The racism seems to be coming from one commenter, who is barely literate and seems unable to put forward a coherent argument. One of the ironies here is that it was Europeans who introduced anti-homosexuality legislation (and Christianity) in the former colonies, and that it is mainly fundamentalist American Christians who are encouraging them to continue along the same road. It is a fact that many black immigrants and their families belong to “Bible-believing churches” which tend to be homophobic (rabidly so in a lot of cases), so you have the other irony of people who have fought hard for their civil rights denying other groups THEIR rights on bogus “ethical” grounds. Gay people were very active in the Civil Rights movement in the America of the Sixties, but tended to be tolerated more than anything. To those of us alive at the time Civil Rights meant Black Rights, and had nothing to do with the rights of gays, transgendered people, women, disabled people, ethnic and religious minorities, atheists, the political opposition, and so on. That was the strength of the movement and also its fundamental weakness. I think that we are much more enlightened today, and see human rights as a much broader thing, and it is disappointing when black people, who ought to understand the difficulties of those who are discriminated against, come out with such appallingly homophobic statements, but it’s religion which is most to blame for their ignorance.

  39. in the interests of fairness – to those he is currently employed to advise and represent, this man should be sacked. using the unqualified words of ancient dead men to justify a position of bigotry is detestable and abominable. how can he help deal with homophobia in football from the point of view of bibblical (sic.) so-called ‘morality’? the guy’s a twerp and deserves to be gone very quickly if the FA really has any backbone about the position (of which i have many doubts).

  40. Adrian Morgan 3 Jan 2014, 12:33pm

    What a cowardly ******. He hasn’t even got the courage of his own bigoted convictions to admit that his nasty religious views justify his homophobe. Saying one has changed one’s ways is not enough. In a sport where only one famous player came out and was vilified by scum like the late Brian Clough (before committing suicide) – Michael Johnson has no right to be involved with “inclusivity” advice. If he had made such a comment 15 years ago, and had recanted and done something positive since, he could be excused. But if it was only in 2012 he was boasting about how his bigotry was divinely-sanctioned, the two-faced scumbag should be fired on the spot.

  41. Adrian Morgan 3 Jan 2014, 12:45pm

    What a coward. He hasn’t even got the courage of his own bigoted convictions to admit that his nasty religious views justify his homophobia. Saying one has changed one’s ways is not enough. In a sport where only one famous player came out and was vilified and had his games limited by Brian Clough (before committing suicide) – Michael Johnson has no right to be involved with “inclusivity” advice. If he had made such a comment 15 years ago, and had recanted and done something positive since, he could be excused. But if it was only in 2012 he was boasting about how his bigotry was divinely-sanctioned, he should be fired on the spot.

  42. Window dressing once again backfires perhaps they couldn’t find a black homosexual Jewish equalities expert so any old bigot will do. I have no issues with any minority group individual whether racially religiously or even of another gender representing me and protecting my position in society. Why a washed up bigot who happens to be heterosexual. The equalities position can be given to someone who has genuinely changed. In essence he or she will be asking others to change so personal testimony may be an invaluable testimony.

  43. tatchell got it right. the problem here is not the appointee as such but those who made this appointment. to get to the bottom of this fiasco, questions asked by peter have to be answered.

  44. I note that in his statement he only states that his views have completely changed, he doesn’t tell us how they have changed and how he actually feels now.

    These are empty weasel words unless he states clearly and honestly how he views gay people and homophobia now. Hell, if his views have “completely changed” they might have actually got worse. He is being deliberately ambiguous to save his new cushy job.

    So, at the moment the only words we have from him on how he feels about gay people and homophobia are those that he uttered in the TV programme. These clearly show him as a religious bigot and that is how he should be viewed until he demonstrates, by words and actions, that he is not so.

    As it stands, this is a disgraceful appointment by the FA.

    1. Yes, does Johnson now regard Bible text that describes homosexuals as detestable to God is as equally irrelevant and nonsensical as the Bible text that describes being black as the mark of Cain and the black race being cursed by God to be slaves, a curse only death can end.
      Or, does he still believe all this racist & homophobic scriptural trash is true.

  45. Very, very convenient!!!!!! “relates to a view I no longer hold”. Perhaps he could research more deeply into his bible aand answer me a couple of queries:

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    Come on FA – get serious. Sack this guy now!!!

    1. you make some good points that you should tell every homophobic religious bigot

  46. Just because the bible condemns homosexuality does not mean that God does. God didn’t write the book and neither did Jesus.
    People who follow religion blindly should not be allowed to defend or create public law.

    1. James Campbell 3 Jan 2014, 6:09pm

      It is not just who wrote the texts used in the Bible, but those who translated them – the King James Bible is a mess of poor translation.

  47. Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera 3 Jan 2014, 5:42pm

    The Equalities Adviser for the FA may well have apologised for calling gays ‘detestable’ but how on earth does he or the FA expect to have any credibility in their claim of combatting intolerance on and off the field?

    As for the question catching this ‘expert’ out, I think not, he was clearly choosing his words very carefully. If one is an equalities advocate then there is no public forum where expressing or supporting intolerance is acceptable, and if one holds a national portfolio then everything said in private is liable to leak out as well.

    Perhaps this ‘expert’ should think twice about claiming to be an a fit and appropriate adviser and do the honourable thing and resign, or at least demonstrate in deed rather than words that he has overcome his previous bigotry and is now willing to champion Gay Rights along with others.

  48. Colin (Queenstown/London) 3 Jan 2014, 5:59pm

    I want a register of religious beliefs attached to jobs now. I want to see the bigots and be able to ask if there religion will clash with the job.

    Sorry He is a bible thumper. I would never trust him after this. I would always have doubts. He should resign and surely the FBA can find someone with far better credentials. Getting the feeling that the FBA are giving lip service here.

    Lost opportunity and yet very important.

  49. James Campbell 3 Jan 2014, 6:06pm

    Having discussed the issues underlying homophobia, racism, sexism etc with young people (I am a specialist in mental health) the reaction of many is that racism is the worst ‘ism’ (followed by sexism) since people can’t choose the colour of their skin (implying that gay people choose to be gay). However, several of those who *did* condemn all forms of bigotry were black. The attitude of the others is not surprising as the media still tends to react far more quickly to racism than they do to homophobia, transphobia, sexism, “anything different from the mainstream ism”. The BBC are one of the worst offenders. It is worth people stopping to think (if they can) about prejudice, and try substituting the word ‘black’ for ‘gay’ or any other description of a minority and then see if they find that acceptable. Many newspapers would never get away with describing ethnicity in the same way they often speak about gay and trans people (and of course they should not get away with racism either).

  50. And religion should have control over sport? No it should not just like media, health, crime and Law Religion should be kept out based on outdated views. Yes everyone is allowed to have a religion and express “religious freedom”. However, this freedom should not put others in discrimination circumstances.

  51. this is so wrong on so many levels – he would have been sacked by now if he was white

  52. {{“I was invited on to the programme in March 2012 to talk about my faith. I was not prepared for the question and it is with deep regret that I answered it in the way I did back then. It was wrong and relates to a view I no longer hold,” Johnson said.}}

    ya right, why would he NEED to prepare for the question OH that’s right so you could Lie instead…

    NO it is with DEEP regret you got called out on it…

    IF you truly no longer Hold this hateful View Prove it,
    ACTIONS do speak LOUDER then words…
    Join in a Gay Pride Parade, Show support, Fight for Equal Rights of LGBT’s…

    THEN and only then could I take your word…

  53. What have the FA got to evaluate Michael Johnson on for a role in the Inclusion Advisory Board but his track record? He’s spoken in favour of discrimination. His apology is merely God for money’s sake.

    John Amaechi said: “You don’t put one person to handle racism and a gay person for homophobia, you pick people who understand that all bigotry is the same monster.” I totally disagree with such a stance. Any group charged with reducing discrimination needs input from those, who are discriminated against. No other people know as much about the damage done by direct and indirect discrimination as those who face discrimination themselves. The exclusion of gay people from the Inclusion Advisory Board would make it a worthless sham.

  54. Why is it that these homophobic comments – whether from USA or elsewhere – come from coloured people. I am not racist, I am Gay – they need to look to their past when they were a minority and how it would feel to still be in that situation.

  55. Sorry, but as he was saying these views less than two years ago, I am pretty convinced that the only reason his views have “changed” is that he landed this job, and it was a requirement of the job to not point at a group of people and call them detestable.

    This has totally undermined the FA’s apparent “Passion” to stop homophobia. Just goes to show that they don’t believe in it enough to thoroughly check the backgrounds of who they are appointing.

    Another reason for me to hate football

  56. Why is it that these people from a once suppressed minority feel the need to hammer another suppressed minority. Remember the past.

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.