Reader comments · UKIP Councillor: We don’t need ‘iron fist’ equality laws to protect gays from discrimination · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UKIP Councillor: We don’t need ‘iron fist’ equality laws to protect gays from discrimination

  • Robert in S. Kensington

    How quickly the hatemongers try to back-pedal. Sorry, this really is the face of UKIP, deny it as they do.

    • chesterwriter

      And everyone who comes from S. Kensington is a complete muppet! Sorry, but I thought you might welcome another sweeping generalisation to keep your own company.

      • Cal

        Are you retarded? You think UKIP isn’t a party of intolerance? Every time I hear one of them open their mouths bile comes out. And if you are Gay and UKIP, I suggest you get some help with that self-loathing problem.

        • chesterwriter

          As with another poster on here, thank-you for making my point for me, the UK’s LGBT community displaying their “tolerance” by using words like retarded. Oh dear, the irony! Clearly, if you’re looking to be offended then it’s not hard to find a suitable source, such as the UKIP representative featured, or indeed Councillor Silvester. But to suggest that all of UKIP’s supporters are intolerant of other minorities, is a bit like me suggesting that all LGBT’s in the UK share the same intolerances as you do, which would be wrong, as obviously you are uniquely qualified to illustrate the point of human stupidity! :)

          • Cal

            You’re a very angry little person.

          • Carl

            Mr writer that comes from Chester doesn’t like to be called bigot.

          • chesterwriter

            Oh gosh, so hurt by your attempt at sarcasm. I’m pretty sure that if I started hurling pejorative terms around about members of the LGBT community a few of them might get a tad upset. However, I’m intelligent enough to recognise that not all people have the same intolerances as others, a view that is obviously lost on people such as yourself. Still, public forum, I’m sure that readers will make up their own minds about who is the more intolerant one.

          • Cal

            That, they will.

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      Indeed! This egotist, who really seems too intellectually undeveloped to responsibly represent anyone, appears to be of a split mind. She says she wants us “to be a tolerant society” but she does not understand that in the face of bigotry and the views of the religiously deluded “tolerance” has to be demanded and required of every citizen in society, in order to create that tolerant society, and that there must be penalties for intolerance and discrimination.

      She’s another fence-sitter, trying to have it both ways. Would she cast aside all the progressive legislation of the last 300 years? By her argument, she should. But no, she’ll say she wouldn’t want the vote taken away from women, and so forth.

      She’s purely after votes, and she’ll say whatever she thinks the greater number of “kippers” want to hear her say.

  • Gerry

    When you’re in a hole… STOP DIGGING !

  • Mark Y

    UKIP = the laughing stock of politics. The party that uneducated bigots vote for.

    • chesterwriter

      There must be so many uneducated bigots in this country then; that it’s become mainstream to be a bigot. However, it’s probably more likely that you’re just talking out of the back of your neck. Think I’ll go for that option!

      • Mark Y

        So many? Don’t make me laugh, how many seats did UKIP win in the last general election? I’ll tell you, 0, zero, none, nish, nada. But you’re right, some people did vote for them, uneducated bigots who believe in what they say, or a protest vote for people who don’t believe in politics. Even their own politicians think the weather is caused by gods anger. Stupid Uneducated Bigoted Clowns, They should rename the party the SUBC.

        • chesterwriter

          WOW!! Such a tolerant attitude! Thank you for making my point for me! Maybe we should draft a law that insists that intolerant people such as yourself, should refrain from making sweeping unsubstantiated statements about supporters of political parties. As for your point about MP’s? Such are the vagaries of the FPTP electoral system in this country, but still doesn’t disprove the facts that UKIP are polling an average of 15-20% of the electorate, so in your world several million people in this country are “Stupid Uneducated Bigot Clowns”? Hmm! Interesting concept! Do you have to try real hard to be this stupid, or does it just come naturally to you? As for Councillor Silvester’s comments? Well, there his own beliefs at the end of the day and do not represent the wider view of the 34,000 paid up members of UKIP. But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of your own intolerance, otherwise you might begin to feel that you’re being discriminated against and think about taking us all to court in order to uphold your rights. With people like you representing the LGBT cause, what can possibly go wrong?

    • Oliver

      No, that would be Labour.

      • Mark Y

        Are you talking about the party that enabled equal marriage rights to go through? They don’t sound very bigoted to me. Maybe you could share with me some of this ‘bigoted’ labour parties views? No, thought not.

  • lee

    You stupid cow you really want to go back to days of no blacks her swell as no gays – you should be ashamed the world as moved on.

    People like you will only do harm to UKIP.

  • Some arguments are so facile that it’s actually quite hard to describe quite why. It’s like someone insisting that gravity can be replaced with velcro.

  • Jock S.Trap

    Sounds to me like UKIP stands for the “get ya 15 minutes of fame here” party.

  • bobbleobble

    I always find it interesting when these people talk about freedom and tolerance that they’re always talking about the freedom of bigots. What about my freedom to shop or obtain services where I want? What about tolerance for me? If my choices are limited by someone else’s bigotry then my freedom has been curtailed but apparently that doesn’t matter so long as the holy rollers get to refuse me goods and services.

    Her viewpoint is essentially that women and minorities should not have the same access to the market as straight white men. How is that freedom? How is that tolerant?

  • Mike Dalgarno

    It would be great if we didn’t need ‘iron fist’ equality laws to protect people (LGBT, women, race, disabled et al), but we do…because people were being discriminated against!

    So yeah, I do feel that the laws are required because we don’t like in this perfect little bubble that she does!

    • chesterwriter

      Congratulations! Obviously the only person commenting with a balanced view on the matter; and not tempted to make sweeping generalisations about millions of people that they know nothing about. Well done!

  • Carl

    If there haven’t been laws protecting the rights of women, this “councillor” wouldn’t even be allowed to speak in public, let alone be a councillor!
    These people should think a bit more before opening their mouths. But of course, is UKIP.

    • chesterwriter

      Boy, I’ll bet that Boudicca was glad when they introduced equal rights for women, otherwise she wouldn’t have been allowed to lead the Iceni against the Romans!

      • Carl

        Boy, I wonder how many Boudiccas were roaming around in the time of the Romans.
        Your comment denotes an ignorance of how society works.

        • chesterwriter

          I rather think you’ll find that women had far more rights under the Romans than any other period after that. Once again you’re misrepresenting the argument to fit your own personal point of view. You implied that women had never had any rights prior to the suffrage movement came about, which is wrong. Throughout history there have been societies and social conventions which have seen women achieve parity with men, so your initial assertion was incorrect. Sorry, but not my fault if you don’t know your history well enough.

          • Carl

            I think it is you who misrepresented the argument. I never said women did not have any rights in ancient societies. You assumed that. But how many women can you name that commanded armies or headed kingdoms or empires? 5, 10? At the most. Now my point was that if this women had lived in England a century ago, she would have had little rights, certainly she wouldn’t have been a councillor.

          • chesterwriter

            Although I wasn’t going to bother replying, because I believe you’re being deliberately obtuse about the matter, having re-read your latest post, I will accept that you’re correct in your assertion that women did have rights in ancient/historic societies. As for your point about the numbers of women who have commanded armies, or empires being relatively small, as opposed to the numbers of men, I wouldn’t disagree with that. However, on the narrow point regarding women’s “rights” per se’, that is not a modern phenomenon, or the result of modern day suffrage campaigns. Go back as far as you like, but women have had property “rights” for centuries; and it was only during later periods of English history that women’s traditional rights of ownership, etc. were either outlawed, or weakened. It was only after these changes were introduced that women’s rights were virtually abolished, only to be reintroduced following the success of the universal suffrage movement. My point is; the idea that women have never enjoyed parity with men prior to the 20th century is wrong; and although I’ll grant you there are exceptions in the case of holding public office, or having the right to vote in elections, in terms of our country’s history, it wasn’t that long ago that the common man didn’t enjoy those rights either. BTW, if you wanted a list of women who ruled kingdoms, or led national armies, then the list would be very small indeed, but if you wanted a list of women who enjoyed personal power or authority through marriage, property, or title, then it would be far too big to actually list here.

          • Kittywake

            It is you who should read up on your history chesterwriter. Freeborn
            Roman women were citizens but could not vote or hold political office. Boudicca was not a Roman citizen and on the death of her husband the
            Romans humiliated her and her daughters and flouted the Iceni traditions
            of succession which is why her tribe revolted against them. Women in public office (not Royal women where inheritance is involved) is a modern phenomenon.

          • chesterwriter

            Thank you for making my point for me, Roman women had implicit and actual rights under the law, which was the point of the original post, I made no specific mention of their right to vote, or indeed hold political office. It was because of Roman Law that Boudicca, the wife of the Iceni king, Prasutagus was able to assume his rights following his death; and those rights were only undermined due to the actions of particular Roman administrators at the time. So thank you for the advice, but don’t think I need to check up on my history at all. Women’s “rights”, as specifically mentioned by the original poster, with no direct reference made to an entitlement to vote, or hold public office, have existed as far back as the Roman period; and are not therefore entirely the result of 20th century suffrage campaigns. I can’t make the case any more clearly than that and if you cannot see the basic tenet of the argument then I can’t help you with that I’m afraid. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

  • dtnorth

    “We don’t need the iron fist of government legislation banging down to tell us what to think.”

    Sometimes we do.

    Sometimes we need to slap bigots down and tell them that there bigotry is not condusive to an amicable equal society.

    We need to STOP idiots like you from harming an amicable equal society.

    And in retort.

    I am a GP.

    Can I refuse to treat you as I believe that you are a hateful pointless idiot not worthy of 1 pence of NHS money.

    • Jones

      //Can I refuse to treat you as I believe that you are a hateful pointless idiot not worthy of 1 pence of NHS money.//

      You wouldn’t because you have values, unlike her.

    • chesterwriter

      And just where is this amicable equal society that these idiots are harming. You can’t possibly mean the UK, where it’s necessary to legislate people into behaving fairly and equitably? If you believe that, might I suggest that you hand your prescription pad over to a responsible colleague, because clearly you’ve been over medicating on something or other.

      • Carl

        Let me inform you that we don’t live in chaos or ruled by the Law of the Jungle. Actually, as you comment down below, we live in a democracy where political differences are arranged by discussion and vote.

        • chesterwriter

          And again, you’re twisting the argument, as the two threads are entirely separate issues. The original post suggested that we live in an amicable and equitable society, which we do not. Any society that has to be regulated through specific laws aimed at controlling people’s behaviour cannot be deemed to be either amicable, or equitable.
          As for the other thread to which you referred. I’m assuming you mean the one about the councillor and whether constituents could go to another representative, assuming the didn’t agree with the councillor featured in the article. This has absolutely nothing to do with the initial point about social equity, as they are two entirely different matters.
          Nice try, but no cigar I’m afraid. As before, it’s a public forum, so I’ll let the readers decide the efficacy of your argument!

          • Carl

            What are you talking about??? We have thousands of laws that regulate our behaviour in society! You can be a bigot if you want and if that is what you believe is correct but you can’t use your belief to deny services to certain groups or even worse to opress them. And yes, laws are there to make society fairer. An absolute fair society doesn’t exist but at least is much fairer than to live with no laws.
            And this has to do with the second point: democracy might not be perfect but it’s much better than Roman society, particularly for women and other groups. If there were societies in the past where women enjoyed the same rights as men these were exceptional and certainly not the norm. I think you are the one that needs to refresh your history knowledge.

  • The Halcyon

    Can her constituents go to another councillor if they don’t like her viewpoints? No? Then STFU.

    • chesterwriter

      No, but they can vote her out of office at the next available elections, as is the way in a democracy.

  • Jase

    Move to Tennessee already.

  • The Halcyon

    @ bobbleobble – precisely, the free market should mean exactly that. Free access to goods and services which is of course, one of the four principles of the European Union, the organisation which she is desperate for the UK to leave…

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      Indeed. Let’s have no doubts about the matter. UKIP is a dangerous right-wing organization, currently watering down its agenda in order to garner popular support. But let them into power, enable them to cut the UK loose from Europe, and there’s one hell of a lot of progressive UK legislation that they’d then proceed to cut as well. We LGBTs would probably become “tolerated”, at most. And what that means is “back into the closets, you!”

  • Jones

    Yes we do need laws because of people like you and your fellow party members.

    • chesterwriter

      Oh dear!

  • MarkB

    UKIP= United Kingdom Idiots Party. Just how many cookoo’s do they have in their nest?

  • Daniel

    If discrimination did not exist, then there would be no need for any laws to protect. Sadly, people like this uneducated UKIPer prove very much that the need continues.

  • Christopher in Canada

    I wonder if her great grandmother was a suffragette… if the lady were alive, she’d have a lot to remind this girl about women’s struggles in becoming persons under the law, voting, property rights, etc.

  • Stevie

    Camera cuts to a shot of Farage holding his head in his hands.
    FARAGE ” Where the arse are we recruiting these people, throw me a frickin bone, I’m trying to win seats here!!!”
    You couldn’t write this stuff!

  • Synophion

    UKIP is unreservedly Libertarian in its views, which in truth is no different from the views of most gay people. Being Libertarian means allowing people to make their own choices without state interference, within certain social boundaries of course. To be honest if i owned a company I would prefer to only employ those who would benefit my company whatever their race, gender or sexuality, but that might also mean how that person affects the other members of the work force and if i had a large gay work force [for example] i would like the choice of being able to reject employing an ‘average’ hetero or even Xian or Mohammedan, who might have some unacceptable views that would affect team work. Likewise why would i want to work for a homomisic, i would much rather know from the onset who I might be working for and be able to make better informed choices for my career rather than be employed simply on some empty ‘positive discrimination’ basis, that might eventually affect my career detrimentally in the future.

    • bobbleobble

      If UKIP are so libertarian then why do they oppose same sex marriage, a decidedly unlibertarian point of view?

      Libertarianism can only work properly in the absence of such things as prejudices. How for example can I make my own choices if someone else chooses to reject me on the basis of my sexuality?

      • Synophion

        I agree, from a gay perspective this is a contradiction, even though they do support Civil Unions. It simply shows that even the Libertarianism of UKIP is determined by outdated modes of ethics which has allowed Xian morality to dictate to some degree. However I must stress, Im not a UKIP member as I find two thirds of their 2010 manifesto unsupportable, and much too ‘classical liberal’ in the Thatcherite mould. It is not my intention to defend them as a party, only create a wider perspective, which avoids narrow minded Lib-left Gaurdianista propaganda.

  • JohnE

    I kinda agree with her.

    If you are a homosexual, a homophobe, a communist, a satanist, a dwarf, a member of the Flat Earth Society, etc., and somebody doesn’t want to do business with you, why not just take your business elsewhere?

    • Dtnorth

      I’m sure you will be happy with that when a supermarket checkout operator tells you to take a hike and not serve you.

  • Enrique Esteban

    Help to sign: prenume=first name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    Also can use Google to search “vrem parteneriat” and translate it into your language
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on the link to confirm.

  • Cal

    To all those here who are defending her position I ask, would it be ok for a business owner to advertise their “libertarian” freedom with a sign saying something like “No dogs. No blacks. No Irish”?

  • James Campbell

    “If we are to be a tolerant society, we need to tolerate things we don’t like.” Really? So we can continue to ‘tolerate’ FGM. Sex trafficking, slavery et al?
    The block on these abuses of human rights is the LAW. I cannot speak on behalf of LGB people (I am straight), but in discussion with my brother (who is gay) we both agreed that persecuted minorities don’t need to be ‘tolerated’ (which patronises and implies that “I don’t really approve of you and what you do, but I am generous and will agree to put up with you as long as you don’t move in next door”). The right of minorities such as LGBTI is to be included and respected as equal members of society and if this requires legislation then so be it.

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.