Comments on: Cameron calls for ban on hate preachers

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:28:00 +0000

Dave, thank you for that.

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:10:00 +0000

"Conservatives and other reactionaries routinely deny that they're bigots" – as do gay people but you've only got to read some of the comments on here to see the evidenceAs a group that is so often tarred with the same brush and the victim of negative stereotypes, its amusing in a sick sort of way to see how quick we are the same to do so to others.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Bill Perdue

Bill Perdue — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:25:00 +0000

Robert , Dave – Conservatives and other reactionaries routinely deny that they're bigots, but it does them no good. Their actions prove otherwise. The parties of Bush, Cameron, Howard and Harper in Canada have virtually identical antigay programs centered on pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage and protective laws. Their racist islamophobia and gay bashing mentality intersect when it’s a matter of deporting Iranian gays and lesbians to their death, which they are happy to do. Always one of the slimiest of conservative leaders, Cameron is doing exactly as Omar says by pandering to islamophobia and trying to trawl for votes in the GLBT communities by opposing Al-Qaradawi‘s visit. The situation with Al-Qaradawi is a clear cut from our point of view. I hardly matters if Brown wantsto to mollify the oil producing royals by making this ‘humanitarian’ offer. He’s doing it for the same reason Bush ignored the (ongoing)links between the Saudi royals and Bin Laden, and the fact that most of the terrorists on 9-11 were Saudis. There is no reason that Al-Qaradawi needs to go anywhere for medical aid. (And I maintain my original idea is the best solution: Al-Qaradawi’s a man of faith so send him to a faith healer to be cured. What could be fairer, more fitting or lethal?) I’m surprised that the Conservatives would adopt this tact. It eats into their pet idiocy, which is the claim that GLBT rights are 'special rights' that limit the rights of others, when the opposite is true. It’s the same nonsense pushed by the roman cult, the Phelps litter and other superstitious groups the world over. But perhaps it answers Zekes question and explains why Twisted Sister has gone underground on this question.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: dave

dave — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:05:00 +0000

robert please reread my comment then you will see that I agree with what you are sayingThe torys only seem to vote for gay rights when it suits. and then they always have to have get out clauses. Camerons on a band wagon here. Hes using us to suit.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Boris

Boris — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:15:00 +0000

80% of Cameron's revolting party "preach hatred" on a regular basis, that's how they keep their nasty sponsors and voters happy.It's time someone slapped that permanently concerned expression of Cameron's face.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:01:00 +0000

Omar, maybe Brown is too concerned about oil. The islamic states have the bulk of the world's oil reserves. Violation of human rights, unwarranted execution of people straight and gay is water off a duck's back in the political arena. The acquisition, access and securing of oil supplies is far more important to western governments than human or civil rights. Look at the U.S. for instance. It allowed to China to finance its economy and trades with it, a country renowned for human rights abuses, and yet snubs Cuba. The fiasco that is Iraq is all about oil, lets face it. So it doesn't come as any surprise that Brown would snub Mugabe and welcome others. Its called political expediency. They all do it, both labour and conservative governments.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: OMAR KUDDUS

OMAR KUDDUS — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:55:00 +0000

Thank you, I did not want to say this, but feel that perhaps, David may be playing the gay/ hate card here, to win support,(if even one vote) as it is a total contrast to his policy on the incitement of hatred law, as he supports the religious aspect of discriminating us, as shown by some of his shadow government and MPs (does anyone remember the polite brush off I got from his office when I brought the subject up, unlike this time regarding al-Qaradawi).Religion has no part in politics and never should influence it or the law, for it shall always make inequalities, especially as we now live in a multi faith society.In addition to ethical and moral issues, it opens up too many cans of worms and prevents anything constructive or positive to be achieved.I do however agree that al-Qaradawi should not be allowed into the country and that the government and all major political parties should make a stand regarding it.Brown won points by refusing to go to Lisbon because of Mugabe and this cleric has the same views and principles, so why is it different now.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:00 +0000

Dave, you said…"and yet when it came recently to vote on a new law of incitement of hatred towards gay people, but with a get out clause for reglious considerations. Most torys were in favour of this. Make your mind Mr Cameron, which is it to be?"I see no reason why anyone should be exempt based on religious considerations. The law should apply to everyone and nobody should be above the law, not even the monarchy, nor should any receive special treatment because of their social or economic status. If concessions are made to a few, then that's not democracy, let alone equality. If religious bigots want to interfere in politics, let alone influence political outcomes or legislation, lets demand that our pink tax pounds stop supporting them, no exemptions whatsoever. Let them go out and find a real job and do a decent day's work for a change instead of leeching off the rest of us. Who needs them anyway?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: dave

dave — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:10:00 +0000

and yet when it came recently to vote on a new law of incitement of hatred towards gay people, but with a get out clause for reglious considerations. Most torys were in favour of this. Make your mind Mr Cameron, which is it to be?HATE OR NO HATE……on any grounds

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jock Davies

Jock Davies — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:05:00 +0000

Good on Cameron. he gets my vote now.Jock – Brighton

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Zeke, for once I find myself agreeing with a conservative. Cameron is right on! Brown should reject the visa application. Al-Qaradawi supports terrorism, what on earth is Brown "dithering" for? Ban him and all hate speech mongers who advocate killing!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Zeke

Zeke — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:39:00 +0000

Wow, I wonder if Sister Mary Clarence will chastise him for trying to limit free speech like he/she does when a non-Tory takes such a stand.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: OMAR KUDDUS

OMAR KUDDUS — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:29:00 +0000

Its nice to see that Cameron is listening and doing the right thing to try and stop the is man from coning into Britain.There is no need why he should, as Qatar does not have to send him out of the country for medical treatment.The US do not want him and neither does a section of the British population, so let him go to Europe if he must travel out of Qatar.Come on Gordon and Nick, join up and show that you care for the wishes of all your subjects.Brown said an announcement would be made shortly but the decision had to go through the proper judicial process, and rightly so, but do please respect our wishes, as you say you are going to..

(Report comment to the moderator)