I became aware of this story a bit earlier but thought it too parochial for this site, but it has just popped up again on BBC Five Live and so I wanted to make a few comments. It concerns the view of a Northern Ireland politician, Iris Robinson, on homosexuals. Now let me first say that I can think of little good to say about Mrs Robinson, and have been a vehement critic of her Party, the DUP. But yesterday, on the Nolan Show, she stated that in her view good counselling could help homosexuals change their lifestyle. She went further and called homosexuality “an abomination” – I believe this word was actually bleeped out by the Beeb. I’ve just caught Steven Nolan open up this subject again on Five Live, playing back Robinson’s opinions and then inviting comment. You can just IMAGINE the hostility she has attracted from late night BBC 5 live listeners. I fail to see why Robinson is not entitled to her view without being then exposed to the pro-Gay Jihad that the BBC has been indulging in today. In BBC world, being gay or at least being gay friendly is de rigeur and Allah help those who take a traditional – even Biblical view (gasp) – on homosexuality. I welcome what this politician has had to say even though I do not care for her. I also note the implied threats that have come her way from militant gay groups with mutterings of hate crime. There is NOTHING wrong with suggesting sodomy is sinful and the BBC should be ashamed of its jihad against Mrs Robinson during the past 48 hours. Where’s the bias? The bias lies in the BBC’s relentless pro-Gay agenda.
UPDATE:
This story appeared on The Today programme (8.20am) and I was amused to find that the BBC managed to locate Eamon McCann, a local marxist Irish republican, who is also an atheist, to provide balanced comment. Us wicked Christians must be put in our place and the BBC delights in doing so. Why were McCann’s predictable Bible bashing comments not balanced by someone else who is supportive of the idea that homosexuality is not normal? Or is it gay rights uber alles?
libertus: slavery wasn’t an issue I raised – I was concerned more with the principles and rationale behind accepting the word of God’s assurance that homosexuality is evil, but not accepting its stated position on what to do about it.
Barry: All you posted were BBC stories about Muslims. I didn’t see anything where BBC presenters were attacking Muslims for anti homosexual views?
Nolan also made personal attacks on Boris Johnson after he won the London Mayoral race.
Care to repost?
“It also wrong to encourage people into a lifestyle of such depression, unhappiness and health risks”
Very quickly, because England are destroying NZ at Trent Bridge: this is one of those breathtakingly ignorant and patronising statements I object to. I know some gay people, and they don’t suffer from depression or unhappiness at all, except for being persecuted by religious nuts. Conversely, I know heteros who suffer from depression.
By the logic of your argument, one should seek to convert all Jews to Christianity to save them from such a life of depression. Care to comment?
I’ve been helped out of depression by the friendship over several years of a gay man who also taught me everything I know about the Old Testament. He’s one of the finest Old Testament scholars in the country. And no – he never tried to get in my knickers. He was just a very decent human being, and a fine friend.
Are there health risks currently associated with homosexuality? Yes, of course. But that is not a moral point, and N Oxf is in my opinion absolutely right to claim that homosexuality as a “lifestyle” is no more fraught with depression than any other. And if it is – maybe hearing themselves described as sinful and people seeking to “cure” them of their identity might just have something to do with it.
But hey – it must be great to be gay and hear someone enlightened saying that they personally don’t advocate the killing of homosexuals, but they do subscribe to the condemnation of homosexuality in the ancient moral code that does advocate killing them.
Nearly Oxfordian | 07.06.08 – 3:38 pm
Hear, hear! It’s not often you and I see eye to eye, never mind tooth for tooth but well said.
It may well be that some homosexuals can be ‘councilled’ into heterosexual acts but who knows how happy that makes them? I’d suggect that brainwashing people into another sexuality is hardly a moral victory.
However, to get back to the bias issue, it is galling that the BBC push the worse sort of homosexuality (the Nortons and the Barrowmans etc). It’s almost as if they wear these people on their sleeves as badges of honour.
Most of the homosexuals I have known have not been ‘raving queers’, to quote Mr Norton and they are not defined by their sexuality. So why are the homosexuals we see on the TV defined so. Why can’t there be gay characters who have same sex partners where their sexual acts are not constantly on display? A good example of this is the couple in ‘Reaper’ on E4 – gay demons even – but they aren’t constantly snogging.
Incidently same applies to hetrosexual sexuality on screen. If I want porn I’ll buy it else where.
ghargad tree: The New Testament doesn’t mandate any sanction for those who disagree with its moral code other than exclusion from the fellowship – not that the early church was in any position to impose civil or criminal penalties (being a persecuted minority itself), but the point remains. The condemnation of homosexual conduct in Genesis 19, Judges 19, Lev 18 and passim in Kings is partly linked to its association with Canaanite ways. I would never have mandated Christian faith on anyone, even though that effectively became the case in Christendom, with disabilities imposed on non-Christians and heretics and the assumption that baptism automatically made one a Christian, because I believe that is contrary to the nature of Christian faith. I favor a fairly limited role for the state, not telling me what to believe or who to love but having a restricted sense of public interest. But I suspect Europe is now inching towards a form of secularist coercion of the conscience, and the BBC (that’s what this site is about!) is part of this movement. When faith is decayed, freedom isn’t going to last for long. Mark Steyn understands this point only too well.
I am glad that the OT scholar proved a good friend, and am not surprised if he is a devout believer. This doesn’t change my thinking about the morality of homosexual acts. Depression is no respecter of persons, but the level of pathologies associated with homosexual behavior is actually well known. Christians don’t believe in perfection in this life, only acceptance by God. NOx is nothing if not honest in his opinions and seems beholden to noone, and I would encourage him to check out what Satinover says in his book, and Gagnon in his.
Libertus – I respect everything – and agree with almost everything – you say. The issue that should concern us here is what you very elegently describe as the secularist coercion of the conscience, and the state broadcaster’s role in that act of coercion.
There is indeed something Stalinist and horrifying in which “wrong-thinking” is dragged into the public forum to be ridiculed and disposed of by the BBC. Especially whilst, as others have also pointed out forecfully, more barbaric examples of religious coercion go unexamined by that same broadcaster.
It’s been rewarding to read your views, (though I am not sure that skimming over the OT’s strictures on homosexuality by partially linking them it the Canaanites is quite adequate when what we are dealing with is something that advocates death and is considered the word of God). I’m aware that the mainstream Christian position on most things is not exactly fundamentalist, and the relation of a modern Christian with the legacy of scripture is a complex one: but it is exactly that question that intrigues me.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and interesting response.
I prefer “the BBC has” because it is an organisation, an entity – a collective noun which should take the singular.
However, it is not considered wrong nowadays to write “the BBC have” (Ouch! it hurt me to write that) because, it is reasoned that the writer is impliedly referring to (the people at) the BBC, so it is all right to treat the subject as a plural, with the verb following suit.
It used to grate on me every time I heard John Major’s stock phrase “The government are…”
I suppose I shouldn’t be annoyed by a thing like that.
gharqad tree: thank you for your kind comments. My remarks on the OT were a little brief, but I certainly agree that there is more to OT strictures on homosexual acts than their association with the highly eroticised culture of the Canaanites (this is clear from the use of ‘to’evah’ in Lev 18.22, which suggests something intrinsic). However, this association is part of the picture and gives a reply of sorts to the claim ‘The Israelites were only reflecting their cultural environment.’ Au contraire, the first millennium ANE was fairly ‘gay friendly’ and often practiced ritual homosexual shrine prostitution (called ‘q’doshim’ in Kings). Hebrew kings often tried to wipe this out in Israel. I owe this insight to Gordon Wenham, formerly professor of OT in Cheltenham. I could equally have mentioned hostility to idolatry and ‘other gods’ in pointing to Israel’s distinctiveness.
I’m an evangelical Christian with a PhD in OT, so I have a ‘high’ view of Scripture. It would be easy to relativise it, but that isn’t an option for me. I try to understand the OT christologically while seeking to grasp as much as I can of the original historical situation and the niceties of genre, including the rhetoric of Scripture. Neither task is easy!
I still don’t understand why the BBC can bleep this woman but not bleep other people who say things that are equally offensive.
When I listen to people like Christopher Hitchens, I think: what a clever man and master of phrases. And so unhappy with it, too.
libertus | 07.06.08 – 2:10 pm
100%. I have never understood why people find it necessary to sneer at believers. And the sneering that the BBC has indulged in and continues to indulge in regarding Christianity is one of the central aspects of BBC bias. This could be partly due to the BBC’s gay constituency getting its own back on Christians for their opposition to homosexuality. But there are other forums for that debate. How convenient to be able to use a publically-funded broadcaster for one’s own personal agenda, and how satisfying to be paid for it into the bargain.
And the BBC editors who allow this Christian-bashing have a lot to answer for. It strikes me that it could be a kind of safety valve for the BBC to release the unbearable pressure that builds up due to the violent contradiction between its support for both Islam and homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not natural and the BBC has no business defending and promoting it (or anything else, for that matter).
Sorry, Bryan, we part company. Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is the natural inclination of many people. You cannot make this go away by dictat. The BBC shouldn’t promote it, but it is perfectly correct in defending homosexuals against attacks by bigots who seek to ‘cure’ them or otherwise impose their own morality on them – which they most certainly have no business doing. You cannot consistently object to Muslims imposing their morality on this country but support the same sort of thing when done by Christians.
We have had all kinds of red herrings and conflation on this thread. For example, it’s been strongly implied that all homosexuals have multiple partners (and by implication, that heterosexuals do not). That is an outrageous statement. The gay people I know are in monogamous relationships, sometimes going back decades. That is hardly unusual. Libertus is extrapolating from the camp ‘entertainers’ you see on the BBC to the whole population: well, the former are simply not typical, nor are the residents of Haight-Ashbury and Mission.
MT: ‘have’ is quite correct, as in ‘the police say’.
CPOD: thanks for that.
It would be interesting to know if Stonewall are as well represented a the BBC as they are in the corridors of Whiteall. The Labour Party – the political wing of Stonewall.
Nearly Oxfordian
Nobody would claim all gays have multiple parners any more than anybody would claim that all straight people are monogomamous.
Most would though agree that on average gays do get through more paartners.
Consider a practice in West coast American gay bath houses as AIDS was breaking out.
A man would position himself with his arse up with a large tub of lubrication next to him as an invitation of all commers to bugger him.
libertus:
A Phd in OT blimy respect for the big brain.
After years of trying have I found somebody that can explain
exodus 33: 23 and john 1:18
genisis 3:8 prov 15:3
judges 1:19 matthew 19:26
and so on and so on.
Bit late coming to this, but did they really bleep out the word “abomination”? I find that hard to believe.
That terrorist/man of God Desmond Tutu called Gaza an “abomination” on his recent Hamas-guided “tour” of the place, referring, of course, to Israel’s “oppression” of the Palestinians. So I guess someone applying the same term to homosexuality was just too much for BBC sensitivities. Gay people equated with those brutal, evil Israelis? Can’t have that!
So while I share your doubt that it was actually bleeped out, it’s distinctly possible. The BBC has done far worse in pursuit of its narrow agenda.
“Most would though agree that on average gays do get through more paartners.
Consider a practice in West coast American gay bath houses as AIDS was breaking out.”
Yep, just the usual conflation, red herrings and straightforward vicious hate propaganda.
The SF gay community is NOT typical of gays as a whole.
‘I fail to see why Robinson is not entitled to her view without being then exposed to the pro-Gay Jihad that the BBC has been indulging in today.’
She is entitled to her view, she is also entitled to express her view, which she did, on the BBC. The BBC invited listeners to voice their opinions on her comments, many people disagree with her, the BBC broadcasts those opinions too …and that’s biased? How?
The BBC is supposed to provide the forum for debate, giving opportunity for all significant strands of thought or opinion to be heard. The BBC has not expressed an opinion on the issue. It’s not just about providing a platform for Iris Robinson to express her views but about testing those views on behalf of the audience. Listeners come to their own conclusions.
So this ‘example’ of bias, is that the BBC gave coverage to those many people who disagreed with Robinson’s views. That’s biased is it? The reality is very simple. You agree with her views and cannot tolerate dissent from that. Just as you cannot tolerate dissent on this site.
If Robinson had said that homosexuality should be compulsory for everyone, and opened up the phone lines for listeners’ comments , I imagine she’d come in for some criticism. Would that be biased too David? When ‘Hearts and Minds’ invites you to give your opinion do you also accuse it of bias? Biased in favour of you? That’s how ridiculous this has become.
Interesting to note that the debate here is largely about homosexuality, not the BBC. Funnily enough, Stonewall doesn’t seem very happy with the BBC’s portrayal of gays and lesbians either:
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/media/tuned_out__gay_people_in_the_media/default.asp
I guess it just depends on your own bias.
Wouldn’t it be interested to hear from Iris Robinson’s psychiatrist. Listeners did, on Radio Ulster this morning, on ‘Sunday Sequence’, a religious and current affairs programme. You can read more coverage here:
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Gay-row-doctor-defends-claims.4163211.jp
Where does that leave your case David?
To get a balanced view it is vital to look at the research
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/EducationalPamphlets/tabid/69/Default.aspx
What they do. Yak!
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73
The beeb does ask for peoples opinion
It can then select which of these opinions get broadcasts.
We have no way of knowing how closley those represent the publics balance of opinion.
“Just as you cannot tolerate dissent on this site.”
Lying wanker.
Joel,
I hope you also heard me on Sunday Sequence. Delighted to see you have decided to stay here after you request to be banned. I do appreciate your ..erm…consistency….?
We have no way of knowing how closley those represent the publics balance of opinion.
Ron Todd | 08.06.08 – 1:00 pm
True, but we do know about the BBC’s nasty habit of plucking a comment they like from the Have Your Say batch and featuring it on the main HYS page even, or especially, when it goes against the flow of the vast majority of popular recommended comments. The BBC, in the form of Peter Horrocks, even considered “turning off” the “Most Recommended” comments function, so disturbed was it by the outpouring of hostility against Muslims after the Bhutto murder:
Ten days ago, just hours after the death of Benazir Bhutto, we considered turning off the comment recommendation facility on that story on the BBC News website. It was only a fleeting suggestion but that we could consider, however briefly, freezing this important part of BBC News’ service tells you something about the power and the potential danger of the new intensity of the interaction between the contributing public, journalists and audiences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html
The BBC has a long and miserable history of manipulating public opinion to suit its own propagandist ends. So I would trust the BBC to read out a fair sample of e-mails it receives on any topic about as far as I could throw it.
Joel | Homepage | 08.06.08 – 12:31 pm,
Good to see that you can actually string a couple of paragraphs together rather than sneering briefly at people and then disappearing. But when are you going to finally lose that “Homepage” of yours? Unless you have become an executive of Google.
Despite the successful stringing together of paragraphs, I have no idea what your point is or why you feel you have demolished David Vance’s case – unless it’s because the homosexual site you linked to can apparently only find “6 minutes” of pro-gay content on BBC TV out of 168 hours. They should try finding some pro-America or Israel or Christianity content as an exercise – in futility.
I was banned and I have been banned again since!
I would like to respond, but am not permitted to do so.
I will console myself with the knowledge however that Nearly Oxfordian will also be banned for calling me a ‘Lying wanker’. Won’t he?
If the BBC is leading a gay jihad, how do you explain the coverage on Sunday Sequence?
Those interested in coming to their own conclusions can listen to the debate here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radioulster/sunday_sequence/
Stating facts has never been cause for banning people here, IIRC.
And you can listen to David Vance’s interview on the same programme. What a strange organisation the BBC must be that it shills for terrorists but then invites DV on to discuss his new book?!?
Yes, it is. It’s made up of weirdos like you.
I see that the police are investigating her comments after 2 complaints.
Those damn liberal, tree huggin, gay loving peelers. Will somebody please think of the children?!?!
Yes, what sort of an idiot would accuse the police of being in thrall to political correctness. I’m sure I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous. Clearly it’s only extremists on a site like this that would claim such a thing.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392487-details/Politically%20correct%20police%20force%20hiring%20officers%20'who%20can't%20do%20the%20job'/article.do
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1764855.mostviewed.judge_attacks_pc_prosecution_as_politically_correct_disgrace.phphttp:/www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=11&storycode=4115261&c=2
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article62787.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/01/gayrights.ukcrime
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569925/Met-to-create-politically-correct-mascots.html
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/141/141905_word_ban_by_police_branded_madness.html
Hugh, I just cannot believe these articles. I thought it was April 1st.
“The dilemma of the pro-homosexual anti-Jihadist”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010788.html
Actually the police have a duty to investigate if a complaint has been made.
Yes, I know that Joel. I’m not sure how you think it supports your argument, though.
Joel and think in the same paragraph, Hugh? 😉
Joel ‘thinks’ that if he keeps ignoring our Livingstone/Spelman challenge, we’ll forget about it and let him off the hook.
Hugh,
When a student is prosecuted for commenting laughingly that a police horse (!) looks ‘gay’; when a student is prosecuted for throwing a plastic water bottle to a tree protestor to drink from – do you still think we live in a sane country?
The only statement of substance in David Vance’s original post was:
“‘ve just caught Steven Nolan open up this subject again on Five Live, playing back Robinson’s opinions and then inviting comment. You can just IMAGINE the hostility she has attracted from late night BBC 5 live listeners.”
I take it his suggestion is that it is biased for the BBC to invite different opinions on her comments. This is something I addressed previously. Freedon of speech/a range of views etc.
The story has got a lot of coverage in newspapers in NI, obviously 2 people felt strongly enough to contact the police. Presumably the BBC should have ignored and banned disgreement with Robinson. Would this be a jihad on gays then?
Where is the bias? Listen to the Sunday Sequence I linked to and on which DV appeared. Where’s the bias?!?
Nearly Oxfordian, you seem to be the only one concerned with me ‘ignoring YOUR Livingstone/Spelman challenge’.
Its been asked and answered. Not responding to every post does not mean I’m running scared. You seem to have a rather obsessive personality!
Sorry Joel, you didn’t answer it. You skipped it by conveniently claiming you didn’t know much about it. In other words, you copped out. Now here’s a homework assignment for you:
Do ten minutes Googling to find out what the reprehensible Livingsone has been up to. Then try to justify the BBC going to great lengths to try to prove that a conservative politician has committed a heinous crime by helping out her nanny with some secretarial work. Then try to justify the BBC ignoring the actual crimes of their friend Livingstone.
The BBC has gone way beyond mere bias.
I know you’ll continue to think I’m ‘running scared’ but I really couldn’t be arsed. It’s not my job, and I do have other things to do. It’s just not an area of interest for me.
If it’s a subject which so concerns you, why don’t you ask the BBC?