that the new Prime Minister of Iceland is a lesbian. What I care about is the BBC’s incessant need to have a news agenda and to pursue it. We can see the agenda at work in this report from the omission of a key fact which the Guardian (as so often) doesn’t miss out.
The key fact is that Ms Sigurdardotti spent a lengthy time married to a banker (male) and has two grown up sons to show for it.
Guardian readers, no doubt, can be trusted with these facts which suggest rather bisexuality, or confusion, or even bitter ex-banker’s wife syndrome (there’s a nice little revenge motif in this saga which Icelanders might just be appreciating :-). Nuanced Guardian readers can cope elastically with all the real and tough twists and turns of adult life, unquestionably. Not so BBConline readers, apparently. Maybe their re-education process is still incomplete.
I don’t pretend to understand the liberal mindset, but I know that it’s much more impressive to think of people with innate characteristics, distinct from other people, which make them homosexual. It’s the difference between the exotic and the banal. Choices are banal, and we all make them. Ms Sigurdardotti made hers twice in two directions, but we’re only informed about the one which makes her the paragon the BBC are intent on making her:
“It’s not only a victory for lesbians, it’s a victory for women, actually make that a victory for all!”
(the last line from the BBC’s “Gay milestone” commentary)
“Great, now a blog contributor makes a deliberate point of saying that it’s a choice to be gay.
That’s daft and incorrect Ed. Could you be gay? If not, then it’d not be a choice for you would it?”
Good question, Ross.
All I would say is that I’ve met quite a few people who seem to swing both ways, so to speak. Don’t want to lower the tone, but it is relevant that there are not seldom those who do a bit of both these days. It’s relevant to the social arguments, it’s relevant to the categories we use. People are understandably diplomatic and sensitive to feelings, but could it not be that some women turn to women out of frustration with men and some men perhaps unconsciously have too low self esteem at some critical stage to overcome awkwardness with women? I don’t say those are my views, but they could be the starting point for an interesting discussion which generally we are denied by pc, decency and our own perhaps commendable tolerance.
In answer to the direct question, the honest answer is probably, had I not sampled some of the symbiotic pleasures of the differently equal.
Scott, with nothing to say, nevertheless manages to waste several paragraphs trying to establish his liberal credentials.
If you have nothing better to do than launch a scattergun ad hominem, why not save a few electrons and do it where it might impress someone?
It is surely wasted here.
The BBC’s report was offensive, patronising tokenism. Ms Sigurdardottir may, or may not, prove to be just what Iceland needs and, true, the fact that Iceland doesn’t consider her sexual preferences to be a bar to her taking such an office is mildly interesting.
But it is not enough to justify such front page gushing. Not unless you are one of those narrow-minded bigots who believes that the single most important thing about someone is their sexual orientation, behind which all else follows like a pathetic afterthought.
Grant | 02.02.09 – 2:11 pm
Indeed. But people are killed because they’re gay.
Not in Iceland.
Ratass Shagged | 02.02.09 – 7:44 pm
I merely challenged Caveman’s assertion that “The only group to really object stongly to homosexuals even existing is the muslim”.
This is clearly nonsense.
As is your assertion that I am “claiming Jamaica treat [sic] homosexuals as harshly [as Islam]”.
If only she looked like carla bruni.
“It’s not only a victory for lesbians, it’s a victory for women, actually make that a victory for all!”
what in gods name is that supposed to mean?
Indeed. But people are killed because they’re gay.
mikewineliberal | 02.02.09 – 8:49 pm
so what. thats not our problem. Jamaica is an independent country.
IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM.
unless you would like to see the re-establishment of the British Empire in order to enforce a civilising nature on those black barbarians?
oh decisions, decisions… must be a headfuck being a “liberal”..
Scott
It is a little bit of an irritation to me that certain people post personal and inaccurate criticism on this site.
If you have nothing to offer other than the last post you offered perhaps it would be better if you contributed to another blog, one more to your liking.
Dr Michael Jones:
If the BBC had its way, homosexuality would be compulsory.
shilling for gay sex simply turns people against it.
the only time the vile BBC desists from this pro-homo propaganda is when discussing islamism.
OH MY GOD. People like you still exist?
Iceland’s entire economy is f*cked, but the fact that she is a lesbian is the main point for the BBC.
No navel gazing here!
OH MY GOD. People like you still exist?
barry69 | 02.02.09 – 11:29 pm
yes we do exist. we’re called normal families who want to bring their kids up in England.
its not much to ask for , is it?
So where does all this leave Kerry Katona? Apart from morbidly Obese, I mean.
BBC :
“Are you gay or Icelandic? Have you been affected by the collapse of Iceland’s economy? Send us your stories or pictures”
It is a little early for Question Time, but how about :-
“In which country would you least like to be homosexual- 1. Iceland. 2. Jamaica. 3. Iran. ? “
Barry69:
“OH MY GOD. People like you still exist?”
Just for information, which god are you invoking there?
I don’t give a toss about with whom the Icelandic PM chooses to have her orgasms. However, if she recovers the dosh my council stashed in her country’s banks, I shall be grateful.
Barry
Care to address the substantive points of my post?
Let’s start with the final point (the others were somewhat ironic, though that would probably elude a PC-infectied liefty which you may or may not be).
Do you think the vile BBC ever tackled the homophobia that exists in Islamist countries (such as Hamastan and Iran)?
Simple question. I await your answer with interest.
Dr Michael Jones | 03.02.09 – 1:11 pm
Do you think the vile BBC ever tackled the homophobia that exists in Islamist countries?
Eric Beauchemin explores Muslim attitudes to homosexuality through the lives of some of the gays and lesbians forced to flee to Israel.
Throughout the Moslem world homosexuality is a taboo, punishable in several countries by death. On the West Bank and Gaza women or men who have sex with people of the same sex face imprisonment and torture. They are also rejected by their families and the rest of society. Several hundred Palestinian gays and lesbians have fled to Israel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/gay_divide.shtml
Counterfactual
Thanks for this programme which was produced by Radio Netherlands and broadcast in May 2002. Like you I am astonished that the BBC was able to admit something positive about Israel. Astonishing.
Since then of course its been the usual anti-joo progrom-jamboree, in spite of the fact that Israel (rightly) tolerates and protects gay people. What moral anguish that must have caused in Beeboid gay bars up and down west and north London!
Why nothing since then? Do you imagine that Hamas now regards gay people as sensitive and warm, and prefers to use them as cute game show hosts on Hamstan TV rather that publicly torture and murder them?
Pretty pathetic when you have to dredge up a seven-year-old Dutch item to support the vile, grasping, anti-semitic but ever so sensitive BBC.
“Do you think the vile BBC ever tackled the homophobia that exists in Islamist countries?”
Turkey shoot:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6087430.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7799094.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1813926.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4001447.stm
Whiner
Turkey shoot? Yes, against the effing BBC.
The first article (featured only on the England local pages) is 3 years old and features a local Imam calling for homos to be butchered. It was a massive national story so even the vile, grasping, propagandist BBC could not ignore it.
Second story was really a Beeboid song of Praise to Ahmadinejad’s Alternative Christmas Message on Channel 4. There is a very brief mention of Iran’s somewhat nuanced approach to male sodomy at the very end.
The third article dates from 2002 and is extremely tame.
And the final article is really a celebration of baying gay in the UK and the Muslim woman is only a small and marginal part of that.
If this is the best you can do I hink you should slink back to that slimey corner of Broadcasting House and write some article against joos or Americans. You hypocritical little fool.
I see Mr Vance’s war against the ad hominem didn’t last long.
I hope for humanity’s sake, you’re not a medical Dr.
Bugg3r; I’m at it now.
Scott. I have prepared a questionnaire for you to take to Gaza and Israel. Please ask the following question in each country:
Q: I come from Britain which is very tolerant to homosexuals, for example it does not prevent you from being voted as an MP (*a) . Do you think this is correct or do you think (*b) we should torture them and kill them like you do?(*c). I have liberal views and I think you muslims need to buck your ideas up about homosexuals.(*d) I would like to make a speech in your local hall in support of gay minority rights. (*e)
This is the probability of your survival at various points in the delivery of your questionnaire:
In Israel: 100% at all points
In Gaza:
*a) 90% *b)88% *c)87% *d) 5% *e)0%
Whiner
So you are unable to rebuff or refute my assertion that the vile, cheating, lying, stealing BBC refuses to journalistically tackle the medieval aggression displayed towards gay people in Islamist countries generally and within Islam specifically?
Good. Progress.
Now why is that do you think? Why is the effing BBC so cowardly and dishnest when it comes to Islam?
Here’s a blog that thinks the BBC has an anti-gay agenda.
Newsround-bias
Now, this seems to be run by someone who is focused entirely on Newsround and CBBC shows, and children’s issues in general, so he must be unaware of the “adult” programming.
Dr jones
How many more do you need? here’s another
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915172.stm
Or type “gay, islam” into the bbc search function. There is no attempt By the bbc to play down islam’s animosity towards gay people.
Whiner
Another 3-year-old article. Aren’t you even a little embarrassed? I guess being a creepy Beerboid-apologist, probably not.
Equivalence?
What a load of unfactual nonsense.
Number of homosexuals executed or publicly whipped for their sexual practices in Jamaica = Nil
Number of homosexuals executed or publicly whipped for their sexual practices in Iran (and other islamic countries) = Lots
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=%7BDE9BC115-7388-46A3-8ED9-813BD71AEA25%7D
‘There are seven countries in the world that carry the death penalty for homosexual acts, and all of them justify this punishment with sharia.’
A ‘gay friendly’ site reports just in Iran alone, warning some unpleasant pictures.
http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/07/report_gay_yout.html
In fact the Iranian government believes gays should be tortured and executed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece
Though bizarely Ahmadinedjad has claimed there are no gays in Iran, presumably he thinks they have all been killed, though it begs the question then why are the killings still going on.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad-we-dont-have-homosexuals/
I could go on, but its too depressing.
I’m afraid the liberals claiming an equivalence are just being willfully misleading (at best).
new poster
And another recent one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7294908.stm
Mr vance could get his jollies arguing how this showed the bbc was “pro-gay”, but you and the good Dr must admit defeat. I promise not to make future reference to it.
Bron -I claim no equivalence, merely point out that other religions justify beastliness to gay people; albeit less so than muslim theocracies. Nigeria is an interesting case study.
mwl
Actually non religious atheistic societies have also persecuted gays very severely, like various communist states (like the USSRs article 121 or the ‘list of mental illnesses’ in China) and nazi germany (pink triangles and into the death camps), something about natural selection and gays going against nature was their ‘justification’.
I see no evidence that any atheistic state in history (so far) has been any more tolerant and ‘unbeastly’ to gays than ‘religious’ ones.
Bron
Really?
I think the democratic secular west rather leads in this field, don’t you?
What a pity the hypocritical and boring BBC refuse to acknowledge this and in the usual Dhimmi way fail to protect and defend such values.
Dr Michael Jones | 05.02.09 – 12:04 pm
Entirely right.