As previously, I don’t think this proves the Conservative shift on gay rights is a sham.

But I do think it is legitimate and appropriate to challenge them to respond (and it would be good if the Lithuania example, of a law being passed now, was more prominent and not only the argument over Latvian history).

I think it would be useful for groups and media outlets highlighting these issues to try to find constructive ways to offer platforms to Lithuanian voices (as this investigation has done, I think), so that their cause does not just become a means to an end in a UK domestic argument.

http://www.nextleft.org/2009/10/embarassing-allies-and-constructive.html

It’s not the business of the state to eradicate prejudice.

That depends. Were they going there for a Waffen SS commemoration?

Their decision to form the new group is all about distancing themselves from any signs of being pro-European, and nothing to do with promoting their new allies. The fact that they have ended up with a bunch of extreme rightwing misfits mainly reflects their weird toys-out-of-the-pram attitude to Europe. If you want to show that the Tories as a political party are homophobic, you need to look at the Tories themselves rather than people from other parties with whom they have formed an expedient alliance.

Fortunately, seeing as the Conservative Party will probably form the next government, their homophobic wing has been largely suppressed in recent years, as David Cameron rather astutely realised that if you alienate everyone there will be nobody left to vote for you. Far more damning is the fact that they are willing to forego any chance to actually change Europe for the better in an attempt to harness a populist anti-European sentiment among voters. I suggest if you want to attack the Tories, you stick to genuine policy failures (of which there are plenty!) rather than this rather thin guilt-by-association which will convince nobody who doesn’t already believe that the Tories are evil.

As for “slightly hyperbolic” being an oxymoron, it manifestly isn’t. Hyperbole is defined as “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.” There is no reason one cannot exaggerate slightly for effect, is there? “The spider was as big as my palm!” – it wasn’t really, but then again, it wasn’t that far off. I exaggerate – but only slightly.

It is perfectly possible to be “slightly hyperbolic”. There is nothing contained within the word – or meaning of the word – “hyperbole” or “hyperbolic” which entails significant magnitude or scale above a threshold below – but not above – which the word “slightly” is generally accepted to be appropriate.

The spider was slightly as big as my palm? This book slightly weighs a ton? I could slightly sleep for a year?

As for the more substantive points: whataboutery and lookovertherism – it is worth noting – is to employ moral reasoning at the level of a 5 year old. It all amounts to the same thing, pointing out that “they done it too!” and then demanding it be acknowledged that two wrongs make a right.

Accusations of “they’re up to no good”, by Left or Right to the other, remind of that famous question, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the slightly Sequoia sized beam that is in thine own eye?”

Agreed. Brilliant post. Thanks mate.

I particularly liked

It is perfectly possible to be “slightly hyperbolic”. There is nothing contained within the word – or meaning of the word – “hyperbole” or “hyperbolic” which entails significant magnitude or scale above a threshold below – but not above – which the word “slightly” is generally accepted to be appropriate.

Still not sure I understand it but it is beyond me to argue you are wrong……..

Incidentally, it’s a bit much accusing posters of having ‘moral reasoning at the level of 5 year old’ without demonstrating even a rudimentary grasp of what they have actually said.

As far as I can tell, there nothing tautologous about Sunny’s statement, and “slightly hyperbolic” is not an oxymoron.

To wit:

“It’s easy to sneer at sally for being slightly hyperbolic”

What is tautologous about this? A tautology is defined as either “repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity and meaning.” or (in logic) “An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.”

I guess you could be aluding to the first sence, implying that “sally” and “slightly hyperbolic” are synonyms, making the sentence read “It’s easy to sneer at sally for being sally” OR “It’s easy to sneer at slightly hyperbolic for being slightly hyperbolic”. I guess that is (just about) tautologous in the first sence (though not in the logical sense). But it rests on a rather cruel implication that “sally” and “slightly hyperbolic” are synonyms (without that conflation, there can be no tautology in the sentence that would make sense). And I think there are good grounds to doubt that they are synonyms, as a claim about words and meaning. Rather, it looks like you are just finding further excuses to be cruel, and dressing it up in fancy rhetoric.

As for “slightly hyperbolic” being an oxymoron, it manifestly isn’t. Hyperbole is defined as “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.” There is no reason one cannot exaggerate slightly for effect, is there? “The spider was as big as my palm!” – it wasn’t really, but then again, it wasn’t that far off. I exaggerate – but only slightly.

It is perfectly possible to be “slightly hyperbolic”. There is nothing contained within the word – or meaning of the word – “hyperbole” or “hyperbolic” which entails significant magnitude or scale above a threshold below – but not above – which the word “slightly” is generally accepted to be appropriate.

If we want to play grammar and word pedants, we have to do rather better, yes?

(All definitions taken from thefreedictionary.com and wikipedia).

As for the more substantive points: whataboutery and lookovertherism – it is worth noting – is to employ moral reasoning at the level of a 5 year old. It all amounts to the same thing, pointing out that “they done it too!” and then demanding it be acknowledged that two wrongs make a right.

Shall we check out the record of Danny Cohn-Bendit, perhaps?

Thought so, but you’re a braver man than me to use that word here.

But I still say these developments are likely to have little direct bearing in the UK itself (leaving aside Soho’s broader concerns for the moment) and political associations can take various forms, and often include imperfect bed-fellows (if I may throw in a little sexual metaphor to make my point).

Dismiss these observations as ‘whataboutery’ if you like but other commentators have already drawn attention to the likes of Dubya whose arse we have been kissing for some time.
http://www.juicycerebellum.com/200602.htm

Perhaps our ‘special relationship’ with the Yanks falls outside of your purview as well?

Sunny, that statement is either tautologous or, in itself, hyperbolic.

Or both.

Grammarians?

Huh? In what way? We trade with the Middle East and other countries and we have broad groupings like the UN – but that isn’t the same as forming an alliance with them on an individual level.

Furthermore – the Tories first voted AGAINST condemning Lithuania and then ABSTAINED. You’ve got no grounds to play whataboutery here a&e nurse.

Earlier you mentioned S Africa, a country with a very suspect record on these issues.
I imagine all of the Gulf and Middle Eastern states take an equally dim view of gay rights?

At the last Labour conference Brown rightly championed the introduction of civil partnerships yet NuLab have tried to forge ties with countries where a ‘gay marriage’ would be a complete anathema.

Your post has certainly got me thinking about the intentions of the Tories but overall I think there is too much balance even amongst the centre right to turn the clock back – after all, around 10% of them are likely to be gay themselves, aren’t they.

We could have an interesting conversation about how important it is for the Tories to successfully prosecute their euro-isolationist agenda, and whether it justifies creating alliances with human rights abusing homophobes. But we don’t even need to do that.

You are implausibly suggesting that, if the Tories had not jumped into bed with Tomasevski, they would not have been able to create the ECR, and would have had to either remain in the EPP or go it alone. To be blunt, that is utter bullshit.

The ECR was already up and running when Tomasevski asked to join – he was the last to be admitted, after the deal was done with the other members. The group could have gone ahead without him. But, in spite of that fact, and in spite of his appaling record, they let him in. You are defending the indefensible here: there simply is no excuse for the Tories’ association with this individual.

None of you Tory apologists can actually bring yourself to say: this is not a good move and I condemn the Tories for making this alliance.

Because that’s not my opinion. As I said above, it was impossible to remain in the EPP, and putting together a new group based on the idea of a free-market European Union of sovereign nation states was the right policy.