Lame cartoon.

However, it would be interesting to know if the couple staying in the B&B knew it was owned by committed Christians. I mean would you really want to stay in a B&B owned by people who disapproved of you even if you thought they would allow you to?

Whereas I agree that the Daily Mail’s editorial line is wrong – I think you are stretching it a bit with the cartoon – that doesn’t look like a swashtika to me.

I admire your eye for detail but am concerned that if you are scrutinising the DM in such detail, you might also be susceptible to its mind control.

Neo nazi bikers? That’s stretching it a bit. Not a helmet in sight and with a magnifying glass you can see a swastika shape. Is there a crucifix on the other man’s arm?

I’m no fan of the Mail so I just ignore it. It’s the best policy.

“So are the Mail saying that gay couples are like Nazis?”

What a ridiculous comment. Its the equivalent of someone caliing me a tosser and me replying “Oh, so you think all men are tossers? Sexist.”

It feels like day in, day out we’re giving the right more and more reasons to mock us for being over sensitive pricks – especially when people are claiming to be “confused and angered” over nothing more than an unfunny cartoon.

Sharp eyes.
Less sharp article.

Actually the only way this article is misleading is that the cartoon in the paper is much bigger and the swastika more obvious.
No idea why the cartoonist decided to draw one. The only conclusion is that they are a class-a cloaca with a poor idea of humour.

I’ve got a clearer version of the pic now, which makes it clearer it is a Swastika

@2 it’s clearly a swastika. are you blind?

It is clearly a badly drawn swastika on the chap’s right arm, but as homosexuality and Nazism are not natural bedfellows (pardon the pun) I think it more likely the tattoo depicted to be some form of tribal art like the celtic tattoos that are so prevalent. It does have its origins in the Indus Valley going back more than 3,000 years.

Also….a row of celtic squiggles or several ’666′s further up the arm?

If it is trying to make a connection it’s epicly stupid. I suspect it’s just a mediocre cartoonist who’s got a muscle memory for sticking NF-chic on any skinhead he draws.

Also notice the string of 6′s around the top of the same arm. weird ’666′ reference? it is an odd, odd cartoon.

This made me laugh. The need for liberals to be offended by the Daily Mail is getting out of hand.

Cartoons are full of stereotyped imagery. That is what a cartoon is. Some of Steve Bell’s cartoons are actually quite ‘offensive’ if you are the target of the cartoon, e.g Sarah Palin.

This pair of ‘thuggish’ gay men are just another stereotype. The gay rights lobby are whipping up anti-Christian and anti-DM hysteria in order to capitalise on the outcome of this case.

@13

“Just another stereotype” – really? I’ve never seen a stereotype of gay men being Nazis before. Unless you mean the homoeroticism of Nazi Übermensch imagery.

It is baffling what point the DM is making here.

I dont think they are necessarily saying gay men are Nazis they are just using an image of a big butch gay man in tattoos and bovver boots. NOt that there are many of them these days; you’d be more likely to see a gay man in a B and B in chinos and loafers. They are emphasising the ‘other’ness of gay men and how they are intimidating to nice Christian B and B owners.

The swastika tattoo adds to that sense of intimidation. I don’t think it is saying ‘gay men are Nazis’.

@15 the two guys involved could hardly be described as “intimidating”. muscle bears they are not

Does the Mail support me banning Christian guests from La Guesthouse Disastro which I’m about to open? Or banning anyone with a Daily Mail in their hands?

I never would ban Christans however, as my personal opinion is that the vast majority would not discriminate and would allow gay guests. As in much of life its the nutty fundamentalist types who give the rest a bad rep.

I would be very tempted to ban Daily Mail readers though.

Don’t see any bikes (or even helmets) so why are they bikers? If that’s actually meant to be a Swastika it looks like it was drawn by a child, the leftmost arm of it looks more like a distorted upper case T. Shame the cartoon’s not even remotely amusing or even offensive, just tired and old. I assume the placement of the keys denotes the one on the right is a top so congrats to the Daily Hate for that fine point of detail

Yes, I think we can put this down to humourless lefties.

@10 – I think we all are aware the swastika has very deep cultural roots in many cultures of the world. However, can you really look at this picture and say the swastika here is even possibly drawn as a tribal art piece?

@15 – the men in the image aren’t ‘butch’, they are clearly drawn to look violent. Plus, they aren’t intimidating to Christian B and B owners – just a few nut-jobs with so many chips on their shoulder they could easily run a take-away from their cosy, shabby Eden.

Some of Steve Bell’s cartoons are actually quite ‘offensive’ if you are the target of the cartoon, e.g Sarah Palin.

All of them, give or take.

“The gay rights lobby are whipping up anti-Christian and anti-DM hysteria in order to capitalise on the outcome of this case.”

Oh the stupid it burns……I think it is the other way round dear. Do try to keep up.

But I look forward to the day that a liberal doctor refuses to help a diying conservative because he does not like his politics. I’m sure the Daily Mail won’t have any problem with that, and the trolls will come on here to tell us that we have no sense of humour.

“Some of Steve Bell’s cartoons are actually quite ‘offensive’ if you are the target of the cartoon, e.g Sarah Palin.”

But nobody with a brain give a toss about Palin the quitter.

The Mail Just shows another example of the Rights hatred of gays. What they are arguing is that business should be allowed to turn people away based on sex. What about race? Class?

You see this is why the right hates discrimination laws because it stops them from being allowed to be the whinny, small minded , fascist little thugs most of them are.

As a motorcyclist, I resent the implication that these individuals represent bikers. Looking closely at the illustration, all I see is a pair of large, tattooed homosexuals. There is nothing to indicate any association with motorcycling – no helmets, no leather jackets, no club patches. Even outlaw types would be wearing normal jeans and para boots, not rolled-up drainpipes and DMs. Even their luggage would be unlikely to be the sort of thing carried on a bike.

You pick on the Daily Mail for supposed sloppy misrepresentation; in fact, you are just as guilty.

@24 he maybe wrong about the biker thing, but why would you resent it?

Presumably the cartoonist’s hand slipped and he accidentally put the swastika tattoo on the gay guy’s arm, instead of where it belongs: in the middle of the b&b owner’s forehead.

I think these are the type of gays being caricatured.

http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ADVOCATE/NEWS/2009/200912/2009-12-17/EvilMain.jpg

Or see Al Pacino in Cruising. Or Matt Lucas as Daffyd.

Q Should a hotelier be permitted to refuse accommodation to guests purporting to be neo-Nazis?

@25 He’s playing lefty baiting, the aim of the game is to call a lefty a hypocrite using as much faux outrage as possible.

@28 it was the use of the word “resent” that interested me. if someone suggested I was a homosexual, i would correct them, but I certainly wouldn’t resent it. why would he suggest that he does?

@29 To successfully lefty-bait you have to give the impression that you are genuinely outraged over what could best be described as a minor quibble, accuse the lefty, in as overbearing a tone as you can manage, of being as bad as who they were criticising, and optimally finish off with calling them a hypocrite.

The use of the word resent probably wasn’t even thought that much about other than the fact it conveys a sense of outrage.

@30 outrage that a member of a group he identifies with might be considered homosexual?

Note possible Nazi eagle on back of the other skinhead.

The Daily Mail delivers its vile message of bigotry to Little Britain again.

~~~

13. Quiet Riot Girl:

> Some of Steve Bell’s cartoons are actually quite ‘offensive’ if you are the target of the cartoon, e.g Sarah Palin.

You’re equating the mockery of a very stupid, media whore US ‘politician’ with linking gay people to Nazis? This type of incident certainly brings some very clueless, unpleasant out of the woodwork….

This cartoon set off a train of very improper thought. What if the innkeeper at that famous Bethlehem Inn notorious for only having one vacancy in a stable – was gay?
That would be a tantalising irony now wouldn’t it? Furthermore – this is the kind of devilish train of thought that such an un-Christian cartoon gives rise to. What’s to be done?

Perhaps the cartoonist equates a gay couple establishing their right not to be discriminated against with a Nazi compelling a behaviour or belief in an another person. If so, the comparison is ridiculous. The B&B owners in the reported court case appear to have tried to use the shield of “freedom from discrimination” as the sword of “we are free to discriminate”, and rightly they lost. But, hey, why should the Daily Mail try to make a witty cartoon comment on such an important, liberal distinction? What was it in the 1930s from them? “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” Wrong then, wrong now.

Actually, there is a squiggly bit on one arm which is definitely similar to a map of Tadzhikistan. Could be offensive to Tadzhiks. And the creases on their bums are undeniably spiderlike. The cartoonist could be attempting to promote arachnophobia.

The differences between the cognitive processes of the lefty and those of the ordinary person in the street are so striking, that there must be some credence in the hypothesis that political attitudes are in part genetically determined. That relentless, insatiable striving to be offended has to have some kind of biochemical basis.

Incidentally, is their any extant data on Muslim b-and-b owners? A comparison with Christians would be interesting.

@ 35, 36 Trofim

Yes, we lefties are all dead miserable.

And – yeah! what about those “Muslim b-and-b owners”, eh? And what about the price of fish? And what about the state of Denmark? And what about everything else? Oops – guess I picked the wrong week to quit my cognitive processes.

The cartoonist would have been better off resurrecting the ancient joke “would sir like the bridal?” “Nah, I’ll just hang on to his ears”

How can anyone get offended by this? It’s just so unfunny and poorly thought out. The least the cartoonist could do was use up to date stereotypes – homosexuals in popular culture are supposed to be FABULOUS now, yet not one ascot or interior design comment is to be seen! Poor show.

I’m a biker too, I don’t think we’re a particularly discriminated against group, and didn’t take offence…

some of you are suggesting that if the target of an offensive cartoon is ‘legitimate’ then it is ok.

This is ridiculous as people disagree about which targets are legitimate and which arent.

either you support cartoonists rights to make offensive cartoons=remember the danish guy and mohammed? or you don’t.

@25, 28 et al:

My comment was not entirely serious – it was intended to poke a little fun at what I saw as a considerable over-reaction. I don’t think the Mail intended to use this barely-visible detail to deliberately equate gays with neo-Nazis – that would be a little too subtle.

I don’t really think they’re supposed to be bikers, either – to be honest, I thought it more likely that this pair were undercover policemen, neither being aware of the other’s covert status.

@31 If you’re asking if I think Richard Smith is bigoted towards homosexuals I don’t know for certain, the meat of his complaint focused on the attire of the gay couple, who bear a closer resemblance to neo-Nazi skin-heads than biker gangs. Of course, he didn’t say that, what he said was “all I see is a pair of large, tattooed homosexuals.” Also, professional lefty baiters include Richard Littlejohn and Jan Moir, infer from that what you will.

If the cartoonist was aiming at neo-Nazi skin-heads, the fact that pride marches in Eastern Europe are frequently attacked by neo-Nazi skin-heads only adds to this cartoon’s inherent smelliness.

if we really cared on LC about the treatment of gays – -why is there no outrage about this:

Ibis hotels host islamic extremists’ conference, despite protests

A conference by anti-gay Islamic preachers went ahead at a London hotel last weekend, despite protests from human rights campaigners.

Brett Lock of OutRage! said: “This is not the first time Ibis Hotels have hosted such extremist events. It is quite shocking. I doubt they would host racist and anti-Semitic conferences.”
…
The iERA has featured Muslim fundamentalist preachers who advocate the criminalisation of homosexuality and even the death penalty for same-sex acts. They argue that it is necessary to execute gays to keep society pure.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/4658/17/01/2011/ibis-hotels-host-islamic-extremists-conference-despite-protests-.aspx

The right wing are obsessed with wanting the lefties to have ago at the Muslim faith. It seems to me that they are preparing us for the invasion of Iran, or, more likely, that they are too chicken to have ago themselves. Though hey if you want to, why don’t you attempt to, half-heartedly, then when you give up and chicken out, blame it on the evil wicked liberal media…Everyone’s a winner. As for this cartoon I’m not offended, just not that surprised really, giving the papers delightful track record. Also not surprised with some of the Tory trolls responses on here, the typical ‘calm down dear, its only a joke.’ response or telling you off for lacking a sense of humour. Hmmmm, one wonders what their response will be when some lefty makes the first joke mocking Thatcher when she passes away.

Whether it’s a swastika or not and whether they’re bikers or not misses the point completely. The cartoon is portraying gays as HUGE TERRIFYING THUGS who are INTIMIDATING THE POOR INNOCENT CHRISTIAN HOTEL OWNERS.

And now if I get upset when I’m told that expecting the same treatment as any other couple is intimidation and thuggery, I’m apparently a thin-skinned liberal who is being offended for the sake of it.

This looks suspiciously like the gay couple intent on causing trouble and promoting their lifestyle at the same time ? Personally I couldn’t care less about other peoples sexual preferences but it’s clearly offensive to committed Christians so why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality in this way ?

It seems to me gays can offend Christians all they like but if Christians make a stand, all legal hell lands on them. This in my opinion is a culturally damaging law and should be repealed as it discriminates against a minority group’s religious beliefs.

@47 Straight’s flaunt their sexuality day-in, day-out, often without realisation that they’re even doing so. I fail to see why gay people should be held to more stringent standards.

The cartoonist was probably trying to say:

No matter what we are, what we support and however abhorrent this is to YOUR sensibilities, YOU HAVE TO SERVE US.

The ’666′, the ‘Nazi’ symbol, the ‘Skinheads’, two blokes holding hands, dirty clothing, etc etc.

Some people see what they want to see. Others look at the whole picture.

@ Ted 47.

You need to be more specific than this. For example, would your repeal permit a hotel to put up a sign saying “No Homosexuals” (or “No Blacks” etc… you get the picture). Or are “undesirables” simply turned away? How would it work?

47. Ted:

> …it’s clearly offensive to committed Christians…

What doesn’t offend “committed Christians”? They’ve honed ‘being offended’ in to an art form. Songs of Praise would be playing on permanent loop on every channel if some of the Jesus gang had their wishes granted.

> …so why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality in this way ?

Are you mistaking this cartoon with a realistic depiction of what happened in Real Life™? I’m not 100% certain, but I don’t think The Gays looked like this – nor were they sucking cock while trying to sign in for their room.

> It seems to me gays can offend Christians all they like…

It seems to me some people think being personally offended gives them licence to act like bigoted fuckwits. Hey, maybe next week you can defend someone’s right to not serve some Jungle Bunnies because they’re offended by the colour of their skin?

> …but if Christians make a stand, all legal hell lands on them.

Good innit? We don’t need to suffer the bigotry of some Bronze Age cult.

> …it discriminates against a minority group’s religious beliefs.

Nah, it discriminates against small-minded homophobes. Welcome to the 21st century!

And another thing, @ 46. Ted …

“This looks suspiciously like the gay couple intent on causing trouble and promoting their lifestyle at the same time?”

… seemingly in parallel with that suspicious black trouble-maker Rosa Parks thinking she could just sit … well, *anywhere* on the bus.

Come on, you’ve got to do better than this …

I take it a lot of commentators have managed never to see a Mac cartoon before then? Otherwise they might understand the problem with criticising this for one small detail…

Go and look at some of his 80s cartoons, which lampoon some of the sillier Conservative policies (the classic one I remember is of a granny taking apart a clock to ensure every part was made in Britain). If you do not see the obvious humour here and look for some deeper message, maybe you don’t realise the difference between a political cartoon and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel…

45. jiggywithit:

> …Tory trolls responses…

It’s slowly dawned on me over the last few years that rightwingers are never happy with their own company online… and who can blame them?! They’re just not satisfied with wallowing around in their own small-minded bigotry. It’s not been a full, satisfying day for them unless they go and vomit up some of their bile for lefties to look at.

I guess Tories and Teabaggers deserve our pity, but I struggle to muster up much more than contempt….

54

“It’s slowly dawned on me over the last few years that rightwingers are never happy with their own company online… and who can blame them?! They’re just not satisfied with wallowing around in their own small-minded bigotry. It’s not been a full, satisfying day for them unless they go and vomit up some of their bile for lefties to look at.”

Very good.

@ 50. George McLean

You make a good point. Any form of repeal to this law would have to guarantee without exception that it could not be used against other minority groups by those who seek to impose their lifestyles on others. I am of course thinking about fanatical religious groups.

@47 This looks suspiciously like the gay couple intent on causing trouble and promoting their lifestyle at the same time ? Personally I couldn’t care less about other peoples sexual preferences but it’s clearly offensive to committed Christians so why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality in this way ?

I am a committed Christian but homosexuals do not offend me, your post on the other hand……

Bluerock,

I guess Tories and Teabaggers deserve our pity, but I struggle to muster up much more than contempt….

Fair enough – but some of enjoy debating issues with those who have other viewpoints, appreciate the opportunity to learn and even could consider being friendly with people who don’t agree with us. I know it’s strange, but I see other people on here as likely to be human beings (apart from sally, who I suspect is a spambot ) and therefore treat them as that first.

Mind you, by definition I guess that means I’m not one of the small-minded bigots you’re complaining about. But has it struck you that your complaints sound a lot like bigotry as well?

Uh, no actually it doesn’t. It looks like a pair of toughs with “as offensive as possible” tattoos rocking up expecting to find proprietors with “as offensive as possible” attitudes… and being wrong (given that it looks awfully like a couple of gay chaps behind the counter). I laughed.

@59 If that’s true, that’s a pretty rockin’ bosom on the left “gay chap” behind the counter.

(unless he’s a very early f2m trans, obv., but I imagine that’s a level of subtlety too far for a cartoon that has to state “Christian hotel” in case people can’t figure out which news story it’s referring to)

60. JWyatt:

> …I imagine that’s a level of subtlety too far for a cartoon that has to state “Christian hotel” in case people can’t figure out which news story it’s referring to)

Even with it, I’m sure it was indecipherable to much of the readership of the Daily ‘Pregnant-gay-teenage-Muslim-knife-stabbers-steal-our-jobs’ Mail.

57. Bryan Chalmers

Oh bravo dear chap / chapess. Nothing like a bit of political correctness and reversed morality chucked in for good measure. Brilliant absolutely brilliant !

This is my response to Johann Hari’s most recent polemic about gay rights and homophobia:

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/think-of-the-gay-children/