Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract


4:06 pm - April 15th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The National Secular Society sent out a press release yesterday blasting the decision by the London Borough of Richmond to award a huge contract worth £89,000 to the Catholic Children’s Society to “help and support students in the borough’s schools.”

As PoliticsHome points out today, CCS recently withdrew from adoption services due to opposition to the Government’s sexual orientations regulations.

Councillor Stephen Knight, leader of Richmond’s Liberal Democrat group, said at a meeting on Tuesday that pupils who want advice on issues such as homosexuality or sexual health may be reluctant to ask a group that “requires counsellors to uphold the Catholic ethos”.

This decision beggars belief. Counselling services for young people have to address issues such as contraception, unwanted pregnancy and homophobic bullying and the appointment of a religious group to provide these services on behalf of the Council is totally inappropriate.

And who lost out? A local charity Off The Record (link fixed), which also had the backing of national counselling charity Relate, and has been providing counselling to teenagers for over 20 years.

Terry Sanderson of the NSS said:

What on earth was the council thinking about in appointing such a partisan and dogmatic organisation to provide counselling and support services? The Catholic Children’s Society went so far as to dump its adoption service because of the Government’s insistence that they consider gay couples as adopters. So what kind of reception would a gay child get if it came to one of their counsellors for advice?

What sort of advice would a specifically Catholic agency with an instruction to uphold Catholic teaching tell a girl who came to them for contraceptive advice? Surely the council could have found a non-sectarian service that wouldn’t pose these sorts of problems?

Indeed.

This decision comes in the same week that a well-regarded project working with trafficked women – The Poppy Project – had to cut services after the Ministry of Justice allocated £6 million of funding to support victims of trafficking to the Salvation Army.

Poppy Project was run by the housing charity Eaves.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Jonathan Phillips

Oh terrific. Catholic teachers have been known to tell their students that homosexual people will burn in hell for all eternity (unless they manage life-long chastity, that is). These counsellors might be a bit less extreme, but the underlying assumptions remain the same.

off the record is a great charity. i had free counselling from them as a teenager, because i didn’t want to tell my mum i needed counselling, and couldn’t afford to wait for NHS/go private. it is so sad that they have lost in favour to a charity that risks putting its own beliefs ahead of young people’s needs.

You might want to read this Sunny. It gives a more nuanced account of the Poppy/Eaves case than the one you have sketched out here.

The thing about things like this is it is always complex. But I expect you don’t want to see it like that.

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/04/feminists-and-evangelicals-compete-to.html

This comes at the same time there is yet another campaign for a Catholic secondary school in Richmond… Off the Record have always provided an excellent service to the young people of Richmond. (Sunny, you might want to check the link – should be: http://www.otr-richmond.org.uk/)

@3

“This decision comes in the same week that a well-regarded project working with trafficked women – The Poppy Project”

Quite, it is to giggle. Absolutely the worst perpetrators of the policy based evidence making thing.

Oh dear oh dear.

This has been one of my biggest worries about the ‘Big Society’ concept from the word go: the (de facto secular) state is well-placed to offer services that meet the needs of people of all faiths and none. Many voluntary organisations and charities are not. And of course we have a very dangerous precedent in state-funded faith schools; it’s already (bizarrely) seen as acceptable in this country that certain public service providers can choose not to serve or employ people with the ‘wrong’ religion or lifestyle.

7. Jonathan Phillips

5. Tim Worstall

Policy-based evidence-making: brilliant! But don’t “they” always do that? – decide what they want to do first, then think up reasons for doing it. In the case of Lansley and the NHS he didn’t manage to find any, of course.

“Policy-based evidence-making: brilliant!”

It is indeed a lovely phrase. Which is why it’s obviously not original to me. Can’t recall where I got it from though.

Yes, many do do this. But the Poppy people are worse than most. Julie Bindel for example, ran a project to count the number of trafficked women in brothels in London. Their starting assumption was that foreigners working in a brothel must have been trafficked.

Completely oblivious to hte fact that those who do sell sex voluntarily tend to do so a little away from home. And with the rise of budget arilines etc, “away from home” can now be a foreign country.

Oops, I’ve changed the link to the charity. sorry about that

10. Jonathan Phillips

8. Tim Worstall

The problem is often a quite fundamental ignorance of statistics, logic etc. What counts as evidence, what conclusions you are justified in drawing from it and how. (R4 “More or Less” is very useful here.)

Often there in no deliberately malign intent – just a general supposition that “I must be right – let’s find the evidence”. But sometimes the intent is malign – cf. the No camp’s assertions about AV.

Both are worsened by the general laziness of journalists, their unwillingness to do background research and their need for striking headlines. In the Richmond case I suspect councillors just didn’t bother to look into the matter (even if the officers pointed out the problems) – though there may be a general notion that “religious” (which is probably “safe”) is better than “secular” (which might be left-wing)

Looks like we will have to have another civil war. That was what happened the last time the Catholics got a bit above themselves.

Lets get this straight, an organisation that has a history of child abuse is getting this contract. Next up, Rapists will give counselling to battered woman. Just goes to show that if you do what ever it is you want to do under the title of religion, there is no comeback.

So a Catholic Charity, whose commitment to caring for children has already been demonstrated to take a back seat to dogma, has been entrusted with counciling children/teens. Well. Done. Everyone.

Terrible thing is that with the threatened privatisation of the NHS, these sorts of things are more likely to happen. This should so, definitely, not be the case. What a really ridiculous, stupid decision. I really hope this doesn’t destroy as many young people’s lives as I fear it might.

Hypocrisy runs wild again!

I spit on stinking Catholic homophobes. I hate the wntire Catholic doctrin that has no place in the modern world. Certainly not in the Uk who fought wars to keep The Pope and his fetid ilk out of Britain.

To Hell with organised religious bigotry.

BUT PLEASE! You lot have not earned the right to speak out against religious homophobia!
Because you lot apologise, appease and often support THE most fanatical, globally murderous, religion as far as homosexuality goes in the World. Islam.

You lot ALLOW the most rabid homophobia seen in this country for decades to literally hold seats of power in the likes of Tower Hamlets!

But I guess The Pope is just white enough not to be shielded from your hypocritical condemnation!

You know, someone really should come up with a wordpress plugin that automatically renders comments like @14 in bright green comic sans…

… or maybe forward them automatically to the Daily Star.

Truth hurts doesn’t it!?
You can type smart arse remarks all you want but it does not change a single word of the facts i wrote.

Or is shame at the truth really behind you’re sarcastic post of utter vapid worthlessness?

Don’t pretend you hypocrites care one bit about Gays or women in this country. You don’t.
Because you routinely support THE most illiberal entity slowly ensnaring Britain today.
And you fucking know it!

@11

“Looks like we will have to have another civil war. That was what happened the last time the Catholics got a bit above themselves. ”

What does this refer to?

@ 14, 16

The Catholic Church is a single organisation with a clear hierarchy and an unambiguous commitment to certain principles and policies. Hence it’s possible to criticise that particular organisation without making sweeping generalisations about Christianity and Christians (who are obviously a diverse bunch who may disagree with that organisation’s ‘official’ principles and policies in all sorts of ways).

Islam just is not an ‘entity’ in the same way. Sweeping, generalised criticisms of Islam and Muslims are not analogous to criticisms of a particular Christian organisation; they’re analogous to criticisms of Christianity and Christians in general. And obviously, given people’s propensity for racial and religious intolerance, criticisms of that sort are dangerous things to be chucking around in countries where Muslims(/Christians) are in a small minority and generally belong to a minority ethnic group.

But throwing caution to the wind, let me go on the record as saying that Islam is just as much a bag of arse as any other religion and that Islamic organisations with illiberal views on gay rights, women’s rights, religious freedom etc. are just as objectionable as any other organisations with similar views (whether religious or secular). And if Muslim groups that are officially opposed to homosexuality, abortion, sex before marriage, masturbation etc start being awarded government contracts to counsel teenagers of all faiths and none, I won’t be the only wishy-washy liberal who has something to say about it.

19. Chaise Guevara

Is anyone else hoping for Davey Boy’s sake that he makes a friend one day?

@19 He’ll make friends with UKIP supporter Pat Condell at the very least with his attitude.

YES! The attitude of criticising religious based homophobia and the power and grace it is given.
OH…HOLD ON!
That’s what this whole article is about!
Only I dared mention the worst offender of religious homophobia…Islam…so that make me a bad man!

I should just stick to slagging off whiteboy Pope.

But I won’t…because I’m not an appeasing hypocrite like you pricks.

22. Jonathan Phillips

Oh, Davey boy – do try not to slag people off, especially in such vulgar terms. It really does make you sound common. Try wielding a scalpel with skill rather than a clapped-out chainsaw. Far more persuasive. You convince no-one by causing offence.

Mind you, it’s very difficult to convince anyone of anything through carefully marshalled evidence and rational argument either. (See Lansley’s health “reforms”, rail privatisation, the poll tax…)

So why is it that those recently killed in gay-bashings happened to killed by young non-Muslims, if Islam is such a pernicious influence on the gay community? Answer me that Davey Boy.

[quote]The Catholic Church is a single organisation with a clear hierarchy and an unambiguous commitment to certain principles and policies. Hence it’s possible to criticise that particular organisation without making sweeping generalisations about Christianity and Christians (who are obviously a diverse bunch who may disagree with that organisation’s ‘official’ principles and policies in all sorts of ways).[/quote]

It’s not really quite as clear as that though is it.

I know plenty of people who self identify as Catholics who are not homophobic and who aren’t against birth control. Many years ago I even used to be one myself. A few of these people activley participate in Catholic instiutions. Although I don’t know any personally, I’d be pretty sure that there are Catholic priests who aren’t homophobic either.

This claim that there needs to be a clearly defined and universally adhered to doctrine for a group to qualify for criticism isn’t serious. If this were the case then the Catholic Church wouldn’t qualify for criticism and that would be a shame.

25. Chaise Guevara

@ 21 Davey Boy

“Only I dared mention the worst offender of religious homophobia…Islam…so that make me a bad man!”

Not at all: what makes you a crap human being is the way you’re incapable of doing anything other than throwing insults and generalizations around. And while your concerns about homophobia within Islam are valid enough, the way you fly into an incoherent rage if people discuss any subject OTHER than Islam is more than a bit suspicious.

Add to that your ignorance and general stupidity and you’ll realise why nobody around here likes you. It’s not that you’re the lone voice of honesty and truth, no matter how much you try to convince yourself. You’re just a sad little troll who berates strangers because it makes him feel like a big man.

“What does this refer to?”

The English civil war.

Of course we are always told that it was Monarchy Vs Parliament. But it was a Catholic Monarch, Vs a predominately Protestant Parliament that faced off.

Catholic Monarch doing deals with Catholic Ireland behind the back of Protestant Parliament.

James II was the last Catholic monarch of Britain and he fled, thereby abdicating, in 1688. Parliament invited his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange to ascend the throne in his place and rule as joint sovereigns – thereby establishing the principle that the monarchs of Britain and their successors rule not by divine right but with the consent of the governed. The Act of Settlement of 1701 established the line of succession and precluded by statute monarchs and their wives from being Catholic.

Is there any particular reason that, rather like Socialist Unity and the Guardian, you often report on Christian (preferably US Christian) homophobia but never on the Islamic variety? I notice you had nothing to say about the recent Gay Free Zone posters. If Catholics had been putting those up, you wouldn’t have missed a chance to show your ‘anti-homophobia’ credentials.

It’s a bit obvious that LC’s ‘support’ for LGBT people is purely tactical and dependent on who the homophobes in a particular instance are. But then, what else are we to expect from the site that produced that disgustingly homophobic article by Unity several months ago, in which he smeared a gay politician as a paedophile, and which he still hasn’t had the decency to apologise for?

Islam shares the same Abrahamic heritage as Judaism and Christianity. Homophobia is only part of the divine chastity covenant according to the Bible. Try Deuteronomy 22:

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. [Deuteronomy 22:20-22]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

Outside Islamic countries, I don’t detect much enthusiasm for stoning damsels and executing adulterers, only for persecuting gays, so I naturally wonder why the discrimination, which has no Biblical authority?

A voice of reason at last!

Being far more polite and tolerant of you lot than I ever could be though.
I guess Lamia does not hate the Left’s backstabbing betrayal since 2001 of liberalism in the face of medieval religious intolerance as much as me.

“if people discuss any subject OTHER than Islam”

You see the fact is pal, you NEVER, EVER, discuss Islam on here EXCEPT if it’s another of your tired, bogus, ‘victimhood’ stories about ‘Islamophobia’.

You never criticise Islam.
Worse you never criticise Islam or Muslims for all the things (and more) that you criticise Americans, white Westerners, Israelis for.

The ONLY time you do anything about Islam is if some white, western ‘Nazi’ has ‘picked on’ your chums in Western/Capitalist hate and you feel you must defend these poor, poor, picked on practioners of the ‘Religion of Peace’ with all your Socialist might.

Would have thought you Reds would have learnt the hard way during WW2 about who you should be wary of snuggling up to.
Soon enough Islam won’t need your help any longer.

@Lamia

You mean this one? http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/11/the-homophobic-liberal-conspiracy/

PS: Can we not ban religious groups from carrying out public services? (yes, that includes getting rid of faith schools)

@31: “Can we not ban religious groups from carrying out public services? (yes, that includes getting rid of faith schools)”

The pressure for retaining faith schools is because these – like the Welsh language schools in Wales – provide a covert means of selection at 11+. I’m for being open and honest about this and bringing back selective grammar schools where parents can opt for their children to take the entry tests – in much the way that France has retained lycées and the southern länder in Germany have retained gymnasiums.

‘like the Welsh language schools in Wales – provide a covert means of selection at 11+.’

Eh? Do you mean Welsh language only schools, and selection into an education which does not teach adequate written English?

“Eh? Do you mean Welsh language only schools, and selection into an education which does not teach adequate written English?”

Yes. It’s a matter of swings and round-abouts, isn’t it, if bright kids are likely to succumb to the stultifying pressures of neighbourhood peer groups at the local bog standard comprehensive, why not send them to a Welsh language school where the bright will be encouraged to be stretched to make it? I’ve met parents who think that way.

Why do you suppose that some Labour supporters living in tough neighbourhoods supported the retention of local grammar schools and why did some Labour authorities hang on to their local grammar schools for as long as it was politically feasible to do so?

This is the most recent local educational authority (LEA) league table for England – Wales and Scotland no longer produce league tables:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12173503

Just as some LEAs persistently rank at or near the top, others persistently stay near the bottom – and btw the correlations between spending per pupil and LEA ranking or local affluence and LEA ranking aren’t especially strong. The London borough of Sutton, a modest per capita spender on local schools, regularly comes at or near the top of the LEA league table for England but doesn’t rate among the 100 most affluent constituencies in this constituency affluence league table:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477325/League-Wealth-Tables.html

35. Jonathan Phillips

@32

“… selective grammar schools where parents can opt for their children to take the entry tests – in much the way that France has retained lycées…”

No – for quite a few years now France has had a system of junior and senior high schools, collèges for 11-15yr-old and lycées (leading to the baccalauréat) for the 15-18s.

@ Geoffff:

“I know plenty of people who self identify as Catholics who are not homophobic and who aren’t against birth control. Many years ago I even used to be one myself. A few of these people activley participate in Catholic instiutions. Although I don’t know any personally, I’d be pretty sure that there are Catholic priests who aren’t homophobic either.”

Of course – that’s why I was making the distinction between criticising a Christian *organisation* on the basis of its official principles and policies, and criticising Christians in general (including members/followers of that organisation).

(Cf criticisms of political parties: you can oppose certain policies and actions of the Labour Party, say, without making any unfair generalisations about the politics of its individual members and supporters.)

“(Cf criticisms of political parties: you can oppose certain policies and actions of the Labour Party, say, without making any unfair generalisations about the politics of its individual members and supporters.)”

Indeed, and the other way around. As Bernard Levin used to point out, he was all in favour of the policies of the Tory Party, it was just Tories he couldn’t stand.

Outside Islamic countries, I don’t detect much enthusiasm for stoning damsels and executing adulterers, only for persecuting gays, so I naturally wonder why the discrimination, which has no Biblical authority?

Presumably because it violates patriarchal gender roles:- being penetrated is something that women do, and women are classed as lessor than men, so by being penetrated said man has lowered the whole of his gender down to the level of women. Or some such.

Gay men with the patriarchal mindset are curious creatures, “straight acting” and absolutely hate trans and effeminate gay men, often with a nice bundle of insecurities that at any moment they might make a movement that could be described as being “camp”. They ain’t fond of butch lesbians either. Oh and if you believed what they say then every advance for gay rights was constantly held back due to “screaming queens” not behaving in a properly normal fashion, like they do, obviously.

39. Jonathan Phillips

38. Cylux

” if you believed what they say then every advance for gay rights was constantly held back due to “screaming queens” not behaving in a properly normal fashion”

Some of those “screaming queens” played a vital role in altering public attitudes by showing that we “queers” were not all threatening figures in dirty raincoats but funny, friendly, self-mocking – people you’d be quite happy to have to tea – think of Jules and Sand, of John Inman, Larry Grayson, Quentin Crisp – and later of Julian Clary, Graham Norton and the like. They led the way – and so many of us “came out” after them.

@39 Oh I know that, though I’ve discovered convincing some of those whom are very concerned about being perceived to be ‘straight acting’ of that fact is nigh on impossible.

41. Jonathan Phillips

38. Cylux

Homosexual behaviour “violates patriarchal gender roles:- being penetrated is something that women do, and women are classed as lessor than men, so by being penetrated said man has lowered the whole of his gender down to the level of women. Or some such.”

Many societies – presumably to maintain the dominant position of the male – distinguish gender roles. In some the distinction scarcely allows any overlap at all; in others it is restricted to particular functions (e.g. women do not have the right equipment to be priests in some Christian denominations).

Homosexual people are seen as blurring that distinction and thus threatening the hierarchy of roles. There have been a few societies in which “gender bending” has been welcomed as bringing something valuable to the society as a whole – and I’m just so grateful that it has happened here in my lifetime.

@36 G.O. [blockquote]Of course – that’s why I was making the distinction between criticising a Christian *organisation* on the basis of its official principles and policies, and criticising Christians in general (including members/followers of that organisation).

(Cf criticisms of political parties: you can oppose certain policies and actions of the Labour Party, say, without making any unfair generalisations about the politics of its individual members and supporters.)[/blockquote]

The point still stands however that you line of argument is putting any identifiable group beyond criticism should it be lucky enough not to have an official doctrine and organization. Al-Qaeda for example is such a group – before 2001 and for a short time in Iraq it may have been said to have had a core-periphery style organization, but since that point it has been a leaderless “constellation” organization with some guiding principles but with a variety of members that have differing personal goals and methods but will cooperate and who would identify as al-Qaeda. It seems by your logic this group can’t be criticised since it does not have a doctrine to be criticised, and for some reason those that self identify as part of Group X can’t be criticised.

I think a similar argument can be made against Islam (and also the EDL). The homophobic beliefs that exist within the Muslim community are not incidental to the fact that they are Muslims – they are beliefs that stem from the faith itself – the central documents, the speakings and writings of influential members etc etc.

It seems bizarre to me that when statistically there is a strong majority in a group that hold a certain view, and where that view derrives from the founding elements of said group – that the group itself is immune from criticism.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 Lamia

“Is there any particular reason that, rather like Socialist Unity and the Guardian, you often report on Christian (preferably US Christian) homophobia but never on the Islamic variety? I notice you had nothing to say about the recent Gay Free Zone posters. If Catholics had been putting those up, you wouldn’t have missed a chance to show your ‘anti-homophobia’ credentials.”

Um, it came up here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/15/gay-pride-event-organised-by-edl-say-muslims/

LC does criticise Islamic illiberality. It just doesn’t come up as much because there are waaaay more Christians in this country, and Muslim groups are less likely to be involved in providing state-funded public services. And when it does come up, you, Davey Boy et al ignore it so you can inaccurately claim that nobody on LC ever talks about Muslims being bad.

“It’s a bit obvious that LC’s ‘support’ for LGBT people is purely tactical and dependent on who the homophobes in a particular instance are.”

Really? Could you point to an example of LC calling for the repression of LGBT people?

“But then, what else are we to expect from the site that produced that disgustingly homophobic article by Unity several months ago, in which he smeared a gay politician as a paedophile, and which he still hasn’t had the decency to apologise for?”

I don’t know whether Unity apologised for that, but Sunny took the article down, so it’s a bit odd to still be acting as if it reflects on the site. I hated that article too, but LC retracted it.

@ Chaise Guevara

“Um, it came up here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/15/gay-pride-event-organised-by-edl-say-muslims/

What came up there? There is not one word of condemnation of the posters themselves in that article by LC, it is all about the EDL.

“LC does criticise Islamic illiberality.”

Where? Show me an example. Show me the actual words by LC.

“It’s a bit obvious that LC’s ‘support’ for LGBT people is purely tactical and dependent on who the homophobes in a particular instance are.”

“Really? Could you point to an example of LC calling for the repression of LGBT people?”

They don’t have to ‘call for the repression of LGBT people’. I didn’t say they did. What they do is treat a story like the ‘Gay free Zone’ posters as being about Islamophobia ather than homophobia, as the weighting of that article demonstrated.

The fact that you can cite that article and appear not to have even read it says it all. There is no condemnation from LC of the posters, and they only discussed the story at all when the possible EDL angle came up. Until then, it was not important. Once the EDL angle arose, they sought to exploit that while being still silent on the actual posters.

“I don’t know whether Unity apologised for that,”

He didn’t. He tauntingly defended it on HP and has been silent about it on here, despsite having used the familiar gay=paedophile smear in it.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 Lamia

“What came up there? There is not one word of condemnation of the posters themselves in that article by LC, it is all about the EDL.”

It’s a news story, not an opinion piece. My point is that LC doesn’t pretend that Islamic homophobia doesn’t exist.

“Where? Show me an example. Show me the actual words by LC.”

This article (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/06/8906/) talks about the problems of reconciling liberalism towards Islam and liberalism towards homosexuals. But having run a Google search, it’s fair to say that you appear to be right. I couldn’t find anything substantive.

“They don’t have to ‘call for the repression of LGBT people’. I didn’t say they did. What they do is treat a story like the ‘Gay free Zone’ posters as being about Islamophobia ather than homophobia, as the weighting of that article demonstrated.”

Fair enough – but that’s not the same as being a fairweather friend when it comes to homosexual rights. LC did take that angle, but it didn’t say that homosexuals should shut up and put up with Islamic homophobia.

“He didn’t. He tauntingly defended it on HP and has been silent about it on here, despsite having used the familiar gay=paedophile smear in it.”

Well, I’ll join you in condemning that (and did at the time, too). But I don’t think it’s fair to say that a single article, now withdrawn, is representative of the site.

Where does that leave us? You’ve convinced me RE liberal conspiracy being quiet about Muslim homophobia. I wouldn’t expect it to come up as often as Christian homophobia, but it should come up at some point. I’d like to hear from Sunny on the issue as well, though. And I disagree about the idea that LC is callous about gay rights, much less that it’s actually homophobic.

46. Charlieman

@ 28 Lamia

“Is there any particular reason that, rather like Socialist Unity and the Guardian, you often report on Christian (preferably US Christian) homophobia but never on the Islamic variety? I notice you had nothing to say about the recent Gay Free Zone posters. If Catholics had been putting those up, you wouldn’t have missed a chance to show your ‘anti-homophobia’ credentials.”

Sunny, our host at LC, also runs the blog Pickled Politics. PP addresses many examples of Islamic intolerance, examples of intolerance by members of all faiths, by those without faith. Posts here are rarely deleted so if a thread deserves a response about Islamic homophobia, it is likely that the comment will stand. Most LC threads about Israel contain posts about Islamic sexism and homophobia.

@38 Cylux: “Gay men with the patriarchal mindset are curious creatures…” True enough. I haven’t been in a gay pub for yonks, but they never appeared to be enjoying themselves to my eyes.

Chaise Guevara: LC does criticise Islamic illiberality.”
Lamia @44: Where? Show me an example. Show me the actual words by LC.

See the long thread on “multiculturalism” here:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/02/06/there-problems-with-david-camerons-speech-on-multiculturalism/

Quoting myself @100:

[snip]
Cameron – and Blair before him – have said that Islam is a peaceful religion but historically that’s not so.

Historically, Islam was spread by the sword and invasions – the Moors invaded Spain in 711 and installed Islam there, more than 300 years before Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade in 1095.

Buddhism was the prevailing faith in western China long before the invading Islamic Uyghurs took up residence in the region – see this NHK (hour long) engaging documentary about the Buddhist shrines in the Mogao Caves at Dunhuang:
Silk Road 03 The Art Gallery in the Desert [updated link]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8766403308994751293#

The last and failed attempt of an Islamic power, the Ottoman Empire with its fiefdoms, to invade and control a European country ended with the Battle of Vienna in 1683:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
[end snip]

Thank you for your reply, Chaise Guevara. I do appreciate you addressing my points.

““They don’t have to ‘call for the repression of LGBT people’. I didn’t say they did. What they do is treat a story like the ‘Gay free Zone’ posters as being about Islamophobia ather than homophobia, as the weighting of that article demonstrated.”

Fair enough – but that’s not the same as being a fairweather friend when it comes to homosexual rights. LC did take that angle, but it didn’t say that homosexuals should shut up and put up with Islamic homophobia.”

No it didn’t, but it suggests that they place a lower priority on homophobia than on Islamophobia. The original story kicked off because of posters in Tower Hamlets saying ‘Gay Free Zone’. LC didn’t think that in itself newsworthy, let alone worthy of criticism. It only mentioned it when the EDL came into the frame.

Do you or anyone else here believe that if ‘Muslim Free Zone’ posters had gone up in a city in Britain (the ‘Gay Free Zone’ ones had already gone up in nottinghman and Derby last year, by the by), that LC and its posters would not rightly have come out strongly against such bigoted threats? I don’t believe it for a second. And yet LC ducked it in when it came to ‘Gay Free Zone’ posters.

“You’ve convinced me RE liberal conspiracy being quiet about Muslim homophobia. I wouldn’t expect it to come up as often as Christian homophobia, but it should come up at some point.”

I don’t agree. In view of the preponderance of islamic preachers in this ocuntry who are on record as actually advocating killing gay people, compared to incidence in bigoted Christian preachers (Stephen Green is an exmaple who comes to mind but he seems to be practically in a class of his own), then I would expect it to come up more often.

Or rather, it should come up more often. The fact that parts of the left have actively sought alliances with Islamists perhaps explains why it doesn’t, though LC doesn’t seem much to overlap with that part of the left. But the imbalance in the kinds of homophobia LC notices and criticises is a fact.

I suspect one reason there is a wish to ignore such stories is the feeling that they will benefit the EDL. That may well be true, but equally, ignoring them both aids those responsible and shows lack of support for gay people. When preachers call for us to be killed, or posters call for us to leave particular areas then I think the left has a duty to speak out regardless of who is doing the calling. And as I’m sure you understand, having people incite our killing or trying to drive us out of areas is at least or even more serious a matter than the bigotry of the twats in the case in this story.

@ Charlieman

“Posts here are rarely deleted so if a thread deserves a response about Islamic homophobia, it is likely that the comment will stand. Most LC threads about Israel contain posts about Islamic sexism and homophobia.”

With respect, that’s weak. I wasn’t asking about comments on threads, I was obviously asking about above the line articles. You may as well cite my own comments on this thread as evidence that ‘LC’ takes Islamic homophobia as seriously as Christian homophobia. It doesn’t.

50. Chaise Guevara

@ 48 Lamia

“No it didn’t, but it suggests that they place a lower priority on homophobia than on Islamophobia. The original story kicked off because of posters in Tower Hamlets saying ‘Gay Free Zone’. LC didn’t think that in itself newsworthy, let alone worthy of criticism. It only mentioned it when the EDL came into the frame.

Do you or anyone else here believe that if ‘Muslim Free Zone’ posters had gone up in a city in Britain (the ‘Gay Free Zone’ ones had already gone up in nottinghman and Derby last year, by the by), that LC and its posters would not rightly have come out strongly against such bigoted threats? I don’t believe it for a second. And yet LC ducked it in when it came to ‘Gay Free Zone’ posters.”

Yeah, I’ll accept that. I guess Islamaphobia is more of a battleground than homophobia these days.

“I don’t agree. In view of the preponderance of islamic preachers in this ocuntry who are on record as actually advocating killing gay people, compared to incidence in bigoted Christian preachers (Stephen Green is an exmaple who comes to mind but he seems to be practically in a class of his own), then I would expect it to come up more often. ”

I would guess that, in Britain, Muslims are more likely than Christians to be homophobic, and also more likely to be homophobic in the extremist fashion described by you above. The reason I’d still expect there to be more stories about Christian homophobia is simply that there are so many more Christians – and LC covers small stories as well as big ones. Given the country’s demographics, it’s entirely possible that there are more non-religious homophobes than Muslim homophobes in Britain.

The other point, as I said before, is that the government is more likely to work through Christian agencies than Muslim ones – such as in the case under discussion here. I would say that the state providing funding to bigots is bigger news than the fact that those bigots exist in the first place.

When you get stories about people defending their right to be bigoted (and in some cases you DO have that right), they’re more likely to get public support if they’re Christian than if they’re Muslim. Take the examples of Catholic adoption agencies, those hotel owners who refused to serve a gay couple, and those prospective foster parents who were deemed unworthy due to their homophobic beliefs. I happen to think all of those people were in the wrong, but a lot of people felt otherwise – and so it becomes a nationwide debate than sites like this ought to comment on.

However, which stories LC should and shouldn’t cover is a judgement call, so I respect your differing opinion here. There’s no formula that says “there are X homophobic Muslims and Y homophobic Christians, but Muslims are likely to be Z% more extremist about it than Christians, ergo LC should report this exact proportion of stories”.

“I suspect one reason there is a wish to ignore such stories is the feeling that they will benefit the EDL. That may well be true, but equally, ignoring them both aids those responsible and shows lack of support for gay people. When preachers call for us to be killed, or posters call for us to leave particular areas then I think the left has a duty to speak out regardless of who is doing the calling. And as I’m sure you understand, having people incite our killing or trying to drive us out of areas is at least or even more serious a matter than the bigotry of the twats in the case in this story.”

Yeah, I think you may be right here. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and it’s possible that some people get so embroiled in “winning” that they lose sight of what they were fighting for in the first place.

51. Chaise Guevara

@ Lamia

RE people getting obsessed with winning: when you challenged me to find LC articles denouncing Muslim homophobia, and I had trouble finding any, I caught myself trying to convince myself that you were still wrong, despite the evidence. I had, to an extent, committed myself to the “side” of saying that LC was evenhanded, and the temptation was to carry on claiming that it was so I wouldn’t lose the argument.

It’s very easy to do, and everyone does it. Which might explain why people are myopic about unpleasantness committed by people they consider to be on their side.

@ Chaise Guevara

Fair points about the agencies, and I broadly agree with the rest of what you say. Thank you for debating and answering in good faith. It’s often hard to get straightforward answers on this subject.

Oh, I just saw your other post.

“It’s very easy to do, and everyone does it. Which might explain why people are myopic about unpleasantness committed by people they consider to be on their side.”

Yes, we all do. It’s maybe the case that a third of politics is attacking the enemy, a third is having actual ideas and policies, and a third is cringing and tiptoeing away.

54. Chaise Guevara

@ 53

Well put!

55. Jonathan Phillips

@53

“a third of politics is attacking the enemy, a third is having actual ideas and policies, and a third is cringing and tiptoeing away” –

I think you may have got the proportions wrong, unless by “actual ideas and policies” you mean “preconceived ideas, knee-jerk reactions and wizard wheezes”.

And where’s “never admitting admitting you’ve been wrong”?

I sometimes think I shall choke on my own cynicism.

@ Geoffff

OK, I see what you’re saying a little better now – and of course you have a point. Islam can’t be beyond criticism any more than Christianity or Socialism, say. I just think you have to be nuanced in the way you criticise something as broad as Islam, or Christianity, or Socialism, or you risk demonising all Muslims, or Christians, or Socialists. Better where possible to criticise the beliefs and actions of particular organisations/churches/parties etc.

57. Charlieman

@49. Lamia: “With respect, that’s weak. I wasn’t asking about comments on threads, I was obviously asking about above the line articles.”

No offence taken, but I’ll defend the ball. For whatever reasons, Sunny posts all of his own above the line articles about religious-based homophobia on Pickled Politics. I cannot fully explain the absence of articles by other LC contributors.

I suspect lack of interest — stories may have often been done to death by less liberal but more frequently updated blogs. Lack of interest does not mean not caring; lack of interest in one story may be about ignoring the ranty explosion of ill informed opinion in order to reflect on the substantive. My argument does not, of course, imply that LC is exempt from ranty, ill informed opinion.

One of the reasons that I read LC is that many contributors are acute to moral relativism. Romantic ideas about the noble British working class (or middle class, upper class) will be cut down. Skin colour or religion does not determine the capacity for evil, nor are they a defence; these are LC themes.

You write well, Lamia, so why not suggest a piece to Sunny?

Perhaps you could follow up on:
“When preachers call for us to be killed, or posters call for us to leave particular areas then I think the left has a duty to speak out regardless of who is doing the calling. And as I’m sure you understand, having people incite our killing or trying to drive us out of areas is at least or even more serious a matter than the bigotry of the twats in the case in this story.”

On the first sentence, I agree absolutely.

On the second, I disagree on comparability. Those who shout “queer” or erect vile posters are guilty of evil; Catholic “counsellors” who misadvise young gay and trans people may be mistaken; unlike the street thugs, counsellors try to do the right thing. They are only wrong if they claim to be absolutely right.

But people who advise young people (about careers, marriage, bonking) should just be normal people. People who took a while to settle down with a partner, sampled a few drugs (or observed their mates on drugs acting like fools), had a female friend who undertook an abortion and still wonders whether that was the best decision. People with failed businesses and people who backed horses ‘cos the names were similar to mums’ dog.

Given that non-Muslim youths are still the main culprits behind gay-bashings that lead to murder, I would suggest that 1 Muslim lad putting up Gay-Free Zone stickers around tower hamlets and said stickers being thoroughly denounced by all the major Muslim groups in the area, are the least of our problems.

” guess Islamaphobia is more of a battleground than homophobia these days.”

Yeah.
Wonder if that’s because most Muslims (not all though of course…that ‘racism’ issue destroyed again) are not white (the Liberal shield of ultimate power) and above all else……………
**Homosexuals don’t strap bombs on themselves and blow you up if you criticise them!
Do they!?

More of a ‘battleground’? Yeah, LITERALLY.

And you can bleat on about Christians or Catholics all you want (please do) but the FACT is no Christian country executes people for being Gay.
No one lynches Gay men in public squares outside the White House or Big Ben!

And Christian preachers tend not to stand up in UK churches and call for the death of Homosexuals either.

In fact the difference between these religions is everywhere to see.
You only have to look at the fact COUNTLESS Bibles in COUNTLESS churches have been burnt to the ground in Muslim countries and yet….where is all this Christian terrorism?
Muslims openly called for The Pope (spit) to be killed a few years back, even on the streets of London (you know in that irony Muslims missed about him saying Islam is violent!) and Catholics did what?
NOTHING.
No Catholic attacks on mosques, or Muslims butchered in the streets.

And to compare very recently…When one crappy Quran was burnt (boo hoo) there was typical Global peaceful moderation by Muslims again (arf arf) including U.N aid workers (of a different nationality in a different country from any Quran burnings) being murdered!

And yet, only a couple of days ago a Muslim burnt a Bible outside a church.
And? Response?
Er………Oh yeah. NOTHING.
No death threats to Muslims, no raids on mosques, no U.N buildings attacked and workers butchered.
The response was…F U C K A L L.

So even I, disliker of all organised religions, hater of Catholic doctrine, even I have to admit that basically every other religion on earth (a few occasions aside) is so far away from, EVOLVED from, the fanatic hatred and ruthless violence of Islam (on a daily, cultural, social, legal, basis in almost every country in the world!) that it shows up the lack of coverage and disdain for Islamic actions on places like LC and from all the so called ‘Liberals’ as a whole as the foul and fetid betrayal of everything liberal thought and caring for others should stand for.

Liberals betrayed the word, let alone the cause, the day they jumped into bed with the most repulsively, murderously, fanatically illiberal doctrine crawling upon this earth today. Just because it had a tan and wore a ‘I hate George Bush’ t-shirt.

Shame on you. Shame on you all.
Smug away, you won’t be any less ugly when you look into that mirror of morality.

“”Given that non-Muslim youths are still the main culprits behind gay-bashings that lead to murder””

Numbers or percentage?

There are in fact a hell of a lot more non-Muslims in the country (at the moment at least) so what you said is in fact worthless.
Hey, pal, you;re more likely to be almost everything, good or bad, by non-Muslims in the UK! Because it’s not a Muslim majority country.
Your post is worthless.

And as yet, Islam does not hold actual governmental/legal power in the country. Lets see the figures then!
That’s if there are any Homosexuals left in the UK at that time.

And you show me ANY…ANY…Muslim country that is even remotely as open and embracing towards Homosexuality as the UK. Or any Western, non-Muslim country.
You can’t do it though can you my apologist friend.

Do some research on the increasing attacks on Gays in that bastion of liberal acceptance Holland.
See the rates go up as more of that once so open and accepting country (esp parts of Amsterdam) become swamped by Islamic cretins who have turned many parts of that fine city of Amsterdam into anything but liberal and tolerant places.
All hail the benefits of Muslim immigration!

Depart apologist. Depart.

And you can bleat on about Christians or Catholics all you want (please do) but the FACT is no Christian country executes people for being Gay.

Well yes, there are currently no Christian Theocratic states, though the recent “kill-gays” Bill in Uganda should give you a good idea of what would be going on in a Christian Theocratic nation. Quite similar to what goes on in Islamic theocratic nations wouldn’t you agree?
Incidentally that Kill Gays bill was inspired by US based Christian preachers, but look over there – SCARY MUSLIMS!

And you show me ANY…ANY…Muslim country that is even remotely as open and embracing towards Homosexuality as the UK. Or any Western, non-Muslim country.
You can’t do it though can you my apologist friend.

Well according to wikipedia, Islamic nations with a liberal attitude toward lgbt’s include: Albania, Indonesia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Lebanon. Although I fail to see why they should be castigated for not yet being at the same level we are in regard to gay acceptance, it’s not like gays weren’t being openly persecuted in this nation within living memory now is it?

“it’s not like gays weren’t being openly persecuted in this nation within living memory now is it?”

We are not living Pre-Wolfenden, we are living now. The point is to address injustices – of whatever kind – as they exist today, not to point out that things used to be worse. The latter ‘point’ is of no use whatsoever except to social reactionaries who would like to wind back the clock.

64. Chaise Guevara

@ 59 Davey Boy

“Yeah.
Wonder if that’s because most Muslims (not all though of course…that ‘racism’ issue destroyed again) are not white (the Liberal shield of ultimate power) and above all else……………
**Homosexuals don’t strap bombs on themselves and blow you up if you criticise them!
Do they!?

More of a ‘battleground’? Yeah, LITERALLY.”

The skin colour of Muslims is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Hardly any Muslims are or were suicide bombers… but it’s interesting that you like to tar the majority with that brush.

“And you can bleat on about Christians or Catholics all you want (please do) but the FACT is no Christian country executes people for being Gay.
No one lynches Gay men in public squares outside the White House or Big Ben!”

Gay men are murdered and executed in in African countries because people are following their Christian beliefs that homosexuality is evil. But what’s that got to do with the price of fish? How is it relevant to the discussion?

“And Christian preachers tend not to stand up in UK churches and call for the death of Homosexuals either.”

Just like Muslim preachers.

“In fact the difference between these religions is everywhere to see.
You only have to look at the fact COUNTLESS Bibles in COUNTLESS churches have been burnt to the ground in Muslim countries and yet….where is all this Christian terrorism?
Muslims openly called for The Pope (spit) to be killed a few years back, even on the streets of London (you know in that irony Muslims missed about him saying Islam is violent!) and Catholics did what?
NOTHING.
No Catholic attacks on mosques, or Muslims butchered in the streets.”

Again, you’re banging on about a very small minority. It’s really not relevant to Muslims in general.

“And to compare very recently…When one crappy Quran was burnt (boo hoo) there was typical Global peaceful moderation by Muslims again (arf arf) including U.N aid workers (of a different nationality in a different country from any Quran burnings) being murdered!

And yet, only a couple of days ago a Muslim burnt a Bible outside a church.
And? Response?
Er………Oh yeah. NOTHING.
No death threats to Muslims, no raids on mosques, no U.N buildings attacked and workers butchered.
The response was…F U C K A L L.”

And again.

“So even I, disliker of all organised religions, hater of Catholic doctrine, even I have to admit that basically every other religion on earth (a few occasions aside) is so far away from, EVOLVED from, the fanatic hatred and ruthless violence of Islam (on a daily, cultural, social, legal, basis in almost every country in the world!) that it shows up the lack of coverage and disdain for Islamic actions on places like LC and from all the so called ‘Liberals’ as a whole as the foul and fetid betrayal of everything liberal thought and caring for others should stand for.

Liberals betrayed the word, let alone the cause, the day they jumped into bed with the most repulsively, murderously, fanatically illiberal doctrine crawling upon this earth today. Just because it had a tan and wore a ‘I hate George Bush’ t-shirt.”

Right. I think this is what makes your comments the most stupid this site has ever seen. Let me try to get something into your tiny and rarely-used brain:

Liberals seek to defend Muslims from bigotry, as they would defend anyone else from bigotry. So if someone is making bigoted statements about Muslims, you can expect liberals to object.

It does not follow, in any way, that liberals support or condone crimes carried out by some Muslims due to their faith. This is important. Defending religious freedoms and equality does not mean you have to like suicide bombers. Your entire philosophy is based on falsely equating two concepts.

@63 And how exactly does writing frothing diatribes like Davey Boy’s “address injustices – of whatever kind – as they exist today”? Especially since I’m pretty sure that saying Muslims are all bomb-carrying, murdering scum is going to be largely counter-productive to improving the lgbt’s lot within the Muslim community.

“Especially since I’m pretty sure that saying Muslims are all bomb-carrying, murdering scum is going to be largely counter-productive to improving the lgbt’s lot within the Muslim community.”

Even more especially since Muslim women aren’t permitted to discuss wearing the veil – according to the Muslim Council:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8455955/Muslim-Council-women-cannot-debate-wearing-veil.html

As reported, even discussing whether Muslim women must wear the veil to cover their faces could amount to a denial of Islam – the unstated consequence of which is a death sentence for apostasy. All rather grim stuff.

67. Chaise Guevara

@ 66 Bob B

“As reported, even discussing whether Muslim women must wear the veil to cover their faces could amount to a denial of Islam – the unstated consequence of which is a death sentence for apostasy.”

No it isn’t. This be Britain. Some Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, but it’s hardly fair to go from “the MCB are against people discussing whether you should wear the veil” to “the MCB want Muslims who debate whether you should wear the veil to be killed”.

@ Cylux,

“@63 And how exactly does writing frothing diatribes like Davey Boy’s “address injustices – of whatever kind – as they exist today”?

I am not answerable for what Davey Boy says. I made a point and you ducked it with ‘well, what about him?’ What has that to do with my point? Nothing. When you are reduced to asking me to account for another poster’s words, then you have clearly lost the argument between you and myself.

@67:

C’mon. As reported, for Muslim women to even discuss whether it is obligatory to wear face veils could amount to a denial of Islam because it implicitly questions the Koran – and that amounts to apostasy, which carries a death sentence under Sharia law.

Doubtless, you will recall earlier discussions here and elsewhere about the lobbying to introduce Sharia law to Muslim neighbourhoods in Britain. I can only assume that means the full gamut of Sharia laws for to suggest otherwise could be deemed as implicitly questionning the Koran etc.

By comparison, discussing whether Islam should be more tolerant towards those in the Muslim LGTB community seems a relatively minor issue – and raising the issue implicitly questions the Koran, which amounts to apostasy etc.

It’s rather like the Catholic church banning any questionning of Papal Infalibility on doctrinal issues. What I don’t understand is why many Christians maintain the persecution of gays but have given up on stoning damsels and executing adulterers as laid down in Deuteronomy 22. At least Muslims who enforce chastity laws are being consistent with the Abrahamic heritage they share with Judaism and mainstream Christianity.

The MCB signs statements with the Hizb? They don’t still get public funding, do they?

71. Chaise Guevara

@ 69 Bob B

“C’mon. As reported, for Muslim women to even discuss whether it is obligatory to wear face veils could amount to a denial of Islam because it implicitly questions the Koran – and that amounts to apostasy, which carries a death sentence under Sharia law.”

See? You’re conflating. The MCB is suggesting, not ordering in any enforcable way, that Muslims in Britain do not debate the veil. And if they DO debate the veil, they won’t be executed under Sharia on account of it not being applicable in Britain. You’re conflating things in an attempt to make a (admittedly ugly) statement sound worse than it is.

“Doubtless, you will recall earlier discussions here and elsewhere about the lobbying to introduce Sharia law to Muslim neighbourhoods in Britain. I can only assume that means the full gamut of Sharia laws for to suggest otherwise could be deemed as implicitly questionning the Koran etc.”

As I recall, the broader calls for Sharia law to be implemented would have meant they were secondary to the laws of the land, and only entered into if all parties agreed. Indeed, people do this already, and there’s no way of stopping it.

No doubt many Muslims would like true Sharia for Britain, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the MCB.

@68 Given that the post you took my comment from was answering Davey Boy’s claims it is not unreasonable for me to think that you were attempting to reinforce his position. My apologies. Since that is not the case I shall clarify my own position.
The part of my earlier statement which you missed:

Although I fail to see why they should be castigated for not yet being at the same level we are in regard to gay acceptance

The key part of the point I was making was the “not yet” bit, I was pointing at our past transgressions to show that changing attitudes takes time and hard work, Davey Boy would have us believe that Muslims as a whole are dead against gay people, this is not true, there are (mainly secular) Muslim nations which have a more liberal stance than their peers. Maybe I’m too thankful for small victories in that I will congratulate these nations for their progress rather than condemn them for their shortcomings.
The theocratic Islamic nations on the other hand do indeed have a lot of persecution of both gays and women, though as I implied further above this has more to do with them being oppressive theocratic regimes than exclusively oppressive Islamic theocratic regimes. Indeed a lot of the modern day poison that infests Islam is easily traced back to the influence of these nations. We need to show that our way is better, that inclusiveness and mutual respect make better nations and better people.
Browbeating Muslims constantly will not aid this, it will push them away from us and into the arms of those who really do want us dead.

@70 Not since Feb 2010 no.

“”‘The MCB is suggesting, not ordering in any enforcable way, that Muslims in Britain do not debate the veil.”””

Oh well. That’s okay then!
PHEW!

I thought blatant, male decreed, medieval superstition and alien cultural practices were being rolled out to ‘suggest’ to women in 21st century, non-Islamic, Britain what they shouldn’t bother their little (officially and LEGALLY worth half of a man’s) minds about.

But no…No one liberal would shrug that off. Would they?

Keep on digging that fucking hole!

75. Flowerpower

The headline on this post seems something of a stretch to say the least. I’d guess some people would interpret it as downright bigotry.

Nothing in the text stands up the description of this charity as “homophobic”.

76. Chaise Guevara

@ 74 Davey Boy

“I thought blatant, male decreed, medieval superstition and alien cultural practices were being rolled out to ‘suggest’ to women in 21st century, non-Islamic, Britain what they shouldn’t bother their little (officially and LEGALLY worth half of a man’s) minds about.”

Wow, women are legally valued at 50% of a man? In Britain? Really? That doesn’t sound very realistic. Most obvious solution: you’re an idiot.

“But no…No one liberal would shrug that off. Would they?”

No, they would not. What’s your point?

77. Chaise Guevara

@ 75 Flowerpower

“Nothing in the text stands up the description of this charity as “homophobic”.”

Um…

“As PoliticsHome points out today, CCS recently withdrew from adoption services due to opposition to the Government’s sexual orientations regulations.”

I suspect you in fact read that, and have come up with some justification for claiming that it doesn’t indicate homophobia. If so, why not explain? It currently appears that they hate gays so much that they’d rather stop providing charity than interact with homosexuals.

78. Flowerpower

Chaise @ 77

they hate gays so much that they’d rather stop providing charity than interact with homosexuals.

Or, alternatively: the trustees and staff of the charity have divergent views on gay adoption (reflecting the divergent takes on this issue within society at large) but, after careful consideration, chose to withdraw from activity that would bring them into direct conflict with their church authorities and their funding base.

79. Chaise Guevara

@ 78 Flowerpower

Well… fair enough, actually, as least as far as the direct controllers of the charity are concerned. However, from a practical perspective it seems to me that this just moves the problem one step back.

If the people in charge know they have to keep homophobes happy (or even if they wrongly assume that their benefactors are homophobic), then it seems likely that they won’t take a very productive attitude to gay teenagers in need of councilling. They wouldn’t necessarily have to go so far as to claim being gay was wrong, but they might shy away from telling the teenagers that it was OK in case the news got back to the people with the money. Possibly there would be a solution to this in practice, but I think a responsible local government would confirm this before handing over the contract (which for all I know, of course, it did).

“”Wow, women are legally valued at 50% of a man? In Britain? Really? That doesn’t sound very realistic. Most obvious solution: you’re an idiot.””

YOU’RE the fucking idiot!
Do some fucking reading you commie islamist fanboy you.

Sharia Courts legally operate in this country for various disputes.
Under these Sharia Law run Sharia Courts a women, YES IN THIS COUNTRY YOU IDIOT, must have another woman vouch for her words because her testimony is only worth half of a man’s.

HERE…From your own Lefty rag no less:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

“Gita Sahgal says there is active support for sharia laws because it is limited to denying women rights in the family”

“In a report; Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law.

“”””**Under sharia’s civil code, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s**.
Women who remarry lose custody of their children and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

As long as sharia courts are allowed to make rulings on family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial.

People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.
They operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

The demand for the abolition of sharia courts in Britain is a defence of human rights, especially since the imposition of sharia courts is a demand of Islamism to restrict citizens’ rights.

Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and parallel legal systems.
To safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts.”””

No why don’t you just fuck off and blow an Imman. Yet again you are shown to know nothing about what you apologise for.

81. Chaise Guevara

@ Davey Boy

“[Blah blah rant rant blah] No why don’t you just fuck off and blow an Imman. Yet again you are shown to know nothing about what you apologise for”

No, I’m afraid that it’s you that doesn’t know what you’re talking about. We do have Sharia courts in this country, but they’re only “legal” in that it’s not illegal to run them. The are entirely subordinate to the laws of the land.

If Muslims want to settle something under Sharia, then all parties have to do so willingly. It’s the equivalent of going on Judge Judy. There’s no way in practice you could prevent this from happening, even if you wanted to. And obviously if it’s a serious matter where the Crown would prosecute, then that’s what happens – it’s settled in a normal court.

If you and another party had a dispute to settle, and both agreed to ask a mutual friend to adjudicate and to abide by the result, that would be exactly the same level of “legal” as a British Sharia court. Of course, a bit of calm analysis of facts is likely to be beyond someone who thinks he can pretend to be a non-bigoted and sensible commenter while saying things like “fuck off and blow an Imman”, but there you go.

82. Chaise Guevara

P.S. I look forward to you trying to conflate the concepts of “legal” as in not banned and “legal” as in a legal authority to maintain your ridiculous position, plus of course a few ad homs, some bizarre accusations, a smattering of insults that would make a ten-year-old call you childish, and probably the suggestion that we can easily prevent Sharia courts by deporting every Muslim in Britain.

@82 I was wondering what Davey Boy’s solution to the apparent “Muslim Problem” might be, but I figured it’d start with a p and end with ogrom…

84. Chaise Guevara

@ 83 Cylux

In practice, I suspect it consists of peering furtively out of his window for 10 hours a day and making notes on every movement of his Muslim neighbours in case they decide to explode while taking the bins out.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  2. Liberal Conspiracy

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  3. Liberal Conspiracy

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  4. sunny hundal

    After Poppy Project outrage RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  5. sunny hundal

    After Poppy Project outrage RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  6. A Working Class Lad.

    Jesus Christ Bigots paradise…! Via @libcon
    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  7. A Working Class Lad.

    Jesus Christ Bigots paradise…! Via @libcon
    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  8. John Symons

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  9. John Symons

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  10. esther addley

    RT @sunny_hundal: RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  11. esther addley

    RT @sunny_hundal: RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  12. Ms C

    some things aren't getting better, ta Theresa> RT @libcon Homophobic Catholic charity gets teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  13. Ms C

    some things aren't getting better, ta Theresa> RT @libcon Homophobic Catholic charity gets teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  14. Lee Griffin

    RT @libcon Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  15. Lucy on a narrowboat

    THIS GIVES ME THE RAGE /via @sunny_hundal RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  16. Malcolm Evison

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  17. Jen Hall

    *spluttering with rage* RT @bindelj Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/MZhGSGQ via @libcon

  18. skinnyvoice

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Gpr3P0V via @libcon

  19. sara huws

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  20. James Diamond

    Absolutely shocking RT @NewHumanist: RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  21. IanHsci

    Other news: cats take over goldfish stall RT @libcon Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  22. Gail Thomas

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  23. Rosa

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  24. Chunkylimey

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  25. Darren

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  26. hilary

    Appalling decision to award Richmond young people's advice contract to Catholic Children's Society http://bit.ly/f0rG6g

  27. nee mxfwrites

    Poppy Project axed, money given to Sally Army. Counselling service contracted to Catholic group: http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  28. sunny hundal

    Bet there's many more examples now of religious charities suddenly seeing cash at the expense of secular ones http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  29. Avid Reader

    RT @JennieSue: *spluttering with rage* RT @bindelj Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/MZhGSGQ

  30. Bod

    Anti-gay/abortion/contraception group is given contract to provide teenage counselling by Tory council http://bit.ly/g0wzra (by @libcon)

  31. Richard

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  32. Richard

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  33. Carla Bond

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counseling contract http://t.co/DPgPhHL //Wrong on so many levels.

  34. Carla Bond

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counseling contract http://t.co/DPgPhHL //Wrong on so many levels.

  35. Caroline Duffy

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  36. Caroline Duffy

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  37. Matt C

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/ULAYQVv

  38. Matt C

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/ULAYQVv

  39. Peter Durant

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  40. Tony Roberts

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  41. John Snowdon

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  42. Tony Csoka

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  43. Caitriona Cullen

    RT @estheraddley: RT @sunny_hundal: RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  44. sabele26

    RT @JennieSue: *spluttering with rage* RT @bindelj Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/MZhGSGQ

  45. +/+/+

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  46. Will

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  47. Catriona Grant

    Homophobic and anti choice Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/MZhGSGQ via @libcon

  48. donmackeen

    RT @CatrionaGrant: Homophobic and anti choice Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/MZhGSGQ via @libcon

  49. Daz

    Disgusting.“@libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/AbJ5Dp7”

  50. Bret

    Condems die! seriously. RT @libcon Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb *raging*

  51. Broken OfBritain

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/VKVp2L8h

  52. GOVManslaughter

    RT @BrokenOfBritain: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/VKVp2L8h

  53. Jon

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  54. Kabie

    Disgusting RT @BrokenOfBritain Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/VKVp2L8h

  55. GOVManslaughter

    @BrokenOfBritain
    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/VKVp2L8h WHAT CAN i SAY

  56. Claireandian

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  57. Caroline Irwin

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  58. Sari B

    RT @BrokenOfBritain: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/VKVp2L8h

  59. Lisa Egan

    I just don't know where to begin with this RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  60. Carolyn Hastie

    Weird ethics “@lisybabe RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://t.co/rq1Lq1a”

  61. Don Harrison

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  62. Molly

    RT @libcon: Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://bit.ly/idgUrb

  63. smileandsubvert

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract http://pulsene.ws/1jUuv

  64. Max Dunbar

    Another religious fundamentalist organisation awarded contract to work with vulnerable people http://t.co/alpbO21 /via @libcon

  65. Jane Smith

    This is outrageous (thanks to @maxdunbar1 for bringing it to my attention). http://ht.ly/4D9iZ

  66. Hey Religion, Leave Those Kids Alone. « Tripod Anything

    […] Things that have happened in the past week: evangelical Christian charity The Salvation Army received a £6 million contract to provide support services for victims of sex trafficking, and the Catholic Children’s Society received an £89,000 contract to “help and support students in the [London Borough of Richmond…. […]

  67. BeSexPositive

    We’re a bit worried about this but would like 2find way 2work with them 2make sure YP voices are heard,what do u think? http://bit.ly/gbTLu4

  68. Kirstin Donaldson

    Homophobic Catholic charity awarded teenage counselling contract | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/xeC6QpX via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.