Harry’s Place

“The MPS would only cancel Bounty Killer’s concert if there is a likelihood of public disorder.”

If that’s the police’s attitude then they are incentivizing violence. They should be charged with inciting violence.

“This is a tacit encouragement of violent protests,” added Mr Tatchell … Perhaps the gay community should threaten to bomb and burn? Then the police might listen to us.”

Brett’s response? “I really do hope the Metropolitan Police and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, see sense before things start getting really ugly.”

Yesterday Mr Green also made some contentious comments about the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision … “This decision urges Christians to create public disorder if we want a similar case to proceed in future,”

Brett’s response? “Mr Green now appears to be directly inciting violence … Why isn’t he arrested?”

Perhaps there is a double-standard by the police and CPS, but there’s no doubt at all that there’s a double-standard in Brett’s posts.

The critical point here is that Outrage! and co have NO right to break the law.
If BK is inciting public disorder, then issue an arrest warrent. If he is not, then he is only guilty of bigotry and bad taste.

I was appalled when I read your last post about this, and I’m still appalled today. It’s a disgrace, and a staggering double standard, as you say.

John, no one was threatening Stephen Green with violence. Christians are not attacked and beaten or murdered as a rule, and cerainly no one is publically urging anyone else to kill Christians. Stephen Green is a book burner. He wants to stop other people reading and writing books he disaproves of. There is a qualative difference.

If Christians here and abroad were persecuted and attacked and Stephen Green wanted to stop the equivalent of an anti-Christian Mein Kamph being published in the UK, I’d he’d have my sympathy and support.

Brett, setting aside the merits of the two campaigns (Tatchell/yours has merit, Green’s does not), and without once again going into the details of why the law against incitement being narrowly defined is probably inapplicable in the eyes of the police and CPS — doesn’t it strike you as deeply ironic, the parallels between the situation that OutRage finds itself in, and the situation of Christian Voice regarding their blasphemous artwork?

I can’t believe you’ve not noticed this and I’m wondering if there isn’t something a little Puckish about your postings over the last week or two. You’re a bit of a lad, aren’t you?

For a hat-trick why not post something about the role of the police and CPS in all of this. At the very least look into this accusation of double-standards with regard to racism and homphobia. It’s been flung at the police over and over but I’ve yet to read anything except second-hand accounts of why interested parties believe the police and CPS take the descisions that they do. I want to hear from the police themselves why they are not going to charge Bounty Killer (or Stephen Green, or even Peter Tatchell) with incitement. How about some old fashion MSM-style investigation and make a call to their press office?

Preventing a performer whose act consists of ranting about how he’d kill gays from coming into this country - a privilege, not a right - I would support.

I really am much more uncomfortable about banning a performance, or trying to suppress the words in another way. The state ought to show enormous restraint before censoring.

Preventing somebody from entering the country doesn’t censor them directly. They’re still able to communicate their hate in other ways. Possibly, you could argue that banning a performance should be regarded as partial censorship only, for the same reason. Criminalising speech is something that you should be very very very restrained about doing.

I support the banning of religious figures, who tell their flock - in the name of their god - that gay men should be attacked.

But singers… I don’t know.

I would certainly have said that I was against it, before I watched that video of a man being beaten by a mob, while chanting what appeared to be the lyrics of a song about attacking gays. I’d want to know whether those people were, indeed, dancehall fans. I’d want to know if those who do attack gay people do draw inspiration specifically from murderous dancehall homophobia. I don’t know if such evidence exists.

However, if it does, I would certainly treat performers in the same boat as clerics and political leaders. There would be a plausible connection between the conduct punished, and the social ill to be addressed.

I think that there’s a need to identify such a link first, though.

However, this need never have arisen. It has only arisen because our Government grants the privilege of entry into Britain to people who stand in front of crowded halls, while calling for gay people to be murdered.

There is no way a figure who is notorious for ranting ”Kill the Niggers!” or “Gas the Kikes!” or “Slaughter these Muslim Dogs!” would be allowed a visa to appear in the UK
There you go again!!! It’s silliness like this why I sometimes feel reluctant to join in your demonstrations. For fuck sake you have enough valid points to argue against this concert going ahead than this ignorant rant.
Brian Williamson and Fanny Ann Eddy [may their souls rest in peace] will be turning in their graves.

Is it any surprise that the Black LGBT sometimes ignore you arseholes?

I support the banning of religious figures, who tell their flock - in the name of their god - that gay men should be attacked.

But singers… I don’t know.

Well, if you look at the following of singers like Bob Marley, you can see that for some people, singers are every bit as influential as preachers.

“For fuck sake you have enough valid points to argue against this concert going ahead than this ignorant rant.”

Um, what ignorant rant?

Is it that you don’t like hearing or seeing in print hurtful and insulting epithettes for other minorities. Well duh!

But everyone is so relaxed about “faggot” and “batty boy”.

We’re all adults. Let’s talk about these words.

Well if the purpose of the state banning the singer’s entry into the country is to prevent the concert going ahead there doesn’t seem to be any difference from the state censoring the concerts afaict.

If this guy was standing up there saying, “Kill dogs, kick Fido, beat Rover” there would be a total outcry. It’d be headlines in the tabloids and the government would cave in.

I can see why Brett is so damned angry.

is it that you don’t like hearing or seeing in print hurtful and insulting epithets for other minorities. Well duh! But everyone is so relaxed about “faggot” and “batty boy”. We’re all adults. Let’s talk about these words.

Like I intimidated earlier, perhaps you need to ask yourself how come the Black LGBT aren’t joining your campaign.

Well, if you look at the following of singers like Bob Marley, you can see that for some people, singers are every bit as influential as preachers.

Well, Bob Marley is a bit of an exception, in that he seems to have undergone a sort of syncretic incorporation into Rastafarianism. Many of those who venerate them, adopt his hairstyle, and spend their days in an, erm, “spiritual” state.

But I can’t think of that many other singers for whom that is true, can you? Fela Kuti, perhaps.

Singers aren’t generally treated as conduits of the divine. Their lives are not generally held up as a moral lesson. They’re not generally figures of political authority.

The influence of musicians, and cultural figures is more subtle, less didactical. In part only, they set the tone of those who listen to, or watch them. Bob Dylan provided a sound track for the anti-Vietnam protests, but he did not direct them.

I really would want to restrict attempts to censor, to cases where there is a clear and plausible causal link, between the incitement and the action. I presume it to be there in a religious or political context, where an orator addresses an audience which has come to them for guidance. I presume that it is not there, however, when the incitement takes place in a stage act.

What have caused me to doubt that, in the case of Bounty Killer, is that I have now seen a video of an attack on a poor man, accompanied by a repetition of the slogans declaimed by this dancehall star. That looks to me like a causal link.

“Not at all. Just disappointed that a big man like you cannot differentiate between race and sexual orientation. God help homosexual niggers. LOL.”

I don’t see that there is a material difference between race and sexual orientation in this instance. What do you think the difference is?

“The influence of musicians, and cultural figures is more subtle, less didactical. “

I think the role the artists play is the *normalisation* of antigay violence. The fact that people are singing along to the car radio or in the dancehalls to songs glorifying violent attacks on gay people makes those act of violence routine, mundane, unremarkable.

Say the second world war hadn’t interupted the political trajectory of Nazi Germany. How many generations do you think it would have taken before people simply accepted tha that’s the way Jews were treated? Or take racial segregation in the American South. For generations it was just “normal” - the way the world was. For change to happen, that “normal” reality has to be interrupted. It has to be challeneged.

Normalisation is a very loose term.

In the cases I’ve been talking about - which may possibly include Bounty Killer - is a direct causal link. If normalisation is less than that, it is context, rather than cause.

There are multiple reasons and influences, that people engage in homophobic violence. Some of it is linked to things that people hear and watch. But there’s a multiplicity of other causes, arising from cultural attitudes that the music reflects, the transmission of familiar attitudes, and so on. To take your Nazi example: it wasn’t Wagner that made Germans kill Jews. Wagner was simply part of a cultural web, that made that possible. And specifically, what made that possible was a political movement that organised the mass murder of a cultural minority, that the Nazi Party created, and commanded others to operate.

Speech does operate within a protected realm. We refrain from censoring, when we might, because it is healthy for us to do so generally. Our culture is better, because we are slow to censor. We get to argue about sexual politics, because people like us fought a battle to keep the state out of what we think, and say, as much as possible.

Normalisation is a runaway principle. It is a dangerous one to allow. It has a tendency to run away with itself, and boomerang back on you. Normalisation is the argument which is run by the film censors, by those who want to police sexual expression, who are basically worried that this whole damn country is going to hell in a handbasket.

I don’t like ‘normalisation’ arguments.

What I do think, though, is that Bounty Killer should never have been afforded the privilege of coming to this country, because he is a disgusting man. It is also an outrage that the police have, effectively, encouraged you to engage in conduct that would constitute a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act, or worse, in order to cover for their own embarrassment. What a dismal state of affairs.

Well of course there are arguments that all speech should be free.

This is not a view held by the police and the CPS who are committed to preventing hate remarks made against people on account of their colour, and on account of their religion - the latter in selected instances only (- chiefly where the remarks are directed against Muslims and Scientologists). They seem to have no interest at all in preventing hate remarks against gays. That is because they are frightened of provoking Muslim violence and have been cosied up to by the Scientologists. So there are your options gays, threaten violence or get into bed (metaphorically speaking) with the Bill.

“The police say that unless there are threats of violent protests they will not cancel the concert.”

Translation: We, the police, are fully prepared to watch you throw petrol bombs at eachother, as long as you don’t throw any at us.

Their duty is to preserve the peace, and public order. Since when did they get to pick and choose like this? They don’t get to make the law, or define the priorities of British society.

When the police start using sectors of the public as attack dogs, to persecute other sectors of the public, we are in deep trouble, and they have turned into something revolting. And in doing so, they have turned unmitigated England, into the wild west.

This creep is being allowed in to strutt his stuff, and incite violence, against British people who happen to be homosexual. And the Met are letting him do it. They would never allow Fred Phelps to do the same thing.

The only material difference between them is colour.

It does seem that the Police are inviting violent protests, for what reasons are anybody’s guess.

Is it possible that the authorities are allowing Bounty Man into Britain, which I agree they should not because he incites violence, because he is black and the authorities are more afraid of a race riot by his fans than they are of protests, whether non-violent or even violent, by gays. Do you think Bounty Man would be allowed into Britain if he were white with fans who were mostly white?

Yes, would Fred Phelps be allowed into Britain?

It’s simple either ban him or let him perform then arrest and charge him if he incites violence against a minority.

I prefer the idea of banning him because it gives gays the respect that other minorities automatically get and it stops him from being turned into a martyr for the homophobes.

As has already been said there is no way that someone who said “Kill the niggers” “Gas the Yids” or “Murder the ragheads” would be allowed in.

I suspect that anyone inciting violence against blacks or Muslims would be confronted by a tooled up mob from those communities and those mobs would be backed up by the anti imperialist left.

Something tells me that Jewish mobs wouldn’t get tooled up and confront their would be murderers and neither will the gays. Also I fear that this is not a serious issue for the anti imperialist left, they have Israel and America to deal with. They have their hands full and it would also mean criticising people with brown skin and that just wont do.

This is why the authorities are getting this so wrong they fear banning this homophobic nutter for fear of being branded racist and they are pretty sure that gays wont form a hardcore mob of tooled up nutters.

Of course we live in a multi cultural society, antisemitism and homophobia are just cultural and should be respected. This situation stinks, I fear that the Mets policy will create a confrontation and the confrontation will not end well.

The people who listen to this kind of music will be itching to have a confrontation and they will be carrying weapons the gays will only be packing the moral high ground. The police will be to afraid to be tough with the Bounty Killer fans for fear of being branded racist.

This is fucked up and I blame it on a fundamentalist version of multiculturalism that has swept the UK over the past 20 years.

Rant over

There is certainly an argument that, only if you threaten to bomb and riot, will you get the state to pay attention to you.

I don’t want to live in a country where that’s the way things work.

Criminalising speech is something that you should be very very very restrained about doing

Mealy-mouthed nonsense and staggering hypocrisy. Would you or would you not ban a meeting at which people call openly for Jews to be murdered? What about Gypsies? What about Pakistanis? What about gays?

There is no way a figure who is notorious for ranting ”Kill the Niggers!” or “Gas the Kikes!” or “Slaughter these Muslim Dogs!” would be allowed a visa to appear in the UK.

That’s really the crux of it. Gays and lesbians just can’t obtain the same degree of respect, tolerance AND security guarantees afforded to other minority groups.

What, if anything, are black community leaders doing to oppose such homophobic incitements to murder? These same Black community leaders that have spend years pleading for, and obtaining, the sympathy and support of gays and lesbians for various anti-racism initiatives. Why the glaring lack of reciprocity?

Depressing.

anoymoose, you were simply stating the sad truth - that’s not a rant.
Do remember, though, that Jews as a group are no longer passively acquiescing to their victimisation (although British Jewry has, on the whole, been shamefully timorous and passive in recent years). Self-defence has been gaining support, slowly but surely.

John - groups that have suffered from discrimination are not necessarily non-racist (etc) themselves …

I don’t see that there is a material difference between race and sexual orientation in this instance. What do you think the difference is?

Here is hoping that this article answers your questions.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_race_comparison.html

[……..]

Race and Sexual Orientation:
Commonalities, Comparisons, and Contrasts Relevant to Military Policy

During recent debates on U.S. military policies concerning homosexual personnel, it has often been suggested that the armed forces might benefit from examining the similarities and differences between the challenges encountered in the course of racial integration and those that might be expected if gay men and lesbians were to be allowed to serve openly. The following section identifies the principal similarities and dissimilarities between the situations of racial integration and sexual orientation integration in the military setting.
While considering the material presented below, the reader should remain mindful that race and sexual orientation are independent categories. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals belong to all races and ethnic groups. Nevertheless, many heterosexual Americans associate homosexuality primarily with Whites (Herek & Capitanio, 1995). Consequently, attitudes toward homosexuality among some members of racial minority groups may be closely related to their attitudes toward Whites.

[……]
Despite the parallels, it should be recognized that important differences also exist between race and sexual orientation as minority group statuses. Three such differences will be particularly relevant to any future attempts to generalize from race-relations research to the effects of a new sexual orientation policy.
In most social situations, race is a readily visible attribute whereas sexual orientation can be concealed. In a routine social interaction, a White person can usually recognize an African American’s race from the outset. Consequently, the White person is likely to think about the Black person mainly in terms of the latter’s racial group, and to respond to that individual in terms of the group categorization. In contrast, homosexuality is usually concealable. In a routine social interaction with a gay person, a heterosexual usually remains unaware of the other person’s sexual orientation. Consequently, the heterosexual person’s initial perceptions of and feelings toward the gay individual are based on factors apart from the latter’s sexual orientation. When the heterosexual eventually becomes aware of the gay person’s sexual orientation, her or his positive experiences with the latter may foster individuation and personalization of gay people, thereby reducing her or his prejudice against gay people as a group.
In the United States, race is more strongly linked to socioeconomic status than is sexual orientation. Unlike race and ethnicity, sexual orientation transcends social class and economic status. Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and heterosexuals appear to be distributed throughout society’s strata, although anti-gay discrimination appears to affect occupational distributions and income levels for lesbians and gay men. This difference offers possible advantages for implementing a new policy concerning sexual orientation. Because gay and heterosexual personnel have a greater likelihood of sharing class and economic backgrounds, they may also share many common values unrelated to sexual orientation. Such commonalities can form the basis for reduced prejudice on the part of heterosexuals.
Openly gay personnel are unlikely ever to constitute a substantial proportion of the military. A final important difference concerns the relative proportion of military personnel who are members of a racial minority and those who are openly gay. Since the military’s intensive integration efforts began in the 1960s, members of racial minorities — especially African Americans — have constituted a substantial proportion of military personnel. The proportion of openly gay personnel is likely to remain small, however, even if current restrictions are eliminated.
Although the stigma attached to homosexuality in the United States interferes with attempts to assess its prevalence, most research with probability samples suggests that at least 3-6% of the male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females. Based on this estimate, only a small number of military units would have an openly homosexual member, even in the aftermath of a dramatic policy liberalization. Furthermore, the experience of domestic paramilitary organizations (such as fire and police departments) and foreign military organizations suggest that relatively few homosexual personnel will disclose their sexual orientation publicly.
Indeed, based on research by the RAND Corporation concerning domestic paramilitary organizations, Professor Robert MacCoun(1996) estimated that fewer than 6% of 40-person platoons and fewer than 1% of 5-person crews and teams would be expected to have an open homosexual in the wake of a policy change. Furthermore, he noted that even fewer units would have an open homosexual if the presence of open homosexuals were to be clustered rather than randomly distributed.
An important consequence of the relatively small number of openly gay military personnel is that the DOD will be able to focus largely on heterosexuals’ attitudes in implementing a new policy. In contrast to the need to address racial attitudes of White and Black personnel alike, which the military confronted in the 1970s, so few openly gay personnel will serve that polarization comparable to what was observed between the races in the 1960s and 1970s is unlikely to occur. At the same time, the small number of openly gay personnel will mean that many heterosexuals’ attitudes and beliefs are unlikely to be informed by direct interactions with a gay or lesbian coworker.

Like I intimidated earlier, perhaps you need to ask yourself how come the Black LGBT aren’t joining your campaign.

Well I have asked myself, and after some deliberation can only conclude that the black LGBTs, in a instance of bigoted, chauvinistic sentiment, have decided that race trumps sexual orientation, and have therefore closed ranks with Far Right artists with whom they happen to share a similar skin colour.

Shame on them.

One wonders, does the BNP have an equivalent gay group?

“Here is hoping that this article answers your questions.”

I think that’s irrelevant crap as far as what I think you’re trying to say: that race is important and sexual orientation is trivial. And all this based on a heterocentric study designed to justify the policy of an institution that bans openly gay personnel.

that race is important and sexual orientation is trivial.
You couldn’t be more wrong, my friend!

“You couldn’t be more wrong, my friend!”

Then why don’t you just say what you mean and I won’t have to keep guessing.

There is no way a figure who is notorious for ranting ”Kill the Niggers!” or “Gas the Kikes!” or “Slaughter these Muslim Dogs!” would be allowed a visa to appear in the UK.

Try a Blood and Honour gig

There is of course a difference between sexuality and race.

In the case of sexuality, people may or may not disagree with conduct, whereas in race, the negativity is directed at the person and not his actions. Of course there is often no distinction, as people hate homosexuals for who they are irrespective of what they do.

But in this case I don’t think there is any substantive difference. This “artist” is promoting the murder of people, people who deserve to be protected as much as any law abiding group in society.

The UK does not have to give a platform to this performer, and should, by preventing him from performing in the UK, demonstrate, that Homosexuals are respected members of our society.

DavidT, Bounty Killer may, nominally, be a singer, but it isn’t just his song material that urges the listener to kill gays; it’s clear from the clips we’ve seen that he likes to punctuate his gigs with filthy anti-gay monologues. The response of at least a some in the crowd is to cheer their approval. I don’t see why it should make a difference whether the inciter is at the pulpit or standing on a stage.

If an incitement to violence law cannot be used against someone in a position of influence who, before a large crowd of followers, extols the virtue of the murder of minorities, then can we please stop pretending we have a law that makes any sense and just get rid of it?

Rastalion is fundamentally right there is a big difference between a racial group and sexual orientation but the comparison used here is still legitimate because it refers similarity of the bigotry, hate and violence directed at both groups not the groups themselves.

The black community and the gay community are not comparable in many ways. The black community consists of one race the gay community is multicultural. The gay community can disguise their sexual orientation the black community cannot disguise their skin colour. The gay community is traditionally liberal, the black community is traditionally religious and conservative.

So Rastalion is right on many fronts but as I said the comparison is still legitimate because the hate directed at both groups springs from the same well of fear, intolerance, mob mentality, ignorance and a god given sense of superiority.

The same urge feeds “Gas the Yids” that feeds “Kill dem burdclaat batty bwoay”

Whether it’s the BNP or Jamaican thugs they think they are intrinsically better than the groups they persecute and they enjoy hate cruelty and violence.

Where the differences arise between hate groups is that the BNP are not tolerated and have minor support they are weak but Jamaican thugs are tolerated, supported, confident and strong.

Also racist ideology has for the most part been thoroughly discredited but homophobia still has credibility and respectability.

Whether it is in the halls of the Vatican and in the pages of the Bible or on the streets of Tehran and in the pages of the Koran there are pillars of the community who deep down still see homosexuality as an abomination against god and the natural order.

Racism is ignorance, homophobia is cultural and religious and we all now how culture and religion has been elevated over the past 8 years.

Multiculturalism sigh!!!!

Then why don’t you just say what you mean and I won’t have to keep guessing.

But then, you would not have anything else to rant about.

Whether it’s the BNP or Jamaican thugs they think they are intrinsically better than the groups they persecute and they enjoy hate cruelty and violence.
At last… someone sensible enough to see the clear distinction between a section of Jamaican society and the ‘Negro’ collective. LOL

Some of you guys are truly comical!

“At last… someone sensible enough to see the clear distinction between a section of Jamaican society and the ‘Negro’ collective. LOL”

A distinction that was not made… in your imagination.

I understand where your coming from Rastalion but I think your being a bit precious. This thread is not about the difference between race and sexual orientation but about bigotry and violence and the way the authorities deal with it for different communities. The communities that react violently are protected and the ones that don’t are not.

I haven’t seen anyone say that there is no difference between race and sexual orientation so you seem to be arguing against a non existent opponent.

I might be wrong but the only reason I can see for your chagrin is that you take offence at having your ethnicity compared to homosexuality.

Your posts seem to be less about the topic at hand and more about some sort of perceived slight. Why would the comparison between ethnic minorities and the gay community upset you?

I might be wrong but the only reason I can see for your chagrin is that you take offence at having your ethnicity compared to homosexuality.

And what ethnicity might that be then Luke?

How did I know you where going to play that card.

I must be psychic.

I don’t know what ethnicity you are this is the internet, I can’t see you but you go by the name of ‘Rasta’ and your posts show a hypersensitivity at ethnicity being compared to homosexuality.

I’m just making an educated guess. It’s the only thing that makes your posts logical.

I know your next post will be to say I’m wrong, as I said I’m psychic.

If I am wrong then your attitude really is rather strange. I understand making the point that there is a difference between sexual orientation and race but you seem to have taken the comparison personally.

As has already been said the comparison relates to the violence and bigotry that each community faces nothing more than that. Get over it matey.

Are you a comic by any chance?

Are you a closet homophobic by any chance?

Newham Recorder, Weds 26 November 2008, page 3:

“Bounty Killer performed a concert at Stratford Rex on Saturday without any incidents.

It is understood he had given an undertaking to police not to perform any of his more controversial songs. ”

I await a post from Peter Tatchell, telling the world why he thinks this is a failure rather than a step forward.