Thread: "I don't want to campaign around gays..."

I was just reading about the issue of homosexuality and UKIP, and the comments made by Frank Maloney. There are several versions of this which differ considerably. The BBC article appears to give the most complete account:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3666155.stm

Frank Maloney said he would not be campaigning in the borough of Camden because there are "too many gays".....But Mr Maloney defended his remarks: "I don't want to campaign around gays...I don't think they do a lot for society."

Obviously Mr Maloney has a right to say whatever he wishes, otherwise our dedication to free speech means nothing, but as my mother would say: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

Firstly, I am sure that Mr Maloney's views do not represent those of the party as a whole. This kind of comment simply gives more fuel to those who wish to label UKIP as a far-right, anti-muslim, anti-gay party. An example of the results appears in this forum.

Mr Maloney isn't a media virgin, so he must have been aware of the impact his comments would make, which of course suggests that they are deliberate. And if they are deliberate, who are they aimed at? And why did he want to alienate up to 10% of the electorate in just one comment?

On the other hand, the comments aren't particularly negative or hurtful. He is simply expressing his views, and perhaps we are just too sensitive to the slightest hint of anything that isn't politically correct.

There are a couple more articles that reference this issue in the Telegraph and Gay.com and Mr Maloney's own website features a complete copy of the BBC page, including the refrences to him as a dangerous extremist....

From the party's point of view, I suppose that his comments are damaging and unhelpful; offending minority groups is hardly a vote-winning strategy.

I am not convinced that there is any active promotion of homosexuality in society. I know that a lot of people feel that there is, but I don't see it. A lot of the disagreement is actually whether people believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait or a learned sexual preference. I can't see any conceivable way that I could ever become gay, nor do I believe that it is possible to convert people one way or the other. People are just born gay, so no amount of promotion is going to make any difference, in my opinion. Repression of homosexuality results in people leading miserable lives. Live and let live, I say.

Campness, on the other hand, I have never understood. Why some gay men feel the need to exaggerate and affect an unnatural 'flamboyance' is beyond me.

What worries me more is the promotion of the idea that under-age sex is completely normal and healthy. And that is being actively promoted through magazines, music, the soaps, schools and so on. My school was single sex up to the sixth form and sex was never entartained as a possibility, let alone a normal thing to do.

Children are being robbed of their innocence younger and younger; they now feel inadequate if they aren't sexually active at 16. Television has abandoned the watershed completely, and the video ratings system is a joke. I am certainly not a prude, but I wish that we could just let children be children.

As for Islam, I can't say that I have a strong feeling either way. What really matters is how people behave. Religion is just an excuse, not the cause, in my opinion. Violent people will be violent, desperate people will take desperate actions, idiots will be idiots; religion merely gives it some rational justification in their mind.

I think that we should also draw a big distinction between Islamic Fundamentalism and the more normal Islamic religion practiced by the vast majority of Muslims. 99% of muslims are completely normal people, with many just adhering to their religion because it is what their society or culture expects.

Islamic Fundamentalism is a cult, just like any other cult, that indoctrinates the vulnerable. Some people can be made to believe, and do, anything if they are manipulated carefully. It is a dangerous cult that needs to be eradicated, but not at the expense of victimising innocent muslims.

We don't claim that Christianity is an evil social disease just because the IRA pretends to be a catholic organisation. Islamic terrorists are not so very different from the IRA. First and foremost they are terrorists, and they do not represent Islam or muslims.

As you say, Islam isn't the nice religion that it is often made out to be, but then nor is Christianity if the Bible is taken literally. I can understand why some people try to defend it though; they are trying to counter the strong negative coverage that it receives from the media. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

As for Islam, now there is a subject that should be properly debated with the gloves off. The peaceful doctrine that is Islam is clear for all to see in Qu'ran Suras 2:178, or 4:89 or 9:123. Know the truth.

I agree with what Mr. Butcher wrote. It is not Islam that it is evil, but those that use Islam as a means to manipulate the poor and uneducated that are often first called to carry out the plans of the jihadists. As we in Western society know, when the people are poor and unhappy, oppressed by their government, they turn to religion. I do not believe that is in itself a bad thing, but it becomes dangerous when someone with a diseased ego is familiar with the Qur'an and uses his knowledge to convince others that such and such an act is God's will and will be repaid with paradise. The surahs cited can most definitely frighten a Westerner, but there also those that say it is a sin to shed the blood of women and children, to fight using a sneak attack, or even to kill animals in a manner that causes them fright. Mr. Butcher mentions the IRA. In the US, we had Timothy McVeigh, a Southern Baptist who blew up a federal building killing hundreds, even children who had daycare there. There was no villification of Southern Baptists as there has been of Muslims. Millions of Muslims live here and though I disagree with most of their politics, I can guarantee that 99% of them are harmless. Britons have nowhere near the chaotic relationship with the Arab world that my country has and if we can live with their religion being the fastest growing religion in the country, them providing our healthcare as doctors, and over a thousand in our Armed Forces, I am fairly certain that Britain will be able to find a way to live in harmony with your countrymen of Arab origin.

There is a problem in Britain that the issue of Islamic Fundalmentalism, and the violence that this often encourages, becomes blurred with other issues such as asylum, immigration and terrorism. The media often features stories that merge the issues, such as this one from the BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3685030.stm

Terrorists should not be allowed to hide behind asylum and refugee laws, the UK foreign secretary told the UN.

This kind of story leads to many people associating asylum seekers and immigrants with terrorism, which is just nonsense. It simply creates an atmosphere of fear, which in turn leads to mistrust of immigrants, thus encouraging the formation of immigrant communities, which just exacerbates the problem of immigrants not assimilating INTO phpbb_society.

He said Britain and Russia were working on a new Security Council Resolution to stop terrorists evading justice. The resolution is aimed at stopping those who commit, support or finance terrorist acts from "sheltering behind a refugee status", he told the assembly in New York. And it would look at allowing terrorists to be extradited more quickly.

What is missing from this story is any facts about how many "terrorists" have ever used refugee status to hide from extradition. Is this really a significant issue that requires a big announcement from the Foreign Secretary? Or is it just a PR stunt to allow him to appear to be doing something about terrorism?

There is no denying the unpleasant side of the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is not the entirety of Islamic religion. Many British Muslims, for instance, do not partake in any of the unpleasant activities that you listed because it is no longer part of their faith. They have changed Islam to suit their lifestyle and environment.

That is not to say that Islamic Fundamentalism is in any way acceptable to civilised society; all those aspects that you list are abhorrent to most of us. But it is a grey area; the more fundamentalist the interpretation of Islam, the more barbaric it is. Islamic Shari'a is an affront to our sensibilities. Yet we also need to accept that many Muslims reject the "evil" side of it and focus on the more positive aspects of Islam.

I think therefore it is somewhat unfair to label the whole of the Islamic faith as "evil" (by which I mean it is no longer acceptable to civilised society), since Islam takes many forms. I agree that the Fundamentalist Islam is indeed "evil", but there are also modern versions of the faith that are more in-tune with British society.

I agree that gay people are human, my dads old co-worker was a homosexual, But I think there is a difference between keeping your sexuality behind closed doors and flaunting it in a pro gay parade in an inner city centre. I would never see a homosexual beat up because of his sexuality, but some people would see it as provocation, if for instance a scantily clad gay pride marcher was to blow kisses at people passing by.

I agree that not all people of muslim faith are extreme, however we are leaving ourselves open to terrorist attacks if we let lots of assylum seekers of muslim faith INTO phpbb_the country who havent had a background check. Im not saying that just muslims pose a threat to our nation, im just saying the risk of a terrorist attack from islamic fundamentalists was drastically heightened when we offered to back the U.S in the war in Iraq.

I dont know a awful lot about the oklahoma bombing but I dont think Timothy McVeigh was part of a Baptist extreme group was he? If im correct I dont see how you can relate McVeigh to say osama bin laden. Im pretty sure it was political reasons coupled with that fact he wasnt mentally stable that Timothy McVeigh committed that crime, not because thousands of baptist followers had waged some kind of jihad on america, promising to kill the infidel.

I personally feel that the fact that nothing happens to open muslim extremist in this country such as abu hamza, makes it a lot worse of a country to live in that the average muslim.