DUP members defend Iris' right to express her homophobia

Two leading members of the Democratic Unionist Party have come out in defence of their colleague Iris Robinson.

Mrs Robinson, the MP for Strangford, was at the centre of a new controversy yesterday when the Belfast Telegraph revealed she had likened child abuse to homosexuality during a Commons committee proceeding.

Sammy Wilson, an MP and Northern Ireland's environment minister, said on the BBC this morning that his colleague is being harassed by the media and is entitled to express her views.

"We believe Christian values should be upheld in our society," he said.

Gregory Campbell MP also claimed the media is picking on Mrs Robinson.

"Whatever you say about the gay rights camp, they do have rights and they are protected in law," he told the Londonderry Sentinel.

"I and my colleagues are in favour of upholding the law. Homosexuals have rights and so do heterosexuals.

"One of our rights is to say that they are wrong. I view that as an inalienable right.

[Ziggy on High]

We hear the same tripe from religious fundie nutbags here in the States. And, to me, it always begs the question - when does supposed protected speech cross that line and become illegally slanderous and libelous? Those 2 things are NOT protected as free speech.

How do we prove that these terrible things said about us are in fact lies that hurt, degrade, and otherwise create palpable undue hardship? I don't believe anyone has ever tried that route in a court of law. It would be interesting and definitely tread new ground in the ongoing battle between what is right and what is fundie tripe.

What do you all think?

[elaygee]

I agree. Christofacists think they can say anything because its their religious belief. Their horrendous bible book of horrors promotes slavery, genocide and countless other horrible things. Can they hold slaves because their magic book say so? I think not.

[Ralph]

Ziggy on High wrote:

We hear the same tripe from religious fundie nutbags here in the States. And, to me, it always begs the question - when does supposed protected speech cross that line and become illegally slanderous and libelous? Those 2 things are NOT protected as free speech.
How do we prove that these terrible things said about us are in fact lies that hurt, degrade, and otherwise create palpable undue hardship? I don't believe anyone has ever tried that route in a court of law. It would be interesting and definitely tread new ground in the ongoing battle between what is right and what is fundie tripe.
What do you all think?

Ziggy, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think it would probably be a tough row to hoe, though. No matter what they say, they can claim that they were taught that child-molesters and gays are the same thing, and then you come up against religious freedom. Never mind that all the professional organizations say otherwise. It is what they are taught in church to believe that would count. Unless you can get them to admit that they knew of and believed in the research, you would be dead in the water. That is not to say, though, that I wouldn't want someone to try it in court.

[devons]

I think she should have her say.....as long as others can say that studies show that pedophile is more likely to be a white heterosexual male church goer who is related to the victim. In that way people will be made aware of who they should be more leery of and people won't tend to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia.

[fuzi]

"Christian values" is simply code for "lies and bigotry".

[Rocco]

This is bad news for gay people in a European context.

In the USA, this would not be a debate. There is a fundamental right to freedom of speech, and unless your speech is something like "Attack that guy!" in reference to a specific person, you have the right to say it.

Not so in Europe. They are less democratic. You would be surprised at the wide range of opinions that it is forbidden to express. For example anything denigrating any religion, even if it is factually accurate.

Because so many opinions are illegal in Europe, allowing homophobic speech means less respect is given to gays than to, say, Muslims or Catholics (which are political systems, not groups of people who share a biological characteristic)

[dee]

well, i wonder if it occurs to the 'straight' do righters that ppl like me think they are wrong. if feels wrong to me to be with the opposite sex and i definitely don't like to view public displays of affection between them so am i right in saying it sickens me to see love scenes in movies, etc??? they just believe they are coming from a self-rightous position and they are better than gays simply by virtue of being straight. yeah, have your bigoted beliefs cloaked in rightousness, hope it comforts you. i see right thru u, hypocrite, pseudo-christian, right-wing nuts or whatever my opinion might be. don't believe for a minute that you are better than gays. get off your high horse.

[Ralph]

Rocco wrote:

This is bad news for gay people in a European context.
In the USA, this would not be a debate. There is a fundamental right to freedom of speech, and unless your speech is something like "Attack that guy!" in reference to a specific person, you have the right to say it.
Not so in Europe. They are less democratic. You would be surprised at the wide range of opinions that it is forbidden to express. For example anything denigrating any religion, even if it is factually accurate.
Because so many opinions are illegal in Europe, allowing homophobic speech means less respect is given to gays than to, say, Muslims or Catholics (which are political systems, not groups of people who share a biological characteristic)

Rocco, don't you have a similar problem in Canada? I think I read in the newspaper recently that you have what amounts to a Speech Tribunal, and that there is no counter-balance to what they decide? And that sometimes they go overboard in their rulings?

[Rocco]

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
Rocco, don't you have a similar problem in Canada? I think I read in the newspaper recently that you have what amounts to a Speech Tribunal, and that there is no counter-balance to what they decide? And that sometimes they go overboard in their rulings?

Yes, this is a potentially serious problem in Canada as well. However, laws restricting free speech have not been applied as frequently as in Europe and many Canadians aren't even aware that such restrictions exist.