Stephen Fry: Out There

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Karafan
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 786

    #16
    Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
    It was a surprising omission when he was discussing the promotion of homosexuality that he did not mention Section 28 which was just as irrational and was immensely damaging . Teachers were afraid of challenging homophobia and homophobic bullying in schools as a direct result even though it did not technically apply to schools .
    "Let me have my own way in exactly everything, and a sunnier and more pleasant creature does not exist." Thomas Carlyle

    Comment

    • jayne lee wilson
      Banned
      • Jul 2011
      • 10711

      #17
      Part two of Out There was - bleak and terrifying, compassionate and wise. Politicians like Bolsaro and Millinev have a lot of power, the kind of power (revealing its bearers' own insecurity and shallowness) that can influence many of those (weak-minded, easily led, needing a "cause" to belong to) looking for an excuse to exercise violence against anyone different or vulnerable, but most especially sexually minority groups. Hence Section 28 and its Contemporary Russian resurrection.

      Anyone visiting this thread to skit and sneer should watch those interviews in Brazil and Russia (the aggressive irrationality and ignorance, the narrow closed faces, of both Bolsaro and Millinev was truly shocking) and see just what appalling people they are aligning themselves with. And absorb the tragedies we heard about, the suffering human hearts and bodies "behind the statistics"... And ask themselves serious questions about their own motives.

      Great TV, and Fry was magnificent - despite a forgivable tendency to get after his homophobic interviewees a little too early in their discussion.
      (They may have been over-edited).
      Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 17-10-13, 03:57.

      Comment

      • Mary Chambers
        Full Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 1963

        #18
        The Brazilian and Russian were very shocking. In fact they both seemed raving mad to me. I suppose we do need to know that people with such attitudes exist, and are in positions of power.

        Like Jayne, I wondered about the editing. I'd have expected Fry to use more rational argument, but perhaps he had tried that and it simply didn't work with such prejudiced people. He seemed to resort to either incredulous laughter or exasperation rather too much.

        Comment

        • aeolium
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 3992

          #19
          I only saw the second programme and it was certainly disturbing. I think Fry might have done a bit more to explore the origins and causes of the homophobia in the different countries, and especially the influence of religion on attitudes (though I recall he did mention evangelical Christianity as a baleful influence in the section on Brazil). The re-emergence of officially sanctioned homophobia in Russia for instance seems to have a fair amount to do with the renascence of the Orthodox church there, and the mutually supportive alliance between Putin and the church, as indicated in this article for instance. And whereas the various strains of Christianity and Islam have been historically hostile to homosexuality, Hinduism is much more ambivalent, with gender-swapping deities and the idea of the third gender. Perhaps this is a factor in the greater tolerance in India compared with some of the countries featured.

          Comment

          • VodkaDilc

            #20
            Both episodes were extremely well-made and full of eye-opening details - ranging from depressing (in Uganda, for example) to inspiring (most of the Indian filming). I had 'gone off' Stephen Fry in recent years, associating him with smart-aleccy BBC2 panel games - but he's back in favour in the Vodka household now. An interesting discussion of the programmes between SF and Richard Bacon on R5 yesterday too.

            And I was not too surprised to find the link on the Telegraph website (new ground for me!) was less than enthusiastic.

            Comment

            • Serial_Apologist
              Full Member
              • Dec 2010
              • 36861

              #21
              Originally posted by aeolium View Post
              I only saw the second programme and it was certainly disturbing. I think Fry might have done a bit more to explore the origins and causes of the homophobia in the different countries, and especially the influence of religion on attitudes (though I recall he did mention evangelical Christianity as a baleful influence in the section on Brazil). The re-emergence of officially sanctioned homophobia in Russia for instance seems to have a fair amount to do with the renascence of the Orthodox church there, and the mutually supportive alliance between Putin and the church, as indicated in this article for instance. And whereas the various strains of Christianity and Islam have been historically hostile to homosexuality, Hinduism is much more ambivalent, with gender-swapping deities and the idea of the third gender. Perhaps this is a factor in the greater tolerance in India compared with some of the countries featured.
              Fry pointed out that puritanism in India was a British import.

              Comment

              • jean
                Late member
                • Nov 2010
                • 7100

                #22
                As he did in the first programme when he directly related Ugandan homophobia to the activities of C19 Christian missionaries.

                Comment

                • Ferretfancy
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 3487

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
                  It was a surprising omission when he was discussing the promotion of homosexuality that he did not mention Section 28 which was just as irrational and was immensely damaging . Teachers were afraid of challenging homophobia and homophobic bullying in schools as a direct result even though it did not technically apply to schools .
                  Not quite right, I think, Barbirollians. It did apply to schools under local authority control, but not to independent schools. Section 28 was an added amendment to a Local Government Act forming part of Mrs T's war on local councils who she believed were full of left wing agitators and gay proselytisers. The further away we are from her in time, the barmier she seems ( If that's possible to imagine ! )

                  Comment

                  • Stephen Whitaker

                    #24
                    Originally posted by Ferretfancy View Post
                    Not quite right, I think, Barbirollians. It did apply to schools under local authority control, but not to independent schools. Section 28 was an added amendment to a Local Government Act forming part of Mrs T's war on local councils who she believed were full of left wing agitators and gay proselytisers. The further away we are from her in time, the barmier she seems ( If that's possible to imagine ! )
                    It is remarkable that despite her antipathy to gay proselytisers she had no problem with Peter Morrison
                    my local MP, who was an idle, drunk, louche character with a notorious taste for boys, which I had the misfortune to observe first-hand.
                    Such misjudgement caused her to place her leadership campaign in his hands and his failure lead to her leaving No 10.
                    I think her preference for the likes of Morrison over just about any Tory woman ministerial candidate is the ultimate indictment of her "common sense".

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X