Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Richard Barrett]

Again, wholly inaccurate wording. I never at any time claimed that the 'grey areas' were not 'really all that important'.

So much for "everything that has been said on this subject has been said over and over again"...

The point about the grey areas is NOT that the courts would have trouble interpreting them, but that ordinary people who are afraid their activities might be interpreted as falling into those areas will err on the side of extreme caution, so that the definition of "promotion" effectively becomes much wider and more repressive. This is indeed what happened with teachers under Section 28, and I think this is the point Jean was making, and which you're missing, possibly knowingly.

[ahinton]

I acknowledged that 'grey areas' were bound to exist and the Russian courts would no doubt be busy in the future. There are always 'grey areas' in law and I'm sure the new Russian laws will be no exception. If proposed laws were scrubbed because of possible 'grey areas' we (and the Russians) would probably end up with no laws at all. It is up to judges in courts in Russia to interpret the laws. Their laws are a matter for them, not us, however daft and unworkable they might appear to some in West with obvious axes to grind, and who detest the new Russian laws in any case.

Whilst the first part of this may well be true in and of itself, the remainder misses the point, since it is not the workability of the proposed laws that is at issue here for those who deplore them but their sheer inhumanity; please take the time to read Richard Barrett's post #283 which puts this into proper perspective as well as it possibly could be. This has nothing to do with "some in West with obvious axes to grind", especially (as you suggest) about the perceived unworkability of these laws, since their mere practical effectiveness or otherwise is unlikely to be of direct concern any non-Russian living outside Russia until and unless a visitor there gets arrested, charged and tried under them. Detesting those proposed laws, however, is quite another matter and those who don't would appear to care little for those who would become subject to them and possibly victims of them; as Richard and others have noted, this is not merely a "Russian" issue, since homosexuality can by definition have no geographical boundaries.

[jean]

The point about the grey areas is NOT that the courts would have trouble interpreting them, but that ordinary people who are afraid their activities might be interpreted as falling into those areas will err on the side of extreme caution, so that the definition of "promotion" effectively becomes much wider and more repressive. This is indeed what happened with teachers under Section 28, and I think this is the point Jean was making...

It was, and I think I made it quite clearly over a number of posts!

But what scotty tends to do, knowingly or unknowingly, is to ignore anything that might disturb his comfortable world-view (which I paraphrase, from my understanding of his posts, as no-one will suffer much as a result of this and similar legislation)

Thus, when I point out that the 'grey area' in this case, unlike most other examples of legislation one could think of, covers most of the available space thus encouraging extreme caution (as Richard puts it) scotty ignores the point completely.

This leads me to conclude that he does not really think the fact very important; hence my paraphrase of his views.

[scottycelt]

So much for "everything that has been said on this subject has been said over and over again"...

The point about the grey areas is NOT that the courts would have trouble interpreting them, but that ordinary people who are afraid their activities might be interpreted as falling into those areas will err on the side of extreme caution, so that the definition of "promotion" effectively becomes much wider and more repressive. This is indeed what happened with teachers under Section 28, and I think this is the point Jean was making, and which you're missing, possibly knowingly.

I don't really see the purpose of your first sentence, apart from an obviously sneering tone being transmitted.

If something that has been attributed to myself is false (again) I'm surely entitled to respond. Again no retraction has been offered. Indeed the error has been compounded by another, er, 'paraphrase' of something I never posted! I can only draw the obvious conclusion.

Regarding 'repression', if anyone is deemed to have broken a law and found guilty by a proper court well so be it. I don't see anything wrong with people erring on the side of caution to avoid breaking that same law, if at all possible. I would call that thoroughly sensible! We all know, of course, that there will be those who deliberately break a law in order to make a socio-political point, don't we, Richard?

Russia is not the UK. Section 28 was a long time ago now and introduced into the early years of a fast-changing 'liberalising' culture. The majority of Russians clearly do not think like you on this issue. Whether the Russians are right and wrong it is their country and for them to decide these issues, not you or me. They live in an more traditional culture and it appears they don't want to change to the culture of the West. They would not agree with you that homosexuality should be considered on an equal par with heterosexuality in law and simply want to ensure that it does not. So your 'basic rights' are not quite the same as theirs, you see. And forms of 'repression' and denial of 'basic rights' might even occur in good ol' liberal UK with our own new laws on gays ... in the other direction, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-marriage.html (Needless to say it's not a link from the Guardian)

So who knows where all this might lead, in the UK as well as Russia, and the simple truth is that none of us really knows.

Okay, that's finally it from me on this thread ... honestly! :smiley:

[amateur51]

Okay, that's finally it from me on this thread ... honestly! :smiley:

I wish I could believe that - perhaps I'll just pop over the The Tablet's website to find some distracting item there to encourage him.

[jean]

Scotty, when I wrote of

...that huge grey area that scotty recognises, but doesn't think is really all that important.

you replied with

...wholly inaccurate wording. I never at any time claimed that the 'grey areas' were not 'really all that important'.

Yet now you write:

...if anyone is deemed to have broken a law and found guilty by a proper court well so be it...

What am I to think?

[ahinton]

If something that has been attributed to myself is false (again) I'm surely entitled to respond. Again no retraction has been offered. Indeed the error has been compounded by another, er, 'paraphrase' of something I never posted! I can only draw the obvious conclusion.

Of course you are so entitled but, in this case, you have not been misattributed and more than you had been my me earlier in this thread!

Regarding 'repression', if anyone is deemed to have broken a law and found guilty by a proper court well so be it. I don't see anything wrong with people erring on the side of caution to avoid breaking that same law, if at all possible. I would call that thoroughly sensible! We all know, of course, that there will be those who deliberately break a law in order to make a socio-political point

What's this got to do with a meaningful response to the matter of "repression". We're not discussing the effective policing of a law here but whether or not it is good law; it is not good law because it is repressive to those against whom it discriminates - and that is not merely my opinion, it is a fact in the sense that the very purpose of such a law would be to repress.

Russia is not the UK. Section 28 was a long time ago now and introduced into the early years of a fast-changing 'liberalising' culture. The majority of Russians clearly do not think like you on this issue. Whether the Russians are right and wrong it is their country and for them to decide these issues, not you or me. They live in an more traditional culture and it appears they don't want to change to the culture of the West. They would not agree with you that homosexuality should be considered on an equal par with heterosexuality in law and simply want to ensure that it does not. So your 'basic rights' are not quite the same as theirs, you see. And forms of 'repression' and denial of 'basic rights' might even occur in good ol' liberal UK with our own new laws on gays ... in the other direction, of course.

Whilst some of what you write here might not necessarily be incorrect in principle, it once again misses the point. Where it departs from reality is that - as it seems necessary to point out yet again! - some things for which laws may be devised are above national boundaries and the equal treatment of human beings is one of the most important of these. You cite, yet again, "the majority of Russians" - let's for the time being interpret that as, say, around 80% of its adult population, as some would claim to be an appropriate figure in accordance with the as yet unclear survey findings (unclear in the sense that we can be certain neither of the accuracy with which data collected in the polling exercise concerned was recorded, collated, analysed and published nor of who paid for it nor of the specific nature of the questions asked in it nor the precise number and location of people polled and how many of those asked to participate in it agreed to do so); as has again already been pointed out, results of a random poll of probably not more than a few hundred or a few thousand people that almost certainly did not come from all over that massive country are not and cannot be any realitic indicator of the thoughts and feelings of the "majority" of the Russian populace. What do you suppose might have resulted from a poll in which the same Russians were instead asked whether or not they would like to be entitled to enjoy broadly the same legal freedoms as are typical of most Western nations?

So who knows where all this might lead, in the UK as well as Russia, and the simple truth is that none of us really knows.

Who knows indeed? - but, in the meantime, it might be good if a few more of us were prepared to know where it is now!

[Mr Pee]

Oh I see that you recognise your behaviour as that of a bigot, Mr Pee - how refreshing.

Thanks for yet another considered post that does, however, neatly prove the point I was making.

Perhaps I should fall back on your favoured activity and quote the house rules at you, but there doesn't seem much point since you evidently know them backwards; just a shame you don't practice what you preach occasionally.

[amateur51]

Thanks for yet another considered post that does, however, neatly prove the point I was making.

Perhaps I should fall back on your favoured activity and quote the house rules at you, but there doesn't seem much point since you evidently know them backwards; just a shame you don't practice what you preach occasionally.

You fall back on whatever you like, dearie.

[Bryn]

You fall back on whatever you like, dearie.

I wonder if Hancock ever found that last page?

[amateur51]

I wonder if Hancock ever found that last page?

Brilliant!

[Stillhomewardbound]

You fall back on whatever you like, dearie.

Seconded.

[Mr Pee]

Brilliant!

You're easily pleased.

[amateur51]

You're easily pleased.

You don't get it do you Mr Pee?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, stone me what a life :winkeye:

[ahinton]

You don't get it do you Mr Pee?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, stone me what a life :winkeye:

Stone wall, surely?

But no, it does indeed appear that Mr Pee doesn't get it (and/or doesn't want to).