³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

My view of this is that, firstly, Moir's article is badly written, secondly, the timing is cruelly insensitive, thirdly, the insinuations border on the defamatory, and fourthly, there is a complete lack of evidence to support her argument. And even if the evidence supported her view (which, as far as I can see, it does not) then a sober, mature and compassionate article could be written later to learn lessons from this tragic case.

Whatever one may think of the reaction against Jan Moir (see Damian Thompson's views in the Telegraph) it seems clear to me that either the Mail article was written to provoke this kind of reaction, or was written by someone (and her editor) so naive that one wonders how they function in the real world (I think that we can safely say that this latter hypothesis is a non-starter). If Jan Moir is so concerned to encourage young men not to pursue Stephen Gately's alleged lifestyle (note the word "alleged"), then she could not have done it in a more inept way. What saddens me is that there are those who would associate the moral indignation of Moir's article with so-called "religious" people - and particularly Christians (especially those who may not have the most liberal view of homosexuality). It's the kind of article which feeds a major division within our society, and obfuscates the nuances and complications of moral and lifestyle issues. I believe that the true Christian approach should be to get at the truth, to respect the grieving family and friends of the deceased, to not rush to judgment, to not exploit the situation for gain and to not meddle in other people's business - and this quite irrespective of any moral stance concerning homosexuality.

Some sections of the media have, in my view, become far too arrogant. There seems to be a presumption among some journalists that they can say what they like about people - that anyone is "fair game" (except them of course); they can speculate and exploit people's difficulties and suffering to bolster the ideological position of their paper, in order to "play to their gallery". This is nothing other than exploitation and abuse, and for this they should be held legally and morally responsible.

I remember not long ago that there was a murder in the town where I live (here in southern England), and the victim was from an ethnic minority. The case is currently at trial, and the full circumstances of the incident are not clear. However, shortly after the death of the victim, a certain tabloid paper (the semi-literate piece of uselessness that goes by the name of that bright object in the sky) sent some of their so-called "journalists" down from London to interview a few young people hanging around one evening outside a pub, and then managed to conclude from that "comprehensive social survey" that most of the young people in the town were eaten up with racial hatred. Another paper also used an old photo of a major building in the town in a state of disrepair, to show what a complete dump this town is - yet knowing full well that that building had been done up some years ago thanks to considerable regeneration (and the building looks absolutely wonderful now).

Frankly these papers should be held to account for their lies.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

William, why do you include all the one side links, and not include a link to Jan Moir’s original article. Are you bashing Jan Moir? in the same way that you think that she is bashing homosexuals. Biased journalism which is typical of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.

#4 - The Christian Hippy -

"Are you bashing Jan Moir? in the same way that you think that she is bashing homosexuals. Biased journalism which is typical of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳."

Erm... actually it was Jan Moir who started this. Try looking in her article for evidence that her claims about Stephen Gately's death are true. She even admits there is no evidence to support her theory: "All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances." I think that means... end of case (unless of course she has further evidence to offer the official investigators? No, I didn't think so...)

Here is the article:

It is not "biased journalism" to condemn an article attacking a person one day before his funeral, while his family and friends are grieving, and to do so without recourse to any evidence.

You may have taken the liberty to use the word "Christian" in your moniker, but you only speak for yourself and not for others who identify with that word.

Right, let's try again...

#4 - The Christian Hippy -

"Are you bashing Jan Moir? in the same way that you think that she is bashing homosexuals. Biased journalism which is typical of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳."

Erm... actually it was Jan Moir who started this. Try looking in her article for evidence that her claims about Stephen Gately's death are true. She even admits there is no evidence to support her theory, by stating that the official verdict is a natural death with no suspicious circumstances. I think that means... end of case (unless of course she has further evidence to offer the official investigators? No, I didn't think so...)

(I did include a link to the article, but daren't do so, in case I'm moderated again).

It is not "biased journalism" to condemn an article attacking a person (without evidence) one day before his funeral, while his family and friends are grieving.

If I am not allowed to enter into a discussion about this subject with other contributors, when I have taken out of my last message all that I can see that could possibly be worthy of moderation, then I would like to know why William has started this thread.

I am completely mystified by the moderation policy in place at the moment.

"Amid the furore, Stephen Gately was buried in Dublin today."

That, perhaps, says it all.

Is there no longer any such thing as respectful distance?

The problem I have with these type of situations is that one crowd take advantage of someone's death to push their agenda and then because there is a death the other side aren't supposed to say anything about anything because it would be disrespectful. I know nothing about the manner of this man's death, but I would tend to be suspicious when people make announcements before autopsies are complete.

But what gets my goat most is this constant reference in the press to his "husband". He didn't have a husband and whether he's dead or alive, whether the family are grieving, whether his partner is upset - he didn't have a husband and the press should not be pushing that agenda. It makes as much sense to call him his "wife" as husband when you're parodying a marriage.

And why o why are we again getting eulogies at funerals when they are clearly, clearly forbidden.

That said, may God have mercy on him and God bless his family and friends who obviously loved him a lot.

Even if matching tattoos are a bit tacky.

MCC

When you are at Mass this morning ask the Lord to help you with things that 'get on your goat.'

Everyone of us is entitled to a view. And the beauty of our lives in the UK is that it is allowed to be different from the majority OR minority. The press should NEVER have to write what people EXPECT them to write. Not in this country. Its why my Grandparents fought a war. The freedom to express ourselves without fear of retribution. Why persecute someone for their views when you are complaining about being persecuted for yours?

What is most worrying is that there is only one 'acceptable' view to hold in this 'debate'. Even Will opened up with the description of "insensitive and unpleasant musings", so that he could join in the debate.

What a farce!

The intolerance of the 'tolerant'. The similarity of the 'diverse'.

Unless you condemn her words unequivocally, it appears you may not enter the 'debate'

I would not be suprised if my comment were moderated.

Will-

I apologise for the fact I suggested you simply labelled her comments as 'insensitive and unpleasant' just to join in the so-called debate: that was unfair and incorrect. If that is your view, that is your view. I was just suprised that the opinion had been given before actually providing the offending comment - but I see you have now posted a link.

I suppose I am disturbed that this has caused a storm of such moral outrage and that in many public quarters (like the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳), nobody seems to have given her comments a dispassionate discussion before dismissing out of hand what she has said.

My biggest worry is that it seems to have created a culture where people may not feel they can state their views because of such moral outrage.

I generally believe in this: If what she said is completely wrong, gay-bashing and unfounded, then should her comments not be left to peter-out without much further ado? However because there has been such furor and emotion expressed at her comments it leads me to believe actually there is something to discuss in what she says despite many strong feelings.

Tolerance means 'putting up with something'. Society can't tolerate something it doesn't mind. So what I am saying is, if we are a tolerant society then shouldn't tolerance be actively applied to the debate on both sides, whatever ones views? We should surely be considering what Jan Moir was saying before giving an emotional response.

On the positive side, this blog is the only place so far I have seen dissenting views from the mainstream - which I think is healthy.

Stuart-

I share your dislike of the manner with which our society jumps on bandwagons of outrage with each news cycle, from subject to subject and person making news to person making news. It is indicative of a lack of freethinking, not an evolved and tolerant appreciation of individuality.

I did detect some homophobia in the Moir article, but also a general disapproval of anything other than a traditional understanding of sexuality (heterosexual monogamy), of which the homophobia is probably merely a derivative. She certainly didn't sound prejudiced toward gay people, though judgmental of homosexual civil unions.

My main response is, 'Who cares?' Why does it provoke outrage? Isn't what Moir appears to believe fairly common? Why, then, should we be surprised or outraged when the views are aired? And of course you are right to suggest that we are in grave danger of threatening freedom of speech with these overreactions to every opinion that doesn't reflect a progressive approach. Sure, say she's wrong, but:

1) Don't involve government bodies with the power to censor;
2) Don't act as though she's saying something unusual;
3) Don't respond as though her opinion is universally regarded morally inferior.

It's also counterproductive. When I hear the shrill shrieks of a rolling bandwagon, my own reaction is to run the other way. This is not to say that we shouldn't speak up when someone says something with which we disagree. That, too, is the exercise of freedom of speech. But the appalling menace presented by this collective, selective, hysterical outrage - born of a paranoid wish to remain politically correct - is the greatest threat to real freedom of speech that exists.