Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mogul]

Here a noteworthy report from the other side of the barricades, from a man who got beaten at a gay pride for expression of his homophobic views:

"Protester attack not provoked

Wednesday June 21, 2006

On June 11, the annual gay pride parade was held in Calgary. My friend Merle and I attended, not merely to observe, but to peacefully express an opinion. We held up signs reading ‘No pride in sodomy’. (Pride is usually associated with some kind of an accomplishment: sexual acts hardly qualify).
For the most part the exchanges between the parade participants, observers and we two protesters were pleasant and cordial and were an example of people of good will agreeing to disagree. That changed when two men spit on us. One of those men (probably weighing in at close to 300 pounds) shortly thereafter tackled Merle to the ground – from behind – and punched him in the head. It was all caught on film. The police have quite properly charged the gentleman with assault.
The attack was filmed in its entirety by City TV, which aired the clip on its 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. newscasts, with the report that intolerance was alive and well in Calgary, and we – Merle and I – were it. Take note: Two people can peacefully – peacefully – protest a prominently liberal cause, get spit on and attacked in the process, and yet it is they who get labelled by our balanced media as intolerant. Stephen Harper complains about bias in the media. He is entirely justified and if this incident isn’t a prime example, I don’t know what is.
– Jeff Willerton, Airdrie"

I think it is important to controll emotions, especially if the assumed "homophob" seems not to belong to the aggressive ones - a kiss might be a better solution than a stick over the head. 

[K6]

Being gay and a priest is not a crime and no high treason to the gay state. Being gay and instigate homophobia is. The gays in question, whether priests or politicians, shall be aware that they might become subject to the justice of the gay people and its state.

A gay who is a member of the clergy of,say,the catholic church,is a traitor.The proper courts shall assess each case according to its merits.Those gay priests who have passed on information to us on the ennemy body constituted by the catholic church,far from being punished,shall be decorated.
Those who have failed to inform us about the designs of the catholic church,when it was in their power to do so,shall see the consequences and pay the price.

K6

[K6]

Yiek! Seems that Christians have really very few friends here... 

For reference,I am an atheist.I became an atheist almost at the same time I decided to be gay at age 16,what a coincidence.I was raised as a catholic.But religion and metaphysics never really interested me.And the traditional catholic system of education I went through produced a large crop of  politically radical atheists,at least in my generation.As far as I am concerned,there is no room for gayness and christianism in a same country.In a country of ours,christianism is to be completely eradicated,its cadres expelled,its places of worship closed down,and all its assets confiscated.

K6

[Mogul]

Yiek! Seems that Christians have really very few friends here... 

There is no question, that at least the 3 monoteistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) do have a very disturbed relation to the same-sex love. If we recall newer and older statements made by the religious leaders, and read carefully the scriptures, we should acknowledge that there is no place for us in their mids.

One can reasonably doubt whether Catholizism has much in common with the early Christianity, because most of Catholic teaching is based on Tora and is contradictory to the very principles taught by Jesus of Nazareth. Alike, many of the branches of modern "Christianity" have a very confuse understandiding of the basic principles of what they claim to believe. It must be not forgotten, that Religion as such is something very private, and all the Priests and Ayatollahs and Rabbies are solely scholars, who more or less rightfully have usurped the right to interpete particular scriptures.

I do not think that a private religious belief of an individual into existence of some kind of a God can endanger his or her loyalty to the gay state, neither does a belief constitute a crime. While the state has the right to influence the manifestations of religious beliefs, it has generally no right to sniffle in people's religious and political beliefs. While the state itself must be secular, its citizens are free to be whatever they wish.

Religious or political organizations and their activities are quiet a different thing. There is no need for us to tolerate destructive activities of hostile organizations, therefore local organizations of Catholic Church etc shall be declared illegal and their representatives and agents be forbidden to entry the territorium under gay legislation.

The belonging to such illegal organizations shall constitute an impediment for entering any kind of political office, whereas the belief itself shall be of no importance. Officers in military or secret service might be, however, required to fullfill more tight criterions. While entering into office the candidate must declare his commitment to the constitution and swear that he will serve the state and the people at the best of his abilities - if someone is loyal to an enemy, he of course cannot work for the state.

Being gay and a priest is not a crime and no high treason to the gay state. Being gay and instigate homophobia is. The gays in question, whether priests or politicians, shall be aware that they might become subject to the justice of the gay people and its state.

@ Vizier: you are not seriously suggesting to make Papa Ratzi and his cohorts to sex sklaves? Who can be that much desperate to even touch that ladies gentlemen?
 

[K6]

"If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests."

How wrong you are. Please explain the continued existence of the Vatican as a sovereign nation-state with full diplomatic relationships with nearly every nation on the globe, control over one of the largest ideological business ventures on the planet and its thus resulting worldwide strangehold control on morality, politics, etc.

The solution for "Christians" or any other extremist religious fanatics in our future homeland is simple: A rapid-determination court will sentence them to "hard labor;" they will be put into our castle dungeon and be forced to serve as publicly available sex slaves for those in need. Lesser criminals will be sentenced to "community service," in which they will be forced to work as publicly available prostitutes and turn 2/3 of their earnings over to the state as restitution for their crime(s). 

The history of Europe was a bit different from the one of the US.There has been in the past and in Europe secular and anti-religious political revolutions in the course of which churches were taught a lesson and educated by way of blood and ashes.Which is probably why churches
are more cautious when they operate nowadays in the wholly secularized environment of Europe.They do not meddle in politics or in social matters to the same extent they do elsewhere,particularly in the US.Churches,in my view,are to be completely driven out from a country of
ours,their non-gay followers being simply expelled.Their gay followers,insofar as they have such a following,could be sorted under a condition
called "National Indignity",with no right to vote,hold office,or be employed in any position putting them in contact with the gay youth.Gay clergy
should by tried for treason.Pagan denominations could be encouraged and even supported financially among the general gay population.Political cadres would be trained in a completely secular mindset,with absolutely no place for religion in politics or social matters.The gay youth would be raised and educated in the secular veneration and service of the gay nation-State.

K6

[Vizier]

"If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests."

How wrong you are. Please explain the continued existence of the Vatican as a sovereign nation-state with full diplomatic relationships with nearly every nation on the globe, control over one of the largest ideological business ventures on the planet and its thus resulting worldwide strangehold control on morality, politics, etc.

The solution for "Christians" or any other extremist religious fanatics in our future homeland is simple: A rapid-determination court will sentence them to "hard labor;" they will be put into our castle dungeon and be forced to serve as publicly available sex slaves for those in need. Lesser criminals will be sentenced to "community service," in which they will be forced to work as publicly available prostitutes and turn 2/3 of their earnings over to the state as restitution for their crime(s). 

[K6]

Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:

• justice before a court for gays
  

This is no privilege.For we would actually claim over gays more competence and powers - in assessing their loyalty for example - than over non-gays who by virtue of their different set of interests ow us no loyalty.This would be balanced only by due process before a court,and also by the principle that a gay could not be deported from our country.He would have a clearly defined legal right to remain in that Republic of ours.Relations between gays are to be juridical.A certain number of homophobes are we must admit,gays themselves.These would have to be prosecuted for treason,but again in an orderly and juridical fashion.

K6

[K6]

Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:

• justice before a court for gays, and
• more or less arbitrary execution for allegedly hostile non-gays, without any process?

This would indeed implicate that we regard non-gays as being less worthy of a fair treatment - a dangerous thought, in my view. This might bring us too close to the practices of National Socialists, if applied consequently. The temptation to persecute someone quickly should not be given in - or we will sell out our very principles: the judges and the executive officers must not be the same persons. If the intelligence gains certain knowledges, it shall provide them to the responsible judges - if necessary, military judges under the premise of confidentiality.

We must enjoy over non-gays slightly more powers,or at least powers of a different kind,than over our own nationals.Powers of an administrative (immigration) or executive (intelligence agencies,armed forces) nature which raise in no way an issue of equality or unequality between us
and non-gays.Relations with non-gays fall into the category of the international variety.Vis-à-vis the foreign and international environment,we must be in position to react more rapidly and radically,so as not to put in jeopardy our political independence.Some immigration review board,and not a court,would decide as for the presence of non-gays on our soil.And some planning committee would decide as for the course of action to follow in intelligence operations.My preference goes to the quick removal,from our territory,of homophobes in general,under the general and admited international custom that we as a sovereign people have no obligation to greet foreigners.That their presence in our country is not a right but only a privilege.In a few cases,like those of dangerous non-gays evoked by Feral and who could prove dangerous even after being expelled,
especially to gays residing abroad,some other course of action would have to be contemplated as to render them definitely inoffensive.A court is too slow an instrument to deal with foreigners or foreign powers.It deliberates in the abstract - legaly and morally - whereas foreigners and foreign powers act in real life and create real accomplished facts.It goes without saying that either an immigration review board or an intelligence planning comittee would remain under the authority of a democratic government of ours,which would set their general tasks and objectives.As for non-gays who deal normally with us,they would fall under the competence of our diplomatic services,and again not our courts.

K6

[Mogul]

Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:

• justice before a court for gays, and
• more or less arbitrary execution for allegedly hostile non-gays, without any process?

This would indeed implicate that we regard non-gays as being less worthy of a fair treatment - a dangerous thought, in my view. This might bring us too close to the practices of National Socialists, if applied consequently. The temptation to persecute someone quickly should not be given in - or we will sell out our very principles: the judges and the executive officers must not be the same persons. If the intelligence gains certain knowledges, it shall provide them to the responsible judges - if necessary, military judges under the premise of confidentiality.

[K6]

It is always tempting to believe that one holds the final truth - unfortunately history proves that this is usually not the case. Whereas in a case of open war with clear enemy one solely needs to aim that enemy and pull the trigger, execution of justice is a bit more delicate process. Haven't you learned from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution 1917? All the guys on the tribunals started their activities by quick beheading "declared enemies of the people", than they felt urged to execute their political rivals, and at the end noone was secure from the guilotine. No, we cannot go this way, unless we want a massacre among gays finaly.

No,I have said before that gays must remain subject to court action for their deeds against their own people.They are to be tried in a regular
manner should they commit acts of treason.I am not however in favour of extending the authority of our courts to matters having to do with
non-gays or international relations.We should put no non-gay on trial for actions against our interests.The reaction to such actions should come
from our immigration services,and if that doesn`t do from such executive bodies like our intelligence services or (in case of invasion) our armed
forces.

K6

[K6]

A short process is better than no process at all - a person might actually prove innocent. Btw, what does make you think that a simple security officer is more qualified to make an appropriate decision than a proper judge?
No - each person shall make the job which he/she was trained for - judges should judge, and special agents shall execute the judgements. 

My impression is that the juridical processes which are familiar to us in the context of our respective organized societies do not really lend themselves to implementation in the realm of international relations,that is to relations between peoples.For their agencies,national courts ou such international bodies like the UN or its Security Council,are mainly debating societies.Which puts them at a disadvantage when faced with other organizations less focussed on debate,or whose debates are less abstract and more realistic.A court will ask itself wether an action is legal or illegal,or just or unjust,while neglecting wether it is or not feasible.Whereas an intelligence agency will dwell mainly in matters of State interest,and of success or failure of its operations.Vicious homophobes aren`t debating,they are acting.And the proper answer to their action is another action,not a debate.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] War is a process different from a court action.It is political,and does not embarasses itself with juridical procedures or conclusions.The moment a vicious homophobe has started a war upon us,he must not be allowed to decide when the conflict involved will end,by being turned into a juridical procedure for example. [..] Trials of archennemies would make us appear as weak,and whould not establish for us a reputation which would guarantee the security of future gay generations.Whenever we cannot be liked,we must be feared. [..]

It is always tempting to believe that one holds the final truth - unfortunately history proves that this is usually not the case. Whereas in a case of open war with clear enemy one solely needs to aim that enemy and pull the trigger, execution of justice is a bit more delicate process. Haven't you learned from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution 1917? All the guys on the tribunals started their activities by quick beheading "declared enemies of the people", than they felt urged to execute their political rivals, and at the end noone was secure from the guilotine. No, we cannot go this way, unless we want a massacre among gays finaly. The secret service you propose might gather the informations and perform the necessary steps if ordered to do so, but the judgements must be made by proper judges. It is not said that a process must take years - in the most obvious cases (which we are pursuing) the evidences can be collected quickly. A short process is better than no process at all - a person might actually prove innocent. Btw, what does make you think that a simple security officer is more qualified to make an appropriate decision than a proper judge?

No - each person shall make the job which he/she was trained for - judges should judge, and special agents shall execute the judgements. 

[K6]

The trial on a proper court is always the better solution - and we can use such a trial for transmitting the message as well. Whenever it proves not possible to seize the criminal alive, he/she shall be tried in absense and the justice be helped on another way. If a person publicly declares an open war against homosexuals, he makes himself a subject to the rules of war, with all the consequences. If the snake cannot be captured for a dental treatment, it shall loose its head completely.

There are risks involved in trials against ennemy political leaders.This was demonstrated in the trial against Slobodan Milosevitch before the International Court of Justice in the Hague,which lead nowhere in four years: Milosevitch died before the conclusion,and had besides started
to turn the tables on his accusers.The same with the trial against Saddam Hussein,which also drags on and leads nowhere.War is a process
different from a court action.It is political,and does not embarasses itself with juridical procedures or conclusions.The moment a vicious homophobe has started a war upon us,he must not be allowed to decide when the conflict involved will end,by being turned into a juridical procedure for example.At the beginning our political independence,we must first establish a reputation as a reliable international actor certainly,but also as a mean one who neither forgets,nor forgives,nor gives any quarter to an archennemy.Trials of archennemies would make us appear as weak,and whould not establish for us a reputation which would guarantee the security of future gay generations.Whenever we cannot be liked,we must be feared.

K6

[K6]

You make an interesting point, one which changes the meaning of much of what you have previously written. Hypothetically speaking, trials and prison terms are to be preferred over the actions of 'intelligence services'. Since this hypothetical state does not yet exist, there is no way to evaluate it's judicial procedures. It seems likely though that a judicial process would be the more useful to the interests of justice in the vast majority of cases. It also seems likely that alternative forms of justice might, in theory, be called for.

We both arrive at similar results,but by different ways and based on different perspectives.To me,those who have persecuted gays are a matter
of national (and in certain respects also international) gay security.The proper agency to deal with them is our intelligence services,which are to
collect information on their deeds,and then decide a course of action.Since these are adversaries which played dirty with us,we should play the
same game.They should go under such a general heading like "Perished in the course of the politico-military activities which were rendered necessary by the pursuance of our independence".

K6

[Feral]

A certain branch of its intelligence services, more familiar with action, could remove more completely and definitely those who have persecuted gays.

You make an interesting point, one which changes the meaning of much of what you have previously written. Hypothetically speaking, trials and prison terms are to be preferred over the actions of 'intelligence services'. Since this hypothetical state does not yet exist, there is no way to evaluate it's judicial procedures. It seems likely though that a judicial process would be the more useful to the interests of justice in the vast majority of cases. It also seems likely that alternative forms of justice might, in theory, be called for.

Eichmann was tried. Many more were not. Very occasionally, the accused are innocent. The hangmen of Iran and those who directed their actions deserve justice. It would be a good thing if those persons punished for 4,000 murders were, in fact, the persons in question.