Sunday, October 21, 2012

Nick Griffin's tweets and Peter Tatchell's hypocrisy



Peter Tatchell champions freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and this is very much to his credit. He is featured in the above video clip expressing concern that recent tweets sent by BNP leader Nick Griffin might be considered 'menacing and intimidating'. He says, "If we want to live in a free and civilised society, people have to not feel under threat and not feel intimidated." He makes it clear that he opposes harassing actions and intimidating words which might make people 'fearful and alarmed'.

Right..

55 Comments:

Blogger carl jacobs said...

Wasn't this 15 years ago?

Anyways. These protesters didn't do anything but violate someone else's civil rights. Good thing they didn't put on stupid hats and sing stupid songs when no one was around. They might have received 2 years in prison.

carl

21 October 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger Paul de Mello said...

I wonder what tatchell would have said if griffin had tweeted to custard-pie said party?

21 October 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger Huldah said...

Carl

I don't think it matters how long ago this happened. And I'm not sure that was all that happened. Do I remember correctly that OutRage reportedly outed various clergy against their will in the '90's? And hasn't Peter Tatchell defended that invasion of privacy here?

http://www.petertatchell.net/media/media_mendacity.htm


Everyone knows where Bishops live.

I understand that Tatchell has condemned the death threats made against the Christian couple who refused a homosexual couple a double room. Very Good. But Outrage's actions could have led to horrible consequences for those forced out of the closet.

21 October 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Tatchell may prefer to live in Germany where a twitter account recently got censored, using the iron curtain policy

21 October 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Griffin is under the same law as everyone else. If I make a comment that someone finds offensive, I don't expect to be arrested purely on those grounds, and nor does Peter Tatchell.

If I maliciously publish a private individual's address, I expect there to be consequences.

Nothing about the latter strikes me as being hypocritical.

21 October 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Huldah

If you are going to charge a man with hypocrisy regarding intimidation, then you should produce evidence that is more current than 1998. You must establish that the past behavior still accurately characterizes the man of today. People change in 15 years.

carl

21 October 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Griffin should probably be banned from Twitter.

21 October 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger Damian said...

Is this the same peter tatchell who wants to lower age of consent so he have them even younger?

and Danjo thinks Griffin should be banned?

21 October 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The BNP at the moment appear to be a spent force but their fellow socialists love to stick the boot in, don't they? However, who would I side with in this altercation, Nick Griffin or Peter Tatchell? well, apart from the Harry Hill suggestion, I think I'd support Nick Griffin. If a gay couple are refused accommodation at one B&B, then for goodness' sake, there are many others to go to. Why make an issue out of it. Choice is what we all want, isn't it? Or are socialists or a different mind?

21 October 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger dxt said...

Obviously, Carey was traumatised by the experience and has never really got over it, that's why I think he should be sectioned along with Ann Widdecombe.

21 October 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Damian: "and Danjo thinks Griffin should be banned?"

I think he should probably be banned for breaking the rules of Twitter, specifically this one:

"•Privacy: You may not publish or post other people's private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission."

I don't see why I should be criticised there simply but you're too thick to treat the two issues separately.

21 October 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah, you're BNP I bet.

21 October 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Does anyone recall ‘OUTRAGE!’ from a few years ago. It’s in Wiki. It was a very successful gay pressure group and the bullying of the authorities started then. It’s an unpleasant read so keep the children well away from the screen.

Back then, they outed public figures who they believed were gay. Tatchell may respect freedom of speech now, but he didn’t think much of peoples privacy back then.

Perhaps one day someone will out Tatchell’s medical records in a similar manner. And can we then expect the book, the play, and the film to follow....


21 October 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger David Maximilian Cathmoir Nicoll said...

The "it was a long time ago" argument doesn't wash, Carl. The guy hides under free speech only when it suits him.

21 October 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Back then, they outed public figures who they believed were gay. Tatchell may respect freedom of speech now, but he didn’t think much of peoples privacy back then."

Outrage! really ought to be regarded in the context of the times, including the event in the article. I never really agreed with their tactics but for some of their actions I can see why they thought it was necessary.

I don't suppose it was as clear cut as this but the threats of outings were supposed to be against closeted gay people in positions of authority being hypocritical over gay issues, such as MPs and CofE bishops.

21 October 2012 at 16:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You’ve conveniently left out that public figure of great state influence, Jason Donovan. Rather than gloat at your feeble apology for them, the Inspector offers you an opportunity to re-write it...

21 October 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

Is the bottom photo the English equivalent of Pussy Riot's antics in that cathedral in Moscow which caused such a fuss here a few months ago?

The photo could have the title: "Poofters Riot in Canterbury Cathedral"

21 October 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

In the above title I wanted to use a slang term for a penis equal to PR's name but didn't think it appropriate. Use your immigination.

21 October 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Nino said...

I seriously cannot believe that someone has used the '1998 was so long ago' argument.

Have you forgotten the disruption of the Papal Visit in 2010 organised by Peter Tatchell?

The man is a bigot and a hypocrite.

21 October 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


By the way chaps. Here’s a new line of defence for the B+B couple persecuted by those two queer dicks.

“It is uneconomic to allow gay couples to share a double bed due to the cost of replacing the bed linen that will need to burnt afterwards”

The Inspector commends this to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.


21 October 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Nino

If the accusation is easy to demonstrate from contemporary activities, then there is no reason to go back 15 years for proof. Going back so far in time leaves the impression that you have to go back that far in order to make the accusation stick. At which point, reasonable people might start asking "Why?"

carl

21 October 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

You can bet your boots if Gays created a B &B or a resort specifically for Gays they would be allowed to practice that sort of discrimination by the powers that be.

There are alread Gay cruises on cruise ships. I am not certain if there is a written statement that says to join it you must be Gay but the very idea the ads say the cruise is for Gays is in my opinion discrimination.

A cruise called "Straight Couples Cruise" would cause the liberals to howl with rage and charges of discrimination.

What a surprise the elderly couple down the street would get if they were accidently booked on such a cruise. Imagine the eyefull they would get on the dance floor or seeing the couples necking around the swimming pool... Not to mention the activities they might stumble upon in the shadows while taking a stroll on one of the decks after dark.

21 October 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


John,

“All aboard the gay ship ‘Degenerate’. Next stop, the middle of the Bermuda Triangle...”


21 October 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger Gareth said...

A plague on both their houses.

21 October 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Nino said...

Carl,

Probably because this affected the Anglican communion, rather than the Catholic communion, it has stuck in His Grace's memory.

Nino

21 October 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

Very good!

And it's sister cruise ship the "Good Ship Lollipop" full of Gays isn't far behind to experience one of those vanishing ship mysteries of the Bermuda triangle.

21 October 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger len said...

'The Brampton address of Michael Black and John Morgan, who won a ruling that they had been discriminated against by a B&B owner, was seemingly published'


Well so was the address of the Christian couple who refused to allow a homosexual couple to have a room in their B and B with a double bed.
(I believe single rooms were offered as would be to any uinmarried couple)but this offer was refused as they(Michael Black and John Morgan) were 'outraged' by this 'homophobic behaviour' by the B and B owners.

21 October 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger ukFred said...

On Yahoo, someone called William has stated that there is a gay B&B which turns away heterosexual couples. I have asked him to name it so that we normal folks can go, get turned away, and take them to court for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. If they have to put up[ with a few lawsuits then either they will soon be bust because of lawyers fees or some gay lawyers are going to be working terribly long hours on pro-bono cases for them.

21 October 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

Twitter was founded in 2006.
_____________________

Your Grace, pray tolerate me if a modicum of irony touches what follows.

You see... on the addresses of public figures in Britain ... Well- cultural invasion is entrenched. We're now sufficiently Demoralised** to proceed on the assumption that indigenous Britons are always less than great and are never good; we all deserve spiritual assassination, preferably once we're dead. Still, traditionally speaking, don't our masters/servants usually have at least one publicly known address? Like Lambeth Palace, for instance? And since when did any British People, especially plebs know enough to hide at secret addresses? Are 'safe houses' a rapidly rising trend?

And what's that about an address being visited by "A British Justice Team" ??!!?? What's one of those when it's abroad? Surely the terms 'British' and 'Justice' have been sufficiently Destabilised - they are now presumed to be contradictory; surely everyone accepts that 'British Justice' was a naive dream propagated by irrelevant ancestors who didn't have Twitter? You know, the kind who sympathised with Thomas Becket after the Plantagenet Barons decorated Canterbury with his blood.

In light of this video, then, I think we should get phobic for Tatchell's psychological integrity. Mental destabilisation is a terrible thing, and the Tatchell boy is clearly super-sensitive. For safety, he should lower his public profile before he is damaged by the realisation that some hetero-plebs can't stand his po-faced righteousness --- let alone the nastiness that, by definition, characterises his preference on the ..err.. s** thing. Meanwhile, Heteros must stop resisting and learn that Homos are "exceptional" people who require "special" treatment -- and that those words mean whatever they want them to mean whenever they say them. That's why Tatchell's sort must re-write vulgar English to soothe their delicate perceptions.

Tatchell and his organisation nevertheless feel exquisitely constrained to stage a battle; so the government should prevent the Crises that will result. Bureaucrats should ensure that we afford him and the praettig boys he's defending, the use of armoured cars -- no expense spared. That way the sufferers could travel between secret addresses while feeling safe from Heteros. That way no Homo would ever risk, for example, having to stand at a remote bus stop -- all alone with a Hetero of the opposite gender.

One way to forestall escalation of crises between fight-oriented Homos and Heteros would be to build separate facilities everywhere and label them "Gay [Bent]/Homo" and "Straight/Hetero." Then Heteros would not have to stand out in the wind and weather (or pay fines) whenever Homos started cowering phobically.

Gosh. It looks as if a South African/Snideresque parallel might not be so far-fetched after all. Ultimately though, to enforce Normalisation (as in acid/base neutralisation), the Governors of Britain will have to call in a foreign army that won't side with either Homos or Heteros. What will the forces be? Bi-s of some sort? franco-germans who have taken over the British military?

Ah well. Even Heteros are vulnerable to night- ... night-incubi or -succubi.
_________
**Pace also Yuri Bezemenov... I trust I have not misapplied his categorisation of KGB methodology for subversion of the West. His original presentations are viewable on Youtube.

21 October 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Before we encharter the multitude of buggerous arangements that can be, let the people speak !

A referendum no less, that the people’s will be heard...



21 October 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let sodomites visit us their screaming pain of incompleteness, and let the people decide these wretches fate. For as God is in his heaven, and man cower beneath, that justice be done to those that would alter the order of His heavenly desire.

21 October 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger John Henson said...

Carl jacobs said...


you should produce evidence that is more current than 1998 ...


Well, that's Jimmy Savile exonerated.

22 October 2012 at 08:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

The will and vote by the majority of the people no longer matter.

I have little knowledge about how the British legal and judicial system works today. However,since English law prior to the American Revolution is still part of the law of the United States we must have similar legal and court procedures.

In the USA the vote of the people no longer matters when it comes to the demands of PCness, social issues, and racial and ethnic minorities. In 2008 the majority of the voters in california voted NO to legalizing Gay "marriage" yet in 2012 a CA liberal state circuit of appeals declared the same sex ban to be "uinconstitutuonal". In other words the will of the people in a valid election was overturned by a liberal court.

This means that liberals and Gays will shove their social agenda's down our throats using the courts no matter what the majority of the people and voters want.

I imagine liberals in the UK will, if they haven't already, minipulate your laws and legal system to overturn the will of the majority of the citizens of the UK who object to the demands of social change by left wing PC Jihadists.

Is this happening in the UK?

22 October 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Breaking news…

Police have revealed the number of school girls abused by Jimmy Savile has reached the two million mark. Incidents of assault include a peck on the cheek and an arm around the waist. A finger pointing feminist psychologist who has jumped on the band wagon has this to say. “What that beast did in 40 years is the fault of ALL of us. That is you, your wife, children as yet unborn, mad granny in the attic and the family cat, but certainly not me, who recognises all men for what they are. Potential rapists in waiting”

The Ministry of Justice are considering digging Savile up and putting him on trial. “We did that with Cromwell”, a spokesmen said, “Who is a bloody choir boy compared to what Savile has done, as anyone who reads the baying press will tell you”. It is hoped that Sir Jimmy will be ritually beheaded, assuming his head doesn’t come off his body on its own accord. His remains will then be thrown into the Thames from Traitors Gate.

Meanwhile all charities bearing Savile’s name will now be called the Harold Shipman trust. “Shipman was a right bastard”, said a trustee, ”but at least he only did the old, and we should shake his lifeless hand for that”



22 October 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John. A fellow votes for a centre right party, and gets homosexual ‘marriage’ !

I ask you, what damn use is democracy as it is now, if you don’t even have a choice. We have 3 main parties who are as tight as a gang of thieves...


22 October 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

I've watched interviews and speeches on cable TV and on Youtube of Nigel Farange MP and Daniel Hannan MP. What I heard I liked.

What are your impressions of these two men?

One of the best defenders of Western Civilization I have ever listened to is a young Swiss MP named Oskar Freysinger. He helped get minarets banned in Switzerland.

Some of his speeches in English are on Youtube. Others are subtitled. Freysinger is truly a voice of sanity with his warnings about the Islamization of Europe and the West.

One of his best speeches about the Islamiztion of Europe is on Youtube he made in Berlin in 2011 and is and subtitled in English and is titled:

Swiss MP Oskar Freysinger - Have We Gone Mad?

22 October 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


John. Those two fellows are quite first class. One dreams of a military coup with those two as political figureheads. We have much ground to recapture, to which the public will be grateful. Of course, there will be a few unwashed degenerate protesters but it’s about time the overall health of the stock was improved...

22 October 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger Huldah said...

Carl

"If you are going to charge a man with hypocrisy regarding intimidation, then you should produce evidence that is more current than 1998. You must establish that the past behavior still accurately characterizes the man of today. People change in 15 years."

And what evidence, Carl, can you produce to say he HASN'T altered his stance. The piece I produced is still on his website.

QED.

22 October 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, you’re somewhat in the dog house lately, with that comment. Marvellous !

Gloatingly yours,

Inspector General

22 October 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A Chinese woman had a right go at the Inspector today. He was completing her on her hairstyle but said something wong...


22 October 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

[Y]ou’re somewhat in the dog house lately, with that comment.

I can take it. This is nothing compared to defending Sydney & Lay Communion from a bunch of grouchy High Church Anglicans. Besides, a defense of consistency is worth the cost. And I haven't noticed any actual answers to my questions yet.

Marvellous!

Have I earned your ire in some way? Or have you just been grumpy lately?

Gloatingly yours

I am delighted that was able to bring some merriment into your evening. :)

carl

23 October 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Huldah

And what evidence, Carl, can you produce to say he HASN'T altered his stance.

1. Since I am not making the accusation, I have no burden to produce evidence to the contrary.

2. It is not possible to prove a negative, so you have demanded of me an impossible task.

Understand that I am not defending the man. I am demanding that a proper case be made against him.

carl

23 October 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2012 at 05:38  
Blogger Jon said...

Perhaps my eyesight is failing me - did one of the men holding a banner in the pulpit perhaps give out Carey's home address?

How is this remotely equivalent to what Nick Griffin did?

John Magee - you seem very angry with the world. I don't know if you've ever seen "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" but if you had, your stereotype loving brain would now rest assured that gays have been tidying up after your heterosexual sartorial disasters for ages now.

Your side doesn't tidy up after itself. Just ask Gabrielle Gifford.

23 October 2012 at 11:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 October 2012 at 04:51  
Blogger Jon said...

John,

How have you been stereotyped? I don't know how you look, sound or dress. I only know what you think from what you write. It seems to me from your writing that you are a right wing, reactionary, clanging cymbal of a Christian who has ignored the commandment to love your neighbour (where both gays and welfare recipients are concerned). I think I'm on the money and I think the more thoughtful Christians here would agree.

Furthermore, it seems to me from the tone of many of your comments, that you use your "religion" (as distinct from a faith) as a cover for views which you would hold anyway - views which see you angry about what you see as the cushioned existence which taxes revenues afford to those on welfare, and the happiness which gay people enjoy with the freedoms people like you fought to keep from them.

How gay people dress in pride marches isn't your concern. I suggest that you look to the bloody great tree in your own eye first.

24 October 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

Jon

Redefining the concept of marriage defined by all major religions and cultures since recorded history began as a union of a man and a woman isn't the concern of a tiny minority of radical Gays.

Scroll above. I said I believe Gays must have equal rights the same as any other citizen and not be disriminated against as is guaranteed by our constitutions and laws depending on what country we live in,.

I stand by my statement that many Gays create their own stereotypes.

Why are drag queens the dominate feature of Gay parades and gatherings? Are these bitchy freaks supposed to be some sort Gay clowns and aren't they stereotyping what they imagine is exaggerated feminine behavior??

I could care less what Gays do in their parades so long as they don't break the lewd conduct laws of the city or community the parades takes place in. Having oral and anal sex, Masturbating alone or in groups, and urinating on each other on a public street is not negotiable public behavior by any individual or group. I have seen these activities in photos on the internet taken during "Gay Pride" parades in San Francisco so pelase don't accuse me of making all this up. This type of behavior would never be tolerated if hetrosexuals decided to do similar things in public on a street even with a parade permit.

It's best to let people who you disagree with give examples in their own words and actions to expose who they really are.

My problem with Gays is the fact they want exceptions to be made for their lifestyle and behavior.Radical Gays and their left wing supporters want society, religion, and thousands of years of traditions like marriage to be redefined to meet their demands. It doesn't work that way in a sane society.

A sexual minority does not have any right to redefine the majority society.

24 October 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"I could care less"

*sigh*

That is one Americanism that drives me up the wall for some reason.

24 October 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Jon said...

John Magee, I don't think drag queens are the dominant feature of Pride parades - at least not the ones I've seen. They're there, but they're by no means the dominant feature. Maybe you see them as dominant because that's what you're looking for? The ones I've seen seem mostly populated by muscly men in pants and sun glasses (and no one weeing on each other to my recollection). Hey ho - we all see what we want to see, I suppose.

As to your supposed main point, where you ascribe a sinister intent to "Radical Gays" (great capitalisation btw!) and their left wing allies - I think DanJ0 (and I hope, I) have made clear in the past that we don't want to overturn British society. We rather like the society we live in. We just want its full rights and privileges. Your religion's attempt to co-opt marriage as something to which you have exclusive rights is a nonsense. Pair bonding existed prior to the establishment of your religion, and exists in nature and atheist societies. What's more marriage exists in other religions and family structures take many different forms (not the least notable of which, would be Jesus' parentage - the first man on record with two Dads!)

You are merely seeking to defend the status quo because it is to your explicit benefit. We are seeking the same benefits (and indeed, costs, as gay divorce is surely as inevitable as gay marriage). You must be exhausted with your whining and seeing conspiracies everywhere!

25 October 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Jon said...

DanJ0 - agreed. David Mitchell did a great video on how it's a daft phrase.

I bet David Mitchell is too commie for John Magee to watch though, with his long words, and his common sense...

25 October 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger John Magee said...

Jon

I hope as a Gay man you accept polygamy as part of the concept of "equal marriage". Polygamy is allowed in Islam, some fringe Mormon sects, many pagan cults, and was even practiced by the ancient Hebrews. If a man with no religious or cultural beliefs(females who marry more than one husband practice polyandry) want to have more than one spouse why is that still illegal? Why can't they have that choice too? Why can't any type of marriage defined by any individual now be allowed? Gays must demand this if they are to support the equal marriage concept for all.

It will be fun someday to see liberal ministers or C of E priests perform polygamous marriage ceremonies. It is Biblical.

Will you and your Gay brigade pals please reread my posts and my defense of homosexuals being equals before the law and not being dicriminated against in our societies before you call me a bigot?

The problem with many Gays, especially the radicals, is they enjoy condemning the "status quo" but can't take any criticism of their excesses. Public sex in the streets at Gay pride parades and drag queens dressed as nuns in San Francisco entering a Catholic church taking Holy Communion and spitting the Host on the floor are but a few examples.

By the way. I am for civil unions for Gays. Next time you are critical of me make sure you mention this.

25 October 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Jon said...

John Magee, why don't you demand that clothes with mixed fibres are banned from sale in case you are forced to burn someone to death for wearing them?

Well done - you're for civil unions. We have those already in the UK. But we want them to be nominally on a par with marriage as well as legally.

I'm personally indifferent to the idea of polygamy. I can't see why you'd want that much grief, personally, but whatever floats your boat. If you want more than one wife, I'll turn up to your parade.

26 October 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon, But we want them to be nominally on a par with marriage as well as legally.

But they are dear boy. We know this because sisters or brothers can have a CP. It’s all in the mind you know. You can call your CP what you like - marriage, union, the biggest mistake in my life. You can call your other half husband and he can call you wifey, and pat your bottom, then bend you over the kitchen table. No one is denying you any of that.

26 October 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

can't have a CP

26 October 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger John Magee said...

Jon

What in the world are you talking about:

"John Magee, why don't you demand that clothes with mixed fibres are banned from sale in case you are forced to burn someone to death for wearing them?"

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

28 October 2012 at 19:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older