Homophobia revisted

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 17-05-04
Dec 9 2004 16:38
Homophobia revisted

I want to reply to some of the things you were saying Jack in the other thread that was closed...

Jack wrote:
3. Homophobia is less important to fight than racism.

Dangerous fucking shit!

In 1994 homosexuality was “decriminalized” and given the age of consent of 18. Lowered from 21, which had been the age of consent since homosexuality was finally “legalized’ in 1967. It was a step in the right direction, publicly. The Labour government was being seen as a force for social change and Barbara Roche the Minister for Social Exclusion and Equalities said, “Change would send a strong message against homophobia.”

To begin with, the age of consent was not a Labour idea. It was forced on the Labour government by the European commission of human rights who told Tony Blair that the ”discriminatory age of consent” was “unlawful.” When the legislation was passed it had an “abuse of trust” clause in it, which directly linked homosexuality to paedophilia. That’s what they really think.

Labour then refused to amend the draft Charities Bill to make equal opportunities a condition of charitable status, effectively saying it is ok for charities to discriminate against Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.

To further their campaign of institutionalised homophobia Labour has repeatedly refused to crackdown on homophobic hate crimes, including vetoing an amendment to the Crime & Disorder Bill in 1998.

Labour then exempted religious bodies from the new laws against homophobic discrimination in the workplace. This means that religious-run institutions - such as schools, hospitals, care homes and hospices are free to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers.

In 1998 the government vetoed an amendment to the Human Rights Bill, which sought to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only one Labour MP told the Labour whip to fuck off! And supported the amendment. All the other “left-wing” and even openly gay MPs either abstained or voted against protecting these basic human rights for gay men and women.

In 1997, then again in April and July 1999 Labour blocked legislation to stop discrimination against gays in the workplace by refusing to support the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, and thwarting similar amendments to the Employment Relations Bill. In other words defending the right for bosses to sack gay workers.

Labour made claims leading up to the last election that they were clamping down on homophobic bullying in schools, but the vast majority of schools still have no specific anti-homophobia program. While gay youth are being victimized by their schoolmates, the schools are being allowed to get away with doing nothing!

You'll actually find that each and every point I’ve raised is not matched by legislation based on race. It is illegal to discriminate from jobs, school etc based on colour.

If it had come over in anyway that he was genuinely throwing homophobic abuse at him it'd be different. Especially if you look at the thread in the context of AT bizarely finding the posted images in some way offensive.

It wasn't that I was necessarily offended by the image, I just didn't find it funny...sorry.

What I took offence to was being called a lil bummer boy. I don't see why I should find that funny or acceptable. This bullshit about how I should lighten up and stop being such a twat, as someone called me is completely unfair. What does it mean if i'm uptight, do I not get to be an anarchist anymore?

Funnily enough, I don’t like strangers calling me names. Especially in such a context. I don’t know how you're coming out story was, but I did'nt find the whole experience very fun and I think I’ve earnt the right to not have those kind of things said to me. Especially by someone who claims to be an anarchist. If I can't find refuge within the most free thinking idea ever invented where the fuck can I?

Further to that, why, because I don’t like being called names, or don’t find particular images very relevant am I uptight or a twat? Is this what we have to offer young gay teenagers who might want to be anarchists or is this only synonymous with people on the internet; because if this kind of shit is endemic within the anarchist movemnet..Were fucked!

Are you just as offended hearing school kids sue the word "gay" as an insult as you'd be if they threw around "nigger" as a term of abuse? I think not


Capitalism as an economic system may not have existed for very long but as a subjective force in the world it seems as if it has existed forever and holds god like sway of people. The vast majority of people in the industrial world and even in the developing world see the status quo as fact.

The hammering home of bourgeois justifications for the existence of capitalism, the increased alienation caused by work and the "brain washing" of consumerism has effected the human psyche almost beyond reproach.

The ruling class have the monopoly of power on ideas. Take nazi Germany as an obvious example. Hitler and the nazi leadership took a very sensitive subject, the role of Jewish people in society, and used it as a means of scapegoat and a pretext for a campaign of psychotic hate.

Idea's on racism, sexism and homophobia are the same, and throughout history have been defined by our ruling class. From the slave trade to the present day, from the biblical attitudes towards the role of women in society until the present day and the progressed quasi-religious repression of same sex attractions, have all contributed to our present day attitudes.

Are we all aware of this? Are we all safe from it? In my opinion no. Our attitudes towards black people, women and gay people have come through centuries if not millennia of human history, changing politics, philosophical and economic attitude. We simply cannot expect people to not harbour racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes no matter how blatant or latent.

These attitudes, covertly and overtly take many different forms. There is of course race politics. The far-right take oppressive attitudes towards anything that goes against the biblical and economically prominent status quo. These fucknuts are obvious.

What is of more concern is the covert attitudes, which are far more dangerous and far more harder to fight against. The reason for this difficulty is because it is generally accepted by many people, especially those who control the monopoly of power. The word is a patriarchal world, dominated by white heterosexuals. Although nobody claims to be a racist, sexist or homophobe many bosses may not want to employ a black person, someone may cross the road because they see a black person coming and fear (thanks to the media) they may be robbed. Wives are at home cooking their husbands meals while men masturbate to naked pictures of women being groped. A person may tell a joke about how all homosexuals are paedophiles or sex mad or say "i'm not a homophobe, I just don’t want them round me."

These things are general within society. It is generally accepted as the norm and so when someone says "paki, queer" or laughs at the picture of a famous rock band groping a naked woman with smiles on their faces it is not associated with these historical facts. It is not identified as oppression. But as the norm. Something which shouldn't be taken seriously etc.

It's complete bollocks!

The first step is to realise that the use of language and the subtle, "ironic" highlighting of differences between races, sexes and orientations contributes to the status quo attitudes, of which is controlled and exploited by the ruling class, who can pick up and use these things to further their agenda.

The second step is to fucking stop doing it, and to question other people when they do it. The recognition that saying "queer" or "paki" is as bad as putting magazines for gay people on the top shelve with the pawn, or refusing to discuss black history in high schools or getting turned on at the portrayal of women being dominated, for "fun", will force people to realise that these differences are detrimental to our liberation as human beings. Yes, it's that fucking serious.

I'm a big boy now fortunatly, I don’t cry about people calling me a faggot or a little bummer boy anymore. I just don’t think its fair and I just don't think it's necessary. In fact, I think it will create isolation. If some young gay teenager saw what people have been writing it would not have made them feel better about who they are. We're supposed to be offering an alternative...I dont see one around here.

Joined: 17-05-04
Dec 9 2004 16:39

sorry double post.

Joined: 27-03-04
Dec 10 2004 10:06

Mr. T

top post from the poof!


Joined: 17-05-04
Dec 10 2004 14:01
top post from the poof!

the poof?...I'm honoured.

pingtiao's picture
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 10 2004 14:14

I would like to add my agreement with "the poof".

Joined: 20-09-03
Dec 10 2004 15:46
Anarchist Tension wrote:
the poof?...I'm honoured.

yeah only gay in the village....

agreed with most of it, and, homophobia insults aside, the fact you found the name calling offensive should have been enough reason for revol to stop it, but

The first step is to realise that the use of language and the subtle, "ironic" highlighting of differences between races, sexes and orientations contributes to the status quo attitudes

not sure i agree with this, for a start i think humour is one of the best ways of to deal with the neverousness created by differnce. Also assumes that these identities are stable things and that highlight differnce is always repressive. Well i'm certainly not happy with current 'gay' identity, and the only way that's going to be changed is to play arround with the boundraies that mark that diffence.

Joined: 17-05-04
Dec 10 2004 18:52
captainmission wrote:
not sure i agree with this for a start i think humour is one of the best ways of to deal with the neverousness created by differnce.

That's a different point entirely to the one I'm making. Regardless of whether it masks peoples nervousness it does not necessarily mean that it isn't contributing to oppressive status quo opinions.

Also, I don't feel nervous about my sexuality, I feel very secure and happy in it. The question you should ask yourself is why people are nervous in the first place?

Also assumes that these identities are stable things and that highlight difference is always repressive

I think there is a definitive line between discussing differences in human beings and being consciously aware of the nature of an insult. Saying queer to a gay person is assumed at times to be an ironic joke.

The reason it is ironic is because you know it is homophobic, thus identifying a societal distinction between you and the person you're saying it to. Unfortunately this societal distinction makes humans second class citizens

the only way that's going to be changed is to play arround with the boundraies that mark that diffence.

In what sense and how?

Steven.'s picture
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 11 2004 13:05

Good post. I disagree with some bits in it, but will post a reply when I've had a think about it - like I will to JDMF's post on animal rights...

Joined: 17-05-04
Dec 11 2004 17:38
Steven. wrote:
Idisagree with some bits

That's not allowed!

Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 12 2004 14:25

Do the anti fascist movements have any place in the Gay Rights movement?

I think it does.... and it should.

I shall expand on this somewhere else. But I wanted to hear other peoples points of view.

oh yeah! thats a solid post! You leave little room for attack... so rock out S.