Periodical Political Post *134

Queer News

Other News

  

15 thoughts on “Periodical Political Post *134”

  1. You begin to wonder if shooting a policeman in America will soon be considered as self defense!

    1. I wonder sometimes if there is something within the American psyche that confuses violence with strength.

      I can’t relate at all to stories like this. I can’t understand why the community involved are not going freaky against the official parties. Perhaps the news reporting of the circumstances is not exactly accurate.

      Any incident in the U.K. involving the discharge of firearms by police is automatically subject to official inquiry whether the actions can be justified or not. It’s something of a relief to note that British police remain strongly against carrying firearms as a general rule.

      1. I like your comments. I think the real problem is that the police forces seem unable to weed out those that can deal with stress situations and those that can’t. A UK policeman has just tazered a blind man with a white stick. They were looking for a criminal carrying a sword. It doesn’t make the policeman a bad guy or a poor policeman. It makes him someone who shouldn’t be armed. The same goes for police drivers. They have a belief that their training is so good it makes for the perfect drivers. They don’t have the systems in place to say “You are not suited to this we will give you another post you are suited for.” It needs a culture change.

      2. I think the American psyche does confuse violence with strength. We seem to still identify with the wild west. I would say more but it would not be at all PC. As much as I admire the British police for not carrying firearms I do not believe their policy would work in America.

  2. What right has the UN to interfere in the religious and cultural practices of whole swathes of Africa and Asia.

    Circumcision for the ladies has a long and noble history in many parts of the world and is encouraged by the ladies themselves in those places.

    Would the UN dare to make a similar attack on the gentleman’s equivalent, perhaps in Israel or the USA? Of course not. Another case of if you’re black or brown the rest of the world knows what’s best for you. Our women folk need protecting from cultural imperialism so that they can benefit from local traditions.

    1. They have every right. It’s why the U.N. exists although, as an organisation, they don’t deserve much respect.

      It’s called gaining a proper understanding of humanity against the total rubbish of ‘religion’ and ‘culture’ both used as excuses for continuing barbarity and ignorance.

      I note you are in the U.K. — now’s the time for you to embrace the brilliant benefits of British culture and become respected throughout the world thereby.

      1. If you think Britain is somehow free from religious thinking, just because a relatively large minority don’t “practice” a religion, then you are sorely wrong.

        “Christian thinking” about many, if not all, subjects still dictates most peoples thoughts, actions and the law of the land, even if it’s not consciously noticed or acknowledged.

        The average Briton is just as fanatical and reactionary as any Christian fundamentalist, if you press the right buttons. The decline in religious practice hasn’t given way to a golden age of reason, logic and analysis, some can only reason as far are they don’t break strongly held social mores, most cannot reason at all.

        Today is an inversion of 40 years ago, where the social practice used to be racism and homophobia, now most people aren’t racist and many are on their way to not being homophobic.

        Well, isn’t that a good thing, you may say? No and I’ll tell you why, the average Briton is only anti-racist and on their way to not being homophobic because it is prescribed of them by society (social mores, again) and legislation, as reason and logic is frowned upon, being “social” is held up as highest standard, so the average Briton adapts for fear of being dragged over hot coals.

        For instance, the slightest hiccup in language, the utterance of a single “wrong” word or an unacceptable turn of phrase can instantly brand you a “racist” (currently the worst social crime in Great Britain, if only because it’s been around the longest), regardless of whether it was accidental or nobody has ever heard you being racially abusive before. You will mercilessly attacked, scorned by society and if you are a public figure your career reduced to cinders. Do these sound like the actions of reasonable people or a lynch mob?

        These same people who, somewhat begrudgingly, allow a degree of homosexuality, pour scorn upon the idea of such a thing as adolescent sexuality, even though they are fully aware of puberty and what it means for the human body. The adolescent thus becomes a “child” and as such is innocent of any sexuality and has obviously been abused in some way, if they decide to demonstrate or engage in their sexuality prior to 16 years of age. How exactly can a 15 year old be sexually innocent, when approaching 100% of 15 year old boys and girls, excluding those not otherwise inhibited by harsh religious teachings (social mores, again), have indulged in simulated sex, otherwise known as masturbation.

        Mention the above to the average Briton and see the brilliant benefits of British culture then, the lynch mob will be round within the hour, not just for insinuating that an adolescent may possess sexuality, but for breaking “holy” social mores (probably more for the latter than the former).

        If this site had a co.uk domain, it’d be down within the week!

        Lastly, I’d like to agree that it is hypocritical to suggest that female circumcision be stopped, yet male circumcision continue. Male circumcision is equally pointless and driven by religious/social nonsense and is the best way to uglify that which is naturally attractive.

      2. If you think Britain is somehow free from religious thinking, just because a relatively large minority don’t “practice” a religion, then you are sorely wrong.

        “Christian thinking” about many, if not all, subjects still dictates most peoples thoughts, actions and the law of the land, even if it’s not consciously noticed or acknowledged.

        The average Briton is just as fanatical and reactionary as any Christian fundamentalist, if you press the right buttons. The decline in religious practice hasn’t given way to a golden age of reason, logic and analysis, some can only reason as far are they don’t break strongly held social mores, most cannot reason at all.

        Today is an inversion of 40 years ago, where the social practice used to be racism and homophobia, now most people aren’t racist and many are on their way to not being homophobic.

        Well, isn’t that a good thing, you may say? No and I’ll tell you why, the average Briton is only anti-racist and on their way to not being homophobic because it is prescribed of them by society (social mores, again) and legislation, as reason and logic is frowned upon, being “social” is held up as highest standard, so the average Briton adapts for fear of being dragged over hot coals.

        For instance, the slightest hiccup in language, the utterance of a single “wrong” word or an unacceptable turn of phrase can instantly brand you a “racist” (currently the worst social crime in Great Britain, if only because it’s been around the longest), regardless of whether it was accidental or nobody has ever heard you being racially abusive before. You will mercilessly attacked, scorned by society and if you are a public figure your career reduced to cinders. Do these sound like the actions of reasonable people or a lynch mob?

        These same people who, somewhat begrudgingly, allow a degree of homosexuality, pour scorn upon the idea of such a thing as adolescent sexuality, even though they are fully aware of puberty and what it means for the human body. The adolescent thus becomes a “child” and as such is innocent of any sexuality and has obviously been abused in some way, if they decide to demonstrate or engage in their sexuality prior to 16 years of age. How exactly can a 15 year old be sexually innocent, when approaching 100% of 15 year old boys and girls, excluding those not otherwise inhibited by harsh religious teachings (social mores, again), have indulged in simulated sex, otherwise known as masturbation. How can egocentric masturbation be seen as healthy (and not a sign of sexuality), yet the mutual experience of sex is deviant and only an indicator of abuse?

        Mention the above to the average Briton and see the brilliant benefits of British culture then, the lynch mob will be round within the hour, not just for insinuating that an adolescent may possess sexuality, but for breaking “holy” social mores.

        If this site had a .co.uk domain, it’d be down within the week!

        Lastly, I’d like to agree that it is hypocritical to suggest that female circumcision be stopped, yet male circumcision continue. Male circumcision is equally pointless and driven by religious/social nonsense and is the best way to uglify that which is naturally attractive.

        1. There are shades of grey everywhere and nothing is ever perfect. Overall, in conjunction with many European countries, British society remains first class.
          We do have a problem with racism and it is a crime. It is correct that any instance often causes instant castigation and ‘Public’ figures be damned.
          I do not understand what on earth you’re rambling on about regarding teen sex. Is your problem with the unacceptability of a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old? That’ll get you into hot water for sure and I wouldn’t disagree. Two 15 year olds will mostly just get raised eyebrows and angry parents.
          The U.K. is far away from perfect but it remains a great place. Before I lost interest with my FB Trip Advisor I had managed to remember and list 208 cities in 46 countries plus all continents except Antartica. I’ll not live anywhere other than the U.K. except, perhaps the Philippines.

    2. “Circumcision for the ladies has a long and noble history in many parts of the world and is encouraged by the ladies themselves in those places.” Um, no. It’s not. Also the practice female circumcision has much more to do with controlling women than vice versa with its male counterpart. Both are awful, though.

  3. I found today”s Political Post to be very informative and possibly the best post I have seen so far. I can’t think of anywhere else that I could get such an interesting collection of articles like I find on MB.

  4. Much compliments for your nice block! A lot of work and interesting news.

    This news fits well to the topic “Christian fundamentalists”:

    Bryan Lindquist Controversy: Anoka-Hennepin Parents Upset That Anti-Bullying Task Force Includes Man From ‘Hate Group’ (Posted: 10/19/2012)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/bryan-lindquist-controver_n_1989350.html

    In Anoka-Hennepin school district (in Minnesota, district of former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann) 6 plaintiffs had success with a lawsuit because of bullying of students who are gay or perceived to be gay.

    In this anti-bullying task force were 2 successful supporters of LGTB teens excluded, but 1 man included who might be persecuted because of hate speech if he would live in Great Britain or Germany. So chairman and superintendent of this school board have an alarming way for continuing their anti-gay politics (“no homo promo”).

  5. If Italy is going to take steps to make gay hate illegal they will have to start throwing the Xtians to the lions again.

Leave a Reply