« I wanted to write something that people could - heh! - share and enjoy! 42 times! Whilst wearing a wristwatch! | Main | Why we need more words, but not from BBC online »
Apology to the relatives of Stephen Gately, on behalf of the Son of God.
The Daily Mail article made me cross, of course. Just as it made any decent, self-respecting human being cross. But it didn't make me unduly cross, since the Daily Mail always makes me cross and I have become inured to it. Moreover, if the tabloid's underlying homophobia briefly surfaced to make the whole rag look less credible to its readers then perhaps it wasn't an entirely bad thing.
This is a different matter. Stephen Green, in case you haven't already encountered him, is a bigoted fundamentalist who expresses his so-called Christianity by threatening to picket cancer wards, fighting laws against marital rape and congratulating devastating hurricanes for purifying the world. In true form, in this article he declares that Stephen Gately's death "speaks volumes about the lack of true feelings homosexual men can have for each other".
That's right, homosexuals can't feel real love, like the love that Stephen Green clearly bears so strongly for other human beings.
Incredibly, by comparison Jan Moir's article seems merely mildly disagreeable. Stephen Green talks as if he is entirely knowledgable about the homosexual world and its "mainstream" vices, and even sides with Islam (normally a sworn enemy) to threaten the imminent demise of such secular mores. His words are judgemental, ignorant, factually wrong, hateful and - ironically - perverted, all things that Jesus was pretty damning about, yet (and this is what really makes me irate) he claims to speak with a "Christian voice".
To put Stephen Green in context, I would far rather see Nick Griffin as a regular visitor to Question Time than ever see Green as a panelist. Yet, generating far fewer questions than have been asked about Griffin, Stephen Green has appeared on the programme, even though unlike Griffin nobody elected him to represent their views. And unpalatable though Griffin's views are, he is only claiming to represent British Nationalism, an ambiguous and even dubious concept - whereas Green claims to represent Jesus Christ, who didn't die so that unpleasant men could dance on tragically young dead singers' graves.
Stephen Green actually proved unable to stand up to the combined hatred of Dimbleby, fellow panelists and studio audience, even with his "Bible verse for every occasion" approach to questions (has any man ever known the Bible so well but understood it so little?) and it was ultimately left to Janet Street-Porter to stick up for Christianity. Since, in the case of Stephen Gately, Janet Street-Porter has already had to do the job of proving that not all Daily Mail columnists are evil, can we cut straight to the point and get Stephen Green taken to court under the trades description act? Or is there some old blasphemy law that says making Jesus look like a dickhead is punishable with life imprisonment?
Gately article
Polly (not verified) on 12.24am on Sunday 1st November, 2009
Oh, God. I don't read the Daily Mail, so only heard about that article, but this one is worse, for sure. The main thing that strikes me is the sheer stupidity of the comments. When you look around you at the general behaviour of folk, even some of the 'esteemed' clergy, how is anything Gately did so different? Is the hetero population some pure, faithful, clean living example to the world of matrimony? When a heterosexual dies in similar circumstances, would this man rant on about the filthy lives of heterosexuals and the failure of marriage? Course not. He just took a cheap shot and chance to air his bigotry. I'm ashamed of him being a Christian.
» reply
Blasphemy won't cut it…
…since blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in 2008. However the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2008 could perhaps be invoked here. Under the R&RHA, the Public Order Act section 29A now defines religious hatred as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief". It's difficult to see how Green's words cannot be taken as hatred defined by reference to lack of his own religious belief.
His defence would, I imagine, be that section 29B (requirement of an intent to stir up hatred) does not apply, since he loves everyone equally according to the word of his through-a-glass-darkly Lord. If only he'd read 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 as well as rolling around in poor translations of Leviticus.
He's also, sadly, covered by the Human Rights Act.
But then so am I when I say that he's a hideous, evil man with a shrivelled soul and no hope of seeing Stephen Gately in a Heaven for which he is unlikely to meet the entry requirements.