Oliver Hotham: The sordid tale of how I was censored by Straight Pride UK

Soupy One

[Reprinted from Oliver Hotham’s blog after threats from the Straight Pride UK group. I would suggest that other bloggers do the same, as a direct counter to this attempt at censorship and intimidation. Soupy]

Oliver Hotham writes:

“A few weeks ago, when thinking of interesting things I could write for this blog, I remembered a weird organisation that gathered some attention on the internet a month or two ago.

The organisation is called Straight Pride UK. It’s a strange group which believes that the tide of Gay rights has gone too far, and that now heterosexuals have become the oppressed minority. Essentially their philosophy is spun from the same reactionary cloth as “Men’s Rights activists” – the notion that, having essentially run Western society for most its existence, progressive demands that Christian white straight males share some of their total grasp on power is somehow a removal of their…

View original post 857 more words


Sully, Put Down The Shovel

Andrew Sullivan doubles down on what was already a stupid reaction to Sally Ride’s lesbianism, with a quote from David Link:

The injustice of gay inequality, and particularly the injustice of the closet did not bother Ride. Or, maybe more accurately, it did not bother her enough to do anything with the public side of her life to try and change it. She simply accepted the closet, and took advantage of the work that others were doing on that front in order to live in a not-very-public-but-not-entirely-private lesbian relationship.

She shares this approach to the gay rights revolution with Mary Cheney. They are among the free-riders of this struggle, letting others do the fighting.

Sullivan adds:

But Mary Cheney was publicly out at least – which is more than be said for Ride.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Sally Ride came to prominence in 1983, which to anyone with an iota of knowledge about that decade will realise was not the most gay-friendly decade. Mary Cheney’s sexuality became a public issue in 2000, when gay marriage and the fight for gays in the military had only just begun to gather a real head of steam. Sally Ride’s father didn’t work for a superior who proposed an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution that would have banned her and all other gay people from marrying their partners. So the comparison Sullivan and Link make here is not only invalid, but to compare Sally Ride unfavourably to a woman who was prominently associated with a political party actively seeking to deny gays civil rights, is nothing short of disgraceful.

I’d also like  to address Link’s offensive description of both Mary Cheney and Sally Ride as ‘free riders of this struggle, letting others do the fighting’. By this logic, everyone who never put on a uniform for their country is ‘free riding’ on the freedom the military has, over the years, bought for them. Do they think every single black person in the country alive during the civil rights era was involved in the civil rights battle? Or that those who were unwilling to face the risk of violence and death were ‘free riding on the struggles’ of those who were wounded and killed? Not everyone is made to be a footsoldier. There is no moral draft where if you happen to be drawn into public life, you now have to serve your minority’s cause.

And the most important thing Sullivan and Link are conveniently failing to address here is that while Sally Ride was a public figure, her partner wasn’t. By slamming Ride and saying she should have outed herself for the greater good, they’re forgetting, or worse choosing to ignore, that Tam O’Shaughnessy also had a right to privacy. It was her decision too. The decision to be an activist for a cause carries burdens and responsibilities which rest not only on the shoulders of the person in question, but their families and even friends. They were perfectly within their rights to decide to spare their loved ones the shitstorm that would inevitably have ensued had they chosen to take a stand.


The Left Doth Protest At The Wrong People Too Much

I think the soon-to-be-law welfare caps and cuts that will affect millions of families and hurt the most vulnerable in our society, especially disabled people, is mind-bogglingly awful legislation. I also think blocking off one of the busiest areas in London as a protest against this bill is, like most of UKUncut’s actions, really fucking stupid.

Given that recent polls have shown a bump in support for the Tories, movements opposed to the Tory-led government’s aims should be attempting to win over public support and informing people of the dire consequences of this Government’s policies. Instead, they choose to have wheelchair bound people chain themselves across the breadth of Oxford Circus, creating a massive backlog of traffic stretching all the way up Regent Street. I don’t need to point out that the people stuck in that traffic aren’t politicians, or fat cats, or bankers, but ordinary citizens, who upon being inconvenienced by a protest group, are not likely to be in a mood to be sympathetic to the protesters’ aims.

And aside from the PR perspective, what is this protest going to achieve? How is blocking a road putting any sort of pressure on politicians? I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve asked similar questions to well-meaning people who are for doing the right thing, but going the wrong way about it.

Murdoch: News Of The World To Close This Sunday

Gone, but definitely not forgotten by the phone hacking victims.

He went on to say that if the current allegations of hacking were true, the newspaper had no place within the company.

The paper stands accused of hacking into the mobile phones of murder victims such as schoolgirl Milly Dowler and the families of those killed in the 7/7 terror attacks.

Mr Murdoch said in a statement: “Having consulted senior colleagues, I have decided that we must take further decisive action with respect to the paper. This Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World.

“The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account, but it failed when it came to itself.”

The only reason the NOTW no longer ‘has a place within’ News International is the fact it was caught. Because unethical, immoral fake journalism is not the exception, it’s the rule – it’s what the Murdoch media does.

While the paper will now cease to exist, we must not let the culprits get away with what they did. The people behind these despicable acts must still be held to account.

Quote Of The Day

Chez Pazienza:

The idea that it’s easier for everyone else to get naked so that it isn’t quite so obvious that the empress has no clothes on than it is for her to, you know, get some fucking clothes is the definition of mindless conformity, cult of personality and regression as a group. In this particular case, forcing everyone else to be dumber by revising written history so that Sarah Palin looks smarter — that’s the definition of an Idiocracy.

Shorter Julian Assange: Some People May Die, But That Is A Sacrifice I Am Willing To Make

He’s been out the news recently, but Julian Assange remains a strong contender for World’s Biggest Douchebag.  


Assange said WikiLeaks had “played a significant role” in the uprisings sweeping the Arab world by publishing secret documents about those countries’ authoritarian regimes. But he said the site was not the sole or even the major factor in the movements.

“It does look like we played a significant role in it. That said, the tinder of the Middle East was drying,” he said, crediting the spread of the internet and the rise of satellite TV stations like Al-Jazeera with major roles in the uprisings.

In response to critics who say WikiLeaks’ disclosures could endanger lives, Assange said major change involved risk and even deaths, as in the revolt that overthrew Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year.

He says from the comfort of a free nation where his life is in absolutely no danger. Brave, brave Sir Julian!

“We will not condemn a nation to a dictatorship just because we are scared of a certain annoying middle-class squeamishness in the United Kingdom,” Assange said.

So on the one hand, he says Wikileaks wasn’t the sole/major factor in the Arab Spring, but not leaking more stuff would condemn nations to dictatorship. Yeah, very modest, reality-based guy.

You know, for all that he claims to be against what they stand for, Assange shares an almost identical mentality to that of the Keyboard Kommandos of the 101st Chairborne.  Both lecture about fighting oppression from 50000 miles behind the front line, and human lives and consequences of actions simply do not feature in their equations.


Overhaul Complete

I’ve had this domain for almost a year now, but I haven’t posted anything since October 2010 and figured it would be a bit awkward just carrying on from where I left off. So, brand new name, brand new pristine blog.

I’ll be blogging mainly about politics, and taking down the now daily buckets of BS coming from Glenn Greenwald, as well as the rest of the idiot left, and the insane right. Either today or tomorrow I plan to tackle Britain’s ridiculous culture of super-injunctions, and what Max Mosley’s defeat in the ECHR means for press freedom and VIPs’ privacy. And a warning: expect a long, rambling post on the final day of the football (soccer to you Yanks) season analysing why Arsenal’s season went down the toilet, and what must be done to stop circling the bowl.

Ciao for now.