Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
a brooker opinion peice would be most entertaining.
your court has just made a truly landmark, historic decision which stands up for human rights in the face of right-wing immigration panic, and then you go and ruin the moment by talking some ill-informed shit about Kylie concerts and cocktails.
doesn't quite so poorly in context of his full statement, where it's more obvious that it's a rather misguided (and none-too-successful) attempt at cracking a joke:
"77. At the most basic level, if a male applicant were to live discreetly, he would in practice have to avoid any open expression of affection for another man which went beyond what would be acceptable behaviour on the part of a straight man. He would have to be cautious about the friendships he formed, the circle of friends in which he moved, the places where he socialised. He would have constantly to restrain himself in an area of life where powerful emotions and physical attraction are involved and a straight man could be spontaneous, impulsive even. not only would he not be able to indulge openly in the mild flirtations which are an enjoyable part of heterosexual life, but he would have to think twice before revealing that he was attracted to another man. Similarly, the small tokens and estures of affection which are taken for granted between men and women could well be dangerous. In short, his potential for finding happiness in some sexual relationship would be profoundly affected. It is objectionable to assume that any gay man can be supposed to find even these restrictions on his life and happiness reasonably tolerable.
78. It would be wrong, however, to limit the areas of behaviour that must be protected to the kinds of matters which I have just described – essentially, those which will enable the applicant to attract sexual partners and establish and maintain relationships with them in the same way as happens between persons who are straight. As Gummow and Hayne JJ pointed out in Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration (2003) 216 CLR 473, 500-501, para 81: “Sexual identity is not to be understood in this context as confined to engaging in particular sexual acts or, indeed, to any particular forms of physical conduct. It may, and often will, extend to many aspects of human relationships and activity. That two individuals engage in sexual acts in private (and in that sense ‘discreetly’) may say nothing about how those individuals would choose to live other aspects of their lives that are related to, or informed by, their sexuality” In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution."
Newspaper in 'taking things out of context' shocker.
more justified in the context of "stereotypical examples"
to include the 'To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society...' bit. I read it and thought 'why on earth would he say THAT???'
good to have some context. Sounds a bit less silly now.
The debate about whether identification as a gay man or woman really does involve a "wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them", or whether all the 'conduct' beyond attraction, sleeping with and conversations regarding the same gender is socially constructed, is interesting though.
odd forum for these issues to pop up in, isn't it? Always interesting when you have the courts considering issues that are usually considered the domain of sociologists and psychologists.
I suppose he's trying to talk about the existence of gay culture, which are those things that arise from sexual self-identification but are really a bit removed from just sex. Which the Express and its ilk love to use as a way of point-scoring; "I don't mind if they bum each other but I as long as they keep it to themselves" and all that, demonstrating a complete inability to understand that gay culture and being gay aren't inextricable from one another.
It's depressing but not surprising that his comment – using stereotypes as an easy-to-understand way of explaining why they shouldn't just be made to go back where they came from and "keep themselves to themselves" – has been seized as a stick to beat them with.
I thought that this was able to happen was completely the judge's fault. Kind of a good example of how the most casual of stereotyping, even when meant as a rather good-natured joke, can be twisted to nasty purposes.
as markee said. Hardly a first for British newspapers, least of all the Express. Still pretty unpleasant stuff.
blocked at work :(
'They must be free to go to Kylie concerts and drink multi-coloured cocktails, says judge.
Which as jonny_rat posted above was more an ill-advised joke/comment than anythig else.
Also there is a picture showing Rooney holding his son while on holiday with his wife, with the caption 'unfortunately Wayne that's not the world cup you are holding' which is a nice continuation of the current theme with these daily rags that the England team should be crying and repenting their sins rather than just fucking getting over it and getting on with their lives.