Friday, February 25, 2005
PC Homo Hate-Speech Wars - This Time in Australia
New legislation proposed in Australia to undo the problems with PC Homo Laws. Two radio talk shows made a couple of jokes about homosexuality on air and action was taken against them:
Just exactly what was this extremely offensive or severe ridicule?
I'm sure half of homos around the world fainted after hearing that. I mean, this is strong language. This is horribly, profoundly, mind-shattering vicious. One apology is too little.
If we were going to ban such horrible language in television every time it appeared in other contexts, 90% of television programming would be banned tomorrow. Talk shows of any kind would be gone, on radio or TV. I think it's not such a bad idea. Television producers should be forced to apologize to us by the minute. Every sixty seconds, TV would beep and a suit-clad TV spokesperson would appear saying:
"We apologize for this interruption of our normal programming, but we must apologize for the crude, the stupid, the ridiculing, the virulent program we are currently bringing you. You may now continue watching. Thank you."
Even I would watch more TV like that, I mean, they would show us how much they care about my feelings. They feel our pain.
And the best question in the article:
"You make a joke about Baptists, Catholics, the Pope, Irish people ... why can't you make a joke about homosexuals?"
Because domination is not about fairness or equality. The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
My question to the homo activist:
Is he going to sue all the homos that produce homo pornography that degrades or demeans homos? Or that contains sexual violence or aggression in homosexual contexts?
Or is he just one more piece of hypocritical liberal/homo trash?
.
The complaint was brought by a homosexual activist under provisions of the state's Anti-Discrimination Act, which outlaws any action that "promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of" homosexuals.
A state tribunal decided that the comments constituted vilification "because they were capable of inciting severe ridicule of gay men." It ordered Price and Laws to apologize on-air and in three major newspapers.
Just exactly what was this extremely offensive or severe ridicule?
"How would you explain it when children asked; 'What do they do, Daddy?" the hosts asked.
They jokingly suggested that an "uncut" version of the program, shown late at night, could allow the pair to "do all sorts of grubby things," renovating in their underwear, or even "with no clothes on at all."
I'm sure half of homos around the world fainted after hearing that. I mean, this is strong language. This is horribly, profoundly, mind-shattering vicious. One apology is too little.
If we were going to ban such horrible language in television every time it appeared in other contexts, 90% of television programming would be banned tomorrow. Talk shows of any kind would be gone, on radio or TV. I think it's not such a bad idea. Television producers should be forced to apologize to us by the minute. Every sixty seconds, TV would beep and a suit-clad TV spokesperson would appear saying:
"We apologize for this interruption of our normal programming, but we must apologize for the crude, the stupid, the ridiculing, the virulent program we are currently bringing you. You may now continue watching. Thank you."
Even I would watch more TV like that, I mean, they would show us how much they care about my feelings. They feel our pain.
And the best question in the article:
"You make a joke about Baptists, Catholics, the Pope, Irish people ... why can't you make a joke about homosexuals?"
Because domination is not about fairness or equality. The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
My question to the homo activist:
Is he going to sue all the homos that produce homo pornography that degrades or demeans homos? Or that contains sexual violence or aggression in homosexual contexts?
Or is he just one more piece of hypocritical liberal/homo trash?
.
Comments:
Post a Comment
