Pink mafia at it again

pink mafia

Tim Worstall summed it up:

I’ve just had a Facebook request (no, I don’t log into it) asking that the “The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir’s hateful, homophobic article”.

This one.

OK, it’s a bit strong but…..I can imagine the same writer saying exactly the same things about someone who was in an open heterosexual relationship and then died in the same manner.

Someone called Alison [wonder if it’s the lady who used to visit here] said, in comments:

The social media world harbours some pretty smug and self-righteous individuals. The words “I’m sorry, but you’re not allowed to say that!” are never far from their lips – or, to put it another way, only liberals are allowed to be offensive.

The Quiet Man put it a little more forcefully:

Jan Moirs article in the Daily Mail sent several Twitterers and bloggers into overdrive because she said something they didn’t like, pointing out some details over the death of Stephen Gately and the possibility that his relationship was anything but natural.

Well there’s apparently a heavy price to be paid for crossing the Pink Mafia and their politically correct chums, Marks and Spencer don’t want their ads shown with the article in question and no doubt they are not alone.

As the Quiet Man says:

Harry’s Place sums it up succinctly on their blog banner “Liberty if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

Quite right too.  I’m sick to death of politically correct organizations like the Gay Mafia using their muscle to stamp out free speech on something which is not by any means a valid construct anyway.

At the very least it should be open for debate.  Hypocrites and totalitarians.

15 comments for “Pink mafia at it again

  1. ScotsToryB
    October 17, 2009 at 20:58

    Your right to be offended is guaranteed by free speech.

    STB.

  2. ivan
    October 17, 2009 at 21:40

    What is it with the word homosexual that they, the homosexuals, dare not use it to refer to themselves? Is it because the word makes them feel ashamed at what they do so they must use other words that do not make them feel that shame. Maybe that is why they call anyone that questions them homophobic in the hope the shame will transfer to that person.

    I see them as a group of people that have to assert themselves because they have nothing else to sustain them. They must browbeat the rest of us because they are perpetually afraid we might say something that will bring the shame to the fore – hence the treading on free speech.

  3. October 18, 2009 at 09:56

    I never gave a damn about Boyzone or Gately’s sexuality. I did read jan Moir’s article and it was a mean spirited piece of crap. But then she is a columnist and how many columnists are not full of utter crap

  4. October 18, 2009 at 09:59

    My beef is not specifically with homosexuals, as I’ve said before but with their mafia which rides roughshod over the rest of the country, getting things into law which just shouldn’t be there and generally acting against the interests of the nation so that their minority gets special treatment. Believe me, I feel the same way about feminists and islamicists who want the same thing.

    As for gays themselves – well, take Iain Dale for example. I wish him all the best in his preselection. Not a problem.

  5. October 18, 2009 at 13:46

    But James this particular issue is about a columnist writing a horrible column. Why shouldn’t people have the freedom to say its horrible and say they would prefer it if she wasn’t paid to write it and say they won’t buy goods from those who advertise with that paper? I don’t see anyone calling for banning her from expressing her views: just they are saying they don’t want to support her expressing those views through supporting the Mail and its advertisers. Are you saying people aren’t free to boycott?

    As to laws- I have no idea which laws you are talking about, specifically on homosexuality all the law I can see currently is about giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals- say the right to marry- that isn’t ‘riding roughshod over the rest of the country’!

  6. October 18, 2009 at 15:24

    But James this particular issue is about a columnist writing a horrible column.

    One need read no further [although of course I did :)].

    No, it was about freedom to state your views. Now I’ve just been over to Chris Dillow’s and left a dissertation to support my remarks, something Ms Moir should have done for her arguments to carry more weight.

    However, as stated, it wasn’t about that, as much as the shrill voice of the Pink Mafia wishes it to be so and to set the agenda that away. Unfortunately for Fry and cohorts, many people in the community see it differently.

  7. October 18, 2009 at 15:27

    But James this particular issue is about a columnist writing a horrible column.

    One need read no further [although of course I did :)].

    No, Tiberius, it was about freedom to state one’s views without being beaten down. Now I’ve just been over to Chris Dillow’s and left a series of quotes to support my remarks, something Ms Moir should have done for her arguments to carry more weight.

    However, as stated, it wasn’t about that, as much as the shrill voice of the Pink Mafia wishes it to be about “horrid remarks” and to set the agenda that away. Unfortunately for Fry and cohorts, many people in the community see it differently and don’t accept Fry and Co’s interpretation of what the issue is about at all.

    That’s what I was going on about, Tiberius.

  8. October 18, 2009 at 16:05

    “Someone called Alison [wonder if it’s the lady who used to visit here]”

    Certainly sounds like her!

  9. October 18, 2009 at 16:10

    Nobody is saying she can’t write this column! All people are saying as I understand it is that they don’t wish to pay for her writing this column- that seems to be the issue to me, whether its paying through buying the paper or through advertising. Don’t they have a basic right to do that?

  10. October 18, 2009 at 16:45

    That’s a nice twist, Tiberius. They are also free not to buy the newspaper, aren’t they, dear sir? 🙂

    Trooper – yes, it seems to be her although she’s been ill lately.

    Ivan, Jams, STB – thank you too.

  11. October 18, 2009 at 18:01

    They are and they are free to tell advertisers they will withdraw their custom- which would lead to Jan Moir being fired. That is the normal operation of the capitalist constraint.

  12. alison
    October 18, 2009 at 18:44

    Hi James

    Yes it was me. I was quoting the Telegraph there though.

    I only read the Moir piece when it started trending. I cannot stand the Daily Mail. It writes gossip pieces like this about anyone and everyone in particular the stars who make the headlines. Her piece was badly written and sloppy. But she is entitled to her opinion and writes…gossip columns for a paper. If you don’t like it, you can simply not read it or turn the page.

    What resulted is far more insiduous than her sloppy nasty column.

    Everyone is going nuts about this Jan Moir article which basically opined that gay swingers lead dangerous lives. So what? The Daily Mail write any number of articles about other lifestyles being harmful, commenting on female stars promiscuity, single mums etc, gossiping about any manner of things, as they do almost weekly but apparently it is NOT fine to write articles on gay people.

    And suggesting gay promiscuity is harmful as she did? That’s VERBOTEN. It’s “homophobic”. So much so that a giant squealing community will have her reported to the Press Complaints Commission, get advertising pulled to ensure her paper shuts her up, demand she be sacked and then finally have her reported for a “hate crime” as all occurred via Twitter. If that is not a ridiculous lynch mob overeaction to an “issue” which amounts essentially to an opinion you are free to IGNORE then I don’t know what is.

    Don’t like her opinion? Say so by all means. But to have her threatened with dismissal and hate speech is beyond contempt. Should I try the same the next time she writes a poison pen piece on women??

    And of course to then have her pilloried into silence using just as ugly and bigoted views is plain old fashioned hypocrisy. The level of mysogyny in the language used by the apparently saintly gay community was interesting to say the least.

    I think it’s worth taking a section of the Charlie Brooker article in the Guardian which condemned Jan Moir – and turning it on its head:

    “It’s like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite” he said about Moir

    He might well have been referring to Twitter’s Gay Lobby (c/o Stephen Fry)

    It’s obvious after this little debacle, that feminists have got nothing on the Gay Lobby James. Srsly. When did feminists ever manage to push language used about women and their sexuality into the hate crime arena.

  13. alison
    October 18, 2009 at 18:47

    I’ve also just read a follow up comment on Tim’s site to my comment which suggests that gay men are more vulnerable than women. I would like to see some stats to back that up. LOL

  14. October 18, 2009 at 20:08

    The level of mysogyny in the language used by the apparently saintly gay community was interesting to say the least.

    Wasn’t it just. The reason I let rip at Stumbling and Mumbling was because this hypocrisy got up my nose too.

  15. alison
    October 19, 2009 at 19:47

    I think all my tweeting about free speech and @ing various people in the press over the weekend may have helped move this debate on a bit 🙂 To one of free speech. Result! Im not particularly worried about Jan Moir. She passes judgement on people’s lifestyles and gossips about women all the time. But the underlying issue is clear. Have you seen Sunny Hundal’s post at Liberal Conspiracy? What a load of garbage!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.