Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS been urged to move forward with its bill to reform the law on prostitution in Ireland.
At an event in Dublin on Wednesday, former sex workers and activists from the Turn Off the Red Light campaign, and an organisation called Space International, called for the immediate passing of the 2015 Sexual Offences Bill.
The Irish Times reported that Denise Charlton of the Turn Off the Red Light Campaign, claimed the legislation would protect sex workers by decriminalising them.
Does the bill really do that?
A group called Ugly Mugs, which facilitates information-sharing between sex workers, argues that the claim is false, and brought it to our attention on Twitter.
(Remember, if you see a factual claim you think is dodgy, email factcheck@thejournal.ie or tweet @TJ_FactCheck).
Claim: The new Sexual Offences Bill would decriminalise sex workers
Verdict: Mostly FALSE
What was said:
We reviewed an audio recording of most of Wednesdsay’s event in Dublin, and could not find an instance where Denise Charlton said what was attributed to her in the Irish Times article.
However, the statement could well have been made on the fringes of the event, or outside the audio recording available to FactCheck.
In any case, the Turn Off the Red Light coalition (TORL), which is largely led by the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has on several previous occasions claimed that the new bill would decriminalise sex workers and the sale of sex.
A press release accompanying Wednesday’s event stated:
The legislation will help to end prostitution and sex trafficking in Ireland by criminalising the purchase of sex and decriminalising the sale of sex. [Emphasis added].
On its website, TORL describes the legislation in this way:
As it stands, the bill includes laws to criminalise the purchase of sex, while explicitly decriminalising the sale of sex. [Emphasis added].
And elsewhere on its website, TORL provides a template which they suggest members of the public should use to lobby politicians in support of the bill. It states:
As my public representative I am asking you to support the criminalisation of the buyers of sex as outlined in the Sexual Offences Bill to end demand for these human rights abuses, while also decriminalising the sale of sex to ensure that no one exploited or forced into the trade faces prosecution. [Emphasis added].
This is what the new bill envisions for the criminality of sex work in Ireland, which is currently largely governed by the 1993 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act.
Paragraph (a) of Section 1.2 of the 1993 Act is removed. This means a person who “offers his or her services as a prostitute to another person” is no longer treated as a person who “solicits or importunes for the purposes of prostitution”.
In essence, this removes sex workers from a list including buyers and “pimps”, to which other criminal sanctions apply.
For example, Section 7 of the 1993 Act, which would be kept under the new bill, says:
A person who in a street or public place solicits or importunes another person or other persons for the purposes of prostitution shall be guilty of an offence…
Since a person who “offers his or her services as a prostitute” would no longer be treated as someone who “solicits or importunes for the purposes of prostitution”, this means public solicitation by sex workers would no longer be a criminal offence.
This is an example of how the new bill would decriminalise sex workers.
Under the new bill, it would remain a criminal offence for a buyer or pimp to ‘solicit or importune’ for prostitution “in a street or public place”.
The punishment for that would remain a fine of up to €500 or a one-month jail sentence.
Similarly, Section 8 of the 1993 Act authorises a garda to order someone to move on if it is believed they are loitering in public for the purposes of ‘soliciting or importuning’ for prostitution, and makes it a criminal offence to disobey that order.
But since sex workers themselves would no longer be treated as ‘soliciting or importuning’ for prostitution, this would suggest that the de facto ban on loitering would no longer apply to them.
However, and somewhat confusingly, the new bill would also add a criminal offence of loitering for the purposes of selling sex, in legislation where there was not an offence before.
Section 8 of the 1994 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act authorises a garda to order someone to move on if they are regarded as loitering in public, in certain circumstances, and makes it a criminal offence to disobey that order.
The new bill would add a further scenario, namely where a garda suspects that a person:
(c) is acting in a manner which consists of loitering in a public place for the purpose of offering his or her services as a prostitute.
So while the new bill would mean it is no longer an arrestable offence for sex workers to solicit their services in public, it would, in effect, continue the effective ban on sex workers loitering on public streets.
And while sex workers would no longer be liable, under Section 8 of the 1993 Act, to a €500 fine and/or one-month jail term for loitering, they would now be liable, under Section 8 of the 1994 Act, to a €500 fine and/or six-month jail term for loitering.
Therefore the net result of the new bill, in this respect, is continuing criminalisation of sex workers, with increased punishments.
For context, Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald has argued that the effective continued criminalisation of loitering by sex workers is necessary due to concerns that, without such a ban, “Gardaí would be left with no means of combating any public nuisance if sexual services were to be offered, for example, in a residential area”.
The new bill would retain the ban on brothel-keeping. It’s worth presenting it in full, from Section 11 of the 1993 Act:
A person who -
(a) keeps or manages or acts or assists in the management of a brothel,
(b) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of a premises, knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or for the purposes of habitual prostitution, or
(c) being the lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such lessor or landlord, lets such premises or any part thereof with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel,
shall be guilty of an offence…
Neither the 1993 Act, nor the new bill, defines what a “brothel” is.
As a result of this ambiguity, sex workers working together (in groups of two or more) for safety reasons, as well as the owners and operators of the kinds of premises typically understood to be brothels (commercial, non-residential premises), are arrested and prosecuted under this provision of Irish law.
In response to a parliamentary question in July, Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald acknowledged that this section of the 1993 Act “can prevent persons offering sexual services from working together with others”.
And in response to a parliamentary question in December 2014, she described provisions in the new bill as specifically targeting the buyers of sex, “unlike the existing offences relating to prostitution such as soliciting, loitering or brothel keeping”.
This further underscores the reality that the current law on brothels has the effect of criminalising sex workers as well as those who “run” sex work in Ireland, but are not themselves sex workers.
The new bill would increase the penalties associated with this law from: a €1,000 fine and/or six-month jail term on summary conviction to; a €5,000 fine and/or one-year jail term on summary conviction.
Therefore, the new bill would maintain the effective criminalisation of sex workers in this respect, with an increase in the penalties they are liable to.
For context, Frances Fitzgerald has argued that this provision was kept in the new bill because:
…I am particularly concerned that any decriminalisation of brothel-keeping would create a legal loophole ripe for exploitation by the organised crime gangs involved in the trafficking and exploitation of women in prostitution.
Women would come under pressure to claim they were working independently when that is not the case and the Gardaí would be limited in the actions they could take to close brothels and disrupt the activities of criminal gangs.
It should be noted that the assertion that, without the provision on brothels, sex workers would be pressured into falsely declaring they are not under the control of a pimp, has been contested, including by Wendy Lyon, a solicitor who has acted on behalf of sex workers in Ireland.
She told FactCheck that sex workers are less likely to be reveal exploitation, when they are themselves liable to criminal prosecution. A further examination of the evidence around this specific issue goes beyond the scope of this FactCheck.
Other provisions in the new bill, which don’t relate specifically to sex workers, but might be of interest:
The bill also contains sections on child sexual abuse and child pornography, but these are beyond the scope of this FactCheck.
In response to a our request for evidence, Turn Off the Red Light told FactCheck:
Within the new Sexual Offences Bill 2015, those selling sex are implicitly exempt from the new offence introduced by part 4 of the said Bill, pertaining to the purchase of sexual services. In simple words, in the prostitution transaction those who are on the buying side are criminalised but those who are on the selling side are not.
As this FactCheck has explained, this is largely untrue. “Those who are on the selling side” (i.e. sex workers themselves) are still liable to criminal conviction for loitering in public, and working with other sex workers indoors, under the provision on brothel-keeping.
TORL appeared to acknowledge the continued criminalisation of sex workers under the loitering provision, adding:
There is a provisional amendment to the Public Order Act [the 1994 Act], which leaves those outdoors open to a penalty. All of the members of TORL continue to advocate for full decriminalisation of women/people in on-street prostitution and are working with all the political parties and relevant agencies to achieve this.
On balance, we find the claim, that the 2015 Sexual Offences Bill would decriminalise sex workers, Mostly FALSE.
The bill certainly criminalises buyers and pimps, but in two out of the three relevant areas of law, it also retains the criminalisation of sex workers, and increases the penalties to which they are liable.
To read the 2015 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill in full, click here.
To read the 1993 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act in full, click here.
To read the 1994 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act in full, click here.
Send your FactCheck requests to factcheck@thejournal.ie
I cannot wait for the attacks on Qatar when it is their turn to host the World Cup. If they think Russia has extreme anti homosexuality laws wait until they see what they can expect in the Middle East. It’s not only gay people, but Jews and women are discriminated against.
I have a feeling though that this is just a concerted Western media campaign solely targeting Russia.
Any additional scrutiny Russia or Qatar receive for their inhuman laws is wholly deserved. They host these big events to gain international recognition. The fact that the world’s media doesn’t faithfully report Putin’s propaganda is a good thing. Is there some anti-Russian bias behind it all? For some journalists maybe. But that shouldn’t distract us from the state of human rights in these countries.
I can’t wait to see it… Qatar is going to be a disaster.
Mistakes have been made, the contracts are signed, money has already been paid and this years Olympic sponsors are stuck with making the best of the bad situation they have found themselves in as much as we all have a moan that we are actively supporting this bigotry buying Coke, Mc Donald’s and using Visa cards… We know rationally nothing can be done and pissing off a 143 million western brand hungry market isn’t smart business.
Qatar meanwhile a tiny nation of less than 2 million, America and Western Europe already have a distaste for Islam, no one has committed to sponsor, post Russian hangover in the boardroom and already suspected of manipulating the bidding process…
nothing will happen in Qatar, because this issue won’t be raised and everyone will just act like they normally do, and likely nobody will make themselves a target. Any drinking in public will be in more danger from the law over there, but that’s not really the point. ‘We’ in the West see those countries as alien and don’t bother with them too much, with Russia there’s a perception that they look a bit like us so they must act like us too, even though there is no reason to think of Russia as being a modern European country. Culture aside, Communism set them back decades and still some huge percentage of Russians think it should be illegal to be gay, but it isn’t.
So we’re right to judge them negatively for it – and this is not a ‘debate’, hardly anyone in Europe thinks Russia’s anti-propaganda law is acceptable – but I agree with Pat, there is something about Russia that has made them a specific target.
Jesus the western media really is pushing this gay agenda. Not so long ago it was illegal here. Not every country has to be the same. Some country’s evolve at a different pace.
And the biggest hindrance to a country’s evolution, as you put it, is oppression and the lack of free and open debate. Putin and his cronies are actively stifling Russia’s development as a nation and this should be criticized at every opportunity, whether it affects LGBT people, pop singers, rival politicians or people you actually care about.
Or you could just say it’s all the gay agenda and stop thinking about it.
I’d love to know what the gay agenda is.
No one has ever been able to tell me, must be a closely guarded secret, kept by only those charged with fighting against it.
But that’s one person talking about equality and equality shouldn’t be anyone’s agenda, it should be everyone’s agenda.
The way some people talk you’d think there was a global conspiracy for gays to take over the world’s food supply or something.
The only ‘gay agenda’ is to obtain equal rights to everyone else, what’s the problem with that? Its completely normal and right to be vocal about something that is unjust.
I wonder who is behind the gay agenda? worth researching at least.
Catherine, you’re not a feminist, you’re a misandrist.
Kev,
Fair play to you !!! you speak the truth, and your mind.
Thank god some independent rational thought still exists in this politically correct, consensus driven, “my view is whatever I think most people will agree with” bullshit
Let those countries and peoples follow the evolution of their society on their own timeline. We got there by ourselves, and shook off the grip of religious morality by ourselves. Allow others to do the same, it is their country after all.
A tiny bit of historical perspective would very much enlighten debate a thought before people jump to judge and condemn.
Im sure I will get red thumbed to death, but I wonder if in the nest 50 years will there be any LGBT people born at all. If scientists find out the reason why out of a family of lets say six boys one turns out to be gay one wonders what is changed in the womb to cause that to happen can (or should) it be changed.
Rather than red thumbs, i would be interested in peoples thoughts>
Taxi Bill
So basically what you are saying is ,That being homosexual is in some way not normal and if scientists could find what causes it then they could change it ( this horrible condition) in the womb.
But taxi bill i have news for you Homosexuality IS NORMAL.
Why would you want to be changed? How would you like it if you were modified? Anyway most Scientist aren’t homophobic like you so they would probably protest to doing such a thing!
Downs is also very normal, won’t stop scientists looking for a “cure” while the baby is still in the womb, or before it’s even born. He asks a legitimate question, science is bringing us places we never thought possible. And for some people homosexuality is not normal.
I bet if they asked most parents would they like the trait removed they would say yes. Parents want to be grand parents. That’s normal. In my opinion it’s the sole purpose in all life and homosexuality is just some weird evolutionary design. Like cancer, there’s no point in it.
My same sex partner has two gay brothers. Nature has a funny way of taking charge. My partner is also parent to a younger assumed to be heterosexual bro. Looking forward to our average family weekend of going bowling while the little lad slags off my LFC while I do the same about his UTD. We might have a pizza as a treat afterwards and watch a couple of age appropriate movies. We’re a fairly average family these days but others want to destroy that.
Nature and parenting is less simplistic than you outline. Most parents just want their kids to be healthy and happy. Yes grandchildren are a bonus for some but other parents respect that some of their children may not create offspring for a myriad of reasons. It doesn’t take much effort to father a child but it certainly does to raise one :)
@upthepylons. Seems to have detached from the umbilical cord of my direct reply to he, she or it :)
Keith you would say it’s only a bonus, it’s human nature to want to reproduce and to want to see your genetic line continue. It’s a system that’s worked well for hundreds of thousands of years.
Three gay bothers from one family? There has to be something seriously wrong there. I mean what are the chances?
Nope Keith it’s called getting ready for work. Some people get a bit busy this hour of the morning ;-)
True upthepylons many of us are certainly evolving from our ape pasts. Many want to reproduce. Others do not or cannot. Some of these gays you constantly deride have biologically reproduced more children and most often heterosexual ones. Paradoxically it’s heterosexuals who mostly and constantly produce gays. Nature is wonderful. I’m sorry you see several gay children in a large family as a negative. Some people would see bearing a single child as a minor miracle in their lives. Perhaps one day you’ll be blessed with gay children or grandchildren and see things from a more mature less hateful perspective :)
@Upthepylons and Taxi, while we’re talking eugenics, we should urge our scientists to identify the genes for bigotry, hypocrisy and ignorance. Failing that maybe we can build all of you sad people a little island where you can go live out your lives safe from the threat of equality.
Not so busy @upthepylons for a good troll or three ;) Hitler would be proud of your shared thesis on eugenics with Taxi. Just hope you’re both blond haired and blue eyed Ike me or you might be surplus to the master race ;)
It’s equally likely that a genetic ‘cure’ for the troglodytic ignorance that seems to afflict a great deal of humanity will be discovered and thus you and your kind have no place in this dydtopian future you’re hypothesising over.
And if they can’t cure it maybe they can just scan your infant brain, predict it’s development and assign you a life-purpose on the home front of a space war or mining minerals deep in the earths core.
I think you would have been first to go lol. Don’t worry Keith, I don’t hate your kind or wish any violence on any of you either. I just feel sorry for you, like I would a cancer patient.
Funny that Drew, I design factories and labs from the comfort of my lovely office. So I think I would of passed your little spartan test.
Have to agree with Upthepylons, what he’s saying is a biological fact and deny it as much as you want, it won’t change it from being a fact. You know you’ve won the argument when people start pulling you on petty things like not replying to their non-factual retorts in an expected amount of time. People do have lives and work outside of leaving comments on here.
Aww @upthepylons in days gone by you could have designed gas chambers. There’s no need to feel sorry for me. I’m happy and healthy unlike those unfortunate cancer patients you place my kind with. I feel sorry for you and what hurt happened in your life to make you what you’ve become ;)
Haha Tom so something becomes a fact because you say so and delude yourself to it. Back up your facts with empirical evidence before you spout more hate.
Tom,
Please list the biological facts stated here? Because as I’ve said, it occurs in over a thousand species. Seeks fairly much a part of nature to me.
Upthelyons, likening homosexuality people to people suffering from cancer is reprehensible.
The main reasoning being that homosexuals aren’t suffering, and if they are its because of comments like yours’.
Sean, comparing gay people to sub human species isn’t a very nice thing for you to do. And just because a pig in Argentina is confused by gender doesn’t mean that we should stoop to their levels now does it? We as humans are supposed to be better than all that.
Animals eat their young. Do gays do that too?
If this individual really truly believed that the nature of his humanity is a drive to reproduce and continue his genetic line then logically he should be ecstatically happy that two men decide to pair off together increasing not only the number in his pool of potential females but skew the ratio of males to females giving him a shot with a women who ‘could do better’ if there was an even ratio.
Yet we see this continued illogical homophobic resentment of these type of people towards gay men… Why..why..why? It makes no genetic sense, in this dog eat dog competitive world to pass on ones genes. I don’t want a female…more for you. Simple concept, is it not?
Thus I have to defer to the question, do you really want a female? Or are we likely to catch you in a sexually compromising position with another man in a public toilet sometime in the future?
Maybe you should buy a book on English grammar for that lovely office of yours. I think you meant to say “So I think I would HAVE….”. In fact I think you should stop wasting everyone’s time with your irrational views and get back to work. Those factories and labs won’t design themselves.
@Tom, there you go again… There is absolutely nothing wrong with drawing comparisons between one species and another. Even if one of those species is us.
This is yet again the homophobic lobby moving the goalposts to suit their message. It used to be “Being gay is unnatural”, then when that was proven incorrect, it became “Human’s should be above nature”.
Tom if I were to say “isn’t it weird that both humans and antelope have legs”, would that be a not very nice thing to do? Comparing human and “sub human” species – how bold of me to suggest that humanity doesn’t exist in an vacuum of biology and evolution.
@Upthelyons: No, actually given that biologically homosexuals reproduce much less frequently, eating their young would, I’d imagine be more of a heterosexual trait.
Tom: weren’t you just critcising people for supposedly petty comments to distract from lack of evidence? Aren’t you now doing precisely the same yourself? You’ve been repeatedly asked to back up your baseless assumption with evidence, so let’s see it.
You disregard the incontrovertible parallels with the widespread, non-harmful occurrence of homosexuality in nature (of which we see a part), yet at the same time draw mistaken parallels with the false analogy of cancer, which you again have neglected to give any basis to back up, and conveniently disregard the countless contrasts between cancer and homosexuality.
So again, unless you can back up you wild generalisations, don’t delude yourself into thinking your position has any meaning, let alone coherence.
Hi guys, give Tom, Martin and upthepylons a break, the guys think this is a gay dating website, that’s why they only comment on LGBT stories, guys, this is actually a news website, try onlylads.com, it’ll redirect you to the Irish fellas via your IP address and will free up space here for rational discussion, have a good weekend, oh, and best of luck.
So this lad is going to dictate what opinions people can have? Why yes comrade, I’ll believe whatever you say without question.
The author called for people to express informed opinions. I think his point is that those who broadcast or publish their opinions should be responsible and not base their opinions on tired, hypocritical belief systems or ridiculous propaganda with no basis in fact.
Homosexuality has no good reason for existence. There’s one for you.
Neither has chocolate
Upthelyons,
What has informed that opinion?
Because based on studying the evidence, it’s seen in over a thousand other species. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that it’s part of nature and through darwinism, can conclude that it does.
Do you say that about cancer?
Please explain the benefits of the exsistance of homosexuality and you never know, you might change my mind.
Sean, would you consider all animal traits acceptable to human society or just homosexuality.
The whole idea that homosexuality needs to justify itself is ridiculous. This faux utilitarian argument is just a mask for bigoted views. I just wonder if you are aware of it or not.
Or maybe you are just allodoxaphobic.
@Upthelyons, I don’t claim to be aware of all of the facts and sometimes it’s just because bad things happen. Asking why cancer happens is really like asking why any disease occurs and I’m not going to go through the A-Z of what can kill us. That’s irrelevant.
The point is that it’s here, it exists in nature, it is not a social construct, choice or malicious aberration. It is simply who people are.
You liken it to cancer, whereas I liken it to blonde hair, big feet or the ability to grow a might moustache. Not bad, not wrong, just different.
@Martin, I would by and large say that we adopt more animals traits than we reject already, such as caring for offspring (some species), working in groups (some species), etc. What I’m saying is that this trait harms no one, causes no problem for those who don’t exhibit it.
Can you please outline your argument for why as a society should reject this trait and how you would propose that was enforced?
No upthepylons. In other words, I refuse to stoop to your misguided pretend debate because no matter which side I take I have to first accept that being gay is some sort of disease. Society is progressing beyond this warped view to the point where diversity and difference are celebrated for the fresh perspectives and new ideas they generate, not targeted for irradication as in your pathetic Nazi/Victorian wa#k fantasies.
Martin I don’t fear opinions. I just have higher standards for the opinions I and others express publicly. One of the reasons I don’t hide my identity behind a twitter handle like so many who express toxic and hateful views.
Upthepylons. Give me a reason why heterosexual relationships are needed? And if you say repopulation and continuing on the genetic line may I point out that the worlds population is reaching a critical point and will soon become unsustainable.
@Upthepylons
Straight people are the ones who give birth to most of the gay people on the planet.
Gay people continue to be born. Nature has dictated that this is so. Ergo, scientifically, there must be a reason for it. Part of the thinking that’s been proposed is that gay people can help out within a family unit because they are generally without their own children. So they can contribute to the care and upbringing of a relatives children, thus increasing the chance of survival.
This is only one tiny part of the thinking behind the fact that homosexuality persists and should not be taken as an exhaustive point.
But you wanted even just one reason for homosexuality to exist, there’s one.
Why interact with an anonymous troll guys?? They feed off your comments.
I think that’s the point of what he’s saying. Maybe the journal.ie should have a poll on whether or not parents modify their children in the womb so the wouldn’t be gay. It would be far more interesting than the stupid one about did you drink under age.
@Nialls
“Why interact with an anonymous troll guys?? They feed off your comments.”
Trolls might just be trolling, but their comments have weight and impact. I like to counteract their comments with comments of my own. I’m not in the “ignore troll” camp. For one, they never learn and never go away, no matter how many times they’re ignored. And I will call out hate, bigotry, oppression and prejudice, even if it’s done under the guise of trolling.
Besides, it’s easy to call people trolls and then ignore the fact that many of them actually believe the bile they’re spouting. True trolling is done by people who are having a laugh at someone else’s expense. Many of the extremist comments on here are made by people who are not trolling but instead actually believe in oppression etc.
Right on Florence. Dismissing people as trolls doesn’t always undo the harm their comments cause.
Florence, while I agree that responding to trolling comments with your own comments, more often that not I think it is the right thing. Having said that, there are some people on here (HSFDJK….can’t remember all the letters, Martin, Upthepylons, John with the smiley face) that say Gays are wrong, Gays are unnatural, Gays sex is disgusting. No matter how often you offer reason, logic and even data to the contrary, they will pick something obscure from your comment, twist it to near breaking point and then throw it back at you.
For example, in a discussion about the states obligation to treat all citizens without prejudice, Hsfdalphabetti asked me to specify my views on discrimination. I stated that treating anybody as unequal including but not limited to gender, sexuality, race, affluence is wrong. Then because I failed to mention age, despite having said including not limited to yada yada yada, I was told that I am pro-life. And if I am not pro-life, I am a hypocrite. I’m sure you can appreciate that this is an enormous leap, where non-existent dots were joined.
As a result, I do support the ‘don’t feed the trolls’ mentality when the troll is incapable of debating and unwilling to follow any sort of reason or logic. Instead they simply want to get a rise and attention.
If however they truly believe what they are saying and are willing to discuss it civilly, I will engage.
@Ailbhe
I appreciate what you’re saying. And you have to do what’s right for you.
What’s right for me is to challenge people, even if they appear incapable of debate and even if they appear unwilling to follow any sort of reason or logic. Sometimes that approach gets results. Sometimes it doesn’t. But it’s what’s right for me :)
Good on you, you have more patience than I can ever hope to have. Keep up the good work
At last an article on homophobia readers are allowed to comment on! What is going on in The Journal recently? Censorship only adds to the impact of the promoters of any notion that classes one citizen in a lesser status to another? Welcome back belatedly to the land of fair comment and at least allowing the rest of us our democratic right to stand up to those who perpetuate inequality.
Ya Brian. Lets talk about how black people are inferior to white people or about how women belong behind the kitchen sink. Sometimes maybe we play the “freedom of speech” card a little to loosely and dangerously. Far to easily it can become a weapon of choice for all the racist, homophobic, sexist bigots out there!
Brian you are a c##t!!
I don’t mean that of course but its an example of how freedom of speech is not positive.
I would rather live in a world where those with differing views to mine are allowed and compelled to openly discuss them. Better that than a powerful minority controlling what we can and cannot discuss. Let the bigots, sexists and fear mongers speak freely alongside everyone else so that we all might assess and dismantle their misguided views.
Nialls you are a f*&king idiot.
I use that as an example of something that’s true, and to show how freedom of speech is important in spite of efforts of people like you who try to shut it down.
I worked out that there are upwards of 60 counties I cannot visit or work in without the possibility of imprisonment or death because I am a lesbian. If I were a gay man, that creeps up past 70. Someone tell me that’s not a big deal.
it is horrific, but they’re mostly countries nobody wants to live in anyway.
Our own laws were the same until relatively recently
The closing effect of religious morality is usually to blame, as was our own experience.
People should get of their high horses and allow other countries to progress towards modern liberal views on their own timeline, forced morality from abroad will have the opposite effect.
Some countries are unfortunately behind in development, which is understandable if you have an understanding of history.
Is it right, No.
Is it reality, Yes.
Should we interfere and impose our values and opinions on other sovereign countries, No in my opinion.
Just a point on finding cures. It’s true things like Down Syndrome are genetic and it’s also true that some parents would love a “cure”. It’s not too likely though. Not in the near future. There as just as many parents who don’t want a cure as they believe their child is who they are meant to be. Where the research is at currently is trying to minimize the effects of the extra chromosome. Improving cognitive function , better treatments for the ailments and cancers that are unfortunately more common in individuals with Down Syndrome. The truth is that is what the majority of parents want. We just want to minimise the negative effects of the extra chromosome. There is no clear parallel with any gay gene as the person who is gay is not suffering physically because of this gene. They may be suffering psychologically but that is usually due to outside forces . Religion , attitudes in society ,oppression , . Same with cancer . This is a life threatening physical condition. Nothing at all like being gay. Why would anyone want to change who their child is? I never would. Being gay is not an illness and gay people only suffer because of others words and actions for the most part.
I bet they would have said the same about Ipads 50 years ago.
Oh, so they’re not racist or anti-Semitic either?
Paul, you have this inability to discuss the topic at hand. On an arrival about bananas you’d start discussing apples. Yes they are anti-Semitic and that is also reprehensible. However at present Russia is taking steps, if not leaps.backwards and making laws that are prejudiced against gay people. That is why we are discussing LGBT issues, not their attitude towards jews
Ailbhe,
Read the title – it ends with the phrase “let’s consider oppression in all its forms”.
Yes and the article focuses on the most currently relevant form Russia, due to the recent legislation.
Paul Roche, what are your views.on the ‘propaganda’ legislation in Russia, where a gay couple cannot legally hold hands, kiss or hug in public?
@Paul,
Have to confess I’m not extremely well versed on Russian politics past a few glaring issues, but on this one I reckon you’re right. They have a pretty abysmal record on equality and minority treatment from what I understand.
And you’re right that spreads past Russia too.
Ailbhe,
So you might agree this article is a little one dimensional?
It’s focusing on the most relevant topic at hand. As usual Paul, you don’t stick to the topic. I asked you on your views relating to the present topic. Care to answer?
If I was gay don’t think I could call my partner my husband , this is not a religious view , just think only a man and woman can get married.But if people want to delude themselves
Paul if you were gay, I’d say you’d have a slightly different view of marriage and who should call who their husband.
This is where the debate gets into extremism.
I see the point you’re making, your view is that that set of words feel like they should only be applied to a man and woman in a marriage.
I’m not sure I agree with you but I accept it.
Where your case falls down is that you then go on to say anyone who doesn’t agree with you is deluded. Like anyone who tells you the sky is a lovely shade of brown this morning is deluded.
You’re totally entitled to hold an opinion, but you don’t get to say on something as big and as vague as this that someone is deluded, not to agree with your personal view.
Yeah , your right Sean . Shouldn’t have put in deluded .I would retract it if I could.
Fair play Paul.
Cheers for coming back on that.
Any point in saying this is not Russia.
A concerted attack by western media on russia – I think not. The starting point for this discucsion is not in the westrern media but among the community of human rights defenders inside Russia. They are the ones standing in the demonstrations getting beaten and attacked for demanding their rights . All you have to do is check out the campaign launched today by Front Line defneders on sportshrd.org and you will see a similar pattern of oppression in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine.
And it isnt even just a campaign on gay people. The Foreign Agents law forces any human rights organisation receiving international funding to register as a foreign agent. To date more than 1000 ngos have been targeted with raids on their offices, random and arbitrary inspections and even direct attacks by some of the “spontaneous” government supporters. At the moment in Russia if you are a journalist, an environmentalist, a women’s rights activist, a gay rights activist – in fact if you belong to any group which is critical of government policy then you are in the line of fire.conspiracy theorists take note!
Russia is actually the best place in the world if you are gay, see here:
http://theantifeminist.com/is-russia-the-best-country-in-the-world-for-gays-to-live/
Maybe you LGBT lot will shut up if it’s made compulsory to be gay?
You know that not all of the people writing these articles, discussing it in the media, commenting here, talking about it in pubs are gay, right?
You know that by sheer volume, this referendum is going to pass because of straight people, right?
Also, maybe the LGBT community would shut up if our society just accepted them and treated them equally… Could that be it? Nahhhh, sure it’s not like that’s what they are and always have been asking for is it?!
If I get treated as a legal equal and I have the right to marry my partner, you’d never hear another whisper from me!
Compulsory to be gay? Sean, I think Ipsum just revealed one of the points on the super secret gay agenda mentioned above. What is the rest of the agenda? TELL US, IPSUM!!!
@ipsum oleum
“Maybe you LGBT lot will shut up if it’s made compulsory to be gay?”
This is the opinion of many of the uninformed on the extreme right in a nutshell…
Uninformed? I have long supported the right of the Gay community to live free from oppression but too much protesting and bellyaching is leading to compassion fatigue. The antics surrounding the new York parade is an example.
So, tell me, do you think we should all shut up until the referendum is done and dusted? Or do you think we should campaign for our civil rights and for those of our fellow citizens?
@ipsum oleum
“Uninformed?”
Yes. Because your statement “Maybe you LGBT lot will shut up if it’s made compulsory to be gay” appears to show that you understand little about what LGBTQ people are looking for. They’re certainly not looking to make it compulsory to be gay. That’s a slight hyperbolic and reactionary statement.
All LGBTQ people are looking for is equal rights and to not be oppressed by others. This includes being able to do the things in public that straight people are able to do without fear of dangerous/ violent reprisal e.g holding hands, kissing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btAUWI0rYJg
The hysterical outcry against the Russian “anti-gay” law is a monumental public relations scam and has nothing to do with genuine concerns about gay rights.”
Yes, everybody IS entitled to an opinion – it doesn’t have to be ‘approved’ by anyone to be valid, least of all some student union hack. Everybody, in a democracy, has a voice, even those who just want to replace one tyranny with another.
I stand to be corrected but have there not been recorded cases involving identical twins where one is gay and the other is not ? If this is true then being gay is not genetic and all talk of curing it in utero is nonsense. You are what you are, live and let live people.
have your say