More Political Correctness gone mad....

Yes, we're all definitely going to hell in a handcart etc. etc. etc.

Firemen disciplined for refusing to hand out leaflets at a gay pride march.

 

Dont go there shakey, dont you know its an offence to be christian and straight, if youre not a Muslin or Gay your a perv.

 

The one thing that surprises me is that they weren't English - things must be bad is non English people are being discriminated against now. :roll:

 

I heard the argument that the leaflets were to promote fire safety awareness and fire prevention, therefore part of the day job. Now I know the old tale about rubbing 2 boy scouts together; but seriously?

 

if you lot fancy a battle have a look at URBAN 75 , i dont know how to do
the link thing , but google it and honest you will be shocked at the
complete left wing tossers on that forum .The fireman snub is a hot topic
on there at the moment .

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the fire brigade what with striking and Op Fresco and that but would they have disciplined them if they'd turned round and said we're Muslim it's against our beliefs?

I think not.

 

The problem was that the fireman have been happy to hand out leaflets at other events (other than Protestant Orange marches - itself unacceptable in my view) but not at gay events. The issue is whether public servants should be entitled to discriminate against part of the public on grounds of their beliefs. For example suppose they refused to hand out fire leaflets at a Catholic school because they had all been Presbyterians. This kind of behaviour against a religious minority is outlawed in Northern Ireland, so why should it be acceptable when done against gays?

If they are allowed to refuse to hand out leaflets how long before they claim the "right" to not fight fires?

If you think I'm joking just remember the NHS - where a small minority of staff (15% of nursing staff, for example, according to a recent survey in the Nursing Times) do refuse, on religious grounds, already, to provide full or any medical help to gays! That has not always been acceptable but is now. They are paid to provide a service yet a small minority choose who to provide it to. Does the church condemn or even criticise this practice - of course not.

The issue of discrimination should mean that no group faces discrimination. White, heterosexual, Christians should face no more discrimination than blacks, Muslims or gays. That said, given the choice - if I could take a magic drug tomorrow which would make me straight - I'd happily take it - but that's not a remote possibility at present, and I don't see why people like me should face discrimination because of the way we are. I don't know any gay man who chose to be gay - not one! So imagine how you would feel if the firemen had refused to hand out fire safety leaflets to you because you were white and they were black? Would THAT be acceptable?

Steve.

 

If you are paid to do a job and that job is clearly defined within your job description then get on with it and if your not prepared to carry that out then you should expect to be disciplined accordingly or should leave..(however I would add the punishments seem to be very harsh).!!

Especially if you work in public service as clearly the fire service is!

Have we not had conversations about service personnel refusing to undertake duties in Iraq on moral/political grounds and cheered at their subsequent punishment...is this not the same!!!

However I take your point Shakey and would guess that had they been Muslims they would not have been disciplined...but thats the kid glove pampered society that Muslims are allowed to operate in within this country and just so that I provide a balanced approach as do many other minority groups..!!

Has anyone heard the saying "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one!!!

 

In my book, if you sign on to do a job you do the whole job for the people you are paid to provide that service to. If you're not prepared to do that - you should bugger off and find an alternative career (outside the public sector). These leaflets related to safety advice. It's not up to them to decide who gets and who does not. Taxpayers come from all sections of society and as far as I am aware, gays don’t have an exemption so the firemen deserve to be penalised for their prehistoric attitudes.

I don't have a lot of time for firemen; they’re a bunch of spoilt overpaid sods [trying to keep my language right] who really don’t know how well off they are.

SF

 

While not disagreeing with you, one question that perhaps ought to be asked is whether its normal for the Fire Service to attend such rallies or whether their attendance on that day was a PC / political gesture. Does, for example, the London Fire Brigade attend all rallies in London such as those organised by the Countryside Alliance?

If the Fire Service attendance could be seen as a political statement then the firemen concerned have a similar right of expression. We don't have the complete story from the reports in the public domain, so any "judgements" that we make are incomplete and fit only those "facts" available.

 

This is a serious question: Why do some members of the homosexual community find it necessary to parade through the streets in celebration of their sexuality? There are no "straight parades" of people celebrating heterosexuality, so why does the opposite scenario exist? In fact, it is not beyond the realms of the imagination that a "straight parade" might be taken as an incitement of hatred against gays in the same manner that Orange parades can be taken as an incitement of hatred against Catholics.

I say again: there is no alterior motive or malice behind this question, it is just idle curiosity.

 

Flagwagger wrote: While not disagreeing with you, one question that perhaps ought to be asked is whether its normal for the Fire Service to attend such rallies or whether their attendance on that day was a PC / political gesture. Does, for example, the London Fire Brigade attend all rallies in London such as those organised by the Countryside Alliance?

Understood, but what better place to dish out this kind of guidance than at a rally. Admittedly they probably don't attend the lot and yes there may have been some politics at play here but if it was the Notting Hill carnival there wouldn't have been a problem.

The issue still comes down to the fact that they refused to issue leaflets to gays - a kind of discrimination in itself. Whether they should have attended the rally in the first place is another separate issue.

SF

 

No steve it wouldn't be acceptable, but the way things are going in our country with the government pandering to the minorities, whether this be on religious, ethnic or sexual grounds and sod everyone else here, then i fear the day we see the scenario you refer to, or a variation of it is not that far away.

 

There is dispute over this. The Catholic Church is taking the position, and seeking to contest the judgment on human rights grounds, on the basis that this inflinged their right not to be offended by people who offended their religious sensibilities and the church suggested that the participants might molest the firemen. They also suggested that the fireman's participation was political on the grounds that they had not been required to attend the Orange Order's march. I thought the Orange Order was religious? Their argument is therefore that the Fire Chiefs wanted volunteers to attend the parade and hand out fire safety leaflets to show that the Fire Brigade were tolerant towards gays. Nobody volunteered, so some of the men were ordered to attend. The question is whether a Gay Pride march is political or getting together to feel solidarity - which is what it's all about. The Catholic Church is highly political these days. Would Archbishop Conti take a similar stance if, say, MPs refused to hand out information to Catholic constituents on the basis that our highly politicised religion meant doing so might be seen as promoting Roman Catholicm or unsavory aspects of "Catholic Practice"? (I'm being ironic here, just like the Church often is about gays!)

Conti himself does not appear to have read the Catchism, available on the Vatican's own website these days - so no excuse to plead ignorance as in the past - which requires Catholics not to discriminate against gays but only to condemn what they believe we all do! Hmmmm! He's obviously forgotten that the Bible most strongly condemns hypocrisy as the gravest sin. Do to gays as you would have done to heterosexual Catholics!

 

It will happen Mazza_Magoo if we allow the kind of selective discrimination we are already allowing religious groups to practice against those they dislike. What Britain needs is a comprehensive anti-discrimination law prohibiting ALL forms of discrimination and allowing NO opt-outs by ANY group! Gays have been arguing this for years but to no avail - politically it's more divisive to have affirmative protection for some and not for others - divide and rule!

 

I totally agree steve, but i also agree with dunkers point, another example of this is the mobo awards, music of black origin. I dont see the mowo awards or the mogo awards, or the momo awards, (the list isn't exhaustive).
Surely the answer for this is not to run about proclaiming your sexuality or religious beliefs from the roof tops, but to just blend with everyone else. These type of parades/gatherings etc only go to causing more unrest and hatred. And before anyone says it, no i'm not a racist or a bigot, I believe that we all have a right to be here, i just dont see the need to ram our own ideals down other peoples throats.
Example, last weekend in cardiff was the mardi gras. I have never seen so many gays and lesbians openly cuddling etc in public. Now the question is, not why where they doing this, but why do they feel that they can't be as open as this 365 days a year. I believe that because such a big fuss is made on days such as this mardi gras, it only makes they're openess seem less acceptable the rest of the time.
As for taking a drug to make you straight, this wouldn't be the answer. You are what you are, be it blabk, white, yellow, green, straight, gay, muslim, catholic, protestant or martian. accept it.

 

Dunkers, the reason for the parades is historical. It goes back to the times when gays were hidden from public view and we were very much underground. Before the AIDS pandemic, despite the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality, there was still widespread discrimination. In my first job with the then DHSS (in 1983) I was specifically warned that homosexuality was forbidden (as if it were chosen behaviour!) and that it was punishable by dismissal and loss of all pension rights! One of my colleagues was so disciplined during my time there!

There are still people of influence who would like to return to the days when gays were invisible and persecution was acceptable. The purpose of the parades is, at least in part, to maintain a public profile and try to make those who are realising they are gay realise that they need not feel the kind of shame and guilt that many os us experienced when we were younger. When I first realised I was definately gay in the late-1980s and wasn't going to 'grow out of it' it was still possible to have aversion therapy on the NHS - electric shocks and emetics that made you extremely sick. Neither worked on me! Interestingly when the USSR used similar methods to "treat" redicivist-Christians this was termed psychiatric abuse!

Heterosexuals do not need to parade in public as you are the majority Dunkers. Your behaviour, even your entitlement to exist at all (and this includes celibate gays) is not challenged by religious figures on a regular basis. Heterosexuals are not imprisoned for being what they are in much of the World. Straights are not executed for being straight! Public displays of affection by straights are not seen as offensive or threatening as they are, say currently in Poland or by some religious people in Britain and other former parts of the Warsaw Pact. Muslim groups have been able to openly call for gays to be pushed off tall buildings in Britain with impunity. Where the police have tried to prosecute, the action is dropped by the CPS or DPP for policy reasons (ie political interference!). I also received a couple of death threats when I was researching my criminology dissertation by fundamentalist Christians three years ago. Again, no action could be taken - they apparently had the right to link a quotation from Leviticus to a threat to kill me if I didn't stop doing my research: it's called religious free speech. When I challenged this I was threatened with being charged with wasting police time! I was told - if they make an attempt on your life we'll do something about it! I finished the research & published it as a matter of principle!

It is precisely for reasons like this that such parades must persist. Gays need to remain in the public eye so that we cannot be sidelined, stereotyped and repressed again. If our existence and what we do, say or write offends the sensibilities of the religious - well perhaps they would spare a thought for how we feel about their own attacks upon us. I hope in 50 years time that gay parades will be as unnecessary as the Civil Rights marches in the USA are today. But when your community is under attack, not holding such parades is out of the question. The religious fanatics would also see it as some kind of moral victory and seek to campaign to stop other things they dislike.

Sorry Dunkers - I'm not getting at you - honest!

Steve.

 

Its not the gay parades which grip me, its the idea that they are right, the gays can say what they like and nobody dare object. An elderly couple being interrogated by the police for wanting to distribute leaflets, firemen being sent on courses so they can "understand Gays", Gentlemen we are indeed going to hell in a handcart, The people that need to be outed are the PC brigade, anybody know any faces as to who they are? the average British citizen in this country can say nothing without fear of being persecuted, Rum Ration will be next because the majority of opinions on here must horrify those who are PC.

 

The elderly couple who wanted to put Christian antigay leaflets in their local library should have been entitled to just so long as an athiest could distribute anti-Christian leaflets without being prosecuted - however these days you cannot do this either! :x

The most absurd example was the guy prosecuted for holding a placard saying 'Stop Homosexuality'. He was hustled by some gay protesters. The placard bearer was arrested and prosecuted. I have no problem with what he did - I think the police were wrong to arrest him and wrong to prosecute him, though what he was doing may have led to a public disturbance. Those who hustled him should themselves have been chanred with battery! I would like to see the blasphemy law repealled and free speech allowed. The only restriction that is really needed is to criminalise group defamation or incitement to hatred or worse. These acts should be consistently pursued and prosecuted, whether the offenders are gay, Christian, Muslim, Chinese, Welsh or whatever. Belief should be no excuse in law. Using the Human Rights Act is feeble - it depends upon ignorance about it limitations and its constraints. On the issue of religious freedoms - they are not absolute - they may NOT infringe the rights and freedoms of others - often completely ignored! If I want to watch Jerry Springer The Opera I am entitled to see it. I personally think it is rubbish. If Higs wants to have a crucifix tattooed to his forhead in time for the next Rembrance Day parade, then he should be entitled to do so. If the press want to print cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which offend Muslims, they should be entitled to do so, in just the same way as Sacrani was entitled to say on Radio 4 that homosexual acts are sinful. Where he went over the top was in associating gays with the spread of disease like the Nazi film Jude Suess did towards Jews! But even there he was only reflecting claims published by the Christian Medical Fellowship on their website.

RumRation next for censorship - well I would oppose that - even some of the antigay stuff here - it's free speech after all. Life wouldn't be any fun no more! Where are you Lingy? Why aren't you participating in this debate? Come on! :twisted:

Steve.

 

well if you think the above is bad,this just takes the bloody biscuit!What next?Will they only want to be treated by Muslim Doctors?If they want to live under sharia law then they should go to where its is the Law of the land.Maybe they are just waiting till we become one of those!!!!


Modesty gowns for female patients

The gowns have been designed to comply with religious rules
A gown designed for female Muslim patients who wish to preserve their modesty for religious reasons is being introduced to hospitals in Lancashire.
The £12 outfits - made in Yorkshire - cover the entire head, neck and body, leaving just a slot for the eyes.

The burqua-style gowns come with trousers, two styles of head-dress and elasticated cuffs to prevent women's arms from being revealed.

They will be available to patients at in Chorley and Preston from November.

The gowns were trialled at Royal Preston Hospital and proved so successful that a number of other NHS Trusts have also expressed an interest in offering them.

Preserving modesty

Karen Jacob, linen services manager at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, came up with the idea.

She said: "I noticed a gap in the market and thought that it would be great if there was a gown that helped to preserve a patient's modesty."

The gowns are believed to be a world first - and TrusTECH, the NHS organisation which manages innovation for the North West NHS - has the patent.

It means the market for the gowns among the globe's billion-plus Muslims is immense.

Tim Meadows, customer service manager for Interweave, the West Yorkshire-based firm which makes the garments, believes the demand for the gowns could be huge.

"We think there is a large market out there," he says.

"We hope it will be a success. We have invested a lot of time and money."