Wednesday, December 17, 2008



Petulant homosexual told to lighten up

Australia:
"A gay activist from Sydney says his human rights have been violated by the human rights watchdog itself - because it refused to ban a "homophobic" Telstra ad about two men in a tent.

Glebe-based advocate Andrew James has now lodged an official complaint, prompting a call from Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes for people to lighten up, The Daily Telegraph reports.

In the ad, two men on a camping trip become suspicious when their two mates disappear into a tent. It later emerges they are simply watching cricket on the same mobile phone.

"Gay men who do choose to have sex in a tent should not have to be afraid of getting caught by their friends," Mr James' writes on his website, engayment.org.

He complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission about the ad but found there was no official category because it did not occur in the workplace.... AHRC complaint handling director Karen Toohey said there was no legal basis to act against the ad.

Source

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

AHRC complaint handling director Karen Toohey said there was no legal basis to act against the ad.

Oh come on, man, think like a LIBERAL! If there's no legal basis, MAKE ONE UP! Entire categories of law have been created on the fly from no legal basis when a Liberal policy had no standing.

What a shameful example of following "the Man's" rules!

Anonymous said...

I think the response was classic. Lighten up!

Anonymous said...

Two points to this:

1. Please tell me how the ad is in ANY way homophobic. It has absolutely nothing to do about being against or afraid of homosexuals. The ad is playing on the simple idea of "getting caught", and that certainly isn't exclusive to gays. Just replace the two guys with a guy and a girl, and you'll get the same reaction. It's about getting caught, not homophobia.

2. If homosexuality is so right, normal, and natural, then how come so many gays have such a strong need to hide their gayness? Could it be that society simply doesn't approve of their lifestyle choice? Historically, there has never, ever been a society or culture that views homosexuality to be as acceptable as heterosexuality. The fact remains that homosexuality is considered NOT to be normal, and all the complaining and whining won't change that fact.

Anonymous said...

No, it won't change that fact, but they'll never stop trying!

Fear not. AIDS will provide the solution.

Anonymous said...

"The fact remains that homosexuality is considered NOT to be normal, and all the complaining and whining won't change that fact.
"

In fact, it will only make things worse by making fags appear to be immature, pedophilic, kiddies with an overinflated sense of self-importance who think they should be allowed to do everything noone else is allowed to do.

And those "gay pride" parades where they show off their sexual exploits in public (something that would get anyone else arrested) in order to show how "normal" they are make it worse still.

I've had several homosexual friends, and they are really nice people, but those idiot activists ruin it for everyone.

Anonymous said...

I've never understood how they got so much political power based on whom or what they have sex with.

Anonymous said...

"It later emerges they are simply watching cricket on the same mobile phone."

Interesting! My 14-year old daughter refers to cricket as gay. and Rugby as cool.

BUT,

In which of these two sports do men grab other men's arses?

Anonymous said...

Just a fag being a fag!

Anonymous said...

"Gay men who do choose to have sex in a tent should not have to be afraid of getting caught by their friends,"

Gay men in a tent?

Sounds like that move: Broke-his-back Mounting

Anonymous said...

Was there also a pun on "camping"?

Anonymous said...

Gay activists will never stop trying to put themselves above the rest of society, not so much by legislation, since the overwhelming majority of the people reject their lifestyle, but by using and manipulating the liberal courts. Obviously, their aim is not to be treated equally, (as they say) but to be made into a "special class" with rights and protections not given to the rest of society. To them, this doesn't simply mean regognition of their lifestyle, but "official" acceptance of it.

Anonymous said...

so why should christians be a special class with special laws of protection, like the laws of blasphemy which still exist in some US states? Oh right, it's the "tyranny of the majority" where non-theists don't get a look-in if running for public office in the US or must pretend to be christians - better still creationists - sorry IDists!

Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous at 8:42am. Cite one case in the last fifty years of anyone being prosecuted for blasphemy in the USA. Also, Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), is an elected congressman who is an avowed atheist.

Anonymous said...

Also Illinois governor Robert G. Ingersoll was an avowed athiest. Also Senator Paul Wellstone MN was too. MN governor Jesse Ventura. How about doing a little research before you spout such nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"so why should christians be a special class with special laws of protection,"

By "special class", do you mean that it's always ok to pick on them? Because that's exactly what happens in this country every day. I'm aware of special laws for blacks, gays, and jews (hate crime laws) but i know of no such laws for Christians. And in fact, neither do you!

Learn to read and the world will come into focus for you. If you let it.

Anonymous said...

why don't you learn to read - I just told you of one law specially for christians - blasphemy laws - and if they are rarely used why have them? (oh yes - they are always available to use).
If you don't like christians being picked on, why do you and others here hypocritically pick on gays, jews, blacks, mexicans, canadians, french and not least brits!

Anonymous said...

Oh, and another instance of special laws in respect of christians that all must abide by are continued restrictions in many places on commercial and other activities on Sundays.

Anonymous said...

Sorry - I should have said "high public office" - it's easier for a woman or a black to become President of the US than a white male atheist. All the main candidates in the recent presidential campaign made a point of emphasizing their christian faith.

Anonymous said...

and is this site just for people to "preach to the choir" and anyone who dares to do otherwise must expect ad hominems?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I guess Obama is realllly a Christian. After al, he referred to those who cling to guns and religion. Yeahhhhhhh, he realllllly, realllllly, realllllly, realllllly, realllllly, realllllly, sounds like a Christian to me. Why he even voted against protecting babies born after botched abortions. Yep that is a reallll Christian isn't it? Sarcasm off for now.

Anonymous said...

IDIOT

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way, have you found any instances of ANYONE being prosecuted for blaspemy? NO, I didn't think so. But I can cite hate crime prosecutions against blacks and homos, hmmmmmm can't find any prosecutions of hate crimes on Christians though.

Anonymous said...

You cannot refute that a special law exists to protect Christianity regardless of how often it's used, and that was all that was asked. Hate crime laws are not just for gays or any particular group. You can also invoke it if you feel you were a victim by virtue of a group you identified with.

Anonymous said...

"You cannot refute that a special law exists to protect Christianity regardless of how often it's used, and that was all that was asked."

The country you're referring to is Saudi Arabia, of course!

Anonymous said...

No I'm not referring to Saudi Arabia at all, but to places in the US. Many other so-called democratic countries still have blasphemy laws in place. There was a famous case in the UK in the 1970s when a Christian organization found a poem in an obscure gay magazine published a long time beforehand (presumably only read by gay subscribers) and claimed it was blasphemous because it described some homosexual fantasy that a roman soldier had re Christ at his crucifiction. The case the Christian organization brought to court actually won on the technical definition of blasphemy which financially ruined the editor of the magazine - so much for free-speech in a "democratic" society. And we criticize the muslim objection to the Danish cartoons!