James Rhodes’ love song to Stephen Fry
Why did the mass media almost always mention Stephen Fry, in reports of James Rhodes victory in the Supreme Court? The victory clearing the way for the publication of his book Instrumental, which documents the homosexual abuse of James Rhodes during his childhood? Continue reading
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people rejoice to hear.
Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.
Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality.
Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.
Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by. James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
The homophobic manifesto
What’s in a name? There’s LOTS in a name!
B*ggers CAN be choosers!
Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
UK Human Rights Blog
Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.
The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.
View original post 1,273 more words
Why the Ashers Baking Co Ltd were always doomed, and (I’m sorry to say) deserved, to lose their court case
The judgment handed down on Tuesday this week, in GARETH LEE -v- ASHERS BAKING, is attracting a lot of reportage and comment, much of it dumbed down, or even spiteful.
Yesterday, I was all fired up to take a strident pro-freedom of conscience stance on this case myself, putting me firmly into one of the two opposing camps battling it out in the comments following the various media coverages and blog posts. As I read the judgment, my heart was changed, and my entire stance changed by more-or-less 180 degrees.
A ground-breaking court case
I attended a quite glorious court hearing yesterday. The outcome, for which many of the public who attended the hearing would have been praying, was a cause for jubilation.
Sometimes hope *is* hate
One of the clichés often uttered or written in what nowadays passes for intelligent “debate” of contemporary social issues, is that those who are most vociferous against the evils of homosexuality (the behaviour, not the recently-postulated “orientation”), are often people who have experienced most strongly the temptation to engage in homosexual behaviour themselves.
In short, homophobes are often accused of being “gay people” themselves, and of “being in denial”.
In the House of Lords recently, there was an amendment drafted, and maybe moved, to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that would have protected would-be foster carers from being denied the opportunity to foster other people’s looked-after children, because the would-be foster carers held dissident opinions about “same sex marriage”.
Amazingly, it seems that none of the peers has thought of a much more serious related issue. None of them have suggested an amendment to protect real parents from having their children taken off them, because the parents hold dissident views about “same sex marriage”.
“You and me me baby ain’t nothing but mammals. So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.” [Bloodhound Gang]
It should humble us to remind ourselves what we are. Biologically speaking, humans are animals, who reproduce sexually, by mating. Some say that that is all we are. Even those who say we are more than this, admit that we are, at least, this.
Many other species have instincts that determine the mating behaviours used in their sexual reproduction. These behaviours cover a wide range.
Who gets the better deal? Transgendered people, or transoriented people?
Today, not for the first time, I read a comment complaining that people who are transgendered face problems of non-acceptance. It reminded me of the non-acceptance experienced by people who are, or who want to become, transoriented.
Transgendered people and transoriented people both experience non-acceptance, and for the same basic reason.
Transgendered people are (for example) male, but want to be accepted in future as female (or vice versa). In some cases, trangendered people have had their bodies changed, so that they resemble more their acquired gender, and less their birth gender. Transgendered people experience rejection on the part of people with strong, fixed beliefs. Beliefs that it is impossible for a man really to change himself, or be changed, into a woman (or vice versa).
A counterblast to Michael Swift’s famous essay
The Gay Revolutionary
published in Gay Community News, 15-21 Feb. 1987, often referred to as “The Homosexual Manifesto”.
You will probably enjoy this more, if you read Swift’s original essay first, re-published here, by Jesuits.
Trigger warning added later: Please do not read this piece at all if you are likely to be offended by the hate speech of Michael Swift in his original 1987 essay, of which this a parody.
Guest post by “Gagged Dad”, whose real name must be kept secret, to protect the privacy of a minor
When the police at last cleared me of the false allegation that I had hit my two year-old son, I expected to be allowed to see him again straight away. I had been a part of his life since birth. I had been seeing him three times a week until almost two months ago, when all contact was abruptly stopped. I miss him, and he must be missing me.
The social worker said that the alleged assault, for which I had documentary proof of an alibi that would have proved my innocence if the police prosecuted me, wasn’t an “insurmountable” problem. But she had developed other “concerns”, about (if I remember the phrase correctly) my “parenting style”, because of my “beliefs”. (She had presumably found out that I used to take my son to church every Sunday. He loved it.)
I asked her to explain. What beliefs?
She responded by asking me a weird question. What if, when my my son was 14, he told me that he was “gay” and that he had a “boyfriend” and I was “violently opposed” to this? She wanted to know what I would do, in this hypothetical situation. How would I react to this announcement? Presumably she anticipated that I would react “violently”, judging by the way she had worded her hypothetical question. I reminded her that my son was only two.
She then asked me how I would react if one of my grown-up daughters one day told me that she had had an abortion.
I later learnt that social services had decided not to “promote contact.” I missed his third birthday. I don’t know whether I will ever see my little boy again. If he can no longer have contact with me, who will take him to visit his three sisters and brother, or his aunts and uncles, or his nephews and nieces who are closer to his own age? Who will take him to church?