Here we have a main article that is 100% New Reich trolling.

Firstly, both Outrage and Respect are organisations that can both be considered mere extensions of Blair's New Reich party. Both have many honest members, but both are under the effective control of Blair's New Reich agents, and serve his political purposes. This has been seen most sharply with Outrage's ongoing NUKE Iran campaign, and Respect's neutering of the anti-war movement by standing in only a tiny number of general election seats, and by allowing the press to suggest the movement is mostly a radical muslim one.

In terms of specifics, the TROLL suggests that a party equates to the (supposed) view of one of its members, and that a clear public statement of a party policy counts for nothing!

Meanwhile, the TROLL also suggests that people of ONE sexual orientation are allowed to have their individual voices stolen by some political magazine!!! Imagine someone making that outrageous and patronising claim for heterosexuals.

QUOTE
Recent newsire debates on Indymedia have shown a suprisingly high amount of homophobia amongst users, although Indymedia volunteers are keen to emphasise that most of this activity is from known 'trolls'.
UNQUOTE

jeez- is this 'tactic' straight out of 'Animal Farm'??? You notice how this 'statement' is meant to suggest that dissenting opinions are 'homophobic' by definition. Is there ANYONE who falls for such pathetic black propaganda chicanary here.

LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. Attacks on the NUKE Iran campaign by Outrage and others are designed to prevent genocide.

And here is a wider point. Ever since the West has become this powerful, it has been telling the rest of the world to operate by its rules!!! Problem is, the rules in the West have been changing every few years, often going from one position to the complete opposite!!!

Anti torture, pro-torture.
Pro-human rights, anti human rights
Pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty
pro-drugs, anti-drugs
anti-abortion, pro-abortion
pro-slavery, anti-slavery
anti-gay, pro-gay
ETC, ETC, ETC

whichever current position the WEST holds, no matter how different from its position of even yesterday, it tells the rest of the world that it is OUTRAGEOUS and UNACCEPTABLE if they do not conform. THINK ABOUT THIS A MOMENT!!! HOW THE HELL CAN WE ***EVER*** STATE THAT THIS IS ABOUT MORALITY, WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD SEES OUR FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS CHANGE ON SUCH A FREQUENT BASIS??? I know what MY morality and belief system is! You know what yours is! But at a national level, things are in no way simple, straightforward, or consistant.

So please, when the decent ones amongst you (as opposed to New Reich members and supporters) think, hey we have some good pro-gay laws, isn't about time the Iranians (or whoever) should do the same, consider this. What about the long, long years of bad anti-gay laws in Britain. Our change is a consequence of OUR history. Won't Iran have to change as a consequence of its own history as well. Isn't it racist to think otherwise???

This should not stop individuals pushing their own positions of conscience. But when individuals come together to act, they are going to have to work very hard to prevent their movement being hijacked by the forces of Blair, and used to further his aims of atrocity. Or do you think atrocity should have been committed against us in, say, the 60's on the excuse of OUR bad anti-gay laws???

It appears that there are no limits that the Socialist Workers Party - and its front, Respect - are not prepared to go to in order to gain support among muslims in the UK, even going as far as to link up with representatives of the reactionary Islamic Party of Britain.

Under British law, political parties are required to inform the public of the names of their major donors. A visit to the electoral commission website reveals that almost half of the money donated to Respect came from one man, Dr Mohammed Naseem. Dr Naseem was a Respect candidate in Birmingham at the last general election; he is also a leading figure in the Islamic Party of Britain, a group whose website makes for some very interesting reading.

According to the IPB, islamists were not responsible for the London bombings - “the Jews” did it, through Mossad working in tandem with the Blair government. However, the IPB’s progressive views are not limited to this issue. The ‘Question forum’ section of their site also rules out “intermarriage” between people of different religions, praises the Taliban for establishing “protection for ordinary people” in Afghanistan and advocates the death penalty for public displays of “homosexual lewdness”, which it compares to paedophilia.

 http://www.islamicparty.com

This is priceless. New Labour criticising Respect for being homophobic. Did someone say Council elections approaching?

I would like to remind people that the Bible totally condemns homosexuality. Not only does it call it an abomination in Leviticus, but God also destroyed two cities for having widespread practice of homosexuality too. The religon of Islam also strongly condemns it too. Where does homosexuality come from? It comes from the Devil! See the link below.
 http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5003/5003_01.asp

Respect are unfortunately a pro-Islamist party. They have clamoured for votes amongst some pretty reactionary elements of the Islamic community. Cheap nasty populism.

Why should there be "an increase in public services that meet the needs of lesbians, gay men bisexuals and transgendered people, rather than money wasted on war?"

What special needs to gays have? They eat, shit and shop like everyone else. How about spending that 'war chest' on services for needy children, the elderly or the poor?

Personally, I don't fancy same-gender sex... does that make me homophobic?

And why does Outrage always attack the same groups as the Zionist Coalition?

quick quote from john s dixon:
Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a classically held Scripture used most frequently to "prove" how God hates homosexuality. It is a passage that I contend is most often misunderstood. But I will let the Bible interpret itself. It is written in Ezekiel 16:49,50:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

The question I know you will ask is, "What is this about abomination?" Indeed, what is it? Let's look at the account of Sodom again:

The word rendered here as "abomination" comes from "tow'ebah" (in Strong's, it's # 8441), and is said in Strong's to mean "idolatry" or "idolaters". In the Hebrew it is very clear that it does not mean "homosexuality".

In Luke 10:3-12, Jesus talks to his disciples about what to do if they are not greeted with hospitality, and tells what the consequence will be for such towns. In verse 12, Christ says, "But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable [merciful] in that day for Sodom, than for that city." He said this after a full missive on inhospitality, so we must take verse 12 in that context.

You may also look particularly at Genesis 19:4-5, which reads:

"But before they [the men in the house and the angels] lay down [to sleep], the men [Strong's #582, Hebrew word 'enowsh] of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know [Strong's # 3045, Hebrew yada] them."

The Hebrew word "'enowsh" is most accurately translated as mortals, and includes all genders and all ages. Even in the context provided in the story, it is clear in the Hebrew that it is the majority of the town population, male and female, that is represented here.

The Hebrew word "yada" has no sexual context, and means to become acquainted with socially. By no means is yada translated elsewhere with a sexual context, either. If sexual interaction were intended, the word "shakab" (Strong's # 7901) would be used instead, which means to know sexually. It is fascinating to note on the side that the NIV mistranslates yada here as "we want to have sex with them".

That said, the notion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality does not hold up. The Hebrew is clear, and nowhere is homosexuality made an issue.

Of very interesting note is that historically it is the Roman Catholic Church that is guilty of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Middle Ages, and even after, the Church was always full of riches, with gold and rich foods, and yet allowed thousands upon thousands of its own subjects to starve and be subjected to slavery as paupers in the papal reign. To escape being exposed for the hypocrite it was, the Roman Catholic Church very likely chose to mistranslate and misconstrue the truth of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to escape the wrath of the people. What better scapegoats than its own abundance of homosexual priests? By pinning Sodom and Gomorrah on this population, the Roman Catholic Church blackmailed its own priesthood into silence, threatening excommunication if anyone spoke against her.
____________________________________________________________________________

oh, and re: leviticus, here's a few questions..

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.


x

fuck off

Can someone point me to where Outrage have called for Iran to be nuked. I've searched their website and this one but can't find the reference twighlight keeps going on about? Was it a statement in the press?

keep it up and you religues peopul out there read the good book sometimes and scwerm at its sillness when taken litraly.

hummm...

The story of Sodom and Gomorragh is found in Genesis chapters 18 to 19:29. God told Abraham he was going to destroy the city of Sodom. And Abraham said "wilt though destroy the rightous with the wicked?". He pleaded with God to spare it if there were 50 rightous people.God then agreed he would not destroy if there were ten rightous people. But there were not even ten in all the cities of the plain. God then sent two angels to rescue Abrahams nephew Lot who lived in Sodom. That night all the men of the city tried to have sex with the angels. "Send them out that we may know them" said the men of Sodom. The Angels then blinded the Sodomites and phycally pulled Lot his wife and two daughters out of the city, so Gods judgement could hit. And it did all the men and women died and went straight to hell.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorragh, and cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengence of eternal fire." Jude 7

To God homosexuality is no joke the word of God is loaded with verses warning us about it. Of all the sins lying, adultary, stealing etc, can you think of any other sin where God himself wiped out entire cities to remove that sin?

I dont think the pro-gay/anti-gay comparision works with any of the examples you gave (eg. pro-abortion/anti-abortion). Being gay is not a moral choice in the same way as the other things listed are, there is usually little people can do about thier sexuality. Whether they are born like that or whether its the envirnoment they live in, theres not a lot which can change somebody's sexuality.

I also don't agree that just because we had anti-gay laws in this country for years we should let other countries have them. The Saudi ambassador uses the same reasoning behind his country's abuses of human rights, but I do not believe that anybody should have to go through that, while waiting for progression. This isn't about forcing moral views, its about the right to exist as an individual.

To all the White Male Middle-Class Liberal-Libertarians who have posted above
Chant: "Equality first then liberty" 1000 times; then try and apply it. Then you might begin to be relevant to anyone who isn’t a white middleclass “liberalatarian” whether they are a member of New Labour, the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the Green Party, Indymedia, or Dissent.

I have many people from Respect, and they have all been unequivocally abnd explicitly anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic, and anti-everything-fuckin-else that WMMLL bang on about. But Respect are about something much more significant and pressing than peoples personal hang-ups and prejudices: Equality.

I am not a member of Respect or the SWP and have criticised them heavily: but to try and acuse the SWP of being sexist, racist, anti-gay, or more specifically anti-homophobic is ludicrous if you have come anywhere near spitting distance of them. They, and the rest of Respect, I may say, take as read or a basic given, what consists of the complete ideology of the white middleclass “liberaltarians” which are just some of the symptoms of a capitalist society.

You need to tackle the causes to prevent the symptoms appearing - which doesn’t mean to say you don’t treat the symptoms too. A whole anti-racist anti-gay industry exists, just as there is a pharmaceutical industry which exists to treat the symptoms of capitalism. Capitalism is good for business for these industries - no wonder they only want a few liberal reforms and do not fight to get rid of capitalism root and branch - because they’d be out of business otherwise.

Equality, equality, equality.... comes first ... then everyone will have the opportunity to achieve individual liberty. White middle class “liberaltarians” just want laws that enable them to have their desired form of individual liberty - fuck the 99% of the rest of the world and their problems.

In fact the WMML´s are seemingly trying to fuck-up organisations that want to get rid of capitalism and inequality because then they’d be no need for their life-style activism and the anti-this-and-that industry.

Oh dear. I was looking forward to a really interesting debate about a dispute between genuinely committed activists. But some of this! Reminds me of US IWW person Chaz Bufe, who published 'Listen Anarchist!'. He was complaining about people screaming each other down in meetings and having personal vendettas, but it applies to the behaviour of people on Indymedia too. It must be really galling for the IMC volunteers to have to read endless rants by people who can't keep their anger in check. After all, as products of the enlightenment, aren't left and anarchist politics supposed to be about reasoned debate?

Now I'm ranting too. It must be catching. Apologies. I have checked with OutRage! and they state that they have no policy of 'nuking' or calling for Western intervention in the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, they do believe that persecuted groups in Iran, including trade unions, students, feminists, gays and linguistic minorities, should participate in the country's internal campaign to overthrow the clerical state.

Or maybe not. Strikes me as an interesting coincidence Respect wins a seat, becomes a real electoral threat to New Labour in London, Birmingham, Preston etc - and suddenly the internet is full of rumours that 'apparently' Respect hates Jews, gays, women, kittens...

Discerning IndyMedia fans might possibly want to check Respect's policies for yourselves:
 http://www.respectcoalition.org

Follow link to 'Policies' - see esp. policies on LGBT rights and Abortion - contrary to popular myth, considerably more progressive than Lab or even Lib Dem, who'd have thought?

(Now someone will complain this is an advert - but really it's a legitimate refutation of a smear campaign, so can I suggest if this comment is deleted/hidden so should the whole article/thread be?)

Read the main article carefully.. claims Respect is anti-gay, but then quotes actual Respect policy which is clearly pro-LGBT rights, more so actually than New Labour or Lib Dem!

And then equally nonsensical claim that Outrage! want to see Iran invaded. Again actual Outrage! policy and statements contradict that.

But who cares about facts eh? In the happy world of the internet we choose to believe whatever seems most exciting or fits our prejudices and assumptions.

I think probably the best postings in this comments thread are from the above poster and 'cazz' earlier on. I don't think the original article contradicts itself - it just sets out how the two factions, Outrage and Respect disagree, and where they agree in policy. But you're right, the guy who says that both groups are part of the New Labour 'Reich' is just plain funny.

I was interested in the idea that the internet itself encourages inaccurate and nasty postings. I don';t think this just happens with political websites though. I think it also happens all over the net. On the other hand , the complaint about radicals just shouting each other down is true too, and that was going on long before the net happened. back in the late 1980's, Militant, the SWP, RCP and the anarchists all used to have a slanging match if we ever met out flyposting. The IMG would even sometiems physically attack other factions and some people had to be chucked out of the local radical bookshop. Working class people or oppressed groups like gays or refugees tend to stay out of revolutionary politics because of that sort of thing. In the end I got involved in local council tenant group campaigns.

Far more fundamental than the question of whether or not the RESPECT party are homophobic (afterall, their silence says enough about how highly they regard the most shamelessly persecuted social group in the world) is just what on Earth is it that they're doing that merits the support of gay people? Take a look at their website and their campaign leaflets and it is immediately evident that they wouldn't lift a finger for the gay community. Moreover the behaviour of their affiliates at the Socialist Workers Party leaves much to be desired, physically attacking Outrage protesters an anti-Israeli demonstration in London variously labelling them "racists" and "zionists".

And to think that the RESPECT party had the gall to turn up at a gay pride event in an attempt to recruit members and supporters. They sure drive a hard bargain.

- Dave

It must be clear to most people that RESPECT is purely a vehicle for George Galloway to re-enter Parliament. The involvement of the SWP in this farce has shown me how ridiculous they really are. The idea that they will reconcile their "Marxist" beliefs with Islamic fundamentalism is laughable. They have well and truly led their members up a blind alley and a dead end this time.

Of the 26 seats Respect stood in, they had votes of over 5% in 9 areas. 8 of these had high Muslim populations including all the results over 10%. In the other seats they did only as well, or worse, than the Socialist Alliance in 2001. So, congratulations are in order for the SWP for having regressed by 4 years. The white working class have no time for Respect or the SWP and their middle class political correctness.

The idea that the SWP are homophobic is ridiculous. The SWP bend over backwards to appeal to any and every minority group so as to avoid having to deal with the white working class. At a generous estimate 10% of the population might be gay, and whilst it is necessary on principle to argue for equality, it should never be a main plank of a socialist party. The same goes for the feminist above (WMML?!!). Those who beg to differ should join the Green Party.