There is nothing quite like a prejudice to blind one to the facts. That thought occurred to me when I read the post on the Gown entitled “Homophobic assault at Pride”. Even the information as reported by Ben Finch would have alerted an impartial reader to the fact that there was more to Mr Kerr’s story than first met the eye. For example, Mr Kerr is reported to have said that the police wouldn’t allow him to make a formal complaint about the alleged assault. He also says that he had been removed from the march by its organisers.
BY SAMUEL MORRISON
But, due to the prejudice of Mr Finch, the reason for these facts was not explored. Rather he shot off to write a post about nasty fundamentalist Christians attacking a peaceful participant in Saturday’s parade.
Unsurprisingly, Conal McDevitt was quick to feed the anti-Christian prejudice, branding those who protested “Neanderthal”.
But just why wasn’t Mr Kerr permitted to make a formal complaint and why was he removed from the parade?
Throughout the time in which Mr Kerr was in the vicinity of the Christian witness, in excess of 20 minutes as he chose to stand beside the Christian demonstration for almost the entirety of the parade, he attempted to obscure the Biblical texts displayed by the Christians with his placard and screamed abuse. During that time I stood within a few feet of Mr Kerr and never once did I see anyone punch him or do anything remotely like that.
That is not to say that Mr Kerr did not do everything in his power to provoke the Christian protestors. His behaviour was such that he was spoken to by police and actually had to be manhandled by an officer away from the protest. By his own admission he was removed from the parade by its organisers. Why? Because his conduct was such that it embarrassed “Belfast Pride” – not that facts such as that would concern The Gown or indeed Mr McDevitt.
Having dealt with the issue of the phantom assault permit me to introduce something which has been sorely lacking from The Gown when it comes to the whole issue of “gay rights” – a bit of balance.
Your post about the complaints flowing from the display of a rainbow flag on the Union was an offensive caricature of why a Christian would find this objectionable. Rather than allow a spokesperson for an alternative view point to articulate in a reasoned way why there would be those who find the flag offensive, The Gown chose to selectively quote sections from objections from unnamed individuals who, I can only assume, didn’t know that their objections were likely to be published on a website. Additionally, we have no means of independently verifying these quotes. We are purely at the mercy of Mr Finch – whose post on 31st July on the supposed assault calls his ability to be impartial when it comes to these matters into serious question.
Permit me, therefore, to explain why someone would find the flying of the “Gay Pride” flag offensive.
It is important to remember that core beliefs of Christianity have come under attack during Belfast Pride. A few years ago there was controversy surrounding the displaying of a placard which attacked Jesus Christ. Another offensive poster was displayed this year.
Treasa Harkin says that the flag on the Union is a symbol of support. Indeed it is. It is a symbol of support for a parade which goes out of its way to be highly offensive to Christians and to falsely accuse them of assault.
Its display brands the Union building and makes it a very uninviting place for Evangelical Christians. For the VP of Welfare to declare that the flag will double in size for every complaint received only reveals his anti-Christian bigotry and indeed his desire to make the Union an uninviting place to one section of the student body at Queen’s. We often hear a lot of talk about the need for a shared society in Northern Ireland. What about some toleration for Christians?
If a Union flag or Irish tricolor were to have been displayed on the Union building and there was a similar response to the complains there would be an outcry. But not here. Why? Is it because the only acceptable form of prejudice at Queen’s is anti-Evangelical Christian prejudice?
…lol
Regarding the last 2 paragraphs; if you actually think that Christians are a more put upon group than the lgbt community in Northern Ireland, I feel very sorry for you. I get that the gown has to publish every opinion and be non biased, but thats just ridiculous.
Surely you can take a few measly decades of sinful prejudice at this stage in your journey through eternity? I mean you’re getting the last laugh here anyway, right?
‘Christian’ seems to be a code word for ‘Fundamentalist’ right-wing conservatives these days. Many Christians manage not to take offence so easily and have actually listened to ‘let he who is without sin’. *sigh*
Very good article, the displays of drunkenness which followed the parade were almost as shameful as the name calling and offensive placards the Christians were faced with. Why can Pride not be about “Pride” rather than about “giving Christians a dig”.
Well said James
At the beginning of this article the author points out that Mr Kerr was removed from the parade and that the parade organisers found his behaviour ‘embarrassing’. How then can he accuse the parade of ‘going out of its way’ to falsely accuse Christians, when the parade organisers themselves made a point of disavowing such behaviour? I was in the parade, and in Custom House Square beforehand, and particular care was taken to point out that trouble and provocation of the Christian protesters would not be tolerated.
Tolerance must work both ways. If the SU shouldn’t be allowed to display the pride flag for fear of offence, then neither should they be allowed to display posters or host events on behalf of either the Creationist of CU societies for the same reason.
LGBTQ+ people, and their allies, would not seek to chance aspects or how you live your life, or to infringe upon your rights. They wish only to have the same rights and respect as their heterosexual/cisgendered counterparts do. That certain people would take offence at anyone’s desire to live a decent life is, in my opinion, a failing on their part.
I should be as free to express my sexuality as the author is to practice their religion, and I have no desire or need to ruin anyone else’s life in order to do so.
Hi Claire.
The article was slightly edited without me seeing the changes. The article as originally written did not say that the parade accused Christians of assault. Thanks.
I’ll start work on my highly offensive placard for the bigots for next year.
In my frank opinion, anybody “offended” by the gay flag at the SU shouldn’t enter, we don’t want your brainwashed ideas there.
I think Niall from the humanist society put it best, “We can’t be tolerant of intolerance.”
It’s as simple as that.
That Bigot article doesn’t mention Christians once. Strange that you’ve come to that conclusion Sam, might that be a bit of anti-gown bias? Or are your assumptions making an ass of you?
If you trawl through the archives you’ll find a very similar letter to this one saying the gown doesn’t do enough about LGBT things. They can’t win
Sam Morrison – TUV member.
Credibility fail. typical unionist getting into a flap about a FLAG!
FAIL. That is pretty much all. I have no time, space or energy for those who wish to defend the kind of people who protest basic civil rights. And dooon’t get me started on “tolerating christians” IS HE HAVING AN ACUTAL GEG. I think it’s best I don’t get into this too much for fear of imploding in on myself with frustration. I read a really good article somewhere, that basically compared the fact that most fundamentalist right wing groups are considered to be a disgrace for having the views they do…yet those who are religious get to use the bible as a free pass for their behaviour . What a joke. What a miserable little life it must be to spend all your time hating people for bigoted, bullshit reasons.
Hi Clare.
The inconstancy in the letter which you flag up was not in the original text which I sent in. The paragraph read, “Treasa Harkin says that the flag on the Union is a symbol of support. Indeed it is. It is a symbol of support for a parade which goes out of its way to be highly offensive to Christians.” The words “and to falsely accuse them of assault” are not mine.
Secondly, you claim that provocation of Christians was not tolerated by the organizers. This is untrue as those who organized the parade have been furnished with multiple opportunities to apologize for an offensive poster carried in the parade – incidentally the young man carrying it went out of his way to ensure the Christians saw it – and have refused point blank to do so.
Finally, you state: “Tolerance must work both ways. If the SU shouldn’t be allowed to display the pride flag for fear of offence, then neither should they be allowed to display posters or host events on behalf of either the Creationist of CU societies for the same reason.”
With respect that is a nonsensical argument. When has the Creationist or CU society erected a poster on the side of the Union which could be seen on the other side of the street? This wasn’t a matter of a poster on a notice board. As I stated in my letter I specifically stated that the manner in which it was displayed “brands the Union building”.
The CU had a week-long event with a banner outside the SU just a couple of months ago. Nobody complained at that.
Why do the Fundy Christians not extend the same courtesy?
Samuel,
I should hope you won’t hold it against me for quoting the article, it doesn’t say that it has been edited or that certain parts aren’t yours. I had no reason to doubt that that was your writing.
It states in your article, which I am sure you have seen even if that part wasn’t your input either, that the protester in question was removed by the parade organisers. This highlights precisely that the behaviour was not tolerated by the organisers. If they removed him, they did not tolerate his behaviour; if they had let him stay until he chose to leave, that would be tolerating. The parade organisers did not provide the sign, and were not involved in in showing it to the protesters, so they have no reason to apologise. They removed it when it was a problem and didn’t encourage it at all in the first place. SO what would you have them apologise for? Or would you have them apologise for everything you didn’t like? In which case I would ask that you and/or the church apologise for everything Christians have ever done which has offended me.
When the CU had an event last semester (the one involving talks, free manicures and free lunches in the SU) there was a banner along the railing at the front of the SU if I remember correctly. There were also posters all over campus, and in fact it was almost impossible to walk past the front of the SU on either side of the street without being accosted by people with flyers and leaflets for it. The pride flag, on the other hand, was hanging from the union building (not even during semester, or even when the LGBT society were holding their event – the same week as the CU’s week) without specific mention of any event or promotion of any society. The pride flag didn’t stand in front of people attempting to walk down the street and demand they take a leaflet, so in my view it was far less intrusive.
Samuel Morrison,
Are you going to apologise for the 15 offensive banners carried by the ‘christians’ and for the foul language and insults they threw at the people walking past. I was standing there I saw and heard it.
Only a couple of months ago another letter was posted by the Gown, one which complained about the Gown not respecting gay rights and that it had written in praise of an event run by the Christian Union at the same time. Amusing that.
Dear Sam,
The type of person who protests a gay pride parade offends me. Furthermore, the more lifestyle of the evangelical christian turns my stomach.
The message of Jesus of Nazareth (itinerant preacher, self proclaimed son of the Judeo-Christian god, convicted enemy of the state) can be interpreted to promote tolerant, progressive, liberal and charitable attitudes.
Many evangelical christians show nothing but intolerance, prejudice and hatred for anyone outside of their clan.
Evangelical christians think nothing of shouting at strangers in the street, telling them they are going to hell. Offensive.
Evangelical christians believe that the 2004 Tsunami was a justified act of god, as god has a right to exterminate non-believers. Offensive.
Evangelical christians often seem to think that the death penalty is acceptable. Offensive.
Evangelical christians often stir the sectarian political divide in Northern Ireland for cheap political gain. Offensive.
Evangelical christians think that they are the lost tribe of Israel. That’s just dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
At least Mormons are polite.
Hasa Diga Eebowai!
The message of Jesus of Nazareth (itinerant preacher, self proclaimed son of the Judeo-Christian god, convicted enemy of the state) can be interpreted to promote tolerant, progressive, liberal and charitable attitudes.
= Christ didn’t proclaim Himself the son of the Judeo- Christian God did He? I was of the understanding that we base that belief (His Divinity) upon the prophecies contained in Scripture and the testimonies of the Apostles as well as the effect of His presence in people’s lives rather than His own words. I also note the key word “Can”, yes His message “can” be interpreted that way but there are different ways of interpretation.
Many evangelical Christians show nothing but intolerance, prejudice and hatred for anyone outside of their clan. – Thank goodness your not showing “nothing but intolerance, prejudice and hatred for anyone outside of” yours. Rather than “many” I would say “a minority”.
Evangelical Christians think nothing of shouting at strangers in the street, telling them they are going to hell. Offensive. – I’ve only ever really saw the Free Presbyterians doing this but I suppose your going by the false mantra of:
All Free Presbyterians are Evangelicals
Therefore
All Evangelicals are Free Presbyterian.
I’m Anglican and in Morning and Evening Prayer view myself as Evangelical, yet the Church of Ireland isn’t exactly known for its “shouting at strangers in the street, telling them they are going to hell.”
Evangelical Christians believe that the 2004 Tsunami was a justified act of god, as god has a right to exterminate non-believers. Offensive.
That is deeply offensive to Evangelical Christians and of course yet again utter nonsense, I am an “Evangelical” and believe it was caused by an underwater earthquake… so too does my church.
Evangelical Christians often seem to think that the death penalty is acceptable. Offensive.
Yet many others are in complete opposition to the death penalty. Your point is?
Evangelical Christians often stir the sectarian political divide in Northern Ireland for cheap political gain. Offensive.
Evangelical Christians are Christians not politicians, what can they gain? Surely most Evangelical Christians aim for peace and actively support it? Sinn Fein, DUP, SDLP, UUP and even the Alliance party on the other hand actively do stir up the political divide for their own political gain.
Evangelical Christians think that they are the lost tribe of Israel. That’s just dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
No we don’t, name one mainstream Evangelical church in N.I. that teaches that.
A load of made up nonsense and propaganda that has no basis in fact, created only to denounce all Evangelical Christians.
This is quite frankly pathetic. So the very same ‘Christians’ who protested at the pride march with placards and banners telling me I’m going to hell are now winging and complaining about placards pride marchers having placards and banner they find offensive. Give me a break.
I read today that Jim Allister has complained to the PSNI about a placard or two, one of which read: Jesus had two dads and he turned out ok’
Apart from the fact that this is funny, and is clearly satire – is Jim Allister seriously saying that this should be banned? So we’re all for free speech up until the point it says something I disagree with or I don’t want to hear.
We live in a society which values pluralism – what this means Sammy is that if you’re free to stand at City Hall and tell me I’m going to Hell (Eternal unending suffering after death) I’m free to walk past with a placard and banner saying what I want. you don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it – but you certainly shouldn’t be trying to airbrush our opinions and thoughts which you – or your god – find objectionable. There are plenty of states where that is done. You’re free to join them if you wish.
Clare,
In answer to your first point, no I don’t. What you said was both accurate and reasonable in light of the information you had.
Secondly, as made clear in my previous posts they have yet to apologise for an highly offensive and poster which attacked a core doctrine of mainstream Christianity. In fact, they have refused to do so point blank.
I don’t know about the CU event last semester and can therefore only accept what you say is accurate. However, the point still stands that you claimed that if the flag could not be displayed then the CU (of which I am not and never have been a member) should be denied the use of rooms and facilities in the Union.
I would reiterate that that is an unreasonable position and certainly not comparing like with like.
Samuel,
As I explained, I don’t believe it’s up to the parade organisers to apologise for one man’s poster, especially as they took the reasonable action of removing him from the parade. The organisers are not responsible for the sign in question, so why is it up to them to apologise? As I said before, should I hold the church responsible for everything every Christian has ever done which offended me?
The point I made was an extension of the logic which perhaps I didn’t make clear. Of course I don’t think that displaying a flag and using a room are equal. My point was that if the SU were to ban the pride flag that would be discriminating against both the LGBT society and any LGBTQ+ students. As the SU allows the CU to use their facilities and to display banners on the building, they must also allow the LGBT society to do the same. (And as regards to my accuracy, I’d just point out that another commenter mentioned the same event, if you want more than just my word)
interesting discussion. A while ago I did a bit of a skit about this, let me know what you think Samuel Morrison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq4Srd0P2k0
The guy who had the offensive placard and was goading the Christian protesters was a Douchbag, there’s no more apt term for him he was/is a Douchbag. However he does not represent all members of the LGBT community and should not be seen to do so.
The Christian protesters themselves, who shouted insults at the parade and carried offensive placards (nobody in the parade was advocating eternal damnation for being straight) are also douchbags and their views should not be seen to represent the majority of Christians in the community.
What we had was a confrontation of the two extremes of the spectrum, both of which represent the worst of their particular ideology.
Accept that some people will always be Douchbags and get on with your life, and whatever you do don’t end up like Jim Allister Douchbag in chief.
I think the comments about Christians are slightly unfair.
The Christians who were/ do go out on the streets and shout and protested are from a small number of churches.
I am a Christian who belongs to a church who state that to become a “member” you should not go out on the street proclaiming the word or going out of your way to annoy those who don’t want to receive the word and to tolerate people and their own beliefs.
I have many Gay friends and have no problem with them, in fact i had planned to take part in the parade to show my support but unfortunately could not due to unforeseen circumstances.
May Christians also take my view and are not in your face about it.
I don’t agree with the Christian protest which was held but neither do i agree the placards such as above but if people want/ are going to display them then so what, it doesn’t make one bit of difference to me, just get on with life.
I think we just all need to learn to get along and tolerate each other and our beliefs and if one group want to have a parade once a year to celebrate them and the way they are then we should support them as long as it is being done for the right reasons and not just to annoy another group of the community.
Don’t worry, many if us know that not all Christians feel the same way. Many of my friends are Christians who wouldn’t protest and things like that. It reminds me of in the Bible when Jesus says that sincere followers would worship in private, and not go out of their way to show of their beliefs to others.
I have absolutely no problems with any beliefs as long as the believer doesn’t attempt to use them to control my life
And trust me, the point of the parade is not to annoy anyone who doesn’t approve, it’s to be proud of who you really are and everyone is welcome under that banner!
Claire,
I think the problem here is that we are speaking at cross purposes. The poster I am taking about is not the one dealt with here http://www.u.tv/News/Calls-for-apology-after-offensive-Pride-placard/91fba0ec-9007-4cad-8771-a429fcf2f8d2
Samuel,
Are you not talking about the poster shown in the photo – ‘Jesus protect me from your followers’?
To be honest, I’m not sure that the content of the poster is the important part of our discussion – in fact it hasn’t been mentioned at all so far. It has no bearing on the discussion we are having.
Also you have yet to respond to the actual contents of my last post regarding whether or not we should blame the organisers and why it would be entirely inappropriate to be seen to sponser Christian societies andyet ban LGBT flags.