One wonders, sometimes, what due diligence is undertaken before the decision is taken to offer an honour – a peerage even – to an individual. But perhaps the ‘powers that be’ should have asked Ken Maginnis a few attitudinal response questions before bestowing his peerage. Then we could have avoided the embarrassment of having, as a representive in our upper legislature, someone with so many demons. His comments – suggesting that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy like bestiality – have been well documented. But the rest of the interview reveals a man uneasy in a world that has moved well beyond his understanding. But perhaps he has never understood a world where people love each other.
I’ve had to suffer Lord Maginnis’ nastiness at first hand on a few occasions. He can, quite simply, come out with some of the most ill-considered and loathsome comments. But his latest outburst on the Nolan Show reveals the true extent of intolerance and indecency than can exist in the perturbed mind of a peer of the realm. And a Christian. May his God forgive him.
While I agree that his comments are nothing short of disgusting, it’s the lack of tolerence you show towards someone elses freedom of thought that leads me to comment.
I literally agree with everything on all of your postings except for your intellectual intolerence, the tradmark I find so disgusting from the left.
Criticise him for his argument, not simply by questioning his worth of having an opinion. Both are equally easy
Not sure I understand Joel. I’m criticising his disgusting opinions – and questioning whether it’s appropriate for him to be a Peer of the Realm given his degree of intolerance. Was Hitler entitled to his opinion?
Thank you for posting this Jeff. Very interesting and reminiscient of Mrs Robinsons remarks comparing homosexuality with paedophiles.
Not sure if you have heard of the Phelps family of Topeka, Kansas. I mention them because no matter how shocking and outrageous their comments are (www.godhatesfags.com and http://www.priestsrapeboys.com) they are still protected under the first amendment.
Maginess’s comments not matter how odious are still opinions he is entitled to. You may remember that Iris was investigated for incitement to hatred and was not charged. I’m not sure Hitler would get off so easily.
These comments from Maginess are nothing new. He was one of the most vociferous opponents of the extention of the legalisation of homosexuality 30 years ago some 15 years after GB. His comments at the time were appalling also.
There are inconsistencies in his comments. If he equates homosexuality with what he regards as other deviate behaviour such as bestiality how could he possibility treat equally his neighbours if they were gay compared with straight neighbours?
What I do find remarkable is that some of the most vociferous opponents of homosexuality have skeletons in their own cupboard. We know of Iris but what about the others who (according to a lawyer friend of mine) have court injuctions to stop stories getting out yet they have been voting consistently against gay rights for years.
You only have to google some of the prominent unionist politicians to see what I mean. Jim Kilfedder voted every time against legalising homosexuality but privately was a raving queen.
I’m not suggesting that Maginess is guilty of such hypocrisy but if he wishes to elevate himself above other people in this way he should remember Iris’s downfall. He without sin should not cast the first stone.
Well said Clare.
O dear the UUP do seem in a pickle over this http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/uup-peer-nesbitt-will-regret-gay-rap-1-3962939
Nesbitt’s reaction has been interesting but it proves the dinasaurs still rule
Indeed. Pitiful little organisation.