Getting All Defensive

Changing Attitude are amusing.

New Changing Attitude LogoInto the vacuum left by Ms Williams’ silence have stepped would-be defenders.

On the one hand there are those who want to defend her by saying we can’t be sure she said these things.  See for example Peter Ould who devotes his blogpost on December 18th to attacking the reporter Lester Feder, a classic case of shooting the messenger when you don’t want to hear the message.   But if Williams did not say these things what did she say?  At a conference where other speakers were also advocating imprisonment for gays.  And why is she so uncharacteristically unwilling to tell us what she said?  Peter Ould simply does not want to face the fact that he is metaphorically in bed with some rather distasteful bedfellows.

Let’s break that down bit by bit.

Peter Ould who devotes his blogpost on December 18th to attacking the reporter Lester Feder, a classic case of shooting the messenger when you don’t want to hear the message.

Interesting how they don’t link to my blogpost though. If they did they would have seen I wasn’t attacking the reporter per se, but rather questioning why he wouldn’t clarify any details about the conference.

  1. If Andrea and her fellow speakers never condemned anti-gay violence in Jamaica, how hard would it be to simply confirm this? Might it actually be that that is one of the things they did do and the reporting of such condemnations damages the view that the conference was all about demeaning gay people?
  2. If Andrea didn’t expand on the link between homosexuality and paedophilia that it is reported she made, how hard would it be to simply confirm this? Might it actually be that some good evidence was presented to support this assertion (I doubt such evidence exists but I would love to see it if it does) but it is inconvenient to report it?
  3. If the speeches weren’t provided as hard copies, how hard would it be to simply confirm this? Might it actually be that transcripts were available and that reading them would give us a better context of the claims made?

And that’s all fair points I think.

Let’s carry on.

But if Williams did not say these things what did she say?

Here’s the thing. You don’t have a transcript, I don’t have a transcript. All we have is one report from a journalist who categorically refuses to confirm any details and provide any more information to backup his story. So YOU don’t know what she said in context, I don’t know what she actually said in context and that is the whole point.

But the best is yet to come.

Peter Ould simply does not want to face the fact that he is metaphorically in bed with some rather distasteful bedfellows.

On the contrary, here is what I wrote.

Having said all this, it would be really good, really really good, if Christian Concern could clear up the reported statement, “They hate the line of homosexuality being linked to pedophilia”. I think we need to know from Andrea,
(a) Did she say that?
(ii) If so, what did she mean by that?
It is a common slur to link homosexuality to paedophilia. Whilst it is true that recently reported rates of abuse by males of boys compared to girls make the ratio around 1:3 (so around 25% to 30% of those abused are “homosexual abuse” – eg Blanchard et al.,1999), it is not necessarily true that those adult males who abuse male children are themselves homosexual (e.g. Sgroi 1988). That doesn’t negate the fact that male same-sex child abusers (i.e. those men who abuse boys) have a higher recidivism rate than other abusers, but the notion that these are all specifically gay men is unsupported by the evidence. Furthermore, implying that all men who engage in same-sex child abuse are gay is the same kind of reductionism of sexual orientation and identity that it’s proponents reject in other places (“People aren’t really gay”).
It was also suggested to me last night that Jamaica has a particular issue with male same-sex child abuse (and therefore Andrea’s comments were given in that context). That may very well be true, but we would still need some evidence that there is a particular problem with gay people in Jamaica committing these crimes.

Obviously I was trying to just push the whole paedophilia = homosexuality thing under the carpet, ignoring how unpleasantly it comes across. That’s why I blogged about it again today. In the interests of trying to push it under the carpet, that’s why last night I tweeted this

and this

Any time you want to apologise Changing Attitude, you know where to find me.

Posted in Changing Attitude