Category Archives: homophobia

Cardinal O’Brien comes clean

Posted on by
4

When Cardinal Keith O’Brien was in Stornoway we met up. We got on well but did not agree on everything. However, he did agree to do a radio interview. I had complimentary letters about that broadcast.  Tonight, this statement came on his behalf from the Scottish Catholic Church:

“In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them. However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.

“To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise. I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland.”

I wish to take this opportunity to confirm that there have been times that his disgusting homophobia fell below the standards expected of Cardinal O’Brien as a so-called Christian.

This is proof, yet again, that the very worst religion-inspired homophobia comes from absolute hypocrites. Many of his two-faced kind creep in and out of island pews each sabbath. Somehow I do not think the cardinal will be the last high-profile Scottish tub-thumper to be brought down by the facts and their own deeply-ingrained hypocrisy.

Written guarantees for clergy needed over same-sex marriage

Posted on by
4

Foreword – Our Freedom Of Speech Is Under Threat
Some time ago I submitted the following letter for possible publication through my usual media outlets. I did so under the impression that our island war memorials record the names of our courageous forebears who in the face of tyranny laid down their lives so that their eternally indebted descendants could exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Regrettably, I am gradually realising there are some media personnel in our community who insult and defile those forbears ultimate sacrifice by denying others legitimate free speech simply because editorial control affords them the vicarious pleasure of exercising that privilege. Are they any better than those who believe democratic debate is about silencing their opponents through intimidation? – Iain M Macdonald

Miavaig

Dear Editor

I make belated reference to a letter written to the local press by Mr Donald John Morrison, a respected Christian evangelist and Free Church (Continuing) lay preacher. Highly critical of the concept of same-sex marriage, Mr Morrison argued that such a union not only contradicted the natural order but openly defied God’s biblical instruction on gender relationships.

In his eagerness to forewarn unrepentant sinners of the awaiting ‘eternal fire’ it would be reasonable to surmise that Mr Morrison might contemplate interrupting such a church-held marriage ceremony, warning the participants of God’s displeasure at their matrimonial embarkation on the road to damnation, quoting verses of scripture to justify his warning.

Should such a scene ever be enacted, unfortunately the impact of Mr Morrison’s intervention in opening his Bible at 1st Corinthians will be greatly undermined when a fellow preacher and members from one of ten different island Christian denominations simultaneously open a carton of confetti to symbolically sprinkle the same-sex union with their blessing. Both sides would defend their actions as being consistent with biblical teaching.

Such a contradictory response should give any rational thinking person pause for thought,before rightly concluding that on this particular issue the broad church has entirely lost the plot, tying itself up in theological knots trying to face in both directions at the same time.

That is exactly where gay rights activists and equality legislators want the church to be because they know it’s much easier to defeat a divided and confused adversary who’s already broken ranks. I fear that unless the broader Christian church pulls together and starts speaking with one voice on same-sex marriage (and other issues) it will lose all credibility, allowing denominational rivalries and lack of consensus to be exploited to devastating effect by a powerful and committed gay rights lobby,satisfied by nothing less than full parity with heterosexual marriages

Their frustration at the clergy having a choice to refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony purely on the grounds of the couple’s sexual orientation, will eat away at the more zealous gay activists’ pride until they feel compelled to rectify this perceived taint on homosexuality by enlisting the help of their obedient politician allies who’ve already made apparent where their sympathies lie in any conflict arising between same-sex issues and the church.

And who’s to say the same-sex equality activists aims won’t be achieved in their entirety, faced with a divided opposition of clergy and church members compromised in their ability to voice dissent by the certainty they will be defamed by pompous liberal do-gooders who falsely portray anyone expressing misgivings about homosexuality as a prejudiced bigot

Nor will this be the gay lobby’s only recourse to achieving their aims. Once same-sex marriage is legalised, any couple refused a marriage ceremony at a specific church location purely on the grounds of their sexual orientation can in theory seek redress against the offending denomination through European Human Rights legislation. It’ll only be a matter of time before an aggrieved same-sex couple seek a European ruling.

In the very likely event of their gaining a favourable outcome, what then for the Scottish clergy? Future uncertainty for all church denomination clergy serving within Scotland’s boundaries could be removed by including in their conditions of service a Scottish Government-sponsored clause giving legal priority to their religious freedom of conscience over any obligation to officiate at a same-sex marriage for the duration of their employment

I would ask those qualified to speak for the Scottish Government, legal profession, church or gay community if they would be in favour of my proposal. And, if not, what would be their objection to including such a clause in church employment contracts.

Until such a written guarantee is forthcoming and enshrined in Scottish law, the solemn assurances given to ministers/priests by the Holyrood Government about their freedom of conscience to shun same-sex marriages is as much worth to the clergy and their congregations as a promise from Judas Iscariot.

Yours faithfully

Iain M Macdonald

Barmy FP minister demands that some of his own adherents should be branded criminals. (Now he’s got some detective work to do …)

Posted on by
Reply

Apology from The Herald (reprinted from Free Church of Scotland statement)

January 16, 2013

The Herald newspaper has apologised in today’s edition after it wrongly claimed The Free Church of Scotland had asked MSP Alex Neil to recriminalise homosexuality.

A correction on page two of today’s paper reads: “We reported in our Unspun political diary last Saturday that the Free Church of Scotland had asked Holyrood minister Alex Neil to recriminalise homosexuality.

“We would like to make clear that the Free Church has not met Mr Neil and has not made such a request.”

It is understood that the comment was made to Mr Neil during a meeting with the Free Presbyterian Church by Rev David Campbell.

The surreal landscape of same-sex equality legislation

Posted on by
15

“I recently submitted the following letter for publication through the usual local channels. However, its contents were deemed unsuitable reading material for a fragile and impressionable population. I could have let the matter rest there, but that would have meant allowing those who seek to stifle free speech to claim another victory. Thankfully, not all journalists are so unnecessarily over-cautious, so I’m obliged to my former schoolmate Iain X for volunteering to publish my letter on his blog, on condition that any commentators must give their full name.”
Iain M Macdonald

The following narrative is an accurate representation of recent real life events. Only the participants’ names have been changed.

Kevin and Kyle, a homosexual couple visiting Anytown seeking shared overnight accommodation knock on a B&B door. The householder, Mr MacKindly, informs them he is unable to offer accommodation because as a practising Christian his conscience would not permit a biblical command be transgressed in his home, stating in his defence ‘Man shall not lie with man’.

But also mindful of the biblical example of showing hospitality to strangers, Mr MacKindly invites the men in for a cup of tea and offers to find them suitable alternative accommodation amongst his list of contacts in the local hospitality trade who don’t share his beliefs

“Certainly not! Do you honestly believe we would lower ourselves to enter the house of a homophobic bigot? You will shortly be hearing from the local constabulary and our lawyers. Good day Sir !”

Having subsequently found suitable lodgings, Kevin and Kyle decide to make their home in the town. Some weeks later, already anticipated a church wedding in the wake of same-sex marriage legislation,the homosexual couple knock on the local manse door. They are greeted by the Rev MacGodley, who is of the more fundamentalist disposition.

“My church does not conduct gay marriages. I only marry heterosexual couples of whom our church approves. As a matter of fact some of my present congregation and fellow ministers have left their former denominations for fear of being tainted by the unwholesome presence of homosexuality.I would also remind you that unless you repent and renounce your deviant homosexual practises you are headed for eternal damnation.”

To rub further salt into the wound, Rev MacGodley compared their perilous situation unfavourably to that of his own and the lady of the manse who he claimed were both predestined for a heavenly paradise reserved exclusively for carefully selected heterosexuals

As a parting shot, the Rev MacGodley urged them to terminate their planned nuptials, prostrate themselves before an angry God and plead to be spared the fiery pit. Needless to say, the men beat a hasty retreat before their outlook darkened any further, vowing to register a formal complaint about their discriminatory treatment. At the police station they were advised that the beliefs expressed by Rev MacGodley were well within the scope allowed by a conscience clause bestowed by the Scottish Government solely on the clergy.

Later that evening sitting down to a hearty meal in the manse, Rev MacGodley was congratulated by his wife for the decisive way he got rid of the gays. Following dessert,they both gave thanks that whatever surprises lay in store beyond the grave they would never be asked to share their Strawberry Trifle with homosexuals.

Around bedtime,the MacGodleys were interrupted by a rare phone-call from the local Roman Catholic priest who’d heard about the rebuffed gays, and added his own congratulations.Having just downed a rather large Glenmorangie nightcap, Father O’Brann concluded the conversation vowing that if equality legislators told him to set a good example in embracing Scottish diversity by employing a male housekeeper, he would tell them to go to hell. ”Good company for the homosexuals” retorted Rev MacGodley, as he bade the priest goodnight.

Meanwhile back at the police station sits a solitary Mr MacKindly, now abandoned by the clergy and fellow church adherents who don’t want to be seen associating with someone they now regard as a ‘homophobic’ lawbreaker. The B&B owner was being sternly reprimanded by Sergeant MacQueer who brusquely informed him that the Scottish Government believe permitting gays to indulge in sexual activities in his home is of much greater importance than upholding his religious beliefs.

Mr MacKindly was subsequently charged with violating equality legislation, fined £3,000 and warned that he could face a lengthy prison sentence for failing to provide homosexuals with a double-bed in his home.

Welcome to the surreal landscape of same-sex equality legislation in 21st century Scotland where our government defends the right of some people to warn gays they’ll go straight to Hell as just punishment for their homosexual practises, while that same government threatens to imprison others for refusing to provide gays with a means of hastening their passage to that scorched destination.

Surveying this contradictory, inconsistent and hypocritical landscape, I’m rather relieved that, unlike many others, I haven’t become enmeshed in this web of hypocrisy. As is my right, I’ve never hidden the fact that my own distaste of homosexuality is based purely on personal preferences and practical considerations rather than use religion as an excuse..

Yours faithfully

Iain M Macdonald
Uig

No apologies for stirring up anti-gay hatred as journalist John Macleod finally quits the Labour Party

Posted on by
12

The Labour Party in the Western Isles is proud it is so inclusive. It does not kick out anyone – unless they over-claim on sheep subsidy or stand against an official candidate. However, the constituency party began tearing itself apart after it emerged the executive had secretly welcomed Scotland’s most vicious homophobe, one John “I wish them dead” Macleod, into their midst.

Thinking themselves electable again soon, many wanted the arrogant, self-centred self-publicising bible-basher slung out. The CLP executive did their usual rabbit-in-the-headlights impressions. They hoped he would publicly apologise for branding gay people in his national newspaper columns, as not fit to live. Fat chance. Has the despicable excuse for a man, who is also banned for life from the SNP after an “incident” that party chiefs have sworn to keep secret, ever shown the humility necessary for an apology?

Despite the inaction of the dopeys who should be striving to uphold the Labour Party’s founding principles, which includes disavowing hate crimes and those responsible, Macleod himself has finally got the message and realised he is as welcome as an inadvertent emission in a spacesuit. He has headed for the exit. Oh dear, I hope it was nothing I said. If anyone’s interested, a party to celebrate conformation of the hater’s departure is underway. “The party will be on a biblical scale,” a mischievous Labour insider whispers. Forty days and 40 nights? Steady, guys. Are you sure you’ve got rid of all the homophobes?

Johann Lamont has now set out her unequivocal stance on equality – but she won’t answer questions about those embarrassing Western Isles bigots

Posted on by
37

I’ve had a difficult conversation or two recently with certain Labour figures who want me to stop pointing out the extremist tendencies of some of their seemingly-loyal people. Branch chairman Matt Bruce wrote having a go too telling me, more or less, to change my sources. Everything is sweetness and light and no churchy bigot is calling the shots. He’s in charge.

OK, he didn’t use those exact words but that’s the gist. Inexplicably, Matt completely forgot to explain what he was doing about the bigots among his members whose vile and hateful views have so  badly tarnished the once-thriving party.

Lamont - after being unanimously endorsed by the Hebridean Haters Party, why is she now unwilling to discuss equality issues?

He also took issue with me for calling him names. How dare I call him “decent”. Sorry Matt, but after realising you have no intention of taking any action to drive out the nutcases who would attack some of the most vulnerable in society, I won’t make that mistake again.

Just to cheer him up, below is a lovely wee letter from Johann Lamont to Alex Salmond a few months ago to remind everyone where Labour stands on equality. This is from the woman endorsed by Crichton and Macleod and the entire local branch as their next leader. Yes, not-so-decent Matt proudly announced it was “unanimous”.

Amazingly, Ms Lamont fails to declare her support for Mr Donald Crichton’s bold call for a Heterosexuality Test before couples are allowed to book accommodation or Mr John Macleod’s personal assessment, presumably after extensive research, that anyone not displaying rippling heterosexual prowess like himself should be put down.

Either the extremist elder and the crackpot columnist – part of the famously “unanimous” vote  - have dramatically changed their views on gay rights, in which case we should be told and I will immediately withdraw everything I have said, or they believe Ms Lamont is just a hypocrite looking for votes who will not actually do anything to push equality.

Last week I wrote to Ms Lamont pointing out the public proclamations of the Hebridean bigots. I asked her for a chat on radio about equality along the lines of what she wrote below to Alex Salmond.  She has neither replied nor even bothered to acknowledge my inquiry. We are all entitled to wonder why.

- – - – - – - – -

5 August 2011

Dear Alex

I write to you regarding the comments of one of your SNP colleagues regarding same-sex marriage.

In Scottish Parliament motion S4M-00586 John Mason claims that individuals and organisations would somehow be “forced to be involved in or to approve of” same-sex marriages. I trust you will agree this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole debate around same-sex marriage. The debate is not about forcing anything on anybody – it is about allowing religious organisations that wish it the freedom to hold same-sex ceremonies in their buildings.

As the Equality and Human Rights Commission have reported there has been growing public support of same-sex relationships in the last two decades with the Scottish and British Social Attitudes Surveys showing a substantial increase in those who feel same-sex relationships are “rarely/never wrong” as well as growing support for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry. Some recent opinion polls have suggested that support for same-sex marriage to be as high as 58%. With the majority of Scots agreeing that same sex couples should be afforded the same right to get married as heterosexual couples, Mr Mason’s views are out of kilter with mainstream Scottish opinion.

Mr Mason has so far failed to explain whether his comments were in fact a coded attack on the rights of gay people and indeed whether he speaks for the SNP. I note also that the motion has secured the backing of a number of other SNP MSPs. However, I note that Pete Wishart MP has criticised Mr Mason’s motion as “nasty”, “anti-gay”, “wrong” and that he was “really disappointed that other colleagues have signed it.” I therefore wanted to write to you to seek your assurances that Mr Mason’s comments do not reflect the views of the SNP or the Scottish government and urge you publicly to make clear your personal position and that of your party.

Labour is proud to have introduced civil partnerships – an important step forward in tackling inequality. We believe the time is now right to consult on options to provide genuine equality for same-sex couples and their families by addressing the different status of civil partnerships and marriage. I note the SNP manifesto committed to “begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues.” I would be grateful if you could outline the scope of the consultation and indicate when it will be launched. In particular, I would ask whether the consultation will consider the best way to implement the ‘Alli Amendment’ in Scotland to give religious organisations which wish it the freedom to hold civil partnerships in their buildings for the first time.

Labour is clear – Scotland absolutely should not be left behind on issues of gay equality and I hope the Scottish government agrees.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Johann Lamont MSP
Deputy Scottish Labour Leader

Sarwar warned local party about John Macleod

Posted on by
84

I am now assured, from interesting sources, that deputy leadership hopeful Anas Sarwar MP was stunned that Fifth Columnist John Macleod was at the Labour branch meeting the other night.

Now the right way up

At one stage, he chilled the blood of at least one person in the room, saying: “Nowhere else would I be introduced to a member of the constituency party who is a columnist with the Daily Mail.”

He’s so right. Nowhere else would it be allowed to happen that an obnoxious individual, who had publicly wished vulnerable members of the community were dead, except in a morally-bankrupted branch where a Free Church elder, who has also publicly called for Nazi-style discrimination against one section of the community, is deciding what’s what.  That is the whole point.

Few of the Labour faithful gathered to hear his wise words on Wednesday actually picked up on the fact that Mr Sarwar was actually giving them a stark warning. Some just sniggered, pathetically.

Muslim MP silenced by Free Church bigots. You couldn’t really make this one up.

Posted on by
54

The call from Anas Sarwar’s assistant on Monday was friendly. The candidate for the Scottish Labour deputy leadership, recently backed by the Western Isles local party, was coming to Stornoway and wondered if I wanted a chat. Yes please, I said, because I would like to do a radio interview. We arranged to meet on Wednesday afternoon.

When I told certain political chatterers that I planned to interview the MP, they were pleased. Good man, they said. He will deal with whatever you pitch at him. I’m looking forward to this, I said.

Having promised several sickened members of Labour’s former faithful to expose the evil gay-hater John Macleod’s wretched involvement in the local party, I did so on the blog on Monday night. It’d give me something else to talk to Sarwar about because, like many of his party’s acolytes, he has spoken out firmly against extremism himself.

When the chatterers saw what I had written – well, thousands have read it – and how vicious Macleod had been over the years, they baulked. They had forgotten how hateful and deranged this cracked lunatic really was. What the hell was the local party doing even giving the time of day to such a toxic individual? they gasped. It’s a good question which one day will be answered, I promise you.

One chatterer was doubtful and said: “If Sarwar still speaks to you knowing you will have the homophobia that has infected the local association on the agenda, then he really is leadership material.” Hey, I’d got a dozen questions and that is just one of them. There was a lot of other things I wanted to ask too.

When the chatterer – he’s really my well-placed political adviser – phoned back Wednesday lunchtime, he wondered if Sarwar had cancelled. Nope, it’s still on for 4.30pm, I told him. “This guy could be the next PM. Not joking,” he said.

However, at about 3.15pm, Sarwar’s assistant called to say the interview was off. What? Oh, he’s really busy and things had regrettably been “pushed back”. I could email in some questions, she said. Oh, that’ll make fantastic radio, I said. We will just get his answers up on the computer screen and broadcast 10 minutes of silence.

“Sorry, bye.” Bye yourself, I thought.

Ten minutes later she was back on the phone trying to arrange a telephone interview. Ah, someone (can’t think who) has been dripping poison in his ear but Sarwar still wants to speak. Excellent. This must be good guy, after all. Why, I wondered, if he was able to do a phone interview at 4.30pm, could we not just meet so I could interview him face-to-face? I prefer to see the whites of their eyes, you see.

Still, a phone interview about the religious extremism strangling the Western Isles Labour Party with a Labour guy who has condemned all religious extremism and who will probably be the next deputy leader would be fantastic.

He never called back, I am saddened to tell you. As of this morning, I now know for certain who advised him not to.

Instead of standing up for the wee people and for their rights as he promised before he stood as a candidate, Anas Sarwar listened instead to a few well-heeled bigots and shattered his promise – and his reputation with many.

I have had messages from politicians up and down the country in response to that previous blog posting. They are fascinated that bigots can wield such power. It’s not news to us in the islands. They also note with interest that the local media here are all, as ever, scared witless to write a single word about the unholy mess into which two vicious individuals – it was three, but the third is coming to his senses – have plunged local Labour.

Now we have to wait and see if the person who really matters, Johann Lamont, is as happy to talk about the evils of religious prejudice and minority bashing in her own party as she was to make these promises before a bunch of compliant big city journos. I have, of course, written to ask her exactly that.

PS: I was asked today by a prominent politician how local Labour chairman Matt Bruce, who everyone thought was a decent fellow, can possibly allow religious right-wingers, who are vicious campaigners against Labour’s equality agenda to call the shots at a Labour Party branch. Who knows? I hope somebody will ask him soon.

Ye’ll ken them by the company they keep

Posted on by
4

I hope deputy Labour leadership contender Anas Sarwar, a man who once upon a time brusqely claimed there was no place in Scottish politics for religious extremism, enjoyed his meeting in Stornoway tonight.  Interestingly, earlier in the day, Mr Sarwar decided he preferred the company of a bloodthirsty, bigoted homophobe from the Daily Mail masquerading as a supporter of the workers’ party to mine.  His decision, which some people will not forget.
I’m sure Mr S  had a good time despite the stench from the company he was in.  It was fascinating to hear who was at the meeting tonight – and who made their excuses and stayed away to wash their hair. Remember to ask me how Anas reacted when an open-minded journalist who does not get his kicks by vicious attacks on our country’s minorities asked if he could interview him. Actually, I’ll tell you anyway very soon.

Sorry, Uig homophobe. I refuse to publish your offensive letter here

Posted on by
28

Update : Link to Macdonald’s letter now amended

I was emailed a day or two ago by the Uig homophobe, Mr Iain M Macdonald of Miavaig, Uig, a fellow who seemed normal when I knew him back in our schooldays and who I counted as a friend.

He asked me to allow him a final reply to points made in response to his last letter which I published here in a straightforward manner. I agreed to publish it as I got it, reserved the right to comment myself, etc., etc.

However, the letter that arrived from him tonight (Saturday) is, in my view, disgusting. I could not in all conscience publish it on this blog which is open to all and has more readers each week than any of our local newspapers.

His criticism of me personally is not the problem. He is perfectly entitled to be as robust in his response about me as I was when I took him to task weeks ago. That bit’s fine and not the cause of my fears for safe publication – and his own stability.

However, there is a darker tone, with hints of obsessions with bodily functions, towards the end of his note and I will not be responsible for letting anyone see that without prior warning.

So it’s definitely not being published here, right? Sorry, Mr Macdonald, if you feel I have reneged on our deal but higher considerations of taste and decency are in play. I have, however, pasted the load of codswollop you sent me elsewhere, hosted away from this blog.

If anyone still thinks they want to see it, the link is below.

http://www.iainmmacdonald.pen.io