To find this article about Stephen Gately's death utterly vile and callous?

[BiteOfFun]

Quelle surprise- it's in the Daily Hate, and surely represents a new low? What a nasty piece of writing- shame on you, Jan Moir!

smallorange "I think you should be allowed to say or publish anything you want within legal limits. She can say what she likes but has to accept that if you write things like that then you should expect others to have an opinion too."

Nowhere have I said that Moir is above criticism. In fact quite the opposite:

"I have no argument with people criticising, or even campaigning ? thats? part of free speech too."

Which is exactly what you're saying, no?

My argument no not with this, it is with those who are:

"...demanding she be fired? Demanding she be prosecuted..."

For all the reasons around free speech which I have already outlined at length.

I've read the article several times, and my understanding of her argument is this:

She can buy an apparantly healthy young man just dying suddenly after a cup of cocoa and an early night.

She finds it harder to buy the "natural causes" line when he had been (allegedly) drinking, taking drugs, and engaging in (Moir's implication - not mine) 'depraved' sex acts.

She thinks it a bit fishy that immediately before his death he was doing all kings of 'dangerous' (again, Moir's implication, not mine) things, yet his death was due to natural causes.

For the record, I don't agree with her argument and I think it insensitive and distasteful of her to have publically stated it.

By notanumber on Sun 18-Oct-09 16:36:44
kimi, I am curious...

If Gately had been hetrosexual and he and his wife had picked up a guy in a club then brought him back to their appartment and while the wife and the pick-up were in the bedroom, Gately had been smoking in the living room and then later died, would we still be saying that it's none of our business?

Yes I would be saying it was none of our business, his sexuality has nothing to do with what he and his partner got up too
They could have been the wildest swingers around and it is still their business and no one else's.

It is very sad he has died, his family and friends must be devastated, just like 100s of people every day who for what ever reason lose a love one , but what he and his partner did or did not do is their business not ours

And pray tell what exactly is the connection between Kevin McGee's death and Stephen Gately's? There is no defence for mentioning that at all - it's just pure homophobia.

SCARYspicemonster, I cannot see a connection between McGee's death and Gately's.

However, I think that Moir's logic lies in the (erroneous, in my opinion) belief that homosexual relationships in their very nature involve practices and behaviour which are physically and mentally damaging. Thus leading to a heart attack or leading to a suicide.

Yes, this is homophobic. But again, it is not illegal to be homophobic. Moir is perfectly entitled to these view and she is perfectly entitled to state them.

Your tone suggests that you believe I agree with and are defending Moir's views ("And pray tell what exactly is the connection..)

This is not the case. I am merely advocating her right to free speech, and in this post and my previous one I was responding to questions by posters asking what I believe Moir's argument to be.

"Yes I would be saying it was none of our business, his sexuality has nothing to do with what he and his partner got up too
They could have been the wildest swingers around and it is still their business and no one else's."

kimi, I quite agree. Or at least I believe that his sexual predilections had no bearing on his death.

My point was really a musing as to whether this belief would have been so furiously and widely held were Gately's sexual orientation different. I'm still not convinced it would be to be honest.

Yes I see we think alike on that aspect- I 'm not out for a witch burning.

I think liberal fascism is s bit extreme though - the fact is that had it been a heterosexual couple she would not have dealt with it in the same way. She is attributing his demise to his 'gay lifestyle' when this lifestyle is pursued by plenty of heterosexual couples too and it also had nothing to do with his death.

Am not a boyzone fan btw (god forbid) ;)

Well said notanumber

"his sexuality has nothing to do with what he and his partner got up too"

PMSL

I'm trying to think of a single way that this could be true.

"I think liberal fascism is s bit extreme though.."

I don't. You say that:

"...the fact is that had it been a heterosexual couple she would not have dealt with it in the same way..."

I agree. She would not. And this thread would not exist.

But if she had, if Gately were hetrosexual and if she had implied that drink drugs and dodgy sexual practices were causes of his death... I don't think there would have been the same level of public outrage.

I think some people would have been angry. I think a few columns inches might have been written.

I don't think there would have been this PCC complaints flurry, I don't think there would have been this 'media storm'.

There is something happening here which indicates that despite freedom of speech, many people have decided that some views are unacceptable and must be silenced. I'd say that is fascism of a kind.

skidoodle - that quote was Kimi's not mine.

I quoted it but used her whole paragraph merely to indicate that I understood what she was getting at and largely agreed with it.

But the fact is that homosexuality is exposed to all sorts of prejudice and, when something like this comes out, people need to speak up. So many strides have been taken in accepting it as part of the mainstream: gay adoption, civil partnerships etc, this sort of article is corrosive.

Heterosexuality doesn't need defending!

Anyway have to reluctantly go and eat my tea. Interesting debate

Sorry - small child made my last code a bit unclear. I mentioned the Kevin McGee bit because I think that sentence is the pinnacle of the breach of the PCC code. Contrary to what you said earlier, notanumber, the code applies to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications.

Section 12 reads:
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

I cannot see how it can be argued that this article doesn't breach the code but feel free to have a go!

Last code? Last post!

So he died from being gay? And hiss boo for cheap shots at the Nolan Sisters too....

SCARYspicemonster, you say that you "...cannot see how it can be argued that this article doesn't breach the code but feel free to have a go!"

Alright, here goes:

"Details of an individual's...sexual orientation...must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story."

The key here is genuinely relevant.

Moir's argument says that:

1. Gately was homosexual

2. Homosexual relationships by their very nature involve practices and behaviour which are physically and mentally damaging.

3. Therefore, Gately's death could have been attributable to his homosexuality, particularly given the fact that he (allegedly) engaged in drink, drugs and homosexual sex with multiple partners immediately before his death.

4. This is not just true of Gately. There are other high profile deaths which are attributable to the individual leading a homosexual lifestyle.

5. For example, Kevin McGee was openly homosexual, and he comitted suicide.

6. Therefore, McGee's death could have been attributable to his homosexuality, particularly given the fact that his civil partnership was disolved (allegedly) due to his infidelity with multiple male partners (which led to an unstable mental state)

7. All of this indicates that on the basis of two recent deaths of celebrities who are homosexual, their deaths are related to their sexual orientation.

Moir's logic is faulty to say the least, and her views - to me personally - are repugnant.

However, she does formulate an argument. And Gatetly's and McGee's deaths are genuinely relevent to that argument.

So no, I don't think she has breached that code.

"...when something like this comes out, people need to speak up. So many strides have been taken in accepting it as part of the mainstream: gay adoption, civil partnerships etc, this sort of article is corrosive.
Heterosexuality doesn't need defending!"

Agreed. That is not my point though smallorange.

My point is that it is just as valid - and more pertinantly, just as legal - to hold the opposing viewpoint, that homosexuality id wrong and should not be accepted as part of the mainstream.

I have enormous problems with the suggestion that these views should not be heard just because you and I and a large section of the population happen to disagree with them. Free speech means free speech for everyone.

That's 12 ii). What about 12 i)? Do you have any evidence of McGee's lifestyle? What evidence is there of Gately's? They met a bloke in a club, he came back to theirs. So what? The press reports say that he had been smoking spliff but not drinking excessively.

Contrary to what Moir asserts, healthy and fit 33 year old men do indeed get into their pyjamas and never wake up. But she entirely attributes his death to his homosexual lifestyle. Prejudicial? Pejorative? I should say so.

Evidence? Well none. It is all (both for Gately and McGee) alledged.

Moir is very careful to acknowledge this.

And as long as this is the case, as long as she isn't saying this event and that event definitely happened, then she can extrapolate all she wants.

She can absolutely attribute his death to his homosexual lifestyle if she is careful to say that she is extrapolating on that which is alleged and not established fact without it being prejudicial or pejorative.

She is merely putting together an argument for if it does in fact prove to be the case.

This does not breach any codes of practice.

Yup the old argument - just because it is legal it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. You get this all the time in newspapers - what can be got away with vs what is in the public interest to publish.

And the PCC has nothing to do with what is legal - they cannot take the dm to court. The guidelines are about how the trade should conduct itself. They can ask the dm to apologise in full on thevsame pagecwith the same prominence that was given to the offending article.

The argument is not about legality it is about what was deemed fit to publish in one of our national newspapers .

"...just because it is legal it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do"

Yes, I agree smallorange. But who are you to dictate what is moral?

Your opinion that homosexuality is of equal status to hetrosxuality and not relevent to this or any debate is not more valid than someone who holds the opinion that homosexuality is immoral and homosexual acts can lead to disease or even death.

In point of fact, there is some evidence for this belief - anal intercourse is far 'riskier' than vaginal intercourse, which is why homosexual men are at 'high risk' of contracting HIV - so you cannot just dismiss the argument as loony or bigoted(though you could - and indeed I would have some bones to pick with this argument)

And even if you could dismiss it, you are allowed to hold loony and bigoted beliefs in this country - that is what free speech means.

Apart from anything else, these people would not describe themselves as bigoted. They would describe themselves as 'right'. Exactly the same as you. So why does your 'right' trump their 'right'?

I don't agree with the people who hold this belief, but I cannot stop them expressing it - and nor would I wish to.

We keep returning to the PCC code of pracetice and the idea that "The guidelines are about how the trade should conduct itself"

But I do not believe that she has breached the guidelines. And if she has not breached the guidelines then it must be "deemed fit to publish in one of our national newspapers"

If Moir has stuck to the guidelines then we have to let her speak. Regardless of how distasteful we may find it.

im wondering how many journos use mumsnet.

I'm wondering how many people bother to check a poster's history before accusing them of being journalists?

I am a teacher, VicarInABooTu, as I have stated on here many times, and as the most cursory search will reveal.

I really do despite the sloppiness and laziness of accusations of trollery or journalism as a subsitute for being able to formulate an argument.

despise not despite.

Sorry, posted in hasty irritation before previewing.

oooo someone sounds "shrill"....

VicarInaBooTu, there is such a thing as being gracious when it is revealed that you have made error you know.

However, you could always totally ignore the fact that this is the case and use schoolground taunts such as "ooooo" if you'd rather.

I know which one would present you inthe better light. I wonder if you do?