Don’t miss the Mail’s revelations about Stephen Green, the ghastly leader of so-called Christian Voice.
Perhaps the BBC will recognise that he is not an appropriate commentator on the likes of Elton John attempting to bring up a child now. Mind you, they regarded his hate-speech against gay folk as a reason for including him on news bulletins about it, so maybe not.
Perhaps beating women counts for more with the Beeb than hate speech against the gays.
I’d rather not live in a world where the determination of such a hierarchy of rights by a national broadcaster can even be contemplated, never mind be a realistic possibility.
I didn’t expect him to be likeable, but that is a good deal more than I anticipated. That poor woman, those poor kids.
Would that be the same Daily Mail that’s been running to him for quotes for years every time they wanted him to do a bit of gay bashing?
I am sure that a national newspaper ringing him regularly for quotes would have led to him “revelling in his role as a self appointed guardian of the nation’s morality.”
What a horrible thing for Caroline Green and her kids to go through.
Newspapers live by ‘good stories’ – this is a very good story indeed. And I imagine this particular homophobic voice is effectively silenced. However, while they want a ‘dial-a-quote’ against same sex partnerships, another will spring up like a mushroom. One day, however, they will realise their readers do not want a knee-jerk homophobic reaction, and they will stop looking for that quote. It will happen. Mercifully, nobody now is prepared to speak up for wife beating.
>Mercifully, nobody now is prepared to speak up for wife beating.
Well, sadly, Rosemary, if you look through some of the comments at the foot of the article (especially the “worst rated” section) you’ll find people attempting to defend Stephen Green.
All Hail the Daily Heil! 😉
It does puzzle me when people accuse the BBC of bias in getting Green to represent the right wing evangementalist side (although I of course agree that he has no place as a ‘neutral’ ‘Christian’ commentator on Elton’s adoption, or anything else) .Green is at least honest about situating himself as part of the tradition which sees particular ‘interpretations’ of bible verses as reason to deny civil liberties to certain groups. I think many on the right-wing side believe this but realise they can’t come out and say it; are Green’s positions on homosexuality really a million miles away from e.g. The ‘Christian’ Institute, which this week used ‘homosexuals’ in a headline in a way that no paper would dare do with ‘blacks’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Muslims’? Green is surely, like Akinola, usefully honest in his mad zealotry, which is actually an improvement on well-groomed spin doctors appearing on tv and trying to make religious bigotry seem like an honourable tradition. If you asked Green point-blank if Britain should go back to the pre 1980/1967 days when homosexuality was flat out illegal he’d answer ‘yes’, whereas many anti-gay evangementalists would simply waffle and try and change the subject.
And in fairness to the Beeb, the last time I saw the unfortunate Mr Green on telly, it was when he was having theological rings argued round him by a charming, normal, lesbian priest on a BBC 1 religious sunday morning tv show.
Hmm, what’s that quote about the tendency for evil to destroy itself? Pity the BBC as it now goes casting around for Britain’s second most looney nutter to give their programmes ‘balance’.
I think it is important to be clear that journalism is rarely about balance. The point is not to balance one view point (for argument’s sake, let us say, moderate, gay, Christian) with another. The point is to oppose that view. So immoderate, straight, Christian will do. It works on the principle of debate or of law. It is not about balance at all but about opposition. I say this not to applaud it (I left journalism because I could not stomach it among other reasons) but rather to help us understand and communicate effectively.