The personal battle of Errol Naidoo, to say the strongest words in as few sentences, continues in a recent Cape Times’ letter. Whilst casting a thin veneer on his homophobia and other anti-Christian sentiments, he alludes to something called the “liberal media elite”. I strongly recommending reading my co-thinker Jacques Rousseau’s latest blog post on this letter, for a thorough understanding of the fallacies involved.
Let us summarise his main point and one that is particularly important to me: The notion that whilst we can mock Christians, Jews and Muslims (though I think we do too little of the latter) and get liberal points for this, we lose favour when we chastise homosexuals. Notice that Naidoo is again pulling the “lesser than evil” card to thrust his view in. He did it before by saying the Christian responses have at least not been as bad as that of offended Muslims.
But this means nothing. Instigating because Group X does not cause violence when disagreeing with an opinion, unlike Group Y, does not make Group X’s point any more valid. Both groups have no foundation in demanding respect for their petty ideas about a growing irrelevant distributor of unhelpful, ancient wisdom. AC Grayling defines religions as the technology of humanity’s impotence – and it shows.
Does Naidoo, however, not have a point in his juxtaposition between dealing with homosexuals and dealing with Christians? At first, it may impress many people – as I have seen firsthand from friends – but when looking at it critically, we can see the faults.
I can almost guarantee that if the object of Sax Appeal’s mockery and ‘satire’ were directed at homosexuals and homosexuality, the liberal media would be singing a very different tune. Predictably, the liberal media elite have taken it upon themselves to determine the limitations of free speech – if any – for the rest of us. In other words, they decide who can be mocked, derided, ridiculed and humiliated. And according to their warped definition, Jesus Christ and Christianity are fair game. However, homosexuals and any expression of homosexuality are strictly off-limits …
The sanctimonious drivel currently published in our nation’s newspapers is nothing but a sad reflection of the liberal media’s hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Christianity.
Rousseau responds in a paragraph worth quoting in full:
What [Naidoo] doesn’t seem to get is that nobody sane has any incentive to mock or ridicule homosexuals. Homosexuality is neither a belief system nor an ideology – in fact, the only thing that homosexuals have in common is a sexual preference, which is hardly mock-worthy. Nor, in my experience, are “homosexuals” particularly funny as a group of people – in fact, they’re just like Mr. Naidoo (well, perhaps slightly less funny). In fact, the only ridicule directed at homosexuals that I can recall reading usually emerges from organisations such as his.
This is what is important: homosexuality is not a set of ideas, which are designed (i.e. technology) to cater for explaining, exculpating, and excluding based on the word of a deity – himself designed as arbiter of the weather, the creation of the world and the dealer of death. These are a set of ideas, set down in a “holy” book, then embellished upon in massive theatrical orchestrations playing the tune of unreason – to a degree, where if you did not worship the same way, ignoring that we are worshiping the same god, I could kill you. This happens frequently between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, who differ only on a matter long due for prehistory and mythology. It makes as much sense as fighting over the length of Hercules’ hands.
Religion, which admits no doubt and treats scepticism, derision and apostasy with the loving care of a sociopath – as we can read from their own words – can not be equated with homosexuality. Homosexuality, firstly, is not a set of ideas. It is either “erotic activity with another of the same sex” or engaging in being a homosexual, which is itself defined as:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex (both as defined by Webster)
In 2001 I wrote a letter to the Cape Argus challenging Cape Town Tourism’s Sheryl Ozinsky’s right to use tax payer funds to promote Cape Town as the “gay capital” of Africa .
Ms Ozinsky, a prominent member of Cape Town ’s homosexual community, used her position to unilaterally promote and advance the homosexual agenda in the city.
My letter and the articles it subsequently generated elicited howls of outrage from the liberal media elite who promptly accused me of bigotry, homophobia and Nazism.
I was immediately booted off the Cape Town Press Club Committee – that bastion of free speech – for daring to question Ms Ozinsky’s right to tag Cape Town as Africa ’s “gay” utopia.
What the media conveniently ignored was the fact that Ms Ozinsky had no authority or mandate whatsoever to promote the city under the banner of her sexual preference.
Significantly, however, I cannot recall the media writing reams about Errol Naidoo’s right to free speech or in fact, lamenting the dire threat to our Bill of Rights.