May 20, 2010

"I will give you a scaring sentence so that the public be protected from people like you, so that we are not tempted to emulate this horrendous example."

Contemptible. Horrible. The horrendous example is you, Malawi. Shame!

57 comments:

mesquito said...

Classic liberal dilemma.

MadisonMan said...

What a backwards nation

mesquito said...

Oh wait! It's not Malawi's fault!

UK gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell pointed out that the laws under which the pair were convicted were introduced during British colonial rule.

"These laws are a foreign imposition. They are not African," he said.

dbp said...

That will teach those naughty gay men: Yeah, let's throw them into prison where there is no homosexual activity at all. What could possibly go wrong?

bagoh20 said...

"...unnatural acts."

Isn't that a miracle?

GMay said...

Clearly this is Bush's fault.

Trooper York said...

I guess that in Africa they do think that there is something wrong with that.

Let's queue up the libtards to defend these scumbags.

Alpha you go first.

lucid said...

Why is it that some people get so crazy and absurd about other people's sex lives?

lucid said...

Oh--excuse me. No criticism, please. Malawi is black.

All their actions come under the Obama exception, an affirmative action policy which makes it immoral to criticize anyone with dark skin.

edutcher said...

Attitudes are similar in Jamaica. So some black countries appear to disapprove of this type of behavior.

To criticize them is racist, to condone is homophobic. As mesquito notes, what's a Lefty to do?

peter hoh said...

I'm not feeling any dilemma.

reader_iam said...

What choice is there other than to believe that in the end most heated arguments come down to fights over set points, set points and, also, set points.

So it goes.

Right?

Beth said...

This is a classic Althousian comment thread - too many of the right-wingers here, not all by any means, but many of them, don't give a crap about the men sentenced in Malawi. Their only interest is to flog a strawman about liberals. It's terribly predictable, and boring.

somefeller said...

If you had examples of liberals wringing their hands over what's going on in Malawi, you might have something to talk about. But you don't, and it's safe to say that most liberals who are aware of what's going on there (Malawi isn't at the top of the dial on places to follow) aren't fans of what's going on there. But, that doesn't prevent losers like mesquito and edutcher (neither of whom I suspect have done much to improve the lives of gay people in this country, I'm sure) from providing their comments about what their betters are thinking, of course.

somefeller said...

Gee, this piece has been up for a few hours and I don't see the loser proles here claiming this is a "classic liberal dilemma" coming up with examples of American liberals backing up or getting confused by the situation in Malawi. No surprise.

former law student said...

I was just reading what the enlightened British nation did in a similar case, in 1952:

Alan Mathison Turing, OBE, FRS 23 June 1912 – 7 June 1954), was an English mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist. He was influential in the development of computer science.

During the Second World War, Turing devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the various models of the Enigma machine, while working for the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park. After the war he worked at the National Physical Laboratory, where he created one of the first designs for a stored-program computer, the ACE.

Towards the end of his life Turing became interested in chemistry. He wrote a paper on the chemical basis of morphogenesis,[2] and he predicted oscillating chemical reactions such as the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, which were first observed in the 1960s.

Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952—homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time—and he accepted treatment with female hormones, chemical castration, as an alternative to prison. He died in 1954, several weeks before his 42nd birthday, from an apparently self-administered cyanide poisoning, although his mother (and some others) considered his death to be accidental.

Slow Joe said...

So he's saying he thinks it's tempting to have gay sex, and he needs to force of prison to prevent him from giving in?

I'm pretty sure he's one of those closeted gays who bashes gays as a result, not that I'm really reaching rocket scientist levels of cleverness here.

Revenant said...

Don't be TOO judgmental about Malawi. A single generation ago the majority of Americans thought homosexual activity should be illegal.

Eric said...

Oh wait! It's not Malawi's fault!

UK gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell pointed out that the laws under which the pair were convicted were introduced during British colonial rule.

"These laws are a foreign imposition. They are not African," he said.


Man, that's some indelible ink they wrote those laws in! 46 years after independence and they still can't be overridden.

danielle said...

"Attitudes are similar in Jamaica. So some black countries appear to disapprove of this type of behavior."

that's right educher -- steer all the focus to the color of the skin of the people in Malawi. that's what's important about this issue .... it must be something in the skin, eh ? Just like those people in the Vatican, and in Yemen.... oh , wait ! dang it !

former law student said...

46 years after independence and they still can't be overridden.

Hey, I learned from the Rand Paul thread that the law is the law, and no attention should be paid to how it affects human beings. There is no "right" to enter a place of public accommodation to get a meal or a night's rest. If the property owner chooses not to serve you because he doesn't like your red hair, you are SOL.

former law student said...

Here's our own Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, on the long standing tradition of punishing homosexual acts, in his Bowers v. Hardwick concurrence. And, it contains a neat bit of federalism, to boot:

I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.

As the Court notes, ante at 478 U. S. 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality

Page 478 U. S. 197

and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

Slow Joe said...

"There is no "right" to enter a place of public accommodation to get a meal or a night's rest. If the property owner chooses not to serve you because he doesn't like your red hair, you are SOL."

You really only just now learned of this point of view? There were NAACP members who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill on those exact grounds. There's an idea that forcing people not to act like horrible racists is a violation of their civil rights.

I disagree with that. I think people should have some basic right to enter publicly available places and use their publicly available products or society can't function right.

So even though I don't agree with Rand, I think it's great he's honest enough to talk about this obviously non-racist civil rights idea of his. It's basically a discussion of how much power we want our federal government to have.

It's a shame some 'liberals' don't realize that this isn't about good versus evil, but about liberty versus equality. FLS wants to sacrifice some liberty to get some security against inequal treatment. I agree with that idea, but I realize I'm just making a prioritization judgment.

Oh look, it's Beth again, bashing conservatives and not showing any concern for the gay men sent to prison. How ironic of her.

Fred4Pres said...

Paul Theroux wrote a scathing account of the epic fail of foriegn aid in African in his book traveling from Cairo to Cape Town. He is especially hard on Malawi (where Theroux was formerlly a Peace Corps volunteer).

So I say cut all aid. All of it--other than the AIDS and malaria help and do that so the local governments can't get their paws into it. Most aid does more harm than good.

reader_iam said...

Hey, I learned from the Rand Paul thread that the law is the law, and no attention should be paid to how it affects human beings.

Amazing.

Andrea said...

"Hey, I learned from the Rand Paul thread that the law is the law, and no attention should be paid to how it affects human beings."

Hmm. It looks like you can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can't make him think.

sweetwoman said...

Why is it that some people get so crazy and absurd about other people's sex lives?

Quayle said...

The case has sparked international condemnation and a debate about homosexuality in the country.

More American and western hegemony.

Everyone has to be exactly like us because, of course, we are so morally superior to all.

Bow before the western left's superiority and grandeur, you world masses.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...

Why is it that some people get so crazy and absurd about other people's sex lives?

I would think that's an excellent question if interest and curiosity had anything to do with that query, but of course that comment was not, in fact, even a question. It was a statement.

Fen said...

More American and western hegemony.

Everyone has to be exactly like us because, of course, we are so morally superior to all.

Bow before the western left's superiority and grandeur, you world masses.


Its why they hate us. Its why they call for the Great Satan to be destroyed.

But our Lefties "care" about gay rights. And I guess that will be have to be enough.

Because you will never see them pick up a weapon to defend the very things they claim to hold dear.

They certainly won't enlist to fight against Islam. Much easier to stand on a street corner and shout "racist sexist homophobe!" at passing conservatives.

In this you can be certain that the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Fen said...

Why is it that some people get so crazy and absurd about other people's sex lives?

Society gets crazy because it defines taboo to protect itself.

The judge himself said: "We are sitting here to represent the Malawi society, which I do not believe is ready at this point in time to see its sons getting married to other sons"

He doesn't think his society is ready at this point in time. Based on the reaction of his countrymen, he may be correct.

Their culture needs more time to evolve.

Lem said...

I don't think its fair to single out a poor court proceeding (or a bad law even) as representative of a whole continent..

That aside..

Cause: –noun
1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
2. the reason or motive for some human action: The good news was a cause for rejoicing.
3. good or sufficient reason:..


A cause calls for a certain amount of casualties so that the cause may advance. (hunger, disease, war, you name it)

Its rather late to go into this, but I believe since causes have been causing people to fight for them there has been a need for casualties in order to advance the cause.

As long as we have causes we will have casualties.

Watch Hitchens take Mother Theresa apart (its on Youtube).. it left me exasperated and asking if the cause of Mother Theresa was suspect who the heck do we have left?

I know I'll probably get called names for this but I think every cause where people are asked to exercise some form of contribution, even if its just speaking out and saying "the right thing", its healthy to approach it with a bit of skepticism.. before jumping on the condemnation merrygoround.

downtownlad said...

Yes and the United States was handing out sentences like this as recently as 2003 until the liberal Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas. And the vast vast majority of Republicans, along with 4 Supreme Court members want to overturn that decision and start enforcing sodomy laws again.

Including that libertarian hypocrite Rand Paul.

downtownlad said...

Here is Powerline lamenting the fact that Lawrence vs. Texas prevented an 18 year-old boy from getting a 17 year prison sentence for giving a blowjob to his boyfriend.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2003/06/003798.php

Michael said...

None of this would have happened if the Greeks hadn't stolen all of the African's ideas.

lemondog said...

Diversionary tactics by tyrants?
38 African countries currently criminalize homosexuality

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Malawi: 14 Years In Prison
Saudi Arabia: Beheading

Which philosophy is more enlightened?

Which philosophy is taking over Great Britian?

Which philosophy are imams in the United States preaching from their mosques five times per day?

We have, in our own country, mosques preaching the philosophy of beheading gays. You don't know about it, because the press refuses to report it ... just like they refuse to print Mohammad cartoons.

They're too terrorized.

So terrorized that they won't report the facts for fear they or their families will be targeted for death by Muslims right here in the United States.

Althouse too, is also too scared to talk about this. She's afraid she'd be fired from her cushy $170,000 a year government job if she discusses Muslim imams in the United States agitating for the death penalty for gay people in the United States.

And so she makes fun of Malawi instead ... where gay people are merely imprisoned instead of beheaded.

Shame, Althouse.

Shame!

New "Hussein" Ham said...

The only reason Althouse is shaming Malawi is because the people in Malawi are black.

Muslims who saw gay heads off = no comment
Blacks who imprison gays = shame!

This is Althouse racism.

Shame Althouse!

Shame!

Roger and Denise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

The whole affair is atrocious, but these Malawians should be thankful they are not in Iran where they would be executed. The interesting exercise for me is that one the one hand our multicultis "celebrate" cultures in some situations, but condemn them in other situations. Guess our multiculturalism only extends to the particular cultural values we celebrate.

Fred4Pres said...

Yes and the United States was handing out sentences like this as recently as 2003 until the liberal Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas.

Bullshit. Sentances like this? Seriously, show us some examples.

Africa is very screwed up. And Lem, this stort of "justice" (not just applied to homosexuals but in general) is the norm, not the exception. Common criminals are often beat to death in the streets by mobs without any trial (I am sure mistakes happen too, but hey, someone has to kill witches and those possessed by deamons).

Fred4Pres said...

And Saudi Arabia is more backward than most of Africa. But they have oil and money so we ignore that.

former law student said...

New Ham --

Did you not read my quote from the late Chief Justice Warren Burger?

The Emperor Justinian, a man so Christian he erected the famous Hagia Sophia church, included the death penalty for homosexual acts in his Code Justinian.

Christians cannot be smug about their comparative enlightenedness. Especially when the enlightened, Christian, Brits were imprisoning gays -- even gays who had materially helped win the war -- as recently as 1952.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

@FLS

Muslim imams are, today, in the United States, preaching that gays should be killed.

Althouse has nothing whatsoever to say about that. She is not critical of their preaching of this philosophy. She believes that Muslims should be allowed to preach that gays should be killed in the United States.

But if some black people in Africa imprison gays, she jumps up in protest.

It's sickeningly racist that Althouse is so quick to condemn black people ... but Muslims get a free pass when they advocate beheading gays.

Does she just hate black people? Is that it? Why this compulsion to shame black people when far closer to home, within her own community, is a religious institution preaching death to gay people?

I'm left with the only conclusion that I can draw from this: Althouse must be rabidly racist against black people. And she appears to agrees with the Muslims that gay people should be put to death ... since she has not written any criticisms about them preaching this philosophy right here in the United States.

Salamandyr said...

I would be a lot happier if our Government was condemning this imprisonment of gay people instead of apologizing for enforcing our laws, or attacking other nations for defending their constitutions.

Brian said...

@FLS:
There is no "right" to enter a place of public accommodation to get a meal or a night's rest. If the property owner chooses not to serve you because he doesn't like your red hair, you are SOL.

The ironic thing? It's illegal to deny someone lodging because they're black. But to deny them because they have red hair? It may be legal. People with red hair, AFAIK, aren't a protected class.

@downtownlad:
Yes and the United States was handing out sentences like this as recently as 2003 until the liberal Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas. And the vast vast majority of Republicans, along with 4 Supreme Court members want to overturn that decision and start enforcing sodomy laws again.

The enforcement of sodomy laws varied greatly from state to state. To condemn the entire United States for it is a bit much. The only times I read about someone charged or convicted of it locally, it was usually because someone sodomized an underage kid, and there was no statutory rape of boys. Doesn't mean it wasn't used against gays, but in many states sodomy laws had already been struck down or were rarely enforced.

Also, you say the "vast vast" majority of Republicans want this overturned. Really? You have to leave out Laura Bush, Jenna Bush, and the McCains.

WV: redical. Like totally man!

James said...

Brian said:

"Also, you say the "vast vast" majority of Republicans want this overturned. Really? You have to leave out Laura Bush, Jenna Bush, and the McCains."

People who most of the right wing would call RINOs (or worse), both for this position and many others. The fact is that Lawrence v. Texas the target of much scorn from the social "conservatives."

Floridan said...

Slow Joe: "There were NAACP members who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill on those exact grounds."

Interesting. Can you point me to where you learned about this?

Brian said...

@James:
Since the Tea Partiers are largely concerned with taxation and federal spending, I'm not sure if you would be able get them stirred up by promising to overturn Lawrence v. Texas. So I don't see Republicans getting much traction (or votes) to do this.

Downtownlad also got the vote wrong on the S.C. It was 6-3, with Sandra Day O'Conner voting to overturn the Texas law, but on the basis of equal protection of a class, not extending the right of privacy.

shoutingthomas said...

Gays demanding to live out if th closet caused the AIDS epidemic.

What we call "repression" actually works to restrain gay male behavior.

The alternative, as we have seen in reality, is pandemics that kill millions of people.

Gay men belong in the closet. When they exit the closet, they commit suicide and start pandemics.

Can't wIt for the discrimination derby to begin. Be the first asshole to sceam "bigot."

The moral proscriptions designed to keep gay men in the closets are based on proven traditional wisdom

Come on, assholes, start with the idiot spoiled brat rants.

Mark said...

former law student

I am going to guess that 1952 was before you were born. Great Britain legalized consensual homosexuality between adults in 1967. I am guessing that at least half the people on this blog were not born before then.

Do you have anything a bit more recent?

Jeppesen Starr said...

These guys went ahead with a public gay marriage ceremony - it was an open act of defiance. It was against the law, the law of a a deeply conservative and extremely poor country, a fledgling democracy which has only just emerged from a long standing dictatorship a decade or so ago. All countries have laws that restrict marriage in some way. You can't marry your sibling for example. In other cases there should be more restrictions - as for example against child marriages in countries like Yemen and Iran, or else restrictions should be enforced - as for example against forced arranged marriages in Pakistan. Here, were I live in the enlightened West, you go to jail for bigamy etc. and so you should.

The men were set up and egged on by (local and international) gay activists. They could have just carried on with their normal lives and noone would have batted an eye - it's not homosexual orientation that's a crime - it's homosexual acts and marriages which do not comply with valid restrictions. So unless you're copulating in public or a couple of men running around in a wedding dress (joke Joyce, get over it), or God forbid, circling menacingly around someone's teenage son (yeah like gays and lesbians never display any predatory behaviour EVAH), no one would have batted an eye lid

But no, they wanted a fracas, they wanted attention, they wanted publicity and they got it. Spare us the crocodile tears Ann lest you start crying over the crocodile men nex.

Good for the judge. I think they should jail the activists who encouraged these two idiots as well.

Yeah and I wrote this all on the internet.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Don't be TOO judgmental about Malawi. A single generation ago the majority of Americans thought homosexual activity should be illegal.

Don't be too nonjudgmental about the United States.

Doug said...

How about this? How about we just stop trying so hard to celebrate the gay lifestyle, and affirm the gay lifestyle choices, and empathize with gays, and express our distaste for anyone who dares say they don't like the gay lifestyle? How about a moratorium on all gay stories?

Fen said...

Don't be too nonjudgmental about the United States.

Ah, but aren't you part of the majority of Americans who support abortion?

Cultures are constantly evolving. Its too easy to judge the past by today's standards. Tomorrow it will be you and yours in the dock.