Thread: London. Whose rights are being violated?

Интересное сообщение я прочитал в блоге журналиста Соловьева про Лондон


Мой сын Саша учится в Лондоне. На режиссера. На занятии обсуждают различные сценарии для ученических работ. Доходит дело до сценария о проблемах однополых браков. Саша говорит, что он не хотел бы снимать кино на эту тему, так как это противоречит его религиозным убеждениям. Саша православный и к вере относится очень серьезно.
Через некоторое время выясняется, что по заведенной практике Саше должны были бы дать именно этот сценарий, чтобы избежать возможных обвинений института в нарушении прав человека. Саша бы отказался и его бы отчислили. Спас ситуацию тот факт, что сценарий был настолько слабый, что даже политкорректность не могла его вытянуть.
С этого момента началось давление на моего сына. Разные люди с других курсов и факультетов стали подходить и спрашивать, правда ли, что Саша отказывается работать с представителями сексуальных меньшинств?
А на прошлой неделе к моему сыну подошел преподаватель и спросил является ли Саша гомофобом?
Саша ответил, что фобия - это страх, а никакого страха мой сын к этим людям не испытывает, просто эта тема не входит в сферу его интересов и противоречит его религиозным убеждениям.
Саша поинтересовался, а на каком основании этот вопрос задает преподаватель, который и не работает с их группой и курсом?
К горечи борцов оказалось, что Саша снимал и работал в съемочной группе и с представителями сексуальных меньшинств и никак их на площадке не выделял и не поражал в правах, так что ряд обвинений отпал, правда,я , например, нанимаю людей на работу или приглашая на передачу не интересуюсь их личной жизнью и сексуальными пристрастиями, наивно полагая, что важны их профессиональные качества.
Должно быть теперь в Англии необходимо создавать квоту с учетом сексуальных пристрастий.

Очевидно, что Саше уже сказали, что религиозность не приветствуется, и многие двери для него будут закрыты с таким отношением к этой проблеме.

О времена! О нравы!


Получается, права однополых влюбленных значат в Англии настолько больше, чем направление в христианской религии, что можно оказывать давление на религиозного человека?

Yes, it's basically like this is England. Scandinavia is even worse.
It's probably the same in Germany, France although I don't know for sure.

If you say anything other than that you completely support the rights of homosexuals, you totally ruin your image and possibly your career prospects.
It's like everyone has gone crazy.

Personally I wish no harm towards homosexuals but I find the habit a bit off-putting and I do not think they need to demonstrate on the streets (I don't want demonstrations about straight peoples sexuality either!) or that school books need to contain examples of families with "two daddies" or "two mummies".... And why do they want/need to marry in CHURCH? Seriously; they should read what the Bible has to say about homosexuality first.

Registrars who refuse to marry homosexuals on religious grounds can be sacked; this was in the paper recently.

Homosexual practices happen to be against my religious beliefs too, although I don't think it's for me to sit in judgment. But if I mentioned my views on this, I'd jeopardize my career and lose many friends.

OK PC people, now you can start telling me how prejudiced and terrible I am...

PS - I had never actually (to my knowledge) met a gay person until I moved to England. Being gay is SO common here, it's unbelievable.

It's horrible. And there are no reverse tendencys? No madness can last forever.

Originally Posted by Leha von Stiller

It's horrible. And there are no reverse tendencys? No madness can last forever.

Historically it seems to end with the demise of that society...
Like Sodom and Gomorra in the Bible, the Greek Antique period and maybe some others.

But I doubt even those had several "gay pride parades" per city, per year!

Originally Posted by mishau_

...никак их на площадке не выделял и не поражал в правах, ...

[/I]Получается, права однополых влюбленных значат в Англии настолько больше, чем направление в христианской религии, что можно оказывать давление на религиозного человека?

Что ещё за "поражение в правах"? У Ожегова это "специальный термин". Я не помню, чтобы это выражение раньше использовали в обиходе. Говорили "ущемление в правах", "ущемление прав".
_____________________

И ты, Брут! Миша, я была уверена, что ты ярый борец за справедливость.

Asking the right question can be more important than anything you can tell someone.

Originally Posted by mishau_

1. Саша православный и к вере относится очень серьезно.
2. [...] религиозность не приветствуется, и многие двери для него будут закрыты с таким отношением к этой проблеме.

Да, товарищ очевидно не проникся коньюнктурой рынка. Это в России прикольно, что православный и относится к вере серьёзно, а в других местах (возможно, с более высоким процентом гомосексуалистов) - с точностью наоборот. Претензии такого рода выглядят наивно, ибо имеют в своей основе наивное убеждение, что в Лондоне обитают лишь поборники справедливости. Не нравится коньюнктура - учись режиссуре в Москве, а в чужой монастырь со своим уставом не ходят.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Exactly! A little disappointing to see how many people are still ignorant about the issue.

There is a flaw in the argument. Gays are a very small minority, its not the norm. If everyone was like that, humanity would die out in one generation. Clearly it's not they way nature intended it.
You in America and Russia need to experience what this issue is like in Europe at the moment.
It's political correctness gone insane.

I am definitely not advocating persecution or ill treatment of gay people in any way. I respect their right to be homosexual and I don't think they are bad people just for being gay.

I just don't want to see frequent gay parades, debates about homosexuality and endless articles and articles about it. Or like in Misha's example; somebody being forced to make a pro-homosexuality film against his will.

I think they should simply be a bit discreet about it. I feel that way about all display of sexuality, homo or straight. It should be a private matter.

Its my belief that the US society is rapidly headed for bi-sexuality. Just from my own observations (which granted may not be accurate) i would say at least 1/3 of the women here are bi-sexual. The other thing i have noticed is women here seem to gravitate to small dogs and having a gay male friend. Least its what appears to be fashionable. I am not sure what that says about our society.

I have never seen a gay pride parade in person. But from what i have seen from video it appears to be rather distasteful and looks like some sort of live action gay soft core porn. I certainly would not want any children to see that. Cant they dress up nice and carry on like respectful adults when expressing there pride.

I'd say it's time to arrange 'Straight marches' and support 'Straight pride'. We'll soon be a minority.

Originally Posted by Nerms

Its my belief that the US society is rapidly headed for bi-sexuality. Just from my own observations (which granted may not be accurate) i would say at least 1/3 of the women here are bi-sexual. The other thing i have noticed is women here seem to gravitate to small dogs and having a gay male friend. Least its what appears to be fashionable. I am not sure what that says about our society.

I have not noticed that. But maybe it says that men just can't be trusted and dogs are more faithful companions?

Originally Posted by Nerms

I have never seen a gay pride parade in person. But from what i have seen from video it appears to be rather distasteful and looks like some sort of live action gay soft core porn. I certainly would not want any children to see that. Cant they dress up nice and carry on like respectful adults when expressing there pride.

By chance, a few years ago, hubby, my daughters and I were in New York on the day of the Gay Pride Parade. My girls were young, I want to say around 8 or 9. We took the train into the city from New Jersey early in the morning. We had NO idea about the parade. The girls worked for a few hours and then when we came out and went to walk back to the train station... OMG! The streets were packed and the entrances to the stations were actually closed. We had to walk along the parade route and find a police officer to tell us where to find an open entrance. So here we were with two little girls in the middle of it all and I must admit we were telling them not to look.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'd say it's time to arrange 'Straight marches' and support 'Straight pride'. We'll soon be a minority.

Personally, I've never understood any of the "pride" parades or awards, like Miss Black America or Miss Hispanic America, Black Entertainment Awards, Black History Month and Hispanic History Month. We don't have White Entertainment Awards. If we truly want to be a colorblind society, then we need to do away with these types of things. You can celebrate your heritage and pride in who you are in many ways. These types of events stress the fact that they are not like others or not good enough to compete with the rest of the population. Which is the exact opposite of what these segments of our population have been striving for all these years, inclusion and acceptance and being considered equal.

It's one thing to say that an individual may refuse to associate personally with homosexual people. That's fine; just as they may choose not to associate on a personal level with black people, or with Jews, or with redheads, or with people who wear green and pink in the same outfit. I can't say that I agree with these arbitrary prejudices, but I can at least accept that everyone has a right to them. Refusing to work with, or to hire, homosexual people is another matter entirely, because in that case, you are violating their rights. As my Russian is not very good, I can't really work out which of these is the situation you mention in the original post.

As for minorities further alienating themselves from the rest of society (for instance gay pride marches), I can't say I think it's a good idea, but I can see why they do it - they feel oppressed, they don't want to lose their own identity, so they feel the need to assert it, but perhaps not in the most productive way.

So, imagine, I own a small business and there's a man who wants to work for me. I interview him and the decision is wholly mine. I can take him or not without explaining anything, isn't it so? What if he happens to be a gay who will then sue me for violating his rights? Isn't it absurd?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, imagine, I own a small business and there's a man who wants to work for me. I interview him and the decision is wholly mine. I can take him or not without explaining anything, isn't it so? What if he happens to be a gay who will then sue me for violating his rights? Isn't it absurd?

Well actually, in the U.S. there is no federal statute prohibiting private sector sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees has been proposed several times, yet never passed.

There are several state that have laws though and I believe there is some coverage for Federal Government Employees.

So, in your case, as long as you are in the right state, you would be free to not hire the person simply because he is gay and he could NOT file suit. Even if the law was passed as it has been purposed, if you have under 15 employees, he would be out of luck.

Of course, this would probably not stop him from targeting your company as an awful place and bashing it all over the Internet. Even if you had a legit reason for NOT hiring him.

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, imagine, I own a small business and there's a man who wants to work for me. I interview him and the decision is wholly mine. I can take him or not without explaining anything, isn't it so? What if he happens to be a gay who will then sue me for violating his rights? Isn't it absurd?

Moreover, if a gay sued someone for not hiring him, why wouldn't I sue that employer if s/he didn't hire me as a straight person? If the gay won the case and I didn't, that would really violate my rights, and I could call it discrimination against people of my sexual orientation as well. So, from now on, everyone's gonna be employed. Look, maybe gay rights fighters are latent commies? How do you like it?

Commies used to imprison them ))) Homosexuals were outlawed in USSR. There was a special article in the criminal code. And lesbians were put to psychiatric clinics.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Commies used to imprison them ))) Homosexuals were outlawed in USSR. There was a special article in the criminal code.

Yes, five years of prison. And guess what they've done in prison during all their sentence. The laws were so smart.

Every cloud has a silver lining )))

Правда, есть нюанс...

At my job there is a black guy who is gay. He was working in a team that I was managing. Just after I joined he asked me (in private) not to "touch him inappropriately" (which would imply, sexually) I almost burst out loud laughing, but controlled myself. It's was absolutely insane. I never touch anyone inappropriately at work, and particularly not someone like him..

The reason for his comment was that I once tapped him on the shoulder, because he was listenening to an ipod while working, and didn't hear that I was trying to get his attention. How ludicrous.

After he told me that, I really wanted to tell him 1) Stop listening to your flipping iPod at work 2) pay attention to senior staff who are trying to talk to you 3) stop being bloody ridiculous.

But; with a black AND gay person you definitely cannot take any chances, so I apologised if he had felt offended and made a point of avoiding him. Luckily he is no longer in the team that I manage.
If a male, good-looking guy had "touched him inappopropriately" I guess the guy would have returned the gesture, and all would have been well.