I thought homosexuality was only a cause for Pride these days

This entry was posted in Left-wing hypocrisy, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to I thought homosexuality was only a cause for Pride these days

  1. Christine says:

    The ‘Pride’ push hasn’t worked so well, as this individual is smarting over the ridicule he’s supposed to have endured.
    Add in the ‘visuals’ and pride takes a fall.

  2. C.L. says:

    I seem to recall cases where the ‘progressive’ left argued (and, IIRC, courts too) that imputing homosexuality was no longer grounds for legal action.

  3. NFA says:

    I’d like to sue Alex Greenwich for being a public nuisance.

  4. Ed Case says:

    Latho described his fantasy about Greenwich’s sex life.

    I guess it’s similar to talking about Trump’s [alleged] predilection for Golden Showers.
    Whether it’s true or not, it holds him up to ridicule

  5. Lee says:

    Hopefully Greenwich will lose his shirt.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Truth defense…Mark Latham was clinically quite correct with his tweet, if somewhat pithy.

  7. Ed Case says:

    How do you or Latham know it’s the truth?
    He’s called Alex a bareback freckle puncher, but can he prove it?
    Course not.

  8. Christine says:

    That’s right; Latham can’t prove it. The suer may be in a platonic relationship.
    But I doubt he’ll want to be seen as a denier, after all the glorification of the Rainbow lifestyle.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Ed, that is very funny. Are you a robot or a computer? Actually I suspect not a computer since if you ask ChatGPT about the biological mechanism of such things you might get a similar description.

  10. Buccaneer says:

    I was under the impression that people march every year to tell us that there is pride in being gay despite your unsophisticated description of a gay man Ed. Are you suggesting all those people are mistaken?

  11. C.L. says:

    The drift in legal thinking in recent years has been that it is no longer possible to defame somebody by accusing them of being a homosexual, or by making reference to their homosexuality. The gay lobby essentially believed that to regard as actionable the identification of a person as homosexual was, in effect, an insult to homosexuals. However, it’s my understanding that there is a ridicule component to these cases. It isn’t all about truth. That too, however, is somewhat subjective.

    For example:

    “Ridiculousness”: Ridicule and defamatory meaning in the age of the Internet, College of Law, 27 August 2014, Judge Judith Gibson

    Hanson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Brander v Ryan

    The matter complained of was a song entitled (I’m a) Backdoor Man, performed on the defendant’s highly popular radio station. The performer, Simon Hunt (under the name “Pauline Pantsdown”) cut and paste public statements made by Ms Hanson to put words into meaningless and inconsistent sentences, with a music-backing track…

    One of the imputations Hanson claimed had been unlawfully made against her was that she was an aficionado of sodomy. Read further analysis at link.

    The courts having found for Hanson, Judge Gibson observes:

    The Queensland courts were clearly floundering with, and intimidated by, both the technology used to produce the matter complained of and a sense of humour outside their comprehension.

    Or, to use an ancient maxim of jurisprudence: “It’s OK when lefties do it.”

  12. Ed Case says:

    Basically, the Pravda rule:
    You may criticise, but you can’t generalise.
    Latho broke the rules by going beyond criticism.
    I’d like to see him fight on, but I know and you know, he’ll fold [while shaking his fist at the heavens].

  13. jupes says:

    Truth defenseā€¦Mark Latham was clinically quite correct with his tweet, if somewhat pithy.

    I suspect Latho might have a bit of fun in court with this one.

  14. Old Lefty says:

    Indeed, Jupes. There will be plenty of taxpayer-funded ‘educational’ material from the gay lobby about the joys of anal sex for Latham’s counsel to tender in court.

  15. Ed Case says:

    I suspect Latho might have a bit of fun in court with this one.

    I suspect his Legal Counsel won’t be letting Latho have any fun, particularly if Judge is a Flamer or Lezzo.

  16. Perplexed of Brisbane says:

    I guess Latham’s defence could ask whether the description of the act was accurate. Or they could ask a Dr or Wikipedia or a male rape victim.

    It is looking similar to Trump. What he said was accurate but was deemed as defamation because he said it.

  17. Entropy says:

    It reminds me of this old Sir Les Paterson book I once had an opportunity to peruse. There was an entire glossary at the end to help people understand Australian euphemisms for homosexuals. It went for quite a few pages.

  18. Roger W says:

    I suspect there will be quite a few homosexuals who will be surprised to learn that gay sex does not involve anal intercourse.
    By the way, Greenwich may or may not be a queen (though he was honoured as a Queen by the Sydney Pride 2023 campaign and was displayed as a Real Queen in a portrait) but he is apparently definitely a Prince, according to Wikipedia: “He is a direct descendant of one of the oldest royal houses in Eastern Europe.”
    The same source also says that, “In May 2012, Greenwich married his German long-term partner, Victor Hoeld, in Argentina, where same-sex marriage was already legal.”
    If gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, which I assume is the point, a marriage is only complete after consummation…

    Yet Alex complained that he was exposed to contempt, ridicule and extreme abuse by a simple and unambiguous description of the act of anal intercourse. Very weird.

  19. Jed says:

    Latham will probably lose if it proceeds, but I predict it will be dropped at some point. Put it this way, despite the opportunity, Latham didn’t apologise. On the other hand, he’s free to say anything in Parliament.

  20. Ragu says:

    Surely an adult in charge will throw it out, as the entire matter boils down to;

    ‘he said mean things’
    ‘Well, he started it’

    Like a lot of these things, it’s only the lawyers that win.

  21. Ed Case says:

    I think Lex is well within his rights to sue.
    Even if he is a bareback freckle puncher, and yeah, I know it’s legal, he is still held up to ridicule if Latham gets away with it.
    Yeah, it’s not fair, but as a society we haven’t yet progressed to the point where we find Freckle Punching perfectly normal rather than a cause of mucho mirth.

  22. Rafiki says:

    Maybe the court would apply the de minimis principle. The full principle ( which is sometimes applied) is in this old rhyme:

    There was a young man called Rex,
    Who had diminutive organs of sex,
    On a charge of exposure,
    He said with composure,
    De minimise non curat lex.

    Translated as ‘the law takes no account of trifles’.
    You can try to apply this to Greenwich v Latham, but better not put it on this thread.

  23. C.L. says:

    Love it. Thanks, Raf, for great contributions today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *