That's why I started the thread, couldn't believe it wasn't being discussed!
I heard Stephen Fry speaking about this on Richard Bacon's radio show yesterday afternoon (he was, as always, very eloquent, but also, admirably calm when speaking about the unimaginable cruelty and bigotry he'd discovered while filming this).
If I'd not heard the interview, and seen this thread, I wouldn't have known it was on - I don't know if it was just wasn't promoted much, or if I just managed to miss the plugs for it - anyhow, hopefully it's on iplayer - if so I'll watch it later.
I do think, too, that programmes like this should be shown in schools.
I thought equating Hijras with transvestites in the west is wrong.
Hijras are men who undergo gender reassigment and go with men.
Transvestites are men who undergo gender reassigment (or not) but go with women.
Dont you think?
And 49% HIV infection rate in Hijras is shocking.
Sorry to say but you have got this wrong - might be worth reading up a bit about the differences between someone who identifies as transgendered and someone who identifies as a transvestite.
There is a closed mind belief that people are anti gay because of religion but anti homosexuality would have been incorporated in to religion (as with many religious beliefs) as it passed through social beliefs of those countries.
There are people who are anti gay because of what it can lead to. Some believe that accepting gay people could lead to human to animal relationships and adult to child relationships being accepted.
I don't think any of you have read what I said, you have just assumed. I was saying that the Ugandan man thinks like that but if it was about a different type of sexuality we would agree with him. That was what I was suggesting.
Forums are for discussing, I gave an example of why the Ugandan man thinks that way and you all seem to be too over defensive, I proved my point (as you are now) and you lot are reading things that haven't been said.
but homosexual behavior is completely normal , humans having sex with animals or children is not .
No, I was saying if they were referring to bestiality or paedophilia, I was not comparing different types of sexuality. I also left the message to prove that's how people would react, which you have proved my point. If the Ugandan man was talking about how bestiality or paedophilia were not right wouldn't you agree with him?
Actually he did say that HETEROSEXUAL paedophilia was alright because it was "normal" sex. Oh dear ...
I thought equating Hijras with transvestites in the west is wrong. Hijras are men who undergo gender reassigment and go with men. Transvestites are men who undergo gender reassigment (or not) but go with women. Dont you think? And 49% HIV infection rate in Hijras is shocking.
Traditionally Hijras played a very important role in society - and happily most still do. It is sad to think that some of them have felt obligated to deviate from the traditional role in society into the sex trade, and we can but hope that in time they will feel able resume their perfectly "respectable" role.
Pedantic I know but can two programmes really be called a "series"?!? I just started watching it on iPlayer and noticed Fry did the same. I know BBC cuts are affecting everything but we must resist this creeping dimunition!
No, I think everyone understands what you said but what you said is irrelevant. I'm sure no one here would condone murder, but the programme wasn't about murder, it was about homosexuality. Murder, paedophile and beastiality are completely different subjects to homosexuality. I think you must just be trolling.
You don't, you are making out that I am saying anti homosexual things but I am not. As I keep explaining I said we would agree with the Ugandan man if he was saying other types of sexuality were bad. In places like Uganda they are still at the stage where interracial relationships are not accepted so they would think of homosexuality as we do about bestiality, paedophilia and corpse sex. That is the point I was making however you all seem to be reading things you want to hear and acting as if everyone is anti gay.
Most people these days don't care if you are gay or not, get over it and stop making out everyone is anti gay.
Frys avuncularism was really tested by that Russian politician quoting angels while spouting the same "save the children" shit
Again, this comes back to the point I was originally making, some countries are behind us in accepting sexuality as we are with some European countries. Those countries haven't accepted homosexuality yet so they would have views like that, they mightn't have had famous pop stars like Elton John to make people change their mind so it is understandable they think like that.
No, I don't agree with their theory but seeing the reaction of some people on this forum makes me think people who do believe that may have a point because for people to over defend and accuse those people of being dumb and not want to discuss suggests it could be a fair point.
One of the reasons they believe it is because when people started accepting interracial relationships there were people saying it would lead to people accepting homosexual relationships, homosexual relationships in those days being as bad as bestiality and paedophilia here today.
but homosexual behavior is completely normal , humans having sex with animals or children is not .
Homosexual behaviour is normal in our culture because it's accepted in our culture and even in nature you do get gay animals however you also have animals who have interspecies sex and animals that have sex with their offspring which isn't normal in our culture. Aids was said to have been originally a disease a monkey would get and some believe it is because of someone having sex with a monkey that it got to humans.
Actually he did say that HETEROSEXUAL paedophilia was alright because it was "normal" sex. Oh dear ...
In Uganda it would be seen as normal sex, one of their witchdoctor remedies for aids is to have sex with a new born girl. There are some cultures that only marry within their families to their cousins but they don't accept homosexuality.
No, I don't agree with their theory but seeing the reaction of some people on this forum makes me think people who do believe that may have a point because for people to over defend and accuse those people of being dumb and not want to discuss suggests it could be a fair point.
.
Just watching this now with the Brazilian mother who's son was horribly tortured and murdered
I was a little confused by the following comment though "The three men accused of murdering [the boy] were never prosecuted - had anti homophobia laws been in place, things maybe have been different."
Is murder not even illegal in Brazil??
Anyway Stephen Fry carries himself so well, I'm interested to watch the rest
As long as people use the word "homophobes", there will be a lack of debate. A phobia is a fear. I don't know anyone who actually "fears" gay or lesbian people.
The word is offensive and provocative and simply doesn't encourage rational debate.
The word "homophobe" is simply the most polite of all the words that could be used. Would it help the debate if we used the word "bigot" instead?
Don't pander to the troll - he started all this last night so just ignore him! (I too was enraged & snapped back, but it's water off a duck's back - don't waste your energy.)
Re my use of the word 'series', I did actually hesitate before using that word - but I couldn't think of anything else! What do you call a pair of programmes? I wasn't sure, so I used 'series' for want of a better word. Sorry about that, it didn't feel right at the time.......
I totally agree with the suggestion that this should be shown in schools - for a whole variety of reasons, one being to push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong, and can lead to unimaginable horrors. (Only last century.......?) Stephen Fry warned that one can never let one's guard down - he knows.
Why should they be ignored? What makes their view idiotic? Just saying they are idiots and need to be ignored makes it seem like you don't want people to hear their view.
mseven1: "As I keep explaining I said we would agree with the Ugandan man if he was saying other types of sexuality were bad."
BUT HE WASN'T!!!!!
I assume you are acting dumb because you don't seem to be getting the point and no one can be that dumb. I was explaining that if he was talking about other types of sexuality we would all agree with him. In Uganda they are still at the stage where homosexuality is wrong. Do you understand now?
Don't pander to the troll - he started all this last night so just ignore him! (I too was enraged & snapped back, but it's water off a duck's back - don't waste your energy.)
I am not being a troll, I am pointing out why they think like that. You seem to dislike that it proves the point so you're calling me a troll.
Re my use of the word 'series', I did actually hesitate before using that word - but I couldn't think of anything else! What do you call a pair of programmes? I wasn't sure, so I used 'series' for want of a better word. Sorry about that, it didn't feel right at the time.......
Series would be correct for two episodes as a series is a continuation of the same thing and so two continuing episodes would be a series.
I totally agree with the suggestion that this should be shown in schools - for a whole variety of reasons, one being to push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong, and can lead to unimaginable horrors. (Only last century.......?) Stephen Fry warned that one can never let one's guard down - he knows.
Like with the point I was making if the series was about accepting all forms of sexuality you wouldn't want it in schools. In the programme if you replace the word homosexual with bestiality, paedophile or corpse f**ker we would all be appalled. Here in the UK there is not as much of a problem with homosexuals in the UK amongst people and the series was about homosexuality outside of the UK and their intolerances of it. Here in the UK there are charities for gay people and support for them.
You also can't "push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong" by saying homosexuality and heterosexuality is ok but then say that having sex with animals, children, corpses, sex dolls and other sexualities because that would be marginalising an entire group of people.
Like with the point I was making if the series was about accepting all forms of sexuality you wouldn't want it in schools. In the programme if you replace the word homosexual with bestiality, paedophile or corpse f**ker we would all be appalled. Here in the UK there is not as much of a problem with homosexuals in the UK amongst people and the series was about homosexuality outside of the UK and their intolerances of it. Here in the UK there are charities for gay people and support for them.
You also can't "push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong" by saying homosexuality and heterosexuality is ok but then say that having sex with animals, children, corpses, sex dolls and other sexualities because that would be marginalising an entire group of people.
I think you have a vague point but you're not expressing it very well. Doing the things you mentioned are nothing to do with the program because they are abuse.
If you were saying that people also shouldn't marginilise a paedophile who wouldn't dream of touching a child or looking at material that supports the abuse of children then I can see your point (but most won't)
homophobe (plural homophobes)
A person who fears sameness.
A person who fears men.
I understand that many people take it to mean bigoted against homosexuals and lesbian etc. I consider myself to be very open and liberal, I don't have hatred, dislike or fear of any type of lifestyle. I do personally know people with a literal fear and hatred of gay men, oddly men that I know have no dislike to lesbians, whereas some females I am acquainted with tend to dislike the idea of lesbians.
I watched both episodes of the documentary and I found it contained no surprises, some countries don't wish under 16's to be educated about same sex activity. I did not hear Stephen Fry mention the UK stance on the subject. It was only repealed here in the last 10 years. i wonder how the UK would have reacted - had someone from say The Netherlands had made a documentary about the UK laws regarding education in schools.
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the controversial addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986 (affecting England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland), enacted on 24 May 1988. The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland as one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in the rest of Great Britain by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.
As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
While going through Parliament, the amendment was constantly relabelled with a variety of clause numbers as other amendments were added to or deleted from the Bill, but by the final version of the Bill, which received Royal Assent, it had become Section 28. Section 28 is sometimes referred to as Clause 28 – in the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament have sections, whereas in a Bill (which is put before Parliament to pass) those sections are called clauses. Since the effect of the amendment was to insert a new section '2A' into the previous Local Government Act, it was also sometimes referred to as Section 2A.
Comments
That's why I started the thread, couldn't believe it wasn't being discussed!
When it was first shown Monday night, the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann programme was on.
Hijras are men who undergo gender reassigment and go with men.
Transvestites are men who undergo gender reassigment (or not) but go with women.
Dont you think?
And 49% HIV infection rate in Hijras is shocking.
I heard Stephen Fry speaking about this on Richard Bacon's radio show yesterday afternoon (he was, as always, very eloquent, but also, admirably calm when speaking about the unimaginable cruelty and bigotry he'd discovered while filming this).
If I'd not heard the interview, and seen this thread, I wouldn't have known it was on - I don't know if it was just wasn't promoted much, or if I just managed to miss the plugs for it - anyhow, hopefully it's on iplayer - if so I'll watch it later.
I do think, too, that programmes like this should be shown in schools.
Sorry to say but you have got this wrong - might be worth reading up a bit about the differences between someone who identifies as transgendered and someone who identifies as a transvestite.
These people are f*cking idiots.
Are you one of these people?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/22/jeremy-irons-gay-marriage-comments
Wrong. Transvestites are men of any sexuality who identify as being men but like to dress as women.
but homosexual behavior is completely normal , humans having sex with animals or children is not .
Actually he did say that HETEROSEXUAL paedophilia was alright because it was "normal" sex. Oh dear ...
Traditionally Hijras played a very important role in society - and happily most still do. It is sad to think that some of them have felt obligated to deviate from the traditional role in society into the sex trade, and we can but hope that in time they will feel able resume their perfectly "respectable" role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29
Pedantic I know but can two programmes really be called a "series"?!? I just started watching it on iPlayer and noticed Fry did the same. I know BBC cuts are affecting everything but we must resist this creeping dimunition!
You don't, you are making out that I am saying anti homosexual things but I am not. As I keep explaining I said we would agree with the Ugandan man if he was saying other types of sexuality were bad. In places like Uganda they are still at the stage where interracial relationships are not accepted so they would think of homosexuality as we do about bestiality, paedophilia and corpse sex. That is the point I was making however you all seem to be reading things you want to hear and acting as if everyone is anti gay.
Most people these days don't care if you are gay or not, get over it and stop making out everyone is anti gay.
Again, this comes back to the point I was originally making, some countries are behind us in accepting sexuality as we are with some European countries. Those countries haven't accepted homosexuality yet so they would have views like that, they mightn't have had famous pop stars like Elton John to make people change their mind so it is understandable they think like that.
I find that there are some people here making out that everyone is anti gay and reading things that haven't been said.
Sadly you are wrong, Most people DO care about other people's sexuality.
The majority of the world is anti gay at worse, and don't care at best.
But very few are pro gay.
No, I don't agree with their theory but seeing the reaction of some people on this forum makes me think people who do believe that may have a point because for people to over defend and accuse those people of being dumb and not want to discuss suggests it could be a fair point.
One of the reasons they believe it is because when people started accepting interracial relationships there were people saying it would lead to people accepting homosexual relationships, homosexual relationships in those days being as bad as bestiality and paedophilia here today.
Homosexual behaviour is normal in our culture because it's accepted in our culture and even in nature you do get gay animals however you also have animals who have interspecies sex and animals that have sex with their offspring which isn't normal in our culture. Aids was said to have been originally a disease a monkey would get and some believe it is because of someone having sex with a monkey that it got to humans.
In Uganda it would be seen as normal sex, one of their witchdoctor remedies for aids is to have sex with a new born girl. There are some cultures that only marry within their families to their cousins but they don't accept homosexuality.
They don't have a point.
They're f*cking idiots and should be ignored.
I was a little confused by the following comment though "The three men accused of murdering [the boy] were never prosecuted - had anti homophobia laws been in place, things maybe have been different."
Is murder not even illegal in Brazil??
Anyway Stephen Fry carries himself so well, I'm interested to watch the rest
Silly me!!!
And I thought that homophobe wasn't a made up word!!
By my rudimental Greek (or Latin, I'm not sure), we have "homo" meaning "man" and "phobe" meaning "fear".
Make up any word you like, but don't label a heterosexual who, for whatever reason, doesn't empathise with homosexuals as someone who fears them.
I'm actually ambivalent, for the record.
BUT HE WASN'T!!!!!
Re my use of the word 'series', I did actually hesitate before using that word - but I couldn't think of anything else! What do you call a pair of programmes? I wasn't sure, so I used 'series' for want of a better word. Sorry about that, it didn't feel right at the time.......
I totally agree with the suggestion that this should be shown in schools - for a whole variety of reasons, one being to push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong, and can lead to unimaginable horrors. (Only last century.......?) Stephen Fry warned that one can never let one's guard down - he knows.
Why should they be ignored? What makes their view idiotic? Just saying they are idiots and need to be ignored makes it seem like you don't want people to hear their view.
I assume you are acting dumb because you don't seem to be getting the point and no one can be that dumb. I was explaining that if he was talking about other types of sexuality we would all agree with him. In Uganda they are still at the stage where homosexuality is wrong. Do you understand now?
I am not being a troll, I am pointing out why they think like that. You seem to dislike that it proves the point so you're calling me a troll.
Series would be correct for two episodes as a series is a continuation of the same thing and so two continuing episodes would be a series.
Like with the point I was making if the series was about accepting all forms of sexuality you wouldn't want it in schools. In the programme if you replace the word homosexual with bestiality, paedophile or corpse f**ker we would all be appalled. Here in the UK there is not as much of a problem with homosexuals in the UK amongst people and the series was about homosexuality outside of the UK and their intolerances of it. Here in the UK there are charities for gay people and support for them.
You also can't "push home the message that marginalising an entire group of people is a terrible wrong" by saying homosexuality and heterosexuality is ok but then say that having sex with animals, children, corpses, sex dolls and other sexualities because that would be marginalising an entire group of people.
I think you have a vague point but you're not expressing it very well. Doing the things you mentioned are nothing to do with the program because they are abuse.
If you were saying that people also shouldn't marginilise a paedophile who wouldn't dream of touching a child or looking at material that supports the abuse of children then I can see your point (but most won't)
I understand that many people take it to mean bigoted against homosexuals and lesbian etc. I consider myself to be very open and liberal, I don't have hatred, dislike or fear of any type of lifestyle. I do personally know people with a literal fear and hatred of gay men, oddly men that I know have no dislike to lesbians, whereas some females I am acquainted with tend to dislike the idea of lesbians.
I watched both episodes of the documentary and I found it contained no surprises, some countries don't wish under 16's to be educated about same sex activity. I did not hear Stephen Fry mention the UK stance on the subject. It was only repealed here in the last 10 years. i wonder how the UK would have reacted - had someone from say The Netherlands had made a documentary about the UK laws regarding education in schools.