What Mrs E might have been doing in 1968

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on June 30, 2010 at 22:43

Yes, Liz, my memory of it was a tabloid frenzy about family values and that 'culture of hysteria'.

Ten years earlier Ian Paisley launched his 'Save Ulster from Sodomy' when local Gays asked to have the 1967 Act applied to N. Ireland. He was already saving the 'Province' from 'liberalism, secularism, Roman Catholicism' (an interesting threesome of bedfellows some might say, though I couldn't possibly comment!).

In 2004 Ian's party delayed Britain's Civil Partnership Bill by playing it off against N.I. devolution. The old Orange Card, trumped by the Sodomy one.

Tomorrow in Dublin the Irish Parliament discuss their own Civil Partnership Bill.
A letter in today's Irish Times, not from Rev Ian but from a Catholic priest, goes: "While sexually inclined persons get their entitlements (!!!!????), this must not be done in a way damaging to the vital status of marriage and the family ...... To give the dignity of legal recognition to the sin of sodomy, as is done by the Civil Partnership Bill, is almost equating it with marriage."

And you guys thought it was all a footnote in an ancient history text?

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on July 1, 2010 at 8:49

ah yes the same old weasel words.. . Promotion - what is promotion? Just mentioning Homosexuality at school, or even saying that such a thing existed was considered as promotion.

This was a tory attempt to take the moral high ground and say that they (the marks and spencer underwear wearing heteros) were superior to those who happened to be born gay.

Exactly the same premise, that the nazis took. Lock gays out of society..

It's sad to see that some people still haven't seen the error of their ways, but not surprising really, the old hard core nazis never changed their views either..

@John D .. no need to make a fuss? Oh of course, it didn't affect you did it.. and turning a blind eye was also quite common in nazi Germany

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on July 1, 2010 at 9:28

A personal political/sartorial/orientational/ontological declaration required of me at this point, I think: I'm an M&S underwearing hetero but only a tory in the earlier Gaelic sense of tóraidh = rapparee, highwayman, hijacker.

On which note I'm responsible for hijacking Liz's original post - not often one can waylay and misdirect HOL Admin on the strength of one little three-letter word, is it? Was 1968 the last time a Times local government correspondent could use gay so lightly?

Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on July 1, 2010 at 9:37

(We're just so excited about there being a discussion on a History Group posting we're holding our e-breath.) :o)

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 1, 2010 at 9:57

or indeed man to man with relation to dealing with local planning laws.

A reminder, if any was needed, that what was begun in 1968 by feminists, gay rights activists and people fighting for race equality would take 20 years to reach its peak in the 1980s. Thatcher, remember, despised the 60s and considered them to be the worst period of modern British history. She wanted to take us all back to a rosy Victorian Past (just don't mention the abject poverty or appalling moral double standards) but she didn't succeed. Grayling may get muddled up with his b&b bookings but he would never say that children being brought up by gay parents were in a 'pretend' family or suggest that they might be damaged by it (they tend to leave that sort of nonsense to the looney right and deep thinkers like Nadine Dorries)

Haringey Labour was being characterised as looney left (even by Christina Odone in the article Hugh linked to) when these days their words seem fairly bland: 'positive images' 'competent to parent' showing how far the liberal consensus has come in this country.

The point is that the whole edifice of section 28 was built on a lie that created deeply damaging legislation (sound familiar?) and Haringey and their 'lefty' buddies in local government were being used in a war against local government by the more cynical arm of the 80s Tory Party by whipping up hysteria about looney local councils undermining family values. Haringey struggles to recover from this image to this day and you will still hear people haunting the comments pages of the Mail or Telegraph who will tell you that Haringey coucil wants to destroy all that is good and holy about this great nation.

@Steve. I too favour the M&S school of undergarments and sexuality but like OAE prefer the Gaelic Tory. I'm not sure where John D buys his undergarments but I don't think he's suggesting an agreement with Section 28 or that equating his attitude with far right extremists is fair. Like many people he does not think people should be told who they may remove their (M&S) undergarments with by government. In that I am wholly in agreement

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on July 1, 2010 at 11:36

The M&S reference was to Mme Thatcher who once boasted that she only wore that type of undergarment .. and in fact she taunted (whilst boiling the kettle in N°10) Does anyone NOT wear them?

I actually believe that wasn't true and by all accounts, (and am I allowed to write this before the watershed?) She no doubt preferred the Linda Lovelace black and red ones..

But, like other dictators, she only had to mention that she liked after eight chocolates or whatever and their sales would rise.

I also heard stories that after the tories were in Blackpool for conference the M&S looked like it had been ravaged by locusts.. so much so, that the clever Mr Green used to offer bulk packages of M&S knickers in the conference hall labelled MT instead of MS.. :o)

Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on July 1, 2010 at 13:04

Whilst I've got used to the fact that HOL requires regular sessions of the two minutes hate directed at Maggie Thatcher (the level of vitriol remaining for a Prime Minister of over two decades ago never ceases to amaze me, but I appreciate I'm in the minority) I'd be grateful if we could avoid reductio ad hitlerum arguments. Had what the Nazis did been anywhere near as tame as restricting the teaching of homosexuality in schools, I doubt we'd still remember it with nausea in 2010. Don't you think it's a bit of an offensive comparison?

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 1, 2010 at 13:21

@ Steve, I never imagined that I would end up contemplating Mrs Thatcher's knickers when I posted up Haringey's early attempt at the Big Society.

Whilst I've got used to the fact that HOL requires regular sessions of the two minutes hate directed at Maggie Thatcher (the level of vitriol remaining for a Prime Minister of over two decades ago never ceases to amaze me, but I appreciate I'm in the minority)

@Mr Growbag, this is the History section of the site and we are talking about events that happened two decades ago, as we oldies (not the whole of Harringay Online by the way it's unfair to suggest 3, 000 people all hate Maggie, or even all of the few in this group discussion) do tend to dwell in the past and therefore Maggie will rear her head. Personally, apart from the stating the fact that Thatcher frequently expressed her distaste for the 60s and blamed for all our 'modern ills', I was not referring specifically to her in pursuit of section 28. The main driver was Dame Jill Knight ably supported by other peers, but we can assume that since this legislation passed Mrs T and her M&S knickers was supportive of it.

On your other point, I agree to a point, but I think Steve was mainly referring to Ian Paisley not changing his spots and continuing to spout views that sit comfortably with the far right rather than moving with the times and recognising a changing and more liberal N. Ireland.

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 1, 2010 at 13:45

p.s. History geek note: I'm not sure how comfortable I am having my views on the past compared to the totalitarianism of the communist bloc as fictionalised by Orwell a la 2 minutes hate. My information on this was based on reading historical journals and looking at primary sources not picked up from my local SWP meeting.

Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on July 1, 2010 at 13:54

Wasn't directed at you at all Liz, more a comment on the general Thatcher bashing on this site. Every political discussion on here tends to end up with swipes aplenty at Mrs T - and the fact that there are 3000 members bears little or no relation to the discussions on the boards, which are dominated by a small group. Anyhow, didn't want to offend you or embark on a discussion about Thatcher - was just trying to poke fun - was more concerned about inappropriate nazi analogies.

Permalink Reply by james walsh on July 1, 2010 at 14:10

That Mrs Thatcher, didn't she model herself on the late General Pinochet who was an unconvicted murderer ? Yes, he was her hero.

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on July 1, 2010 at 15:29

I'll probably get removed again - But I'll try to explain.. and the so-called 'inappropriate analogies' lol come up time and again..
The Nazi party in Germany was full of gay people.. who have/had a penchant for order and uniforms.. and a longing for a perfect world.
They were fooled by the Nazis and I bet they'll be fooled by the tories too..

The tories of the Reagan /Thatcher did border on being a neo-faschist party and I believe that the said woman and Tebbit both were/are.. (see James' reference to Pinochet)..
I can't believe that there are still apologists for the woman, who did so much more than new Labour to destroy the social fabric of the UK. Her economics policies have also been proved to be wrong.. 'Let the market rule' A disaster all round.. Growbag is either too young or had his rose-tinted eyepieces on at the time.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page