This morning, on 'This Morning', British Prime Minister David Cameron had a bit of a horror moment. To be fair, I should say that he added another horror moment to what is already something of a fierce list of personal and political faux pas'. Cameron's time as Prime Minister has been far from cheerful; however, this particular point takes the piss.
Due in part to the open and somewhat aggressive stance that British Journalism has always thankfully taken towards politics, the Prime Minister was put on the spot when offered an internet compiled list of people in the major political parties suspected of being paedophiles - past or present - in power or shadow. This list, due to some terrible television production quality, was briefly revealed on air, but this isn't really about that.
Cameron's first response was admirable. He refused to be drawn into the argument. After all, the people on those lists are people first and foremost, and a person can be destroyed by an accusation that they are a paedophile, whether they are or not. With no evidence, and the people in question accused by people who have not revealed their names, it is a massive risk to start accusing people.
The problem, shortly afterwards, was Cameron's insistence of why he wasn't being drawn into the argument. Avoiding a witch hunt is right. Nobody has the right to accuse another of something so serious without evidence, especially when you consider the nature of mob rule. Nevertheless, claiming that homosexual party members would be at greater risk than other party members was one of the most singularly stupid things anybody can do. This is the guy in charge of our country.
There's no gentle way to put the inference. Cameron is politely stating that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles. Whether this is backed up by statistics are not is unimportant. It's like blaming jews for the Holocaust because they were so easy to hate; stupid to say, diseasing to think and entirely missing the point.
I am yet to come up with any possible reasons that he might have come up with something so unnecessary. Does Cameron think that young boys obviously want it? Did he see the list and recognise people who were gay, trapping the word on his tongue? Will he do the decent thing and apologise to the gay community for implying that paedophilia is part of their being?
Whatever the reason, the last thing anybody should be doing, regardless of intent or political position, is saying something intensely derogatory without clear backing in fact, especially when there is absolutely no reason to say it. Sexual orientation was not part of the conversation. It was not subtly woven into the question, or on the mind of everybody in the audience.
Paedophilia doesn't always involve penis Mr. Cameron. Think before you foot in mouth.
Due in part to the open and somewhat aggressive stance that British Journalism has always thankfully taken towards politics, the Prime Minister was put on the spot when offered an internet compiled list of people in the major political parties suspected of being paedophiles - past or present - in power or shadow. This list, due to some terrible television production quality, was briefly revealed on air, but this isn't really about that.
Cameron's first response was admirable. He refused to be drawn into the argument. After all, the people on those lists are people first and foremost, and a person can be destroyed by an accusation that they are a paedophile, whether they are or not. With no evidence, and the people in question accused by people who have not revealed their names, it is a massive risk to start accusing people.
The problem, shortly afterwards, was Cameron's insistence of why he wasn't being drawn into the argument. Avoiding a witch hunt is right. Nobody has the right to accuse another of something so serious without evidence, especially when you consider the nature of mob rule. Nevertheless, claiming that homosexual party members would be at greater risk than other party members was one of the most singularly stupid things anybody can do. This is the guy in charge of our country.
There's no gentle way to put the inference. Cameron is politely stating that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles. Whether this is backed up by statistics are not is unimportant. It's like blaming jews for the Holocaust because they were so easy to hate; stupid to say, diseasing to think and entirely missing the point.
I am yet to come up with any possible reasons that he might have come up with something so unnecessary. Does Cameron think that young boys obviously want it? Did he see the list and recognise people who were gay, trapping the word on his tongue? Will he do the decent thing and apologise to the gay community for implying that paedophilia is part of their being?
Whatever the reason, the last thing anybody should be doing, regardless of intent or political position, is saying something intensely derogatory without clear backing in fact, especially when there is absolutely no reason to say it. Sexual orientation was not part of the conversation. It was not subtly woven into the question, or on the mind of everybody in the audience.
Paedophilia doesn't always involve penis Mr. Cameron. Think before you foot in mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm grateful for any comments that I receive. Thank you.