Response to the article “The big gay lie is a fact”.
We at AGFC love this argument simply because it makes the agenda of the anti-gay movement clearer than ever.
One of our colleagues were informing us of a movie he once watched about the 1960s in the Southern United States. It involved a black woman who was brutally raped in the night by some white police officers. When she reported it to the police station they laughed at her and told her that her boyfriend was the one who did it. We at AGFC agree that the anti-gay world-view comes from this same mindset. The similar argument is that homosexual community is the aggressor and beats up itself.
Now we at AGFC don’t like to make comparisons but if the anti-gay movement loves to compare loving homosexual relationships to man on dog or donkey sex, paedophilia and incest, when they are merciful, we should be free to compare too. Agree?
The website “whitenationalism.com” (http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm) demonstrates this same kind of thinking pushed forward by the Jamaica anti-gay movement. On their frequently asked questions page they have:
“Question: You claim that non-whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren’t you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?
Answer: Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or “white flight” away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-whites. Aggressors don’t flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a black. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. Whites score low in this regard, non-whites high.”
Anyway, as usual, we at AGFC are committed to refuting the lies, misinformation and agenda of the anti-gay movement so we decided to do a rebuttal of thee article published in the Gleaner today entitled “The big gay lie is a fact” (Read it here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120719/letters/letters4.html).
“AS A former member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) for over 30 years, I can also attest to the fact that, it is a ‘big lie and a myth’ being portrayed by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-sexuals and Gays (FLAG) and some International Human Rights Organisation about Jamaican intolerance to homosexuals.”
Of course, as usual, he establishes himself as an experienced member of the force to bring across to the reader that he knows best and can give testimony to the fact that J-FLAG is lying whether or not most anti-gay attacks are reported to the police and because he has never seen these anti-gay attacks it means that they never happened. He gives no statistics in his piece on anti-gay violence and nether does his piece show that his opinion is a consensus in the police force. J-FLAG constantly gives statistics on anti-gay attacks. Is mere testimony worth more than evidence?
“During my experience as a police officer, I worked in nearly all of the most violence-prone communities in the Corporate Area and found that most of these communities had living among them homosexuals who were known and sometimes even prominent members of the community and they were not molested.“
Mr. Nelson uses a common fallacy here known as the Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization(a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter). In other words, Mr Nelson makes a bad argument by stating that because the few homosexuals he has seen in volatile communities didn’t appear to have been attacked it must mean that on average the homosexuals in these communities are relatively safe.
Let us compare another argument to it to demonstrate the fallacy’s silliness:
Argument: I’m a police and no homosexual that I met in any volatile community has ever been attacked. Therefore it must mean that Jamaica is a tolerant country to homosexuals.
Problem: The argument ignores homosexuals outside of volatile communities, ignores homosexuals who are scared to report to the police, ignores the fact that the arguer does not know every or most homosexuals in these communities, ignores the fact that when the police is around people are less likely to attack a person.
Argument: I have never left Jamaica and every person that I have met can speak patois. Therefore it must mean that most people speak patois.
Problem: The arguer ignores the fact that other countries exist and while they probably were not exposed to foreign media this doesn’t mean that most people in the world speak patois.
“The Jamaica Constabulary Force has several homosexual members – both past and present – and although at times they may feel uncomfortable it was not intolerably so. What I am aware of is that a homosexual would probably be the centre of jokes, but that was as far as it went. From my experience, they were never discriminated against and I have never seen or heard where any heterosexual member ever refused to work, befriend or socialise with a known homosexual member.“
We love this argument because it proves us right. Apart from the fact that he uses the same fallacy as he did above he raises a problem we have been speaking about for a long time. Mr. Nelson said that homosexuals in the police force were the centre of jokes and felt uncomfortable. Could this be a sign that homosexuals fail to report crimes to police because they get intimidated as they feel they will be the “centre of jokes” in the police station and then eventually feel uncomfortable like Mr. Nelson’s homosexual co-workers? Does this attitude not affect police statistics? We should consider these things before we hurl accusations about lying at J-FLAG.
“Being made the centre of jokes is not unique for homosexual members because any member can at sometime be the centre of jokes. I have known of at least one homosexual member who was forced to leave his job and it was not because of discrimination from within, but because of a jealous partner who would call the police station various hours of the day, and especially at nights, and try in every way to embarrass this individual. This individual eventually left the force, obviously because of the actions of his jealous lover.”
This is just to say that in most homosexuals’ downfall, it is usually as a result of the actions of their own kind.“
Mr. Nelson again uses the same fallacy in his assumption that because he knows one homosexual co-worker who he thinks was harassed at work by his so called “jealous lover” that most homosexuals are harassed by their homosexual lovers and are thus killed by them.
My questions are: How did Mr Nelson know that his homosexual co-worker was not discriminated against and also how does he know that it was his jealous partner that led him to leave the force? He simply said he “obviously” did but did his co-worker acknowledge that?
Was Michael Hayden’s “downfall” as a police officer as a result of a jealous lover or the actions of his co-workers?