Amazing, not only are there people still reading this but they actually admit it! There is no point in my continuing to attempt to debate or discuss anything with Brad as he simply carries on repeating that I said something I did not, however I will attempt (again) to set the confused record straight.

555 wrote:

What we have here is a very neat distillation of the diametrically opposed gay perspectives of pride parades. On one side the conservatives represented by GF express their embarrassment at the more flamboyant displays and disassociate themselves from people that they feel they have very little in common with. GF takes it further and asserts that the particular parade under discussion was a provocation to violence.

555,

you are right on the first part - that is just what I said in a different topic. The second part, however, is totally incorrect and you appear to have been persuaded by Brad that I have said something I have not, no matter how clear I try to make it and how many times I explain my position.

I am not asserting that the parade was "a provocation to violence", nor, in spite of what Brad the Idiot says, have I called or labelled the participants anything, ever. My original post, to which all the others I have made on this topic refer, was as follows (in full):

Gone Fishing wrote:

lonelywombat wrote:

The "Dignity March" organised by gay groups began at one end of the boulevard, while the protesters gathered at the opposite end and at other intersections along the way.

Gay groups said they were marching partly to repudiate (sic!) several recent attacks against them.

Sounds like one group of extremist bigots looking for a fight with another group of extremist bigots. A productive day for all, apparently.

Nothing more, nothing less - as I have said, repeatedly, it was what I considered (and still consider) that particular part of the report "sounds like".   I have no idea whether the "gay groups" concerned actually said that was a reason why they were marching or not, whether it was meant or not, whether it was a bit of journalistic license, or a poor translation; I was not there and it is entirely irrelevant, as I was commenting on what the report said - nothing else.

I have attended literally hundreds of "marches" and "rallies" of different types in different countries (none as an active participant) and read, literally, thousands of flyers, bills, etc, advertising them. This particular statement is inflammatory and confrontational: I have seen people, young and old and personal friends, maimed, hideously burnt and killed for far less (one of them on his eighteenth birthday, beside me), so I do not see this as debatable. I found "repudiate" to be "a rather unusual choice of phrase", as I said later, hence my "(sic!)", but I still can see no meaning other than a direct though veiled threat of violence, as would any of the opposition hearing of it.

Debate the pros and cons of any and all marches, and praise "those brave enough to stand up and be counted" by all means - personally I have "counted" too many carried away in body bags to see them as the only or even the best solution - but please do not attribute comments, assertions and statements to me that I have never made, or credit me with views that I neither hold nor have given any indication that I tend towards.

Quote:

  Gay groups said they were marching partly to repudiate (sic!) several recent attacks against them.



Sounds like one group of extremist bigots looking for a fight with another group of extremist bigots. A productive day for all, apparently.

GF,

As I understand it the second part of the above is written by you. How you interpret people asserting their right to repudiate attacks on them as extremist bigots, frankly beggars belief. By such an interpretation, all other than craven cowards would be extremist bigots. This is an unusual use of such a term.

You are right Gone Fishing.

You don't know what happened. You don't know who said what. You don't know that they meant whatever they said or whenever they said it.

What you do know is what you read in the reports, posted here, and elsewhere in the press. On the basis of those reports you posted your first comment about those on the gay parade and those trying to disrupt it:

"Sounds like one group of extremist bigots looking for a fight with another group of extremist bigots."

With the benefit of hindsight, do you genuinely think that was an accurate reflection of ANY of the many press reports? An easy question to answer surely.

Please cite ANY report that concurs with your comments that both sides were equally culpable.

Here's a suggestion as to where you might find one, try the webpages of extreme right wing and nationalist organisations..

Keep it simple.

555 wrote:

How you interpret people asserting their right to repudiate attacks on them as extremist bigots, frankly beggars belief. By such an interpretation, all other than craven cowards would be extremist bigots. This is an unusual use of such a term.

555,

it all depends on your interpretation of what was meant by "repudiate". I have explained, at some length, why I interpreted it as I did and why groups opposed to those saying it would do the same and I can see little point in doing so again or repeating, time after time, that my comment referred to the particular line I quoted, nothing more. You, also, seem to be entering Brad the Idiot's realm and crediting me with something I have neither said nor implied. Your interpretation of what I said as meaning that "all other than craven cowards would be extremist bigots" is no more true than the view that all elephants are animals so all animals are elephants, that "if you are not with us you are against us (which I do consider an extremist bigot view), or that people asserting their rights also have a right to be confrontational, or Brad the Idiot's statement that I said  "both sides were equally culpable".

We have now entered the realm of abuse and simply lying about what has been said; while I have no objection to the former I draw the line at the latter.  


أحْمَق خدا حاف

Yes, GF. According to you both groups are extremist bigots. I disagree with you and I'll leave it as that.

As far as I know, the parade has been around for 12 years. This year, the nationalist right wing group decided to attack the parade because they view people like us (that is men having sex with men) as unatural perverts. I'll leave the readers here to make up their minds as to whether people like us are "extremist bigots."

555 wrote:

I doff my cap to those brave enough to stand up and be counted on the streets of Eastern Europe at the start of this century. They are not conducting safe experiments or even fieldwork but are enacting their liberation. In my book they are real men, whatever they wear. If nobody will face down the bullies then everyone is dis-empowered and those who challenge bullies deserve our support.

Thank you 555 I have only copied your last paragraph. Would we even have this forum, if it had not been for a small group saying enough is enough back over 30 years ago. Thanks for those brave enough to stand up for the freedoms we have today

Davey612 wrote:

Yes, GF. According to you both groups are extremist bigots. I disagree with you and I'll leave it as that.

Another moron who can only read part of what is written. What if I said that you had written: men having sex with men are unatural perverts. Would you think that I had missed out something, deliberately or otherwise?

And that is my final word on this topic.

Gone Fishing wrote:

Davey612 wrote:

Yes, GF. According to you both groups are extremist bigots. I disagree with you and I'll leave it as that.

Another moron who can only read part of what is written. What if I said that you had written: men having sex with men are unatural perverts. Would you think that I had missed out something, deliberately or otherwise?

And that is my final word on this topic.

You have had every opportunity to retract/modify your original comments in this thread, which anyone can read for themselves in the opening posts.

Your unwillingness to retract/modify is remarkable and shameful, particularly for a member of a minority group, and will colour for me your comments on any topic in the future.

From Gay News

Hungary Referred to European Commission Following Budapest Gay Pride Violence

 
  Hungarian MEP was targeted by violent right-wing agitators
 
      

BRUSSELS, July 9, 2008  –  There has been condemnation from Members of the European Parliament following the violence at Budapest Gay Pride at the weekend.

Pride was attacked by right-wing extremists who threw fire bombs, eggs filled with acid, excrement and other objects at both police and participants.

Even a Hungarian MEP, Katalin Lévai, experienced first-hand the violence when she was attacked during the parade, it has emerged.

A window of her car was smashed when a heavy stone was thrown at her vehicle.

“It is unacceptable in our democracies that microscopic groups of the extreme right may threaten and attack an important minority while it practices the universal right to freedom,” she said yesterday.

“We must step up against groups advocating hatred and violence.

“I will continue to work hard in order to stop the spread of radicalism in Hungary – and in Europe,” she pledged.

The Parliament’s all-party ‘intergroup’ on gay and lesbian rights strongly denounced the Budapest Pride violence.  The group said in a statement that it was “disappointed by the Hungarian government’s inability” to guarantee the safety of their citizens – and visitors to the country.

“I am deeply disappointed and concerned of Hungary’s inability to deal with extremists,” said Michael Cashman (PES), president of the intergroup.

“This must be referred to the European Commission and Commission’s President,” he said last night.

Sirpa Pietikäinen, a vice-president of the intergroup for the EPP-ED added: “Police forces again, like last year, failed to protect citizens exercising their fundamental rights to peaceful assembly, probably due to inadequate resources.

“I will demand an explanation from the Hungarian government and I will raise this issue with the European Commission.”



From the Washington Times


Ambassador decries anti-gay violence
 

POSTED July 21 2008 7:55 AM BY Print

It doesn't happen every day that a political ambassadorial appointee of a Republican president voices public support for gay rights.
 
The U.S. ambassador to Hungary, April H. Foley, almost did that earlier this month, choosing her words very carefully not to appear overly supportive. She issued a statement "deploring" violence against the Gay Pride parade in Budapest on July 5.
 
"We deplore violence as a means of expression wherever it occurs in the world," Ms. Foley said. "The United States is not free of prejudice and violence toward minorities. … We all strive to resolve differences of opinion peacefully."
 
Even that generic statement apparently caught the attention of the Hungarians, most of whom are still opposed to gay rights, nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War.
 
As many as 10 people were injured and 45 arrested when a group described by wire reports as homophobic extremists clashed with police escorting the parade. They threw explosives, eggs, cobblestones and bottles at police and the 450 marchers. Police used tear gas and water cannon to disperse the hostile crowd.
 
Hungary is a member of NATO and the European Union. A recent EU report said that a third of the organization's member-states are still failing to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.


washingtontimes.com/weblogs/kralev-diplomacy/2008/Jul/21/ambassador-decries-anti-gay-violence/

From a Hungarian Newspaper HVG

After the pogrom  
2008. július 23. 14:10 | Utolsó módosítás:2008. július 23. 14:13

 
Let's get something straight. On Saturday, a qualitatively new situation emerged in Hungary. The extreme Right targeted lives. The horde wanted to kill.
 
In Budapest last Saturday, there was a pogrom-like atmosphere. Again - because there was violence at last year's Gay Parade. But this year, it was planned, and the weapons used were capable of killing. Unless the sober majority is able to step in, the trend will become irreversible. Hungary is becoming a country not fit for human dignity, like it was in the past.

We will become a country whose citizens do not enjoy protections and who cannot exercise their rights. A country where it is impossible to speak because you don't know who stands against you. A country where you can't go out onto the streets because you can't show yourself. Where you can't be distinctive, because others will discriminate against you. Where you can't fit in beacause there are no norms. There won't be a moral crisis, because there will be no morals. There'll be no freedom and no responsibility.

We know that some in our society lend silent support to the aggressors. We can't say that we don't see and hear what surrounds us. We see nationalist symbols on our cars, crude speech on our streets, Jew-baiting on our most sacred national holidays, and vicious, murderous anti-minority sentiment.

It can't be claimed that there is no link between the hidden army of black-shirts, the Jobbik movement's SA and what happened on Saturday. Brutal demonstrations of force have become an everyday sight, an accepted means of creating fear, of controlling the streets, of choosing between people.



http://hvg.hu/english/20080723_diagnosis_pogrom_gay_parade.aspx?s=24h

Gone Fishing wrote:

Davey612 wrote:

Yes, GF. According to you both groups are extremist bigots. I disagree with you and I'll leave it as that.

Another moron who can only read part of what is written. What if I said that you had written: men having sex with men are unatural perverts. Would you think that I had missed out something, deliberately or otherwise?

And that is my final word on this topic.

Ah yes, insulting someone and then saying goodbye.