So Julia Hartley-Brewer says that she is clear that this is about gay people and homophobia. She says “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” She adds “It is not about one gay journalist and his apparently hurt feelings”.
However, she goes on to say “Not that I am, strictly speaking, allowed to make that judgment call, of course, because I am not gay and therefore I am required to check my heterosexual privilege at the door before venturing to offer an opinion on anything that affects gay people. ” – Ooops – not bitter then Ms Hartley-Brewer?
She continues “Forget the inspiring we-are-all-one-humanity sentiment of “Je suis Charlie” after the Charlie Hebdo massacre; now we must all establish our right-on credentials before uttering a word of condemnation or sympathy about anything that affects people who are not in our own “community”” Ooops – still not bitter then?
As I have said elsewhere, this is the equivalent of those who respond to anyone saying “Black Lives Matter” by asserting “All Lives Matter”. “Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings””. No one said that the lives of all human beings do not matter, but allow us please to focus on what is important right here and right now. Ms Hartley-Brewer however seems to be repeating the same pattern, which in effect, proves the original point.
“it’s a very worrying state of affairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” – I think his point was that they were not being horrified that it was unequivocally a crime against gay people during the interview and they were trying to reinterpret it. When Owen Jones said it was an attack on LGBT people, Mark Longhurst argued with him that it was an attack “on the freedom of all people to try and enjoy themselves” also questioning that it was “deliberately targetted on one part of the community rather than the freedom to enjoy yourself no matter what your sexual orientation.” I am confused. Please explain how this fits with “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” as she now says.
“I am still at a loss as to what Owen Jones found so disgusting . . . . . because nothing was said that could remotely have caused such a scene.” It was what was NOT said, or NOT acknowledged in the interview that was the problem and she is still in reality dismissing it now.
She lists what she sees as Owens points. “And the third was that neither Mark Longhurst nor I were entitled to venture any opinion on any issues arising out of this crime because we were straight and therefore could not presume to care as much about the deaths of 50 gay people as Owen. In his own words: “You don’t understand this because you’re not gay.” ” Owen Jones was perhaps unlikely to go on a mainstream show, if he believed that the presenters were not entitled to venture an opinion because they were straight. As a journalist I would guess that he talks to straight people all the time. He merely commented that what was being said reflected that they did not understand it, not having the insight perhaps of someone who has been on the receiving end.
I might point out too that the article appears to repeatedly question his right to venture his opinion.
“Our heinous crime was simply not to play along with Owen’s preferred narrative”
“All three of these points are of course completely wrong and, frankly, really rather stupid”
“But why let actual facts get in the way of a good old bit of self-indulgent offence taking, eh?”
“Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings”. How anyone can manage to stir up offence at that innocuous remark defies all logic.”
You refer to the discussion dismissively as “this stupid row”
“he chose to make the entirely false claim that we had attempted to silence him. Under the headline “On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia”, Owen wrote this: “I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people.” – Correct me if I am wrong, but saying that someone is IGNORING or REFUSING TO ACCEPT that it was homophobia, is not the same as MAKING A CLAIM THAT WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO SILENCE HIM. He did not make the allegation that she claims he falsely made. That she claims was a flat out lie. They just refused to hear the point he was making.
By the way, I did not see that “when we did speak, he shouted us down”. There were two of them their voices were louder and they talked over him and it is interesting too that they edited the video of the events down soely to the part where in my eyes he WALKED out, rather than STORMING OUT as claimed.
In this piece Ms Hartley-Brewer criticised his opinion in a way that seemed not only dismissive and condascending, (If a black person said that something was racist, would she dismiss it and them in the same way, or might she reflect on their words?) but also quite frankly, in a way that is highly questionable.
“from where I was sitting, the entire thing has been ENTIRELY about you all along”.
“The truth is that Owen didn’t walk out “in disgust”. He wasn’t making a statement. He had had a bad day, was tired and emotional, and was spoiling for a fight. This wasn’t a call to arms, this was just a childish tantrum.”
“the professional offence-takers have chosen to create their own fantasy version of events in which Owen is a tragic victim . . .”
and the rather spectacular “This is peak Generation Snowflake: I don’t like what you say or the way that you say it so I’m going to scream and scream until you give in” Wow. Just wow. I never noticed what an emotional diva Owen Jones was till she pointed it out, over and over and over? Just how limp does Ms Hartley-Brewer think his wrist is? If Owen Jones had been a woman, I wonder if she would be asking if she was on her period?
Those that comment too are “the professional offence-takers”
“Owen Jones does not deserve an apology and he certainly won’t be getting one from me. And neither does anyone else who has jumped on the perpetually offended bandwagon.”
“It’s proof that there are now thousands – if not millions – of people in Britain who regard the taking of offence as not just their hobby but their full time job.” with the headline referring to his “hate mob”.
At every point, rather than simply arguing a point, Ms Hartley-Brewer undermines anyone who does not agree with her. I belive that it betrays her underlying views, supporting rather than countering the original complaints about their stance. How dare these divas stamp their feet? When Diane Abbot referred to her denial – It seems to me that she was entirely right.
Ms Hartley-Brewer says “They seek out offence and hidden insults wherever they may be, and even where (as in this case) there are none” – Well I believe I found a few.
She has a stunning parting shot “If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks.” Wow – Gay people, quite a lot of them, asking for unequivoval recognition of homophobia after over a hundred people in a gay club were shot, are the same as terrorists. From “it’s a very worrying state of arrairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” to comparing Owen Jones to Islamic State. Very gay friendly of you Ms Hartley-Brewer. Take a bow.
IcanCyoublog 