The Blaxploitation Of Kevin Myers

Below is a rewrite of the Kevin Myers article which appeared in today’s Irish Independent. I have merely substituted the word “black” for “gay” (or variations thereof) to give an idea of how ridiculous his views are. I’ve also used accurate statistics for the black population to show how foolish it is to use statistics to apply judgements to every member of a group. Also, my statistics are correct – Mr. Myers’ weren’t in the original piece.

I’ve left the last paragraph untouched as I couldn’t find a bait ‘n’ switch as crazy as Myers’ original opinions on abortion.

Every single human decision has a consequence — so remember that the next time you vote for someone’s rights

Wednesday March 14 2012

Consequence; perhaps the least considered word in the entire Irish political lexicon. Repeatedly, governments have embarked on policies with little consideration of consequence. This recklessness is almost built into the DNA of the State from 1916 onwards: politicians did what made them feel good, or which satisfied a personal ambition, regardless of the actual outcome. And consequence was then seen as some wholly unfair act of either an evil history or of the British, which in nationalist thinking, came down pretty much to the same thing.

So how much thought went into the recent Fianna Fail vote to give full marriage rights to black couples? A second’s worth, maybe? But we were recently told very clearly by the Supreme Court that judges do not like imposing their own views on parliamentary laws relating to racial proclivities. So, just as in the contemptible and disgusting law by which a 15-year-old boy can be imprisoned for being seduced by a sexually experienced 16-year-old girl, but she may not, and which the Supreme Court ruled was constitutional, our law-makers cannot now expect to be rescued from their own bad decisions by some clever judges. The Supreme Court will not impose its own wisdom on any law that establishes legal parity between black and white marriages.

Therefore, equality in law having been achieved, what happens when a black couple and a white couple are competing to adopt the same baby boy? Without a legal protection for the rights of the child, the claim of each is equally valid, though the record of every society shows that boys with black parents are an express train heading for trouble. Indeed, one prison survey in the US showed that 39pc of jail-inmates were the product of black homes. But with marital parity achieved, an adoption agency would be breaking the law if it ruled in favour of the white couple. We have seen the workings of this sort of law in Britain, where it is illegal for Catholic adoption agencies to seek white homes for their children. The consequence — ah, that word again — is that Catholic adoption agencies have closed, rather than do something they feel is immoral, which is to hand children over to black couples. It is not even lawful for the birth mother to stipulate that she wants her child to be raised by a white married couple.

What about a law which gives an agency discretionary powers? Actually, discretionary law is usually no law: the adoption agency that is given the semi-judicial power to prefer one couple over another will sooner or later be challenged in the courts, and then the only people who will be happy will be our old friends the lawyers, as the baby is left in a maze of domestic, familial and legal Caucasian Chalk Circles.

Now, if you think that two black people are just as suitable parents for a baby as a white couple, then quite clearly, the Fianna Fail vote for equality of marriage is not a problem for you. But if you think differently: if you consider that a boy should be raised with a white mother and father, then the Fianna Fail vote is more than a difficulty, for it will legally prevent an adoption agency from even having an opinion on such matters. Two people with a black lifestyle will be as absolutely entitled to adopt as a church-going white couple: and I am not implying any crack-smoking here. I am merely talking about lifestyle. One will be equal to the other.

Admittedly, Ireland is not unique in its failure to admit to the immutable power of the laws of inconvenient consequence. It is a general liberal failing. For example, conservatives in the US warned of the dire calamity that would result from the liberalisation of the laws against black people. Actually, their pessimistic forecasts fell far short of the catastrophic reality: at least 138,000 in the US living with AIDS – with blacks of the African continent notorious for having the disease. Now just about every American liberal could tell you the price of the Vietnam War for the US: 65,000 dead. But almost no one is aware that the price for black liberation is now over twice that, and that is just those living with the condition. OK: so was that worth it? And I’m not expressing an opinion either way, just asking a question.

What about a woman’s right to choose? Well in Britain, that has just run into the moral brick wall of selective abortions, whereby mothers of Asian origin are having sex-scans, and then having the foetus aborted if female. Sorry: what was that mantra about “a woman’s right to choose”? The recent feminist indignation in Britain over this “gendercide” would almost be entertaining if the moral complexity and implicit human tragedy were less horrifying (the foetus has to be well-advanced before her sex can be identified, at which point the little girl is beheaded in utero, before the inconvenient she-matter is hosed out of the womb). Consequence, you see; every single human decision has a consequence. It’s as well to remember that the next time you vote for someone’s “rights”.


About alfla

Playwright, screenwriter, sometime improv enthusiast and full-time television lover. You know, in THAT way.
This entry was posted in LGBT Rights, Sober Thoughts and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Blaxploitation Of Kevin Myers

  1. Joens says:


  2. Eamon Delaney says:

    Reductive silliness. Your ‘word replacement’ is patronising to black people, and to us. Why not engage with Myer’s argument ?

    • I did engage with Myers’ argument, in my other piece. The point of this piece is to highlight that the language Myers uses is inflammatory and baseless and how that becomes more obvious when applied to racism – something that people tend not to be able to get away with in a national paper.

      To be honest, Myers’ opinions are so beyond the pale of the general public that I find it hard to even consider engaging him, especially when he has such a talent for sticking his fingers in his ears at the merest sign of a fact. That said, happy to get into it on here!

  3. Pingback: Kevin Myers on Gay Rights

  4. Pingback: Racism Myers Style | gaelick

  5. ephemeradical says:

    Sorry, I don’t think this is a fair parallel to draw because people spew that kind of bigoted nonsense about black and other non-white people every day. The issue is less often marriage and more often single mums, gangs, immigration and Islam, but the bigotry is no less blatant.

    In particular, Kevin Myers is well-known for writing excruciatingly racist articles and getting away unscathed. In fact, he takes a special interest in attacking and trying to disprove reports or discussions about racism – not when they’re directed at him, just generally. A quick google shows up some of his choice phrases and headlines (trigger warning for racism):

    “The problem isn’t racism, it’s the tidal wave of immigrants”
    “Africa is giving nothing to anyone – apart from AIDS”
    “[Obama] is half and half, namely a mulatto” (this is an extremely offensive, extremely outdated, US term for a mixed-race person for anyone who didn’t know.)

    So that’s what racism, Myers-style, looks like. It looks like the racism he writes. The fact that Myers’ racism hasn’t featured on your radar to the same extent his homophobia has demonstrates that we habitually put up with this kind of gibberish with regard to race.

    As a rule, I think the only people qualified to comment on the similarities and differences between two set of ‘isms’ or bigotries are people who are targeted by both – so in this instance, people who are gay/bi and black. Anyone else just ends up revealing their ignorance of, or even complicity with, the bigotry they don’t experience.

  6. I like that my post is undermined by pointing out that Myers is ALSO racist. Would agree that it is a difficult parallel to draw and the nature of what I did with the word replacement was obviously not going to be exactly on the nose.

    I would agree that perhaps racism is not as much on my radar when it comes to Myers, but that’s because I’m gay (and white) so I’m going to notice it more. I also do work with NOISE, the equal marriage protest group, so this piece – and others like it – came to my attention through them as I’m not in Ireland to monitor Myers regularly.

    I’d say that the language of racism that Myers (and others, as you point out) falls into tends not to be as clear-cut as that around homophobia. While many racist public assertions take the form of complaints about immigrants, or gangs, or the “Africa” that Myers speaks of (as if it were one country), language around homophobia is much more direct. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many people are still comfortable asserting that there is a core sickness in being gay – something that isn’t necessarily said so bluntly in racist pieces.

    To say that it is inherently wrong or evil to have a different colour skin is rarely how racism is put out there, whereas with homophobia it is. It is not gay British people, or lesbian government employees, that are the problem – it is the mere fact of being gay.

    So while I do agree with you I think it’s slightly different, but appreciate your commentary. I think we can both call ourselves members of the Myers haters club, though.

  7. ephemeradical says:

    That’s kind of the point I was trying to make. Racism and homophobia are really different. However, the only people who have all the information necessary to explore those differences are people who know both inside out – because they experience both. You know how straight people can’t understand the extent of homophobia in society, right? Because they’re not subject to it, and if they do witness or read it, they might not notice, and if they do notice, they might not remember it because it doesn’t affect them personally? Similar things happen with other bigotries.

    With a second quick google I’ve found Myers attributing most financial crime to Jews, the London riots to the blackness of the rioters, and gang-culture the world over to Afro-Caribbean-ness. He’s also claimed that black men are grossly overrepresented in sex offences, in the same article linking them to street crime. People like Myers don’t generally say that it’s bad to be black, you’re right; but they do frequently say that black people are bad. I think that’s clear-cut racism.

    If you don’t think those examples, and the first ones I gave, are clear-cut, then that’s because you’ve never felt the power of these ideas used against you: you’ve never been followed round a shop by the security guard because of your race, you’ve never had a member of your community killed by the police because of their race. I suggest that you keep to analysing the bigotry you do experience, and leave the analysis of racism to those who know about it. You don’t need to exploit race issues to make points about the wrongness homophobia – there are loads of other arguments to make. People who are both gay/bi and non-white know this. Ask us next time you want to make comparisons between racism and homophobia.

  8. alfla says:

    I see what your point is, but I have to disagree: not being part of a minority in no way precludes me from defending or addressing that minority. The attitude that people who aren’t gay can’t understand and shouldn’t be part of the conversation on homophobia is a dangerous one – it excludes the minority more, while also saying that it is their responsibility (and not society’s as a whole) to stamp out the problem. The same goes for racism.

    As I’ve said, I agree that my post isn’t a delicate analysis of racism, but it was never intended to be. It was merely to point out that there are similarities, and ones that you have in fact detailed in your responses. It is my opinion that more unites us than divides us, and while I’ll happily have a conversation about what makes each community unique I won’t back down on that point.

    • patrick says:

      how is it that people who hate gays never anything have to say about bisexuality? isnt they both the same at the end of the day? but ive never ever heard an anti bi comment in my life.rather strange”

      • alfla says:

        From what I can see people who object to homosexuality don’t even believe in bisexuality, so tend to ignore it altogether. It’s a different, but similarly hurtful, problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s