Constitutional Hill

On the common sense bigotry of Stephen Mulholland

“Common sense” can be a dangerous thing. People often invoke “common sense” when they refer to the commonly shared prejudices of those they happen to encounter in their small circle made up of family, friends and acquaintances. This danger is starkly illustrated by a column on homosexuality published yesterday in the Sunday Times Business Times by one Stephen Mulholland (who, apparently, used to be quite a big shot in the media industry before the internet era).

Most of Mulholland’s column is given over to patronising remarks of the “some-of-my-best-friends-are-black” variety. Goodness, isn’t it nice to know that Mulholland believes homosexuals are by and large not such bad people after all and that we now even have the legal right to get married. Some of us are, apparently, even quite clever and “creative”, which one gathers is something of which Mulholland approves.

Once, confesses Mulholland, he even knew a gay man who never gave the slightest hint of “coming on” to him – as if this “restraint” on the part of the unnamed gay man says something profound about the moral character of gay men in general. Mulholland apparently never considered the possibility that the man did not “come on” to him because of Mulholland’s obvious lack of charm and sexual appeal. Oh, how vain some heterosexuals can be sometimes.

Such is the blissful world of common sense bigotry in which Mulholland lives; a world in which it is assumed, without having to provide any argument, that one is praising a group of people because one of the group never made a pass at you. He is too steeped in his own world of common sense prejudice to realise that by mentioning this he is not being kind and open minded. Moreover he seems blissfully unaware that he is inadvertently displaying his own anxieties about his heterosexuality while signalling his fear and prejudice of same-sex sexuality.

One assumes Mulholland believes (but he is not self-aware or clever enough to realise this) that the gay man’s discretion saved him from the “embarrassment” of being thought of by his fellow homophobes as being open to advances by another man. This ensured that he retained his image as a firmly heterosexual man – albeit not one sexy enough to be “hit on” by a sensible gay man.

The absurdity of this view (in the absence of deep-seated homophobia) is nicely illustrated if we imagine a role-reversal. If Mulholland had written a column on, say, the way women are rather jolly workmates and how modern men should normally treat them as more or less their equals, it is unthinkable that he would have added a paragraph about knowing a woman once who never “came on” to him in order to illustrate how harmless women really are and how they are not such bad people after all. In a world in which heterosexuality is never embarrassing, in which heterosexual men are not hated and despised and raped and killed because they are heterosexuals, such an “argument” does not make any sense.

Mulholland concludes his rather queer column (if you excuse the pun) in the following manner:

Thus, as same-sex relationships are increasingly, and appropriately, accepted in society, it is also fair to expect same-sex parents to be frank with their children that such arrangements are neither the norm nor ultimately desirable — even if they are loving relationships.

Maybe Mulholland failed to provide reasons for this boldly stated – but highly obnoxious and controversial – view because it is his first column of the New Year, knocked off next to the pool with a glass of chardonnay in hand. But judging from his inability on Eusebius McKaiser’s radio show this morning to provide any logical argument to back up this view, I suspect something else is at play here. I almost felt embarrassed on Mulholland’s behalf because under sustained questioning from Eusebius he, shall we say, did not sound like the sharpest tool in the shed.

Giving Mulholland the benefit of the doubt and assuming for the moment that he is not a complete fool, one can only assume that Mulholland believes his view that same-sex relationships are undesirable is so obvious, so commonsensical, that no argument is needed to justify it. When one is so blissfully unaware that one’s own common sense views are steeped in prejudice and bigotry, one has truly lived a sheltered and impoverished life, a life devoid of the joys of mingling with and making an effort to learn from diverse groups of people from different cultures, races, sexual orientations and class backgrounds.

On the radio show Mulholland tried to justify his view (as far as I can tell) by arguing that being gay or lesbian can be traumatic for one’s parents. Even if one agreed with Mulholland that it would be better to spare parents the trauma created by their own bigotry by warning children about the undesirability of same-sex relationships, this argument makes no sense in the context of his column. After all, one assumes that one of the benefits of having same-sex parents would be that they would not be homophobic and would not be traumatised if their son or daughter told them that they were gay or lesbian.

The larger problem here is of course that the bigotry and prejudice of others are used to justify one’s own bigotry and prejudice and the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in one’s children. And it is done on the basis that the bigotry in question is shared by all and is no more than common sense.

What Mulholland does not understand is that if any parent is traumatised because he or she has a gay or lesbian child, then the problem is with the parent – not the child. Making an argument in defence of the parents is like making an argument in defence of the racial views of Eugene Terreblanche – it rather taints one by association. What is obviously undesirable is to have a homophobic parent – just as it is undesirable to have a racist or sexist parent – and we should work on changing the hurtful and destructive attitudes of these parents by challenging their prejudices and fears and, if necessary, by ostracising them from society.

What we should not do is to encourage other parents who are not bigoted to instil prejudices in their children by telling them that same-sex relationships (or relationships between people of different races for that matter) are undesirable merely because some people have not overcome their irrational fear and hatred of those who do not have the same skin colour or do not share the same sexual orientation as them.

In my world, prejudice is undesirable. Racism is undesirable. Physically or sexually abusing one’s partner or a child is undesirable. Allowing a person like Mulholland to publish such a lazy, un-argued, thoughtless and bigoted column in the Sunday Times is undesirable.

What is never undesirable is when two consenting adults love and support one another. I have never understood how anyone can believe that it is harmful for two consenting adults to love one another. I can only think that what is meant is that when one treats same-sex relationships as desirable, one challenges the fears and the prejudices of others and by upsetting them, one harms their oblivious, unearned, spoilt sense of well-being; a sense of well-being based on bizarre idea that one deserves only to be confronted by those who look like you and love like you and behave like you and think (I am using the term very loosely here) like you.

Personally I do not think anyone has the right not to have their prejudices challenged and ridiculed. So, unlike Mulholland I believe every parent – whether in a same-sex relationship or otherwise – has the ethical duty to tell their children that loving and caring relationships (whether between members of the same or of opposite sexes) are desirable but that bigotry never is.

Come to think of it, one should start by telling the editors of the Sunday Times.

  • Gwebecimele

    I knew this one will get you out of your break PdV.

  • Blue Ozone

    “One assumes Mulholland believes (but he is not self-aware or clever enough to realise this) that the gay man’s discretion saved him from the “embarrassment” of being thought of by his fellow homophobes as being open to advances by another man. This ensured that he retained his image as a firmly heterosexual man – albeit not one sexy enough to be “hit on” by a sensible gay man.”

    I say I agree with that sentiment. Him and that patriarchal African Zuma both need a crash course in queer theory, perhaps a simple “Queer theory for Dummies” from you and Gillian Schutte to learn how to deal with and interpret their own politically incorrect preferences and emotions.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele
  • Anonymous

    Hello Pierre,

    There is big debate on the definition of marriage, as you most definitely know. At the very least it would seem to me that marriage is a legal union. But this is too generic of course.

    Could you perhaps provide a definition of “marriage” that adequately describes the following criteria:
    1) What are the main function[s] of a marriage.
    2) How is a marriage instantiated.
    3) What distinguishes “marriage” from other legal unions?

    Your input will be greatly appreciated.

    Another aspect that is relevant to this debate is the definition of “sex” (as in the act). It appears people cannot agree on the definition of this concept. To me, sex implies sexual reproduction i.e. the act or process whereby organisms of the same species form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. This, to me, appears to be the scientifically valid view of sex. Acts such as masturbation, cunnulingus, sodomy, fellatio etc., on this view, are not considered to be sexual acts.
    But, like I said, people differ in their views on what sex means. What is your opinion?


  • Jay

    Most children dissapoint their parents on different levels. Should people just stop having children safeguard themselves from trauma caused by being a parent?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Gwebes is right, this article had PDV bait all over it :)

  • Brad Pohl

    Great article Pierre :-)

  • Blue Ozone

    January 7, 2013 at 13:58 pm

    “Most children dissapoint their parents on different levels. Should people just stop having children safeguard themselves from trauma caused by being a parent?”

    I think you should ask PdV. He is an expert on how to raise children. Especially telling them that they are White and already privileged enough and should not hold on to dreams or harbour too many expectations in future.

  • Truth

    Dear Pierre

    I think you are being too emotional about this. For a Constitutional Law Prof to suggest that the Sunday Times should not have published the article I think it is shocking. As much as we do not agree with the views expresses by Mulholland, he has the right to publish them unless they contravene the Constitution.

    We cannot change minds by refusing to publish what they conjure-up but we can change them by debate and showing them why they are wrong. If the Sunday Times or any other newspaper only published articles with which I agree with, I’d stop buying it. Those of us who are open minded as we claim to be we should also be tolerant of views which we do not agree with. We can never win the battle to open other peoples’ minds by labeling them “anti” this and that or homophobes.

  • Vaughan

    its a brilliant article Pierre. Thank you. I am always in such awe of people who can write their thoughts and opinions so eloquently.

  • 5c

    Anonymous, so according to you, a test tube baby would imply “sex” had occurred even if the egg and sperm donor had never met each other? And people who are unable to conceive for whatever reason cannot have sex?

    I also believe the main function of marriage is societal control, forming alliances, accumulating wealth, power etc.

  • Gwebecimele

    How about Sipho from KZN bringing Jan as his “makoti” bride to his family?That is what I call normal.

  • Diane Wilson

    I am surprised that a man of Stephen Mulholland’s age should be so unsophisticated. He doesn’t seem to have religious reasons for his bigotry, just ignorance and lack of worldliness.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ 5c

    Where have you been, u have just given us a solution to racism, tribalism colonialism, equality etc…………………..just marry across groups?

  • Anonymous


    The view that “the act or process whereby organisms of the same species form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents” does not appear to imply that in vitro fertalization is an instantiation of sex or sexual reproduction, although it may provide for an interesting discussion.

    I would imagine any animal that is unable to participate in the act of “combining genetic traits from both parents” is not having sex. Copulation or coitus does not imply having sex, however, I would argue that coitus is a necessary prerequisite for having sex.

  • marcusaurelius

    Oh shame. The woes of having a free society. Fortunately for us you don’t get to determine who’s opinion to give preference, although after listening to that prejudiced piece of ‘journalism’ this morning, I’m guessing its a case of ‘Fuck what’s fair under the law. I’m gay & this is my show, so you’re wrong.’. Freedom of speech means that you have to allow contradictory or unpopular views to be aired, even if they make you choke, although I must say I think this is more a storm in a handbag & matching shoes than a travesty.

    You may commence the histrionics now. :)

  • Blue Ozone

    January 7, 2013 at 15:34 pm

    You need to understand that freedom of speech is absolute however relative. It may be totally acceptable to continue singing “kill the Boer” under circumstances where White people are also being tortured and brutally murdered (as long as it is not a gay White people). However not always being totally conversant with queer theory and making some kind of not-so-pc blunder. Now there is a real problem.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ OzoneGuy

    “I think you should ask PdV. He is an expert on how to raise children.”

    OzoneGuy is right. That is because he attended a BROEDEBOND/ANGLO-AMERICAN university, which taught a variety of “life skills.”


  • Jay

    Kids growing up not becoming doctors or lawyers dissapoint some parents. Daughters not marrying a doctor is a dissapointment to some parents. Children growing up and becoming alcoholics,thieves,bachelors,…
    Some kids are gay, some grow up not having glamorous jobs. That’s got little to do with parenting. Point is,children grow up into being just human, warts ‘n all. If you want a child that’s going to perfect in every way you expect, newsflash! Its not going to happen.further point, just love and suppport ypur child, please.
    Mulholland’s just an old fogey from way back trying to squeeze a last few minutes of fame.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Truth

    “As much as we do not agree with the views expresses by Mulholland, he has the right to publish them unless they contravene the Constitution.”

    Pierre did not say that Mulholland/the ST had no right to publish the article. If an editor makes a decision to publish a piece because it is inaccurate, misleading or ignorant, he is not in any sense “censoring” the writer. He is exercising his editorial judgment.

    Bullard’s complaint that his rights of free expression were violated when he was fired by the ST a few years back was misplaced, for the same reason. No-one has a “right” to be published in a privately-owned newspaper.

  • ozoneblue

    Thanks MO.

    What shall we do – especially in the “free” USA mass media without rigid “editorial control” and “self-censorship”.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ MO

    So what is inaccurate, misleading or ignorant about Mulholland article that needs to be censored??

  • Michael Osborne

    “So what is inaccurate, misleading or ignorant about Mulholland article that needs to be censored?”

    Gwebe, I think you are making the same mistake as Truth. Where did I (or Pierre, for that matter), say that the article should be censored?

  • ozoneblue


    You are not so clever are you. Cant you see that Mulholland is too stupid to realise that his self- image as a heterosexual man is a false one and a telltale sign of repressed homophobia?

  • Dmwangi

    “… and, if necessary, by ostracising them from society.”

    Brilliant idea! Ostracising ppl you disagree with from society is certainly going to result in a healthy, pluralistic political community. Maybe Canada should deport these parents for clinging to their “destructive,” “prejudicial,” “discriminatory,” “hateful” views.

    Gay teacher suspended after showing fourth graders homosexually-charged Christmas video


    BRENTWOOD BAY, British Columbia, 2 January, 2013 – An openly gay teacher in a British Columbia elementary school has been suspended after showing his fourth grade class a sexually-charged YouTube video featuring men in drag. Teacher Joe Winkler said he used the video in the middle of December at Brentwood Elementary in Central Saanich, B.C. as an opportunity to discuss diversity and homosexual issues.

    The film shows men dressed in red bikinis wearing Santa hats being sexually provocative with another man in a swimsuit. The men dance and lip-sync on a beach to Bette Midler’s Hawaiian Christmas song “Mele Kalikimaka”. The video concludes with the man in the swimsuit peeling and eating a banana.

    Parents were outraged and immediately complained to school officials after the teacher sent a message home to parents with a link to the video, according to

    Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women Canada said that parents should be more than outraged, they should “demand that this teacher be dismissed.”

    “Showing this video to fourth grade students reveals not only a lack of judgment, but that this man’s homosexual beliefs prevent him from seeing the wrong in exposing children to a lifestyle that has been deemed by the medical community to be extremely harmful and even deadly to those who engage in it.”

    “This is not education; this is simply indoctrination,” she said.

    While gay activists often deny having any intention to indoctrinate school children, one gay columnist Daniel Villarreal created a stir when he wrote in Queerty in 2011: “let’s face it—that’s a lie.”

    “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it,” he wrote. “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT [emphasis original].”

    The managing editor of Xtra Vancouver enunciated in 2011 what critics interpreted as a clear example of a “homosexual activist agenda” for school children.

    “…the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm,” Xtra’s editor wrote.

    Jack Fonseca, project manager for Campaign Life Coalition said that any teacher who shows a “perverse film” to fourth grade children should be “fired and roundly condemned as a pervert”.

    “This should serve as a clarion cry to parents that the new homosexualized ‘diversity’ and ‘equity’ curriculums popping up in Ministry of Education mandates across the country are nothing more than a vehicle to indoctrinate children with the homosexual agenda, as young as possible,” he said.

    Complaints by parents resulted in Winkler being put on paid leave for three weeks. While he has since apologized for showing the film and asked for a second chance, his future in teaching has yet to be determined.

    Winkler, who helped draft the LGBT policy manual for his school district that describes homosexual activity as “multifaceted and normal,” told CTVNews that in showing the film it was not his “intention to shock them [parents] or to shock the kids” and that it was not his “intention to put anything sexual — of a sexual nature — in front of their kids.”

    “I hope they understand that my intention was simply to show a fun video,” he said.

  • Pierre De Vos

    Eusebius McKaiser’s interview with Mulholland:

  • John Roberts

    So you’re offended ! As if that gives you special rights. Big fucking deal. Yawn.

  • LM Swan

    After listening to the podcast of this inarticulate, blustering fool his idea of what is a “perfect world” and “the norm” scares the hell out of me. Essentially what he is saying is that people shouldn’t be born homosexual in the first place so as not to traumatise their parents. Perhaps the easiest way to show Mulholland the error of his ways would be to get him to rewrite the article substituting the word “homosexual” with “black”. Maybe, just maybe he will then understand what a tool he is.

  • Dmwangi


    ‘Essentially what he is saying is that people shouldn’t be born homosexual in the first place so as not to traumatise their parents.’

    No worries, mate. As Blue Ozone so eloquently pointed out on the previous thread, the New Atheists are giddily showing us the way with biotech engineering. Designer babies here we come! Presuming homosexuality is biologically based, want to guess which will be one of the first populations ‘selected’ to go???

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dmwangi

    “Presuming homosexuality is biologically based, want to guess which will be one of the first populations ‘selected’ to go??”

    Hold it right there a second, Dmwangi. Are you saying we are facing . . . GENOCIDE?


  • Some ouen

    Whilst I understand the entry and why you wrote it, it’s not really relevant to constitutional issues. It doesn’t have a place on a blog entitled “constitutionally speaking.” Be careful to remain relevant to your audience…

  • ozoneblue

    I beliieve the world would be a better place if if everybody was rich, black and gay.

  • Maggs Naidu

    LM Swan

    January 7, 2013 at 18:27 pm

    “Perhaps the easiest way to show Mulholland the error of his ways”

    So there’s a cure for stupidity, eh.

    Please give a triple dose to Ozone Boy and Dmwangi!

  • Maggs Naidu

    John Roberts

    January 7, 2013 at 18:21 pm

    Hey JR – welcome back.

    What happened in 2012??

  • Glazer

    Just listened to the podcast and read all the resulting reaction. My score so far:
    Stephen 4 out of 10. (Too many sweeping statements. Seemed unprepared)
    Eusebius 4 out of 10. (Clearly one-sided. A number of irrelevant statements)
    Hazel 9 out of 10 (The voice of reason)
    PdV 4 out of 10 (Eloquent over reaction)

  • John Roberts

    I think it’s fair to surmise that across the globe more people condemn homosexuality than condone it.

    So why not let the majority prevail?

  • Gwebecimele


    PdV tells us that Mulhollands bigotry is not desired and you have suggested the options editors have on UNDESIRED articles, unless you want to suggest that inaccurate,ignorant, misleading are mutually exclusive with ‘undesired’. In that case then what was your point?

  • Gwebecimele

    e. Allowing a person like Mulholland to publish such a lazy, un-argued, thoughtless and bigoted column in the Sunday Times is undesirable.
    By PdV

  • Brett Nortje

    While we’re thinking with our pps:

    Hospitaalbestuur blameer vir babas se dood
    2013-01-07 16:15

    Johannesburg – Die National Education and Health Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu) het Maandag die bestuur van die George Masebe-hospitaal in Limpopo blameer vir die dood van vier babas oor die naweek.

    “Die babas is dood aan behandelbare siektes omdat daar nie genoeg dokters by die hospitaal was nie. Dit is nalatig van die hospitaal se bestuur en grens aan kriminaliteit,” het Nehawu by monde van Jacob Adams, ‘n woordvoerder, gesê.

    “Ons vra vir ‘n ondersoek oor die voorval, en vra dat die bestuur tot verantwoording geroep word.”

    Vier babas is Vrydag by die hospitaal dood as gevolg van die onbeskikbaarheid van dokters om hulle te behandel.

    “Daar was net drie dokters aan diens by die hospitaal,” het dr Mashilo Kgathi, wat aan diens was, aan die Daily Sun-koerant gesê.

    Adams het bygevoeg dat dit onregverdig sal wees om die verpleegsters en die dokters te blameer vir omstandighede buite hulle beheer.

    “Die bestuur moet die volle verantwoordelikheid dra. Hulle is deur ‘n krisis in die gesig gestaar toe drie van hulle nege dokters in Desember 2012 bedank het.”

    – Volg Nuus24 op Twitter

    – SAPA

  • Blue Ozone

    January 7, 2013 at 17:09 pm

    “This is not education; this is simply indoctrination,” she said.”

    Thanks. Dmwangi. That is why I would never, fucking ever, allow my boys to be “educated” by a so-called “Constitutional Experts” at UCT.

    Never mind that white-hating, racial fundamentalist doctrine also imported from the USA.

  • Blue Ozone

    And while these so-called White liberals are spreading their poisonous, murderous doctrine invented and manufactured in good old racist and imperialist USA.

    “The United States’ use of drones is counter-productive, less effective than the White House claims, and is “encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent”, according to a study by one of President Obama’s former security advisers.”

    Read more:

    PdV – can you as an Ivy League product please write a blog entry and explain both where you come from and where you stand on the extermination of “Muslim fundamentalist” ?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ OzoneGuy

    Are you seriously suggesting that PdV is nothing more or less a product of a unholy conjoinder between IMPERIALIST USA Columbia University and BROEDERBOND Stellenbosch?

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    January 7, 2013 at 23:47 pm
    When you have a half-hour free…

  • Truth

    @ Michael Osborne

    I did not say that Pierre “said” the article should have been “censored” i said he “suggests”, because that’s the impression you get from his article. The article further suggests that because the Sunday Times published the article then it subscribes to the views expressed in it.

    Your view that “No-one has a “right” to be published in a privately-owned newspaper” is to a certain extent fallacious. I’m saying to “certain extent” because it will be impossible for a newspaper to publish every letter and/or article received and those which are published should be assessed for compliance with the editorial policy. However, NO media house can use its editorial policy in a manner which is not consistent with the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights. So to the extent that your assertion suggests that the bill or rights does not apply in private organizations, it is fallacious.

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    January 8, 2013 at 1:21 am

    “Are you seriously suggesting that PdV is nothing more or less a product of a unholy conjoinder between IMPERIALIST USA Columbia University and BROEDERBOND Stellenbosch?”

    I believe it is now time for these screaming White liberals to come out and say just what exactly they stand for and whose interests they represent. They get up on their pulpits where they launch the most viscous racist attacks on the White community and so-called ‘whiteness’ but then they also seem to use this as smokescreen to advance an entirely foreign and anti-African economical and cultural agenda.

  • See See

    I am still processing the latest reported insights from our President. Does the outrage I feel from the picture here stem from my skin colour? My great, great grandparents being born in Europe? My humanity? My question to our leader, if I care/love an animal I share my home with does that mean I care less for other people?…/cats-on-cross-crucifixions-in-ghana-and.html

  • sirjay jonson

    Enjoyed your article today at Daily Maverick as well Prof. Great way to start the year with this double header.

  • Hans Pienaar

    Anonymous: as far as I can tell, masturbation is the norm among the majority of men, as is being fellated and cunnilingus (nowadays). It may even be possible that oral sex is more common than vaginal sex.

  • Maggs Naidu

    Hans Pienaar

    January 8, 2013 at 10:05 am


    “It may even be possible that oral sex is more common than vaginal sex”

    So there’s more talking and less action??

  • Ikhuku

    I find your sarcastic disdain of Stephen Mulholland distasteful. You may certainly debate his opinions, but to label him the way you do constitutes an ad hominem attack, and one which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the man’s many achievements.

    I happen not to agree with the column in question either, but find your protestations hysterical and over the top. Edit your diatribe down to one or two paragraphs, and you would make a far bigger impact.

  • Maggs Naidu


    January 8, 2013 at 11:01 am


    One line would probably have sufficed.

    “Mulholland is MAL!!”

  • Hans Pienaar

    Maggs, not if you try to talk with your mouth full.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Hans Pienaar

    “It may even be possible that oral sex is more common than vaginal sex.”

    Hans is right. But these practices were unknown in Africa until imposed, sometimes using force, by WHITISH colonialists. I say it is time for Africans to reclaim their own rich indigenous erotic culture, which has no room for IMPERIALIST “fellatio” or “cunning.”

    Thanks very much.

  • John Roberts

    Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to
    people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
    observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
    Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
    following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident,
    which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

    Dear Dr. Laura:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have
    learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
    as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
    lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
    states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
    you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow

    When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
    pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
    claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
    21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period
    of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell?
    I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
    provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
    claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
    Why can’t I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
    clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
    him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination
    – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree.
    Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
    defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
    vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
    their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
    should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
    unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops
    in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
    different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
    and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
    of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t
    we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with
    people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
    help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and

    Your devoted fan,

  • John Roberts

    “It may even be possible that oral sex is more common than vaginal sex.”

    Actually anal “sex” is more common then vaginal sex simply because the Chinese practise it due to the one-child law.

  • Lance Mitchell

    PDV, I agree with everything you say, now please calm down or you will do yourself an injury. SM is an old fart having his final flings and frankly the Sunday Times is getting what it pays for! Sex and finances don’t mix, unles you do it for money.

  • Dmwangi

    Since 86% of South Africans agree with Mulholland, do you plan to ‘ostracise’ all of them ‘from society?’ Also, it appears a portion of this 86% may possibly include some homosexuals themselves. Will they also be subject to ‘The Final Solution?’

    “Though Rupert Everett blazed a trail for homosexual actors when he came out decades ago, he’s now saying that gay men don’t make good parents.

    The actor best known for “Shakespeare in Love” and “My Best Friend’s Wedding” told Britain’s Sunday Times Magazine that his mother has met his boyfriend but “still wishes I had a wife and kids.”

    “She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her,” he said. “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.”

    “Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion,” he said, adding that he doesn’t consider himself part of the “gay community.”‘

  • Fareed

    Articles like Stephen’s spit in the face of tolerance and acceptance.

  • Blue Ozone

    January 8, 2013 at 14:03 pm

    “Articles like Stephen’s spit in the face of tolerance and acceptance.”

    Perhaps I agree. I assume most of South Africa are little bit “intolerant” and “bigoted” then. Personally, I don’t have any problem with homosexuals whatsoever, but when it comes to acceptance of LGBT indoctrination of school children or my own kids, then believe me I am proudly fucking “intolerant” myself.

  • Gwebecimele

    Please someone must tell the British that these guys did not win medals we are busy mourning a well known WHITE cyclist.

    Minister visited the family.

    Babies, Job applicants and armed toytoying miners must go thru investigations first.

  • Blue Ozone

    More Critical Race Theory LIARS. These “liberal” fascists have absolutely no shame or integrity.

    “Pay close attention to the main argument: Critical Race Theory “is nothing about white supremacy.”

    That’s really interesting considering this same lady, Dorothy Brown, who “wrote the book on CRT”, said this in the book about CRT: Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.

    Now, I’m not a Harvard graduate but when you compare what Dorothy Brown told O’Brien to what she wrote about CRT, there seems to be a very large discrepancy. What’s going on here?”

  • Maggs Naidu


    January 8, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Hayibo DM,

    “Since 86% of South Africans agree with Mulholland”

    Another “statistic” which you sucked out your butt.

    You must have studied stats at that WHITE-impressing-graduate-school in Limpopo where the average mark is below 8.5% and you got below average.

  • Lisbeth

    Maggs Naidu
    January 8, 2013 at 15:54 pm

    Not sure where Dmwangi got the “86% of South Africans agree with Mulholland”.

    All I could find on Google was that 86% of black lesbians in the Western Cape live in fear of being raped.

  • Dmwangi


    Here is where I got the statistic:

    I’m assuming if 86% believe it is immoral, they do not want their kids to adopt it, as Mulholland suggests parents should advise.

  • See See

    Repeat with correct link…
    I am still processing the latest reported insights from our President. Does the outrage I feel from the picture here stem from my skin colour? My great, great grandparents being born in Europe? My humanity? My question to our leader, if I care/love an animal I share my home with does that mean I care less for other people?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    January 8, 2013 at 18:39 pm

    Hey Lisbeth,

    I could tell you where Dmwangi got those stats from, but this is a family blog!

    He’s been unable to explain (if those stats are at all relevant) why South Africans overwhelmingly supported (and still support) our BoR which specifically outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    I could also describe Dm in more graphic detail but then Prof MO would wear his very cross face again! 😛

  • Lisbeth


    It’s all very well and good to support the BoR.

    But people still have ‘opinions’!

  • Dmwangi


    I know you’re a smart girl and you aren’t easily confused by specious kak so I’m sure it’s obvious to you from the Pew research stats that, *if* there were a poll showing that South Africans overwhelming approve of the BOR provisions dealing *specifically* with sexual orientation (a pretty big if), this would in no way obviate their moral disapproval, any more than the fact that they consider lying immoral but do not outlaw every instance of it means they actually approve of it. I know you’re bright enough to understand the distinction between law and morality — shocking that some are not.

  • Blue Ozone

    This is what happens when your moral reference is collapsed. Anything goes.

    Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious ‘fundamentalism’

    “On one side is Richard Dawkins, the celebrated biologist who has made a second career demonstrating his epic disdain for religion. On the other is the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who this year became a shoo-in for a future Nobel prize after scientists at Cern in Geneva showed that his theory about how fundamental particles get their mass was correct.

    Their argument is over nothing less than the coexistence of religion and science.

    Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the “fundamentalist” approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.

    “What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. “Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”

    He agreed with some of Dawkins’ thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist’s approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins’ approach “embarrassing”.

  • Blue Ozone

    And I don’t believe Stephen Mulholland as a “fundamentalist” of any sort. I believe the “fundamentalism” in this debate comes form the “White liberal”-psychosis side.

  • Glazer

    Let me state my credentials up front. White, heterosexual, liberal, largely irreligious, pacifist, 61 years old, live and let live approach, Engineer. Can somebody please explain to me why any criticism of the Gay way of life leads to such hysteria? While I don’t in any way agree with a lot of what SH wrote and especially the way that he wrote it I can recognise some logical statements in what he says. Would the Gay community not make more progress in their drive for acceptance by just making their point in a measured and reasonable way and quietly getting on with their lives without turning everything into a major “Hissy fit”? Or am I being completely naive by thinking that the Gays I know are in some way representative of my own fairly privileged world and don’t represent the real issues out there?

  • Gwebecimele

    Ramaphosa on cnn Amanpour tnite

  • Gwebecimele
    Very sad that rape,robbery, stampede etc are becoming part of university registration process and yes the victims are all BLACK. These do not happen at our well run universities. What are we suppose to do with well paid university registras who cant run or manage proper registration systems?? Allnthese students are walking around with cellphones and availability of online systems.
    Be creative dammit!!!

  • Blue Ozone

    At last. One [white] guy who totally gets it. PdV, Gillian, Dmwangi – comments please.

    “If one buys into Black Consciousness, just as if someone buys into Afrikaner nationalism or white superiority, one sees the world in racial stereotypes and individuals reduced down to replicas of some ideological factory model – all the same, indistinguishable and homogenous. And that is to strip every person of the many and varied wonders that define each of us who we are. If that is the game you wish to play, the trappings are many and varied. For who, really, is ‘black’, after all?

    Returning briefly to those three recent examples cited in the background to this piece, each is an illustration of exactly the kind of bias Biko advocates: the idea that race or gender or homosexuality – even culture for that matter – is in itself a defining feature of identity; against which a set characteristics (often prejudiced) can be ascribed and people judged. There is no difference between Biko trying to define a ‘real black’ and Mulholland the ‘real’ nature of marriage. Both are born of the same wrongheaded attitude. And both of them, profoundly problematic.

    Just like Biko, one could produce a list of attributes according to Zuma, or Schutte or Mulholland about what it is or is not to be gay, African, a woman, white, or black; an archetype for each. And, just like Biko, each would be a fiction. Only when we begin to understand that each person is different and, therefore, unique, will we begin to appreciate that those generalisations that are culture, race, gender and sexual orientation are merely a broad set of influences on one’s character and by no means defining. More importantly, that acting like they are is anathema to individual liberty and, ultimately, freedom itself.”

  • Dmwangi


    There is so much there that I disagree with I don’t even know where to begin. How about addressing if you think distinct cultures actually exist in the world, as a start.

    You’re dangerously close to social constructionism here. You seem to imply that the ontological status of everything from marriage to culture , race, sexuality, gender, etc. are mere social conventions. In which case, you are in complete agreement with CRT, queer theory, radical feminism, etc.

    I never say that each of these aspects constitutes monolithic identities. What I do say is that each of the constituents of identity have particular qualia: that there are commonalities among the subjective experience of being black or Chinese or female or whatever.

    ‘re importantly, that acting like they are is anathema to individual liberty and, ultimately, freedom itself.”’

    And this is as radical as CRT. Nobody ‘freely’ constructs an identity from the ground up. They are born into families, ethnic groups, religions, nations, cultures and bodies that circumscribe the degree to which they can choose to be who they want and who they want to want to be. A female, retarded, handicap, Egyptian is unlikely to be able to be an Olympian, Latina, father, and physicist. Call that anathema to freedom and liberty or call it a rejection of Nietzschean über-man thinking that leads ppl to believe there are no limits to human nature.

    We celebrate the uniqueness of each individual by honoring the inviolable dignity of each, not buying into some utopian narrative of ‘expressive individualism’ that ugnores the fact that we belong to particular groups/communities and are, whether we like it or not, at least partial products of them.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    January 8, 2013 at 20:38 pm


    “But people still have ‘opinions’!”

    Indeed – it’s wonderful that despite people’s diverse opinions that we have what we have.

    Despite that there are “some among us” who try to use silly stats to project their most ridiculous bigotry with the aim of advancing backwardness!

  • Blue Ozone

    January 9, 2013 at 0:08 am

    “You seem to imply that the ontological status of everything from marriage to culture , race, sexuality, gender, etc. are mere social conventions. In which case, you are in complete agreement with CRT, queer theory, radical feminism, etc.”

    Dmwangi. I agree with the social construct in as far as there is no such a thing as biological determinism and I therefore reject racism and xenophobia based on preconceived ideas about identity and especially identity politics. However, in cases where biological differences do exist — i.e. take the example of women who are naturally endowed with the ability to be a mother, they have to be acknowledged and also embraced.

    CRT has moved so far away from its Marxist roots and some modern reinterpretation of it is now bordering on fascism. It doesn’t belong in the context of Africa where the fast majority of people, the government and centre of power is Black.

  • Gwebecimele

    Another attack on Mulholland but the comments below are backfiring.

  • Alibama

    Firstly, I must admit my mistake of seeing the renaming of homosexuals as ‘gays’,
    as being a further example of PeeCee-talk, like naming Negroids as ‘blacks’ or
    ‘africans’, to deceptively conflate race/genes with geography and colour.
    I failed to realise the need for distinct labels for male & female
    homosexuals. My ignorance was perhaps cause also by, as a male, being initially
    unaware that female-homosexuals existed.
    PdV should make allowance for the fact that until recently, even advanced
    societies didn’t know that homosexuality is genetically determined.
    Since conception is inevitably from non-homosexual parents, it must be accepted
    that people initially [ie. children] will see homosexuals as freaks..
    So, can you blame Mugabe? Imagine his shock at Banana !
    I couldn’t make the effort to read most of the post, which would have needed
    me to imagine being a totally ‘foreign feeling’ person. Nor apparently, can
    readers here do my requested thought-game of estimating the result of starting
    to test PAIA on a trivial matter, to get experience to use it for a serious.
    municipal matter, as described by:
    When I watch the swallows swooping my heart is filled with bitter rage and feelings
    of revenge, at the injustice that the descendants of our common ancestor allowed
    the swallow to soar, whereas I must walk – or buy a KLM ticket.
    Fight inequality ! A luta continua !!

  • Dmwangi


    ‘ How about addressing if you think distinct cultures actually exist in the world, as a start.’

    Are you denying that the subjective experience of growing up Chinese is different than Haitian?

  • Alibama

    Gwebecimele wrote:-
    } As usual death of a WHITE cyclist is covered and responded better than the
    } death of 7 Black nameless job seekers who died in KZN…
    Yes, I too immediately wondered about the apparent celebrity-splash.
    Was he that well known?
    The press survives on advertising revenue.
    What’s the demographics of their market? Obviously the Sowetan didn’t report it.
    And then there’s the latent resentment of the [unrecognised economic miracle]
    muntu-taxis, which [simplistically] are seen to compete with the blanke-motorists.
    } Minister of Sports visited the WHITE family and the suspect is appearing in court this morning.
    = What does the minister know, that we don’t?
    During my 20 muntu-taxi trips between ParkHurst/Edenvale during the last year, there have
    been less than 5 blanke-passengers per 20*5*15=1’500 total passengers.
    The ‘rainbow nation’ is not just a myth, it’s an insult to intelligence.

  • Blue Ozone

    January 9, 2013 at 15:51 pm

    “Are you denying that the subjective experience of growing up Chinese is different t
    than Haitian?”

    I suppose it would be hard for me to tell since I have never “been” either Chinese or Haitian.

    I do now however that many people confuse culture with class including our president. There are many “cultural specifics’ that have nothing to do with biological determinism but rather the amount of money you may have at your disposal.

    Chinese legal experts call for ban on eating cats and dogs

  • Blue Ozone

    “Chinese legal experts are proposing a ban on eating dogs and cats in a contentious move to end a culinary tradition dating back thousands of years.

    The recommendation will be submitted to higher authorities in April as part of a draft bill to tackle animal abuse.

    In ancient times, dog meat was considered a medicinal tonic. Today, it is commonly available throughout the country, but particularly in the north where dog stew is popular for its supposed warming qualities.

    In recent years, however, such traditions are increasingly criticised by an affluent, pet-loving, urban middle class. Online petitions against dog and cat consumption have attracted tens of thousands of signatures. Videos showing the maltreatment of farmed dogs have spurred protests at markets where the animals are bought and sold.”

  • Dmwangi

    Nobody is talking about biological determinism.

    ‘I suppose it would be hard for me to tell since I have never “been” either Chinese or Haitian.’

    Why do you suppose ppl of different cultures, who are of the same class, behave differently, respond differently in the same social situations, have different values, etc. Osama bin Laden was from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Why did he decide to forego Parisian penthouses and French prostitutes– instead of behaving like his upper-class French counterparts– and move to the hills of Pakistan, live in caves and wage jihad??? Is this a manifestation of upper-class privilege?

  • Nkululeko

    It baffles me how Mulholland’s “position” can be defended by anyone who claims to think.
    It seems to be so clearly counter-productive to tell your children that the lifestyle you lead and the manner in which you have raised them is undesirable (where you chose it). Even if parenthood were thrust upon same-sex couples, I see no need to explain themselves any more than other parents do. This reflects the columnists poor perception of homosexuals, but more so, his inadequate parenting skills and lack of appreciation of the rights of others.

    His column was in poor taste and unrefined – which seems the angle he was going for.

    I’m glad Pierre wrote about this because such a column should not tolerated in this country. He may just be lining himself up for a post as ambassador to Malawi.

    To prize the “norm” above good parenting, social responsibility and constitutional values is most undesirable, to say the least.

    One day, even some of the commentators before me will grow up and realise what a brain is for.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    So Dmwangi – WDYSTT?

    A Cameroon appeal court has overturned the convictions of two men found guilty of homosexuality and sentenced to five years in jail for cross-dressing and wearing make-up.

    Homosexuality is illegal in Cameroon but recent incidents have highlighted growing tension between a largely conservative society and a younger generation less concerned by the issue.

    The two men were convicted in November 2011 and had already spent over a year in prison. Their lawyer, Alice Nkom, who also campaigns for gay rights, said the court’s decision had been expected.

    “Their conviction was against the law because they were not actually seen or caught doing anything at the time the police arrested them,” she said.

    “They were arrested because they were just seen wearing women’s clothes and because of the nature of their make-up, and only suspected to be homosexuals, which is against Cameroon law.

    That is why we appealed.”

    Three weeks ago, the same appeal court upheld the three-year jail term of 32-year-old Jean-Claude Roger Mbede, found guilty of homosexual conduct because he sent a text message to another man saying: “I’m very much in love with you.”

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele
  • CP654321

    This is what a number of religions say about Homosexuality:
    Catholic –
    Islam –
    Hindu –
    Zoroastrianism –

    As such, Mulholland’s sensitive comments contrast rather strongly against De Vos’ bigoted response.

  • Pierre De Vos

    CP654321, quoting the Catholic Church as a moral authority on sex, given the way it has been embroiled in child sexual abuse and its cover up, seems a bit bizarre. Like quoting Hitler on anti-semitism.

  • CP654321

    The Soho Mass effect
    An editorial from the Southern Crosss, a Southern African Catholic weekly. January 16, 2013 in Editorials

    The Catechism is clear about what the Church teaches about sexuality: sexual activity is permissible exclusively within marriage between man and woman. Other types of sexual pursuits, such as non-conjugal relations, are proscribed.

    “In questions of sinfulness, few of us are ever qualified to throw the first stone.”

    The homosexual act and masturbation are, according to the Catechism, “intrinsically disordered” and not consistent with the teaching of the Church (2352, 2357).

    At the same time, the Catechism counsels that homosexuals may not be discriminated against: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (2358).

    The Body of Christ may not engage in homophobia, and our fidelity to the Catechism cannot be conditional on the fidelity to it by others.

    There is also no profit in speculating about the sexual conduct of fellow Catholics who are homosexual. We cannot presume to know what happens behind the closed doors of homosexual Catholics, nor those of others, married or unmarried.

    In questions of sinfulness, few of us are ever qualified to throw the first stone.

    In that light, the decision by the archdiocese of Westminster, England, to discontinue fortnightly Masses as part of a pastoral care programme for homosexuals, reportedly under pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, runs the risk of being understood as lacking in compassion and sensitivity.

    It continues at

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    January 16, 2013 at 0:12 am

    Hey CP-number Guy,

    “This is what a number of religions say about Homosexuality:

    Hindu –

    100 people out of 1.3897564321 billion hardly represents “hindus”!

    And neither does some obscure rather silly sounding text “A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.”

  • http://оформлениедоминиканскогогражданства,какпостандартнойсхеме,такиипоускоренной. недвижимость в доминикане

    I do not even know how I stopped up here, however I assumed this publish was good. I do not understand who you’re however definitely you’re going to a well-known blogger in the event you are not already. Cheers!

  • http://продажаавтомобилей,яхт,самолетовизсша. недвижимость в доминикане

    My brother recommended I may like this blog. He was once totally right. This put up truly made my day. You cann’t believe just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!