The basic rule of any philosophy is that, if it leads one to absurd and impossible conclusion, something in the premise must be wrong, or an error made in the line of reasoning.
It seems some anti-homosexual posters were found in Shoreditch, Stoke Newington and broader East London, and the local LGBTQ activists wanted to organize a gay pride parade to show they are not intimidated by the hateful posters. Out There is a homosexual activist group, but opposes the parade, worried that the far right would use the pro-gay parade as an opportunity to stir up hatred against the Mohammedans.
Here is the link to the Open Letter by Out East:
Jessica Geen writing in the same newspaper, presents the opposing point of view, and argues that the parade should not be canceled:
I heard about this news from Big Hollywood website, a somewhat sneering article by Greg Gutfield:
Let me quote two paragraphs from the Open Letter by Out East:
Out East believes that our response to homophobia must be political because homophobia is a system which is present everywhere and not only a hate feeling from particular groups or individuals. Homophobia is not caused only by one particular group but is part of broader society and has political roots. It is easy to portray other minorities (even unintentionally) as the cause of homophobia rather than, for example, questioning the lack of means to fight discrimination in a period of cuts in public services. Instead, we want to highlight the intersection between sexuality, gender, race and class oppression. Homophobia is fed by political practices and ideologies which in turn encourage individuals to commit discriminatory acts.
We want both homophobia and islamophobia addressed as a collective problem and not feed one against the other, we do not recognise these as distinct categories. We will refuse any attempt to divide our communities or take the risk that an LGBTQ event is used to oppress other marginalised groups, in particular LGBTQ Muslims who will be the most affected by this rising antagonism.
My comment: The catastrophic inadequacy of modern education has left many a man people unaware of who, or when, or why, the ideas that form his bedrock assumptions were first invented. Most people who parrot Marxist axioms and assumptions have never read Marx, and would be offended to hear who their mentor is.
The axiom of the Marxist philosophy is that all ills of man are caused, not by the fall of man, but by the mechanics of historical forces, predominantly political and economic. Even such things as private hatred of one man for neighbor, stranger, and sojourner are ultimately caused by a failure of proper political institutions.
That seems to be the stance of Open East in the paragraph above. They name cut in funding to public services as the cause of enmity between Muslims and Homosexuals, rather than, for example, a personal decision, or the consensus of a community, or the teaching of a religion.
From this axiom, however, they reach the conclusion that it is tactically unwise to parade their cause in London, because the politics (in the broadest sense) of the situation means that this would offend or oppress the Mohammedans.
This is also Marxist, where “oppression” does not mean the use of the force of law to harass, rob and kill people, it means using the free speech of a public forum to express an opinion not flattering to the most sensitive and easily offended minority in the forum.
Meanwhile, the Mohammedan world view takes a somewhat more “Levitican” approach to gay-Muslim relations. Shariah law dictates cruel and Draconian penalties for homosexual acts, including flogging or death.
Obviously Shariah law is not yet firmly rooted in England (except, possibly, for certain financial laws, and some private binding arbitration): but the Muslims, or some of them, believe and say that the triumph of Shariah in England is only a matter of time.
One would suppose that any sign of cravenness in the face of an implacable enemy would serve only to encourage that enemy.
If that supposition is correct, the caution of Out East acts exactly contrary to their own notions of their cause and their self-interest.
Their logic has led them to an absurdity (1) They say Islamophobia is the same as Homophobia (2) they must oppose Islamophobia, and therefore support Islam (2) Islam is homophobic, therefore: they must support homophobia in the name of fighting homophobia.
No one can actually believe this.
My own theory (and I am a thoroughgoing supernaturalist) is that the Prince of the World controls the ways of this world. Hence, the world regards the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular as its main enemy: and when homosexuality is no longer a useful weapon to use to batter the Church and her sacrament of marriage into near-non-existence, the world uses a more violent and more clearly anti-christian weapon, Mohammedanism. And the first weapon, no longer useful, is dropped.
We have already seen in the last decade the speed with which feminism has been dropped when it clashes with Mohammedanism. Feminists fret about fictional income gaps with men, but ignore women being beaten, murdered or mutilated in their genitalia by their families, or forced into arranged marriages.
If this is how the world treats the cause of woman’s rights, when women represent more than half the race (and, in my opinion, the better half) how loyal with the world be to the few sexually abnormal persons who form a much smaller and less admired minority?
The world is not your friend. It will not serve your interests nor seek your happiness in this life or the next. The world will flatter you, exploit you, grind you between its teeth like a rind until you are dry, and then it will spit you out.
The Church is your friend and your mother. She loves you but will not flatter you. Hers is the voice of sanity, and will fill you up until your cup runs over.