UKH

Lord Maginnis is potentially looking at an 18 month ban, and possibly longer subject to how well he cooperates with behavioural change training.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/03/lord-maginnis-faces-18-mon...

I had come round to believing that "queer" was an acceptable term since I see it used so much in the media. Even Jim Perrin uses it.

I suspect Maginnis doesn't have a clue what he's done wrong. 

Why not simply get rid of him as this, including previous incidents, clearly show he's a nasty piece of work who isn't fit for office.

Failing that, just let the security guard punch him really hard in the face a couple of times as an illustration of what happens to people like him when they can't hide behind their position.

i would suggest his behaviour over a long period should mean his title is removed permanently. Quite apart from his homophobic comments, a criminal conviction for violence and the clear abuse of the HoP security guard should amply demonstrate that he is not the type of person we should have in a position of influence and power.

Edit - written before i read what Ridge wrote!

Good luck with that.  Apart from his obvious homophobia, I suspect 82 year-old Ulster Unionists are a bit of a challenge generally in the behavioural change department.

"<i>Maginnis, 82, the former Ulster Unionist MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, has been at the centre of controversy several times. In 2012, he was criticised after equating homosexuality with bestiality. In August 2013, he was fined after being found guilty of assaulting a man during a road rage incident.</i>"

Ulster Unionists are a bit of a challenge generally.

Even Jim Perrin? You are clearly unaware of this blog: 

https://www.jacssisters.org/

Spot on, permanent suspension would be appropriate, as "retraining" would be a waste of resources. Fortunately dinosaurs become extinct with the passage of time, and at 82 that event is probably not far off, particularly as his temper has probably given his heart a life time of stress.

It's less the word than the perjorative manner in which it was used.

The quote was apparently:

"“Queers like Ms Bardell don’t particularly annoy me,” the former army officer told the Huffington Post, as well as describing the security guard as “crooked”, “a little git” and a “jobsworth”."

The sexuality of the person he was talking about is of no relevance, therefore referring to it in such a sentence is the problem.  If he said "People like..." then that, while insulting, would not be homophobic.

I'm fairly aware of that issue, having worked with someone close to one of the involved women.so my comment was rather tongue in cheek. 

Point taken.

Like when that German bloke referred to one of our leading politicians as "the Jew Kaufman".

Yes, basically exactly the same thing - bringing up the characteristic when irrelevant was the issue (which meant the usage could only be perjorative), not the precise form of wording used.

Some people in the LGBTQIA+ community identify as "queer" as opposed to anything else for various reasons (reclaiming it from its status as an insult or not feeling they fit into any of the LGBTIA brackets and wanting a shorthand/ umbrella term to describe their sexuality).

Using it as an insult as this peer has done just marks people out as being small minded bigots.

A single individual using something is absolutely not something I would use to judge the morality of its usage in wider society.

I wasn't basing my impression of its acceptability on this bully's use of the word but the widespread way in which journalists put it in their writing and its inclusion  in dictionaries as an unmbrella term for anyone not heterosexual, not limiting its definition  to being an out of date  slur.

I haven't actually come across anyone saying that its use  exclusive  (i.e. non-inclusive) to the LGBT community, which I found quite surprising but very welcome.

I think he knows exactly what he's done but that he doesn't think it is wrong.

I'm sure there must be some really nice people amongst Ulster Unionists, but they do seem to keep a low profile.

It's down to context, 'Oh, you old queer' said affectionately, or it said by somebody who identifies as 'gender queer', is different to somebody using it in a less than agreeable way at somebody they're displeased with.

I'm occasionally surprised that this kind of nuance to do with this things like this can seem to escape people who've made it into middle or later adulthood. The word 'gay' is fine, but somebody saying in a negative way 'He's gay' could have a very different meaning to somebody factually conveying 'He's gay', tone of voice or spirit of intent are important. 

Nuance is not an easy thing and it's especially true where the word "queer" is concerned. if you don't believe me spend an hour reading about the word.