Daily Mail columnist responds to criticism of her Stephen Gately piece

[Jackeens]

Apologies for posting anything from the Daily Mail, but in light of her original column I thought some might be interested in this. Methinks disingenuous is the word?


The truth about my views on the tragic death of Stephen Gately

By Jan Moir

Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately. To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention.

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain. After all, I am not - unlike those close to Stephen Gately - mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.

The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on? After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances. Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality. If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article. Yet despite this, many have interpreted my words as a 'bigoted rant' and suggested that my motive was to insinuate that Stephen died 'because he was gay'. Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.

More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222246/The-truth-views-tragic-death-Stephen-Gately.html

[closeupready]

1. OH, SHUT UP, JAN MOIR.

:mad: I have no use for you or you shitty opinions.

[closeupready]

2. This woman thinks she is a VICTIM here! How hysterical is that. She uses her pulpit to bash gay

people, and when people object to her, she becomes a victim! Un Fucking Believable. :mad:

You know, honey, you ought to just shut THE FUCK UP.

She has a right to express her bigotry and hatred and homophobia all she likes, and that does not mean that she deserves to be hounded and persecuted. I have no problem with her expressing such opinions, as long as she is prepared to be condemned as the bigot she is. And if there are laws against hate speech and she has broken those laws, she must be held to account as provided in that law, IMO. Period. No Exceptions for Daily Mail columnists.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. If her intentions were so confused as to insult the world

as she did, I offer that her writing skills are below the mark. The real fact is that she holds nasty prejudices. That hate column she wrote about the late Mr Gately was the single worst piece of celebrity gossip drenched vulgarity that I have ever seen.
If a person has to know her to understand the meaning of her screeds she should speak only to those who do know her.

[GodlessBiker]

5. Indeed. She admits to being a bad writer, being unable to express herself clearly. Fire her!

[closeupready]

6. Completely agree. She is a discredit to the Daily Mail, and that's REALLY bad,

when you are a discredit to a rag like that.

[joeybee12]

4. What a sniveling POS...

...she can rot for all I care.

[sui generis]

7. nevermind - reading is fundamental

I read the original b.s. - she's candying up her wannabe shock jock article. She's not a homophobe, just another media whore willing to say whatever gets her readership.

[T_i_B]

8. Dishonest

She distorts what she said in the original article, and what she says about the opposition to her is blatantly untrue. Either she's never been on Twitter in her life of she's lying. Which is it Moir?

[Toasterlad]

9. It Would Be Nice If Horrible Things Happened To Her.