Regan Ducasse and unfree speech

Exgaywatch's resident uncelebrated commenter Regan DuCasse has been known to flow freely at the mouth or rather the keypad when it comes to gay issues. By her own admission, she isn't gay, has never been gay nor is she exgay. But still seems to relish in the idea that she is the only black "het" female (her self description) amongst a largely white, homosexual male complaint club. Strange bedfellows, indeed? Despite the lack of experiential connection, Ducasse fancies herself a savior-ess of the gay community. I decided to examine one of her many (an understatement) tirades about homosexual rights.

"Bennett and those like him, don't want anyone around who opposes or has any dissenting facts to express. After my experience with ex gays who are bloggers, it's clear there is a distinct air of snobbery, dismissiveness and lack of intellectual exchange. When you don't allow dissent and the only views expressed are mostly your own or those who agree with you, then this is a clear indication of someone very immature and intellectually dishonest."

When one considers the principle of positive people, Ducasses just isn't one of them. Though she criticizes Stephen Bennett and just about anyone who won't afford her mouth unrestricted accusation access, it is quite normal for any human being not to want to associate with other individuals whose sole passion in life is to spout unsubstantiated, derogatory ideology. I'd put the axe to the root myself. As a matter of fact, I have oft times. Ducasse's alter ego "strong black woman" drops in every now and then to declare that's why most exgay men cant handle her. I beg to differ. Unless your Jason and his ubercourageous band of Argonauts, most men would run away from a harpy.

"I was reading an article from Cambridge, England, about a woman writer who was very critical of gays who adopt children. Her concern mostly for gay men who do. She wasn't just critical, but her inference was that gay men are dangerous to children. Or that they were given preferential consideration over other men. She posited that two heterosexual men wouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Where she was wrong about that was if this was a single hetero parent who was adopting, and as back up in case of crisis, the godfather, grandfather or uncle could also have power of attorney for that child. Hetero men usually aren't a COUPLE."

Ducasse: "Don't criticize gays, or you will have to deal with me." Although Ducasse claims marriage (pressumably to a biological male), I get the unction she is convinced such men are responsible for the condition of homosexuals. Call it creative escapism if you will. Call it victimology 101 if you cant call it that. Ducasse reinteprets most things to fit into her incredibly narrow view of humanity. Case in point, she provided no proof that what the English woman said indeed meant that "gay men are dangerous to children." To her, "inference" and implication are much more important than direct truth. This type of anti-intellectual repositioning of another's words serve her well for emphatic setup statements that follow: "Hetero men aren't a COUPLE." (her emphasis and disdain). Besides, the whole scenario she cites is like a Johnny Cochran moment from the OJ trial. That glove just don't fit!

"The issue was over her being investigated for her opinion on gay men and she resented the investigation. She called in censure and a slam on her free speech. However, what she and others who say SLANDER a group fail to understand, is there are consequential risks TO WHO THEY SLANDER."

What honest and decent citizen wouldn't resent an "investigation" by thought police? Should the woman have instead danced in the streets to the sounds of Miami Sound Machine? Interesting Ducasse should bring up slander (she later changed it to "libel"). Relative to the law slander is oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. What exactly did the woman say that injured a homosexual's reputation? Well, ole reliable Ducasse expects everyone to just take her word for it. The woman slandered gays. After all, she read the article...and interpreted it.

"If a potential adoptive gay father loses his bid for a child, or an innocent gay man, (as in the case of a young bartender who was beaten to death recently there in London) is compromised because of what she says that isn't factual, but prejudicial, then YES...she deserves to be investigated and the motive for her slander censored, if necessary."

That's a mighty big if, considering the law doesnt restrict gays from adopting. Its about the law, stupid. If the law grants the right, regardless of what people say, you can do it. However, opponents have the same right to openly criticize the law and the people benefiting from it. That is how it works in free speech societies. But in Ducasse's orwellian worldview, that simple principle is excised. Free speech is only for people who agree with her gayviews. Hmmm, isn't that what her beef was with Stephen Bennett?

"The people who open their mouths and because of the nasty things said about the group they speak on has horrible results, then they should be has horrified for their own speech too. Words DO hurt, that's why those that don't know or care what that hurt does, risk having to be FORCED to know. I wish people understood their responsibility when it comes to speech and the results they are looking for."

I wonder if she really lives by such lofty idealisms. When she hatefully commented that she "had no sympathy" for an sweet Catholic lady who was murdered by an enraged homosexual man, I wonder if she has any feelings for anyone who suffers outside of her worldview. Although she frequently drops anecdotes of mayhem and murder in her postings, one wonders if they are nothing more than handy stories to make her case.

Okay, Im exhausted now.

Reference: Queer Quotable