I thought gays are fighting for equal rights and to stop gay hate and
oppression, but why are they concerned about a MUSICIAN that 20 years ago made a
song when he was a teenager about the distaste of homosexuals after a grown man
raped a young boy in Jamaica. Grow up people if we all could put on record what
we said when we were teens we would all look stupid. Protest marriage rights and
adoption rights not music I guess they have nothing else better to do. Long Live
Rastaman Music Long live Buju Banton
i thought when they say freedom of speech it actually mean freedom of speech,
but i though wrong.every body have rights but it dont seem that way to me. what
they doin is wrong, but who jah bless no man curse. he is standin up for what he
beleive in. where he from its different we jamaican's are not open to that kind
of world and we dont want to.
End gay oppression now. Freedom for da man!
After major boycotts and visa denials cramped his previous tours, he signed an
industry agreement to stop advocating violence against gays, and did a hasty
image makeover. But he now denies signing it and continues to allude to, and
profit from, his signature hate songs. So yes, LGBT people are understandably
ticked off.Banton is symptomatic of the violently homophobic society
in Jamaica, which human rights monitors (and even MSM like Time Magazine) have
labeled the most homophobic country in the world. Google anti-gay mob violence
in Jamaica and see for yourself. Bantons shows have also been
canceled in Minneapolis, Las Vegas, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Philadelphia, and Chicago, with more cancellations imminent, so don't
think the Urban Lounge is going rogue on this.
this is pure buisness, because why would urban pay a singer whose song would
bring protestors, who would boycott your buisness till the end of time, bring
loads of bad PR and generally cost you money? I mean, does it make
sense for a private club to let a KKK country group sing at its location? No,
because they would lose moeny in the long run!
isn't violent--against women, agsinst policemen, against white people? I'm
opposed to violence against ANYBODY.I'm also in favor of any business's
right to support or not support those they chose--even if I personally don't
agree with them. That's called freedom.
This has NOTHING to do with free speech! He is 'singing' about being VIOLENT
towards a group of people for their sexual preference. Are you folks deaf and
dumb? What about if he was singing about being violent towards a group of people
because of their religious preference? Is that free speech? Is it okay to beat
people for that? I pray someday the folks of Utah will open their eyes and get a
Just to put this cancellation in perspective, it should be noted that the
Honorary British Envoy to Jamaica, John Terry, was murdered last week and a note
found on or near his body referred to him as a 'batty man', the slur used for
gay men in Jamaica. The type of lyrics Banton performs is not just an expression
of personal beliefs, it is a call to violence which has resulted in the death of
more than two dozen gay men in Jamaica in recent years. This is NOT free
Motherbear, Brokeback Mountain is a love story between two men. Buju Banton
advocates killing a group of people - if you cant see the difference in that I
dont know what to say.
Buju rules, mon!
Good for them - they don't have to use their venue to support violent hate
speech, and they shouldn't!
To Double Standard's point, how is this any different from Larry Miller banning
Brokeback Mountain? It was his private business and he chose not to show that
film, which was greeted by a boycott and demonstration of his theaters because
of his choice and reached news outlets across the country, but I have no doubt
that this won't get picked up anywhere else. It is a double standard. I have
absolutely no problem with Urban Partners choosing not to bring him in, but I
find it funny that the reason they cite for cancelling his show as a support of
rights. I'm just saying it is obvious that they pick and choose which rights
they support. As long as one's exercising of rights is not in conflict with a
larger agenda it's OK, but just watch out if it is. It is just funny in a sad
way, that is all.
The Urban Lounge is NOT a public place. It is a privately-owned music venue.It's not a county concert hall like Abravanel Hall or the Capitol Theatre
Both Double Standard and Not that I support his message need to get your facts
straight. The artist still has the right to free speech in public but that does
not entitle him to bring his message of murder and mayhem into an area of
business area, nor is the business under any obligation to pay him to perform if
they think it will offend their customers. No one is trying to silence him or
restrict him from delivering his message, they are simply stating they aren't
going to pay him to perform for their customers. It is the same thing as the
recent kerfuffle over Kanye West hijacking Taylor Swift's acceptance speech -
West was asked to leave then escorted off the premises by management because
they didn't want him disrupting anything else, and he was free to go outside and
tell anyone he wanted how he felt about the awards. The right to free speech
does not include the right to say anything you want in someone else's space,
especially if the owner of that space says otherwise. Period.
To think that the free speech and expressions of an artist are under such
scrutiny and censorship - I am shocked.Now what was that rally cry
regarding Mr. Miller cancelling the showing of a cowboy film?
but if Urban Partners supports the rights of all, then what about supporting his
right to have an opinion of opposition and others right to determine how they
feel about that message. Again, I don't support his opinion in ANY way, other
than his right to have an opinion. It's just funny to hear a group ban someone
for their right of expression in the name of support of rights of others. It is
so typical of our society currently: we support everyone's rights and freedom of
expression as long as they don't conflict with our opinion then they should be
censored. That is not freedom that is tyranny.