Well, if he said things about Muslims, he might draw the same sort of followers who lap up every hate-filled utterance of Ann Coulter, and who have ignored the exhortations by Muslim civil rights organizations that she be shunned by the media. No group appreciates being the target of bigots. And most decent people don't like listening to bigots spew their venom.

I'm wondering why Gibson's "sugar tits" comment to the female police officer has generated so little reaction. This is how this self professed good family man, and father of seven, addresses women? (although what good family man is out drinking in a bar, and cavorting with the young female patrons, until 2 am?)

Gibson's attitudes toward women are downright crude, even when he's sober. Consider his comments about a former female business partner in a 1995 Playboy interview:

web page

He really displayed his true colors last week, in many ways. The Evangelical Christian base he has relied on in the past, particularly in the launch of his last film, really can't be thrilled with him right now either. It's as though someone lifted up a rock last week, and a very unattractive and somewhat despicable Mel Gibson crawled out. And people from all sides of the political and religious spectrum are feeling somewhat repulsed.

Gibson tirade tapes may not be released
Updated 8/3/2006 11:19 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The movie that could be the most important of Mel Gibson's career is one the actor likely will fight to never have released.
The video and audio recording of Gibson's drunken driving arrest could add fuel to the controversy over his anti-Semitic tirade at a deputy who pulled him over and his self-described belligerent behavior when he was brought to a sheriff's station early on July 28.

For now, authorities won't release the tapes.

"They are part of the evidence," said Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore. "Once everything is done and the case is wrapped up we certainly can revisit it."

Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said the tapes would not be made public unless they were introduced as evidence at a trial.

"We retain them as part of the investigative file," Robison said. "We do not release them unless they become part of the public record."

However, legal experts agree that it is unlikely that Gibson will ask for a trial.

Gibson's lawyer, Blair Berk, declined to comment on the matter.

TMZ, an Internet celebrity news site that first released leaked sections of Gibson's booking report, is seeking the tapes under the California Public Records Act.

It maintains the tapes should be seen and heard by the public to assess whether the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department gave Gibson preferential treatment.

"We want the tapes not just because of Mel Gibson but because the tape puts the conduct of the sheriff's department in context," said Harvey Levin, head of TMZ.

Questions have been raised about the fact that a sheriff's department spokesman initially said Gibson had been arrested without incident. Also, the arresting deputy's initial written report, which contained Gibson's controversial statements, was ordered modified and the comments were placed in a supplemental report instead.

"Although the sheriff's department has maintained that deputies did not show Mr. Gibson favoritism, the department's prompt release of the requested materials will speak louder than any statement the department's spokesperson can make," TMZ lawyer Alonzo Wickers IV wrote in a letter to the sheriff's department.

Los Angeles' leading First Amendment lawyers said it will be an uphill battle to obtain the tapes before the case is resolved.

But attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. said the case is unusual because Gibson has "confessed on the record not only to the charges but to making statements that have nothing to do with the charges."

Boutrous also noted that Sheriff Lee Baca has discussed the contents of the tapes publicly, which may provide a legal argument for their release.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Baca said he believed all evidence had been properly evaluated in prosecutors' decision to charge Gibson with misdemeanor drunken driving.

Baca added that the district attorney's office has said it has received all the appropriate evidence — including the tapes and information on "inappropriate remarks, hateful remarks, anti-Semitic remarks."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

---

Is there any point to making these tapes public? Would it really serve any purpose?

Perhaps I`m missing the link to further anti-semitic comments made by Gibson that have been alluded to by at least two people that have posted in this thread. I would be interested to read such comments.

Anyone got a link for me,that doesn`t include only comments about "Passion" which I didn`t bother viewing?

Perhaps the best object lesson to be gained from Mel Gibson's ordeal is about how to deal with denial, and the consquences of not dealing with it. His arrest and behavior raises a great many general issues, about a great many things, which is really what makes it worthwhile, and interesting, as a topic of discussion.

Of all these issues, the anti-Semitic rant was merely the most sensational. And it should give all of us pause to think about the issue of anti-Semitism, where it comes from, why it is still flourishing, why we might attempt to rationalize or deny it, and what we can do about it.

Gibson's second apology, while considerably better than the first, implicitly acknowledges that his statements were anti-Semitic, but then includes his rather paradoxical comment that, "I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith". Well, talk about denial.
Just because Mr Gibson, when sober, acts nicely toward Jews, and does not speak ill of them, does not mean that he isn't anti-Semitic if, in his heart, he harbors mistrust or hatred or resentment of Jews. One who holds anti-Semitic attitudes (buried or not) is anti-Semitic, regardless of whatever polite social behavior they display. Many of us are probably far more prejudiced in our hearts, toward various groups, than we would openly like to admit. But, once the truth pops out, and bites us on the nose, we'd best face it, if we really want to cleanse our souls. What prejudices do each of us secretly hold, but would rather not publicly admit? A lot of people now throwing stones at Gibson should be examining the dark corners of their own hearts. If that were to happen, we'd all become more accepting and better people.

And Gibson raises the issue of his faith, claiming it is at odds with anti-Semitic beliefs. Is that really true? Just what is Gibson's "faith"? He adheres to "Traditionalist Catholic" beliefs and, like his father, belongs to a sect which is not part of mainstream Catholicism. These are not people who simply prefer to hear the Mass in Latin. Among other things, Gibson believes that only Catholics will go to heaven. He has publicly said he believes that members of all other faiths, and all non-Catholic Christians (including his Anglican wife), will be going to hell.
With the proceeds from "The Passion", Gibson has built his own church--The Church of The Holy Family--which is not part of any Catholic archdiocese, and which is not recognized by the Vatican as a Catholic church. Gibson is not a conservative Catholic, he is a Traditionalist Catholic, which is quite a different matter. And, because this is an affiliation (and affinity) he at least partly shares with his father, Gibson has always been suspected of anti-Semitism because of his father's anti-Semitic religious beliefs. That's why a lot of people were shocked, but not really surprised, by Gibson's comments about Jews last week. It has a lot to do with his father, and a lot to do with some Traditionalist Catholic views.

That the modern Catholic church has tried to diminish anti-Semitism is not something that sits well with Gibson's father. Hutton Gibson is a Sedevacantist (a form of Traditionalist Catholicism), although his ideas are rejected by many in the Traditionalist Catholic community. He believes that the Second Vatican Council introduced heretical doctrines into the Catholic Church, and he believes that every Pope elected since Pope John XXIII, including Pope John Paul II (whom he referred to as "Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser"), have been illegitimate anti-popes. He has also stated that the Second Vatican Council was the result of a secret anti-Catholic plot orchestrated by both Masons and Jews, and he believes that Jewish conspiracies have infiltrated the Catholic church with the intention of overthrowing the Church in order to achieve world domination with their one religion.

This craziness goes way beyond animosity toward Jews. It's plain paranoid and delusional. Hutton Gibson is far more than just a Holocaust denier. He apparently has nothing but hatred and contempt for Jews. web page He feels (among other things) that the Jews are trying to destroy the Catholic church. But Mel Gibson will not publicly criticize his father. He claims to do so would be to violate the commandment to Honor Thy Father. Sorry, that's more denial. One can love and honor one's father and still disagree with his views, particularly if they are at odds with one's own faith and beliefs. But, because Gibson doesn't make it clear where (or if) his views part company with those of his father, suspicions about his own anti-Semitism were rampant long before his outburst last week. They were part and parcel of the concern about "The Passion" prior to it's release. Mel Gibson apparently intends to build a second Traditionalist Catholic church in Pennsylvania, apparently with some involvement by his father. What message is going to come from the pulpit of these churches? Isn't that something that moviegoers should think about when they buy tickets to Gibson's films or rent his DVDs? Is this where their money will be going?

While it might not be fair to ascribe the sins of the father to the son, what happened last week confirmed for many people that where there's smoke, there's fire. And Mel Gibson has always made his "faith" a public issue through his own statements.
Gibson's comments last week suggested that he has absorbed more of his old man's ideas and attitudes than he might be willing to admit, even to himself. He might even rationalize them as simply being part of his "faith". More denial. Perhaps what happened to him last week will be a wake-up call--both in terms of his drinking and his beliefs.

I sincerely hope Mel Gibson does open his mind and really search his soul. I think he could actually wind up doing a lot of good in terms of enlightening others, if he can first enlighten himself. People can see the light. People can change. The day he publicly disagrees with his father's thinking, and the type of distrust and hatred that it represents and breeds, I might really believe that's happened. If he doesn't publicly distance himself from his father's views, I doubt that he'll ever be able to shake the anti-Semitic accusations.


So, I think this case also raises all kinds of issues about family loyalty, family values, and the influence of religious beliefs in fomenting and maintaining prejudices. It also raises issues (once again) about the police giving preferential treatment to celebrities, the scourge of alcoholism, and the menace of irresponsible drunk driving. It's not just about Gibson, it's about a lot of societal values. The anti-Semitism issue was merely the most jarring and sensational component, partly because it was so unexpected in the context of a drunk driving arrest. But it didn't come out of the blue. And it didn't surprise many people.

Quote:

---

Many of us are probably far more prejudiced in our hearts, toward various groups, than we would openly like to admit. But, once the truth pops out, and bites us on the nose, we'd best face it, if we really want to cleanse our souls. What prejudices do each of us secretly hold, but would rather not publicly admit? A lot of people now throwing stones at Gibson should be examining the dark corners of their own hearts. If that were to happen, we'd all become more accepting and better people.

---

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I know that I have found thoughts in my own head that have surprised me, and which have led me to take a deeper look at my own prejudices.
Many of us were raised in homes that were less tolerant than is now considered proper. We have to learn that balance between respecting our parents and our heritage, and standing up for what we now know is right. I think there is also a gap between things which we accept and agree with intellectually, and those which were 'bred in the bone' - in times of stress, it's easy to revert to an old way of feeling, even if we have rejected it in our minds.

I think, in this case as in so many others, actions speak louder than words - both the hateful AND the apologetic words. I'd like to see what Mr Gibson actually does, before passing judegement one way or another.

Does critisising Jews automatically make you anti-semetic. Indeed if Gibson believes what he says is true he was merely stating the facts. If I suggest that Europeans are responsible for the bloody conflicts in Africa over the last century or so does that make me anti-Caucasian?
What offends me is Gibson's spineless response. I don't care what he thinks, about anything really, but if he has opinions on something at least stand up for them, regardless of whether others think he's anti-semetic, or like a certain couch bouncing celeb, just nuts. At least Cruise seems to stand by his beliefs.