As you are aware I am a simple sort of chap. I am content with this. Not knowing what a Higgs Boson is or being unable to discern the subtle brilliance of Damien Hurst’s aesthetic causes me no sense of disappointment. I have simpler pleasures. The high point of yesterday was the news that my broad beans are sprouting.
Unfortunately yesterday also brought the strong possibility that I will be denied another simple pleasure. It seems all too possible that we may be seeing the end our local MP’s career. Now that he faces three charges of assault it seems unlikely Eric Joyce will be standing again.
“Drunken Scotsman headbutts Tory” is hardly newsworthy, that it occurred in the palace of Westminster is. Eric seemingly headbutted a Tory MP and launched a fusillade of punches at a few others. That at the time he was surrounded, rather ineffectually it would seem, by eight policemen raises questions concerning not only Eric’s sobriety but also his sanity.
Many enjoy seeing a self-serving careerist brought low. Especially so when he is known mainly for his ability early in his career to parrot the party line however ludicrous the position taken by that mendacious mountebank Tony Blair. Eric also has achieved fame for the extraordinary level of his expenses claims, at over £200,000 last year, by far the highest in Parliament.
When we moved to Airth I imagined that one of the simple pleasures in store was being able to vote against Eric. In my daydreams about this it didn’t really matter who I ended up voting for; SNP, Monster Raving Loony, Tory, it didn’t matter as long as they stood a chance of unseating Eric.
But then I began to ask myself, would I vote for just ‘anybody’?
No, there are a few parties which because of the rank nature of their public pronouncements and stated aims are beyond the pale. Obviously the Lib Dems would have to be excluded.
I am not so simple that I could vote for the party of whom Austin Mitchel MP said, “The Lib Dems aren’t a grown-up party but a collection of middle-class deviants, odds and sods and those too squeamish, silly or selfish to join one of the two great alternatives.” Who can say fairer than that?
We see just how illiberal and undemocratic the grotesquely misnamed Lib Dems are with the latest plea by Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone. Ms Featherstone thinks that the Church should stop putting its oar in during discussions about the possibility of legalising homosexual marriage in England and Wales.
Featherstone claims that “This is not a battle between gay rights and religious beliefs. This is about the underlying principles of family, society, and personal freedoms.” Restricting how those with religious belief articulate their views in discussions about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedom is deeply totalitarian.
In today’s Telegraph Featherstone talks of ‘debate’ concerning homosexual marriage yet ends her article with’ “That is why you will not find us watering down this commitment.” It is quite clear that she has already made a commitment about how this ‘debate’ must end. Any ‘consultation’ she conducts is clearly about how to implement her desire for homosexual marriage rather than about whether it should happen at all. Scratch a Lib Dem find a bully.
‘Marriage’ is to be redefined, whether we like it or not. The progressive urge to redefine the actual content of words is reminiscent of Orwell’s Newspeak, a characteristic of both totalitarian dictatorships and modern progressives. If words are redefined our thoughts are reshaped, and we eventually become new people by governmental action.
The progressive desire to restructure society involves an assault on individual freedom of conscience. To demand that the majority show ‘equal respect’ towards a minority, whatever the nature of that minority, is to weaken the freedom of expression of the majority.
None have a supposed right to respect or a right not to be offended which can be guaranteed by legislation. It is absurd for one person to claim a right not to be offended by another, if only because the latter person is likely to be equally offended by the opinions of the former. The only way out of this impasse is to elevate one group above another. For the progressive this means privileging homosexuals over biblical Christians and all who hold to traditional values emanating from Scripture.
If we designate one group as privileged over another we not only violate the principle of equality before the law, but the state becomes the arbiter of which beliefs are more fundamental and worthy of protection.
The question is: Would I vote for a drunken failed careerist or a representative of the bunch who wish to dismantle our society and remake it in their own “deviant,” and “selfish” image?
The drunks have it.