Reporting from Vietnam, the war correspondent Peter Arnett quoted an American major saying, ‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it’. Today’s liberals are as ludicrous as those they poured scorn on yesterday.
In the latest advance of the LGBTQ movement earlier this week, Swiss voters decided in a referendum to back hate speech legislation making supposedly ‘homophobic’ speech a criminal offence.
In an ironic and intellectually fraudulent move, Swiss government authorities assured voters that even though free speech is being curtailed it is not actually a curtailment of free speech, which according to the Swiss is an inviolable principle.
As far back as 1993 it was mooted that there was a ‘gay gene’. Although the study in which this was proposed has never been replicated, such is the desire to find a ‘scientific’ reason for homosexual behaviour that the gay gene has persisted as a reference in science news, popular science writings, and in press releases and editorials about biomedical research.
A recent massive report on genetics by scientists based at the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard and published on 30 April this year in ‘Science’, analysed data on DNA and sexual experiences from almost half a million people.
Crowdfunding is a mechanism to raise money online for a multitude of causes.
Alex Salmond used it to raise more than £100,000 in three days to fund a judicial review of the Scottish government’s handling of sexual harassment allegations. Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, is amongst many civic leaders to use it to pay for libraries, swimming pools and other social infrastructure projects.
Lorenzo Maggiore looked to raise $15,000 for his Bug-A-Salt miniature shotgun which uses salt for ammo to kill annoying insects. He raised $577,636.
Zack Brown sought $10 for his Potato Salad project. Despite the vagueness of the project, ‘Basically I’m just making potato salad. I haven’t decided what kind yet’, he managed to raise $55,492.
The culture spreads. Television programmes throughout the world become more homogenised. No matter where you go, you find the same shows, just different languages. More importantly, with the spread of the media culture we get the spread of the social culture.
The X Factor is now screened on four continents. From Latvia to Indonesia, there is no escaping the franchise. The tiny Mediterranean island of Malta has its own version of X Factor. For once, instead of the usual hyped enthusiasm and expressions of wonder at winning, one Maltese contestant created a genuine moment of controversy.
‘Many people are not religious or spiritual; and if you would like your beliefs respected, you should respect others as well. Religious ideology does not belong in the law.
Those who have “unfavourable” views of homosexuality (ignorant bigots) are not tolerated because they are what’s wrong with society.
Can you give one non-religious reason that people should not have legal rights to pursue homosexuality?’
Some aspects of the comment should be noted.
The mention of ‘legal rights’ is a straw argument. No one is proposing criminalising homosexuality in the West.
There are a number of headlines such as “Islamists Offended – Remain Calm” which you would never dream of reading. How could one write a serious headline about an article alleging the BBC has a bias against homosexuality?
There can be few more willing to point out the follies of the BBC than A Grain of Sand. However, Dr Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia (where else) has gone further than even we would have dreamed possible.
Previously Dr Mills, a senior lecturer in the School of Film, Television and Media Studies, has criticised the makers of television wildlife documentaries for invading the animals’ right to privacy. David Attenborough clearly has no right to film bears in their hibernating state without previously having gained written permission, from the bears.
When you picked up the current copy of the European Journal of Cultural Studies you would have read Dr Mills criticising the BBC for not having enough homosexuality in its wildlife programmes. Even worse the BBC are supposedly taking editorial decisions which indoctrinate the populace through its nature documentaries. Bet you never thought that David Attenbourgh chuntering on about the solenodon (a sort of large poisonous hedgehog found in Cuba) was a propagandist for homophobia in the pay of the BBC.
Mills suggests that forms of animal behaviour which are commonly missing in nature programming, such as homosexuality and same sex parenting, demonstrate how ideas of sexuality, monogamy and family persist within human debates. By constantly portraying heterosexuality amongst animals the BBC is shaping and enforcing cultural attitudes: “The descriptions of animal behaviour, because of their association with the ‘natural’, play a telling role in the policing of human behaviour.”
Isn’t it obvious that there is rampant homosexuality in the animal kingdom. All those flamingoes in flaming pink standing around in their “I’m a little tea-pot” pose, they are as camp as Julian Clary after too many cocktails.
Things have come to a pretty pass when we look across the Channel and think to yourself, “Mm, those Frenchies are so much better at this.” Yet yesterday afternoon whilst watching our elected representatives in Parliament debate homosexual marriage it had to be admitted that the Frogs are so much better.
The French Make Their Point
Opposition in Parliament and elsewhere is based on the defence of marriage. This fails to acknowledge that we began to sell the pass on marriage fifty years ago back in the sixties. Slice by slice we have reduced its significance until today we have reached the stage where marriage is a minority choice and a conservative Prime Minister refuses to bolster marriage in the tax system.
Totalitarian progressives get their way in part by the use of mawkish sentimentality. Every time they wish to make a dent in society they bring forward an emotional case. Reason plays little part in their advance. Divorce, abortion, homosexual rights, multiculturalism, these have all been advanced on the back of appeals to sentiment. Yesterday Parliament set in train vast social change on the back of sentimental sob stories and spurious appeals to equality and fairness.
The French in their opposition to homosexual marriage have actually thought things through. It is no coincidence that it was a Frenchman, the philosopher, mathematician and first wearer of a wrist watch Blaise Pascal, who said Travaillons donc à bien penser. Voilà le principè de la morale. “Let us labour, therefore, to think well. That is the principle of morality.”
French opposition to the homosexual restructuring of social norms, unlike the British, ranges over the whole of society from ultra Catholics to avant garde socialist head-bangers, Jews and Muslims, dedicated immoralists and Reformed pietists. This is because they have not just reacted emotionally or sentimentally but have thought about the matter and united around the concept that human nature exits and follows laws in its constitution.
What our government is intent on doing is creating a new law of nature. That this has gone unremarked is due to the makeshift nature of the education system in the UK where systematic thought is not encouraged. In today’s UK philosophers are academics who by and large are apologists for progressive power enlargement. Recourse to systematic thought is rare in an intellectually impoverished UK where pandering to homototalitarianism has stifled honest investigation.
Attempting to redefine a triangle as a plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the centre, demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of geometry. To attempt to redefine marriage as the union of two people of the same sex demonstrates abysmal ignorance of moralphilosophy.
The French grounded their protest against homosexual marriage and adoption philosophically, in the constitution and nature of the human person—something even some France’s weirdest leftists publicly acknowledged by participating in the recent mass protest.
In an article in Le Monde in November a group of prominent intellectuals subscribed to a joint statement rejecting homosexual marriage and adoption. Top of the list was Chantal Delsol a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institut de France. She is also an outspoken advocate of a federal Europe, hardly a knee-jerk right wing position.
In Unlearned Lessons back in 2000 she wrote:
The norms of a given time and place build upon the essential determinative traits of the human condition: by nature man is a sexed being; by culture, he institutes the matriarchal or patriarchal family. Late modernity rejects these various natural and cultural determinations, either because it still clings to the utopian idea that humanity has no inherent shape, or because it rejects previous cultural models because they are all relative.
More recently writing of the domination of emotionalism in politically correct thinking she said:
[O]ur era overflows with treacly sentiment. It is almost as if the feelings that were once associated with a certain type of piety have contaminated the whole population …. Seeking the good while remaining indifferent to the truth gives rise to a morality of sentimentality. Reactive judgment, deprived of thoughtful reflection, engenders fanatical emotion and an absolute priority of feeling over thought. In fact, it is not actually a question of sentiment, since sentiment supposes a historical and rationally consistent background. We are dealing here less with a reaction of the heart than a gut reaction.
Clearly the spirit of Pascal lives on, at least in France. Another prominent philosopher signing the article was Sylviane Agacinski, wife of former socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.
Sylviane Agacinski With Her Husband
In her latest book she caused a stir by describing “queer theory” as a “false discipline” because it taught that the differences between men and women were merely a form of social construction. For this reason she rejected homosexual marriage and adoption.
Through such argumentation, philosophers from all parts of the political spectrum provided the France-wide protest its conceptual foundation which was accepted by people of every religious and political perspective. Meanwhile in the UK we have mawkish appeals by those who are for homosexual marriage, and fighting on a long lost battleground for those against it.
Now here’s a surprise, the BBC have commissioned a study of the Corporation’s representation of homosexuals etc. The “experts” who conducted the study concluded that the sexual minorities are “relatively invisible” on television and that the BBC should be “more creative and bolder” in how it depicts homosexuals etc. Actually no surprise at all, so far so depressingly normal for the BBC.
We know who paid for them, we did, but who selected and appointed the panel of “experts” who produced this study and who are they?
The chairman of the working group which commissioned the study is the BBC’s present acting director general Tim Davie. He said: “The BBC has a fundamental obligation to serve all its audiences. In fact, it’s one of the BBC’s public purposes to reflect the diversity of UK life. I’m proud to have led this work for three years, and this review underlines our commitment and sets a direction for the work to continue.” The “direction” for the BBC looks like it is going to be yet even more of the same.
Who would have guessed it, a sector of the community amounting to perhaps 1.5% of the population are seemingly under-represented on the BBC. This is the organisation which employs or has employed the “relatively invisible” Clair Balding, Mary Portas, Sandy Tostvig, Kate Perkins, Stephen Fry, Nick Grimshaw, Richard Coles, Graham Norton, Louis Walsh and on and on seemingly ad infinitum. From Eastenders on television to the venerable The Archers on radio we have the positive portrayal of homosexual couplings, such popular programmes as Downton Abbey, Holby City and Doctor Who all feature approving homosexual story lines.
BBC News was particularly taken to task and told that it should be “more nuanced and creative” in its presentation. The tax payer funded news broadcaster is thus not expected to be an objective observer and reporter, but rather is encouraged to be an arm of progressive social engineering providing the nation with supposedly much needed “creative” pro-homosexual news programming.
The really disturbing part of the study, however, is when they recommend that the BBC should use children’s programming to “to familiarise audiences through incidental portrayal from an early age as well as validating children who are going through their formative years and who may be LGB”.
Can we expect Balamory to have a lesbian sub-text? How about homosexual themed Horrible Histories? Adults have an ability to accept or reject the line peddled by the BBC, do primary school children have the intellectual tools to discern the difference between programmes and propaganda?
The state funded broadcaster cannot discern the difference between reflecting the diversity of life in the UK and manipulating vulnerable children to accept the priorities of an elite minority. The BBC got itself into a deep enough hole with its cover up of the programme exposing Jimmy Savile, it seems blindly determined to dig itself into an even deeper hole.
What most people don’t fully appreciate is that it is jolly hard work being offended. If you want to further your cause and are tempted to go down the route of offence be warned, it requires planning, patience and an underlying passion rarely seen today.
The simplest way is to be offended because of your chosen sexuality. If you wish to advance your cause, say the further acceptance of homosexuality, whilst acknowledging that you are pushing at an open door, you have to accept that there is still work to be done.
Fortunately there is a well worn path to follow. The example to emulate is that of the plucky B&B pioneers. Their route also has the added advantage of the increasing marginalisation of the Christian faith.
First of all comes the research. Christian magazines often carry adverts for B&B establishments. That does narrow the field significantly but it is just the start. The next step is an internet search for those establishments whose website clearly states that they don’t let rooms to unmarried couples.
The casual B&B user doesn’t appreciate just how difficult that is. The vast majority of B&B’s couldn’t care less who slept with whom in their rooms, as long as they didn’t go “Baa, baa” too loudly in the night. In some rural areas this is not an insurmountable obstacle.
It requires diligent research to find a B&B which would refuse occupancy to practicing homosexuals. You can’t expect to just stumble over them by accident, the chances of that happening are astronomical. You may have to book into hundreds of B&B’s before you manage to find one which will turn you down because of your homosexuality? It is not an easy path you have chosen, but if you persevere you will find the mother lode and finally be offended.
Once you have your target you have to choose the correct season. You don’t want to choose a time of year when they are likely to have vacant rooms. Being turned away on the specious excuse of being full up may have got Mary and Joseph the sympathy vote but they would never have won the court case. Remember, you are after something more important than a room for the weekend.
Having found your target establishment and checked the seasonal occupancy pattern you then have to drive past hundreds if not thousands of other establishments to your target B&B. Once arriving unannounced you then, at last, have the opportunity of being offended.
From then on it is plain sailing. You can immediately contact a well-heeled organisation which exists solely for the purpose of furthering your passion and they will take up your cause. The BBC will portray you as civil rights martyrs, the Guardian will express outrage at this latest manifestation of fascistic homophobia, there are legions of lawyers all too ready to defend your human rights and a myriad of politicians who will support your cause. The whole politically correct establishment will rally to your side.
There will be court cases and television interviews, media calls and messages of support from those who “feel your pain.” All very trying but you can be assured that when it reaches this point you have already won. It is hard work but no doubt the diligent offence seeker will feel that it is worth it in the end.
That is how it has worked in the recent past and there is no reason to suppose it will not work today. When it becomes the law, as it will, that homosexuals are allowed to be married in churches we can be sure that some vaguely religious establishments will allow it.
Even in those denominations which refuse to sanction homosexual marriage some individual ministers will throw over the traces. Given the inability of mainstream denominations to discipline their ministers for even the most appalling heresies they will be perfectly safe. There is little likelihood that the minister will become a martyr, but they will get what amounts to second prize for the progressive Christians, recognition as a civil rights pioneer.
Being allowed to be married in only some religious establishments will not satisfy the eager to be offended. It is a virtual certainty that some homosexual couple will search out a congregation where the minister refuses to carry out homosexual weddings.
They will ask, they will be refused, the whole circus will start all over again. It will go to court, if the court finds for the church there will be appeals, eventually the European Court for Human Rights will intervene and we have a pretty good idea of how they will decide. What will happen when the minister refuses to pay a fine?
David Cameron states categorically that in any forthcoming legislation there will be provisions for those churches who refuse to marry homosexuals. But then Cameron is the politician who gave the British people a “cast iron promise” on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and we know how reliable that promise was. A bit of window dressing in the form of a few insignificant changes to the Treaty, a new name for it and Cameron smiled it through.
David Cameron may come from a wealthy, privileged background, he may have gone to Eton, know the right people and be distantly related to the Queen, but he is not a gentleman. You can trust the word of a gentleman. Nadine Dories is right, Cameron is merely “an arrogant posh boy.”
Cameron claims to be “passionate” about homosexual marriage. He should realise that there are others who share his viewpoint, and they are willing to push the limits at every opportunity. That may mean the shattering of the church, but for them that is a small price to pay, you see they too are passionate about the acceptance of homosexuality.
Congratulations are due to Cardinal Keith O’Brien leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
Last night Cardinal O’Brien was declared winner of Stonewall’s Bigot of the Year award. We may differ theologically but he is obviously doing something right to be singled out for attack by the extremist, intolerant organisation.
Despite Keith O’Brien’s win all is not all is well in Scotland. Scotland’s SNP government is determined to force through the Scottish Parliament a bill legalising homosexual marriage no matter what the people of Scotland think. All five parties represented in Parliament support this move. Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, won Stonewall’s Politician of the Year award.
The “Yes” campaign for homosexual marriage in Scotland is being led by the Equality Network. For the Equality Network the “N” in Non-Governmental Organisation is redundant as it receives almost its entire funding from the public purse. The Equality Network is in effect an arm for the implementation of governmental policy.
The Equality Network receives funding from the Scottish Government Equality Unit for five projects: LGBT Sector Building, Policy, Information, Scottish Transgender Alliance, and the Intersectional (Disability/LGBT) project.
Their Everyone IN minority ethnic/LGBT project is funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the UK government. In the UK Parliament all three main parties support homosexual marriage.
Equality Network’s Transgender Transition Support project is funded by the Big Lottery Fund. There is also support from the Lottery’s Award for All programme for research into LGBT issues in sport.
The Equality Network also receives funding from the European Commission Grundtvig programme for participation in a partnership sharing knowledge about minority ethnic LGBT issues across Europe.
We can see less overt governmental influence with the Bigot of the Year awards themselves. When first approached by the Catholic Heraldregarding Stonewall’s Bigot of the Year award Barclay’s bank, an independent business reliant upon its customers, immediately denied any connection with the bigot award and said they did not support such an award. Coutts bank, which is 84% government owned, were initially unapologetic and stressed that they “valued diversity.”
The campaign against homosexual marriage is led by the Coalition 4 Marriage. How much state funding does it get? If your answer is somewhere between 0% and 0% you stand a good chance of being right.
Social engineering on the massive scale we are seeing today corrupts democracy. The fact that such funding comes from the taxpayer, the majority of whom are ambivalent towards or opposed to homosexual marriage, matters not a whit to the anointed. Homosexual marriage has become a shibboleth of the elite and their views must prevail.
Opposition to homosexual marriage has become much more than a discussion as to whether or not homosexuals should marry. Due to the massive manipulation by politicians and media it has become a matter of democracy itself.
When the only parties likely to be elected all support a contentious policy, when they throw considerable funding to one side in the argument, when the media present propaganda for that side, we have to ask how healthy our democracy is.