The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

The full wording is: Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

You are probably thinking the same as me: why are Muslims wanting to make an international law that will criminalise more Muslims than anyone else? Which ‘religion’ is as intolerant towards others as Islam? Which ‘religion’ is responsible for the murders of thousands of people of other religions throughout the world every year? It’s Islam, of course. But this law won’t apply to Muslims, because only Islam can be disrespected.

I cannot see such an ‘international law’ being adhered to in countries like Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, where Christians by the hundred have been murdered recently just for being Christians (there’s religious hatred for you), but I can envisage the trembling hands of the ‘infidels’ in the West signing up to this in order to criminalise their own people for speaking out against Sharia law, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, Muslim rape gangs, poppy-burners and the rest of the sickness that goes wherever Islam goes.

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step foward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

As I have said so often before, the same agenda is being put in place all over the West.

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

They even want our ‘democratically elected politicians’ to be silenced (those few who still speak up). And the last thing the leaders of the Islamic world want is integration. That’s not how their global caliphate will come about. They must remain separate in order to dominate.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

I am just going to reproduce these examples of what has already happening in Europe after people have done nothing more than told the truth about Islam…

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason’ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

So, you would think that criticising Islam is already a crime in Europe without any further effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The United Nations is still seen as a highly reputable and invaluable organisation to most people, rather than what it really is. If our politicians lack the strength of character to deal with the EU on most matters, how do you think they will react when expected to adopt laws that try to prevent us saying things like, ‘Well, actually, I don’t think it’s right that Muslim girls should have their genitals mutilated’?

If this happens, what a devastating blow to freedom. We will literally become dhimmis in our own country. Even more so than we are already, with the halal food being dished up to an unsuspecting public and the dismantling of our Judeo-Christian values and culture.

If we don’t stand up for our country and our freedom and commit ourselves to the values of our fathers and grandfathers, we will fall to Islam. And soon. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a minority in Europe; the powers that be have dealt them a winning hand. At least, this is what they want us to believe, but it will only be a winning hand if we fail to realise that they are bluffing, therefore we must not throw in our hand because this rotten game is there for the taking if we stand strong against this tide of insanity.

FURTHER READING: ‘Proud to be a British Muslim’ (a lesson in mind-control)

This picture isn’t about the pros and cons of Scottish independence, but the cons of Alex Salmond as the politically correct, EU-loving future leader of a Scotland which has ‘independence within Europe’: an oxymoron, as even those two wee eejits in the lower right could tell you.

Diane Abbott. Or is it Robert Mugabe?

Firstly, I think the woman is horrendous, particularly for her campaign to have abortion legalised in Northern Ireland, despite the protestations from all parts of the community there. Typical socialist: we don’t care how you want to live or what you hold precious, we’re going to tell you what to do.

However, this doesn’t imply she is a racist. I’m sure she despises the unborn equally, regardless of colour. I wonder what she makes of the fact that black unborn babies in the USA (not sure of the UK figures) are more likely to be aborted than white ones, in what some term the black holocaust. They say that US abortionists kill more blacks every three days than the Ku Klux Klan has done in its history. I doubt she cares. ‘Rights’ to feminazis of her ilk do not include the right to life (surely the most basic right of all), but the ‘right’ of a woman to ‘control her own fertility’, blah, blah. Similarly, to the feminist mind, the father has no rights in determining the future of his unborn child, just the woman. There’s only one thing worse than a feminist woman like Abbott, and that’s a man who shares her feminist beliefs.

Leg-iron wrote a piece with which I largely agree and raises several valid points,

As a honky myself I took no offence other than to observe that it is not white people, but politicians such as herself, who are using the ‘divide and rule’ principle these days.

Cue some excerps from the post on this blog I link to most,

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has announced that:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather wrote: “Earlier drafts [of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

And as we know, multiculturalism is about dividing the population into pockets of ‘communities’ and the ‘equality and diversity’ brigade can then stir them up with all the phoney ’rights’ nonsense to get them at each other instead of fighting our common enemy: the social engineers.

As Leggy writes, her comment was racist, as it ‘defined an entire ethnic group within one derogatory statement’, but he doesn’t believe she is. I just don’t know, but as most of her white colleagues would appear to be racist against the native Brits, why should she be any different? I also don’t know if her subsequent twittergaffe (if this isn’t a word, it should be) in which she suggested that taxi drivers are inclined not to pick up black passengers, is based on reality or if it is just her that they don’t pick up, and who could blame them, especially as she looks increasingly like Robert Mugabe (see picture above for proof!) and they are probably fearful that if they let her in their cab she’ll take their home and land from them.

BBC Bristol sacked their presenter, Sam Mason, in 2008 after she called a taxi firm to collect her 14 year-old daughter and requested an ‘English’ driver. I wrote to the BBC at the time to complain about the dismissal and, of course, received the sort of standard reply I expected. Is Sam Mason a racist for wanting to protect her daughter from a (perceived) heightened risk?

So is it just proles who deserve to be sacked for being ‘racist’ whether or not they really are?

As Leg-iron concludes,

Diane Abbott was part of the government that brought about this equality. The one in which the politicians despise us all equally.

She was one of those who made this happen. She was one of those who created these laws.

They are ridiculous, but they are laws. Should she escape them?

One rule for the proles, another for the Politburo. Let’s see if that’s true.

Many, many people are about to find out just where they stand.

Is she racist?

Who knows?

Is she stupid?

Undoubtedly.

Should she be sacked?

She should never have been elected.

Trafford Housing Trust - building towards a future without opinions... or flowerpots.

You might remember the story of Colin Atkinson from a few months ago. He is the 64 year-old former soldier who ended up in serious trouble from his employers, Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), for keeping a palm cross on his company van’s dashboard.

Now another Christian, Adrian Smith, who works for another housing trust, Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust, has been demoted, with a 40% pay cut, for stating on his own personal Facebook page that ‘gay church marriages’ are “a step too far”. Apparently, the only reason he wasn’t sacked is because of his eighteen years of service.

We are becoming a nation of informants:

Mr Smith was disciplined after a second colleague complained to the Trust’s ‘equality and diversity lead’, Helen Malone.

A few days later, Mr Smith was summoned from his home to a meeting at the Trust’s headquarters in Sale, where he was told he was being suspended while the complaint was investigated.

He was warned that even though his Facebook page could be viewed only by registered friends, rather than by the general public, those readers included colleagues who had taken issue with his comments.

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye. It seems his ‘friends’ and colleagues were ganging up on him and perhaps using his rather unassuming comments as an excuse to get rid of someone they don’t like. If he was homosexual and being bullied and harassed, it would have been a totally different matter. One phone call to Stonewall would have left his bosses and colleagues panic-stricken.

A shocked Mr Smith, who managed a team looking after local housing issues, immediately removed the reference to where he worked from the page.

Why remove it? I have a feeling that allowing yourself to be cowed by these creeps will be seen as a sign of weakness. The Trust has 350 employees. Many of these will likely share Mr Smith’s beliefs and most will be afraid to speak out. And I hope those who grassed him up don’t get too complacent, or they could also find themselves the subject of a witch hunt if they are caught uttering a non-PC opinion (if they are capable). I would not have too many drinks at the office Christmas party if I was them. The walls probably have ears. (They will probably have a ‘Winterval’ party, of course, so as not to ’cause offence’.)

The following month he was called to a disciplinary meeting before Mike Corfield, the Trust’s Assistant Director, Customers. Although Mr Smith was allowed to put his case, insiders described the meeting as ‘tense and fraught’.

I can imagine. He would likely have been made to feel like scum by his interrogators. Like there was something wrong with him.

According to legal documents lodged at Manchester County Court, Debbie Gorman, a ‘neighbourhood manager’ also at the meeting, said Mr Smith’s comment could cause offence.

Indeed. A comment could ’cause offence’ but that is sometimes the price we pay to have freedom of speech. The alternative is far, far worse.

But because of his loyal service, Mr Smith was instead demoted to money support adviser, handling rent collection. His pay was reduced to £21,396, phased in over a year, and he was given a final written warning.

Mr Smith’s solicitor has said that, ‘Nothing he said was offensive or abusive. His comments were calm, measured and reasonable.

That doesn’t matter anymore. Freedom of speech has gone. You will comply – because someone, somewhere might be offended, especially when there’s money to be made.

‘Adrian has been treated disproportionately. Even those who disagree with his opinions will surely agree that he has been treated badly.’

I doubt it, actually. Some people are too far removed from reality now.

Last year, the Trust, which employs 360 staff, was awarded a ‘quality mark’ from a gay support group for its work training staff in recognising homophobic hate crime.

But it has also angered a number of elderly residents by ordering them to remove garden benches and flower pots from outside their flats for health-and-safety reasons.

Yes, they are clearly drugged up on a heady cocktail of political correctness gone mad and health and safety taken to insane extremes.

This is the future for everyone if this nonsense isn’t dealt with once and for all. David Cameron promised to end this sort of persecution, but as we know, he is a joker who has actually meted out similar treatment to some of his party members. It is no exaggeration to compare what is happening in the UK and EU to China and Soviet Russia. Clearly, it won’t just be Christians who will be browbeaten, but eventually, everyone but the most mindless drones will be forced to conceal their true feelings. For example, there are some people who want criticism of the EU to be a criminal offence. That would probably make criminals of the majority of the British people at the moment, but imagine it being an actual crime. How many detractors would remain?

One thing is for sure: I will never be employed by a housing trust. Nor would I want to be.

Marxist-founded Demos is terrified that schoolchildren are questioning the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Government front group Demos, an integral part of the British establishment which was founded by Marxists, is terrified that children are using the Internet to question what they are taught in school, and has vowed to abolish any such critical thinking to reinforce the education system’s role as a tool of indoctrination.

A BBC News report reflects Demos’ panic at “conspiracy theories” (ie any critical thought that questions the official consensus) being brought into the classroom.

It’s a delicious irony that we’ve highlighted many times before and it underpins the entire education system. While complaining that children are not engaging in “critical thinking,” Demos, a government front group, is abolishing any notion of critical thinking by telling students that they should only believe what the government and the mainstream media tells them is true – the same establishment that has been caught proliferating lies time and time again.

In reality, it is the very fact that students are increasingly engaging in “critical thinking,” ie questioning the official version of events, that has the likes of Demos so petrified.

Having been caught lying and covering-up all manner of scandals, from the WMD farce, to Climategate, to the death of Dr. David Kelly, the British establishment and its sycophantic media cheerleaders like the BBC are losing credibility fast, that’s why young people are turning to alternative sources of information to try and get the truth, something deemed intolerable by the system.

While young people are being intimidated out of critical thinking, they are simultaneously being bombarded with the likes of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which was sent by the government to British schools in 2007, a documentary found by a British high court judge to contain nine significant errors while making claims in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

It seems believing in “conspiracy theories” is only acceptable for the likes of Demos and the British government if those “conspiracy theories” are generated by and supportive of the state.

Indeed, a University Professor in the United Kingdom recently conducted a comparative analysis of a BBC documentary on 7/7 “conspiracy theories” and an independent documentary in which the official story behind the London bombings is questioned. The Professor concluded that the documentary produced by “conspiracy theorists” was more accurate and more likely to be a truthful representation of the events of 7/7, but don’t expect the government to recommend it be included on the curriculum any time soon.

Other government front groups have also launched state-funded projects to “demolish conspiracy theories” about events like 9/11, or in other words ‘abolish’ any critical thinking about the event and reinforce official propaganda through the school curriculum.

Demos is a front for the insidious Common Purpose network, a group that Lt Cdr Brian Gerrish has exposed as playing a fundamental role in the advancement of Britain’s role in the new world order. Julia Middleton, Chief Executive of Common Purpose, sits on Demos’ advisory council.

The group has waged war on “conspiracy theories,” particularly the suggestion that 7/7 and 9/11 involved state complicity, and has urged the government to “fight back” by infiltrating conspiracy websites to spread state propaganda. Demos has also characterized people who question the official fable of 7/7 and 9/11 as extremists and terrorist recruiters.

The strategy mirrors that advocated by White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 white paper similarly called for conspiracy websites to be infiltrated and undermined in order to dilute their influence. In the same report, Sunstein also called for taxing conspiracy theories (any viewpoint that differs with the official version) and outright banning free speech of which the authorities disapprove.

Demos was founded in 1993 by marxists Martin Jacques and Geoff Mulgan, and was closely affiliated with Tony Blair’s Labour government. Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. Current British Prime Minister David Cameron also works closely with Demos and has given speeches at the group’s events.

Demos has routinely acted as a platform for elitists who wish to drastically alter society, eliminate freedoms, and sacrifice British sovereignty in pursuit of global government. On August 9, 2006, British Home Secretary Dr John Reid, another former marxist, gave a speech at a Demos conference stating that Britons “may have to modify their notion of freedom”, claiming that freedom is “misused and abused by terrorists.”

Demos is partnered with numerous other globalist organizations from government and industry, including IBM, The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Shell International. The organization’s logo includes an all-seeing eye within its design.

Although the group poses as an independent think tank, Demos is little more than a public relations firm for the British government and security services. Its efforts to demonize conspiracy theories in order to “increase trust in the government,” as its own report states, is a transparent ploy to do the bidding of its masters, by demonizing anyone who challenges a corrupt, lying state and its nefarious activities as an extremist and a potential domestic terrorist, while infiltrating schools and acting as thought police to ring-fence what ideas children can and cannot entertain.

This video was uploaded to the Scottish Government’s YouTube channel the other day. It is an obvious piece of propaganda ahead of the ‘gay marriage’ consultation. Salmond’s first words are,

In Scotland, we want to celebrate the diverse communities that make our country great.

Firstly, is Scotland still great? Secondly, what made Scotland great was hard work, ambitious geniuses, being part of a strong and independent United Kingdom and having a broadly Judeo-Christian culture. Each of these has been on the way out for some time now, not just in Scotland, but throughout what was once called Christendom.

Now, apparently, what makes us “great” are “diverse communities”.

Of course, the SNP, in common with all the other main parties in Britain, wants us to celebrate homosexuality, Islam and being a member of the European Union. That’s about where diversity worth “celebrating” begins and ends for our politicians. Protestants and Catholics in Scotland are certainly not supposed to celebrate their own cultures. That’s “sectarianism” aka “Scotland’s Shame”. I don’t have any time for the chants at Old Firm matches, but now the SNP are starting to tread on very dangerous ground as they try to obliterate all signs of this “sectarianism” at football matches, which may include banning the sign of the cross from the Celtic End and the singing of “God Save The Queen” by Rangers fans.

I suppose congratulations are in order for Alex Salmond, as he has united Catholic and Protestant against him!

And leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland have been speaking out against “gay marriage”. The Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has said that a Scottish government which backed same-sex marriage did not deserve the support of the Catholic community.

Even the Free Church of Scotland has spoken out in praise of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on homosexual ‘marriage’ – Proddy and Tim standing shoulder to shoulder to fight the evils of government. I could get to like this ‘diversity’ lark after all!

At the end of his little propaganda piece, I was left wondering how much Stonewall had paid Salmond, or if he was chasing the coveted Stonewall Politician of the Year Award at the annual ceremony in three weeks’ time. He isn’t short-listed, but after a speech like that, basically asking the rest of us to try to fit in around homosexuality, I’m sure he could be shoehorned in.

You would think that a Scottish bunch operating out of Edinburgh would be more sensible and independently-minded than Westminster and Brussels, but they share exactly the same agenda: pretending that unity can come from diversity. Even many on the ‘left’ now admit that multiculturalism has been a failure.

Salmond talks of independence and plans a referendum to try to achieve it – and will allow 16 year-olds to vote in it to give him a better chance of winning – but Scotland could never be free with him at the helm, because he complies with every politically correct agenda on the planet.

Perhaps Salmond has an even more sinister motivation? Should he be successful in securing an independent Scotland, we would probably not gain automatic membership to the European Union, so appearing more PC than Brussels would shower him in brownie points.

Here is the Consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. The SNP have already said that they want it to happen, so let’s make it as difficult as possible for them to re-engineer society to the detriment of the vast majority. Salmond, like Stonewall, talks about bullying to try to persuade us to accept the homosexual agenda lock, stock and barrel. I don’t approve of bullying, period. Bullying is not the issue, so let us not be fooled or made to feel guilty.

And for the UK as a whole, there is another consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. We can stop the rot, but time is running out and work needs to be done. Thankfully, there are some people in the SNP with their heads screwed on correctly.

MSP John Mason tabled a motion which was supported by three other SNP MSPs  and which stated that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved or to approve of same-sex marriage.

The former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has called for a referendum and warned that same-sex marriage could have “extremely destructive consequences” for Scotland. Mr Wilson, now chairman of the Christian faith group, Solas, co-wrote a nine-page submission to the Scottish Government’s public consultation with Solas director, the
Rev David Robertson, in which they accused Alex Salmond’s government of pursuing a “harmful” shake-up of the country’s marriage laws and warned that pressing ahead with the proposals could be a danger to Scotland and that the legalisation of same-sex marriages was “an assault on Christian values” and warned that it could lead to “social disintegration” and “sexual confusion.”

Mr Wilson went on to claim that MSPs backing gay marriage would be showing “cowardice, injustice and folly”.

He said: “This is of such a destructive nature to Scottish society that, rather than leaving the decision to a group of MSPs (who themselves are very susceptible to the threats to their careers and positions of political and media lobbying), this decision should be put to a referendum of the Scottish people.

“We are concerned at the way this issue is being used to demonise and attack Christianity, whilst at the same time being used to reshape and change society in a way which we believe is ultimately harmful.

There are other SNP politicians who have stood up and been shouted down by colleagues (in other parties too) who hate free speech. There is clearly a lot of opposition to the idea of marriage being so drastically redefined in Scotland, so nobody should feel afraid of the bullies who would silence us. Nobody.

We used to lead the world in industry and invention, literature and exploration, but now all that our castrated politicians can think of making Britain world leaders in is unholy matrimony.

This is an illustration of what happens when a culture descends into hedonism: pleasures and comforts take over from hard work and genuine family life and child-raising. Time starts running out for that society. Already, the fertility rate of British women is below the replacement figure. We are literally becoming extinct!

The Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone announced at the LibDem Conference yesterday that,

…in March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on equal civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This would allow us to make any legislative changes before the end of this Parliament.

We will be working closely with all those who have an interest in the area to understand their views ahead of the formal consultation.

I replied,

I “have an interest in the area”. A very great interest. Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the definition and always has been and no government has the legitimacy to change the meaning.

Changing the definition of ‘marriage’ will have a wide-ranging influence on the rest of society. Marriage has been getting undermined for the past few decades to the point where the majority of British children are now born out of wedlock.

This obviously has a destabilising effect on society and legitimising same-sex unions will add to the devaluing of marriage in people’s minds and increase problems in the community.

I urge you to consider the views of everyone in this country because a change of this magnitude effects everyone.

And I really do urge everyone to get involved, because this is not just a matter for homosexuals, this is a massive shift in society’s value system being proposed and will affect us all. Marriage will be further devalued and communities will become more fragmented. Your children will be subjected to homosexual propaganda at school and in the media on an unprecedented scale.

Apparently, “the Government has indicated it is committed to changing the law to allow gay marriage (sic) by 2015″ So, like the Scottish bunch, they appear to have made their decision even before the consultation process has started.

That’s “democracy” for you.

Ms Featherstone continues,

The consultation will only cover civil marriage for same sex couples – not religious marriage.

For now. As I wrote a fortnight ago, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

But like everything else, it’s salami tactics at play. Homosexuality was legalised for two people over 21 in private. Then it was 18; then 16. Civil Partnerships were introduced. And when Section 28 was done away with, we were assured that it would not lead to homosexuality being promoted to children. Now, Stonewall sends out its propaganda on DVD to every school in the country and teachers even encourage primary school children to wear frocks to ‘discover their feminine side’.

Imagine the new levels of child abuse they will be permitted to get away with if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalised.

When societies descend into hedonism and decadence and throw morality out the window, they decline – and that’s why ‘gay marriage’ is unknown in history as far as I am aware.

Rulers and governments weren’t THAT naive in the past.

But according to this list of mental disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, gender identity disorder is a mental disorder.

Of course, same-sex attraction was considered a mental illness until not so long ago and I expect that gender identity disorder will also disappear from the list in the near future, not because of medical considerations, but political ones.

Gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth). It describes the symptoms related to transsexualism, as well as less severe manifestations of gender dysphoria. GID is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM [1] and by the DSM-IV TR [2]

So why are major physical changes undertaken because of a mental condition? Surely it would be better for the patient to have the underlying mental issues dealt with?

Some authorities do not classify gender dysphoria as a mental illness, including the NHS which describes it as “a condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases.”[4]

The NHS is, of course, a fully paid-up member of the political correctness agenda. I have noticed lately that ‘transphobia’ is the latest weapon in the PC Brigade’s armoury.

Thousands of people get all sorts of unnecessary operations every year, like nose jobs and breast enlargements, but these are carried out, not to improve physical health, but because, mentally, the patients have problems with the way they look.

Here is one I hadn’t heard of before: Avoidant personality disorder. Basically, if you are a private sort of person who prefers to keep himself to himself, you might be considered to have a mental disorder.

The danger is that today a person can be ’sectioned’ under the Mental Health Act and thus deprived of their liberty. The Soviet Union’s political abuse of psychiatry is well known,

[Abuse of psychiatry is] a means of ‘neutralizing’ healthy people who are regarded as a threat to the existing political system, by admission to a psychiatric hospital, thus damaging their power and reputation. This abuse has occurred in two large countries, the Soviet Union and China, both under totalitarian rule, where public dissent was disapproved and often punished, though in other respects they are different.

There are people out there who want ‘homophobia’ classed as a mental illness. I suppose that would complete the “Gay Rights” agenda.

It seems that just about anything has the potential of being reclassified as a mental illness to silence opposition, including climate change “denial,”

At the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of “eco-psychologists”, led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that “climate change denial” should be classified as a form of “mental disorder”.

The more that we become absorbed into the EUSSR the bigger the danger these corrupt and intolerant politicians and ’scientists’ become. The future is clear. Just as preachers have already been getting questioned and even arrested for not being PC, the same will happen with opposition in other areas, so you’d better kuckle down and accept everything that is spoon-fed to you by the government and the BBC.

And a familiar excuse these days for bad behaviour is that the culprit has been diagnosed with some mental disorder. Poor behaviour is now sometimes excused because the person has a disorder, such as ADHD. I see that adolescent antisocial behavior and adult antisocial behavior ar also on the on the list.

I know that mental problems can negatively affect a person’s behaviour, but I am also aware that the more everyday conditions that can be turned into “disorders” means an ever-increasing range of ‘treatments’ from Big Pharma, who now take over in some areas where common sense once prevailed. The loss of proper discipline in recent years (and probably also the increased number of children raised outside of stable families) has clearly increased behavioural problems among the young. Anti-psychotic drugs like Ritalin are now being prescribed to thousands of children. An article in today’s Mail suggests that coffee is just as effective.

When we read that 38% of the people in Europe have mental health problems, is this reliable or based on incorrect diagnoses?

When we further read that,

Some big drug companies are backing away from investment in research on how the brain works and affects behaviour, putting the onus on governments and health charities to stump up funding for neuroscience.

Is it because they know they are onto a good thing? Are they really just modern-day snake-oil salesmen?

Can you answer my question, what IS a mental disorder?

Is it whatever the government decides? Is it whatever society decides? Is it whatever the pharmaceutical corporations decide?

Is psychiatric diagnosis any more reliable than it was in Victorian times?

The consultation paper can be downloaded from here (pdf). It is quite lengthy and the actual questionnaire starts at page 35. The consultation period ends early December, but if you have an interest in preserving some vestige of decency in our society, please don’t leave it too late to get involved. This won’t just affect Scotland; it will end up spreading to the rest of the UK (like the smoking ban did). We all ought to know by now that these things are part of a global agenda.

These are the two basic discussion points raised by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, who is Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy,

…on the possibility of allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships and the possible introduction of same sex marriage.

We are assured that,

This Government believes in religious tolerance and the freedom to worship. We also believe in equality and diversity.

Sounds nice and cosy, doesn’t it; like everyone is catered for? The reality is that the two are sometimes incompatible and friction is created and people are made to do things against their will or face the consequences, so that, for example, if a B&B owner’s conscience doesn’t permit him to rent double beds to a couple of homosexuals, instead of those people simply acknowledging that others have different beliefs (isn’t diversity supposed to be a good thing?) and booking into alternative accommodation, they take the hump at being ‘offended’ and cause trouble.

And what exactly does it mean to ‘believe in diversity’? Obviously, it has to be an approved kind of diversity, as we have seen too many times already.

I haven’t read the whole document (yet), but here is a statement from Nicola Sturgeon which jumped out at me from the BBC’s article;

“However, we are aware that for religious reasons, some faith groups and celebrants may not want to solemnise same-sex marriages, and that is why we are making it clear that they should not be obliged to do so.”

An honest approach would have been to admit that many (not some) faith groups will not (not may not want to) solemnise these same-sex ‘marriages’.

But despite her insistence that they “should not be obliged to do so,” this question appears on the Consultation:

Question 14

Do you agree that religious bodies should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

In other words, mob rule may end up determining how groups and individuals are allowed to behave in matters of conscience. The logical conclusion is that this country will end up having a few state-registered churches (the ones that go along with the government) and all the others will be driven underground, just like in China.

That’s what will happen here if this agenda continues. In a sinister development, Tory MP (yes, Tory MP) Mike Weatherley has written to David Cameron and seems to be suggesting that churches that refuse to bless the union of man and man/woman and woman should forfeit the right to perform all marriages.

“Gay Rights” always was about changing the definition of marriage. Those early gay liberation militants knew this had to happen if their way of life was to have any chance of being considered equal to heterosexual unions. What is surprising is that so many people now support the obliteration of normality and destruction of society (destruction is inevitable if the basic building blocks – families – are weakened). That’s the power of an infiltrated media for you.

If same sex marriage goes ahead then schoolchildren will be subjected to even more propaganda from the likes of Stonewall, who are already encouraging youngsters to wear frocks to help them discover their ‘feminine side’.

How much worse are we going to let our society become just to allow homosexuals, a very small minority, to feel that their abnormal behaviour is normal?

That is all this is about, after all – but dressed up as some great crusade for equality.

That consultation paper lists the countries where same-sex marriage is already legal:

List of jurisdictions which have established same sex marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Mexico (Mexico City only but recognised throughout Mexico)
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United States (some states only)

Each of these countries has very serious problems due to their increasingly liberal ‘values’ and multiculturalism.

The warning is there. Some people will laugh, of course. Some people will call me names, of course. Some people will ignore the warnings from history, of course.

To these people, all I can say is, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Consider this. Can you think of any culture in any part of the world at any time pre-1990 which allowed two people of the same sex to get “married” and be legally recognised as such?

Were they all ‘homophobic’ or is there a very good reason for not accepting hedonistic, barren lifestyles as normal for the good of the tribe?

UPDATE 9.0PM – I had also intended to make this point – if same-sex “marriage” is approved, some people will be calling for civil partnerships to be extended to included heterosexual couples. Needless to say that this would weaken the institution of marriage, and therefore society, even further.

I just had a look at Leggy’s blog after writing that first paragraph and saw that he has written about some of the things I was about to write about. My dilemma now is whether to suggest you just read his post, try to write my own without copying bits from his, or forgetting it altogether and sticking on one of my classic comedy DVDs and relaxing.

What to do? What to do?

Actually, some of these latest news stories are crazier than the things that happen in Fawlty Towers, George and Mildred and even Red Dwarf.

The other day, I finished watching all 112 episodes of Tales of the Unexpected. You may be wondering what heinous crime I committed to warrant such a cruel and unusual punishment. A few were excellent and some were woeful and the rest somewhere in between.

But not much is unexpected nowadays, so when the Liverpool Daily Post announces that,

A-Level results went up for the 29th consecutive year

It isn’t unexpected, because it has been obvious for years that it’s a stitch up,

…the number of A-level students getting top marks nearly doubled between 1997 and 2010.

The reasons for this are numerous – A-level papers have got easier, examination boards are more lax, teachers are better at teaching to the test – but few people believe it’s because our children have actually become more intelligent. If you compare the performance of 15-year-old British schoolchildren to their counterparts in other developed countries when it comes to reading, science and maths, they’ve got worse, not better.

Why does the government want to make youngsters believe that they are more intelligent than they are? It is right to encourage children and to praise them, but not to lie to them. Not to give them false hopes that they can go to university and get a degree and become a brilliant whatever it is they want do be, when the reality is that if they aren’t up to it they will end up deep in debt and unable to get a job that earns enough to pay it back. They will have wasted years of their lives when, if the system was run honestly, they could have learned a useful trade instead or been otherwise employed.

My feeling is that this whole charade has been devised to produce a shortage of workers as an excuse to increase migration and also to get as many people as possible into debt to prepare them for a lifetime of servitude to the ’system’ perhaps eventually to try and make them more compliant to being ‘chipped’ at some stage in order to keep getting credit and able to buy the necessities.

Whatever the ulterior motives, sending half of school leavers to further education – after they have already received twelve or thirteen years of education (allegedly) – seems no way to ensure we have a productive economy.

But we know that the economy doesn’t matter to the elite, because another thing they expect us to believe in is the manmade climate change fraud, which is just another way to de-industrialise us while squeezing out yet more money from us in “green” taxes.

So even more old folk will die of the cold in winter with increased electric and gas bills, but like the thousands of teenagers whose lives are blighted unnecessarily by debt, most politicians will turn a blind eye to it all.

And talking of climate change, the climate surrealists are now so desperate to sell their wares to an increasingly savvy public, that they have been coming out with even more hot air than Al Gore in his fantasy ‘documentary’ An Inconvenient Truth.

This was the film that was sent to every secondary school in Britain and which so upset Stewart Dimmock, a school governor from Dover, that he took the Government to court for brainwashing children with it – and won. I bet the BBC hated having to cover that story, because as the government’s propaganda arm, it has to perpetuate all sorts of myths.

One of Gore’s fraudulent claims in the film was the idea that:

for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”

But despite no evidence at all, how many people still believe that polar bears are drowning for lack of ice?

Now we are expected to believe that overweight people are responsible for climate change.

But first prize in the things they expect us to believe category must go to NASA, who are suggesting that aliens might destroy the earth – not because, as Leg-iron suggests:  “Perhaps the scientists are worried that aliens will see fat people from space” – but because our carbon emissions could be considered a risk to their civilisations.

Even though carbon dioxide levels were much higher in Earth’s past and even though any alien civilisation on some far-flung planet would not be affected in the slightest by our use of incandescent filament light bulbs, we are to be afraid of angry monsters from outer space.

Some people believe that governments will announce a fake alien landing in order to panic the public, thus allowing them to bring in martial law on a global scale. I wrote about the possibility of this last year, after another extraterrestrial claim by NASA which was nothing of the sort, but nevertheless, still helps keep the possibility of ‘alien’ life alive in people’s minds.

But to believe there are all sorts of aliens out there is to believe in something else quite unbelievable: The Theory of Evolution. Consider what I wrote at the time:

People need a paradigm shift here. I speak as a Creationist, of course, but I believe there are dangerous misunderstandings which surround evolution. I don’t think “life” can occur as readily as many people have been led to believe.

There is a Law of Biogenesis which states that, “life arises from pre-existing life, not from non-living material”.

To believe contrary to Louis Pasteur’s Law is hardly a new idea, “The ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones…”

This is especially interesting as we are again living in an age where Gaia worship is widely practised, this time in the form of devout environmentalism.

But I suspect that NASA will keep putting out “alien” stories, especially in times where money is tight, to keep the government funding coming through.

And it is vital to keep up the pretence if a government ever stages an “alien” invasion as a pretext to removing the remaining freedoms even the bin Laden fearmongering couldn’t reach.

And this brings me nicely onto my final topic, the attacks of 9/11 (Osama bin Laden was not considered a suspect by the FBI).

It amazes me how many people can watch the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 and think buildings fall this way due to fire. WTC7 was not hit by a plane yet came down on the afternoon of 11th September 2001 like a controlled demolition in near freefall speed onto its own footprint. I know people are in denial when they will not even admit that it looks peculiar. The only time they will ever have seen a building collapse like WTC7 will have been a controlled demolition using carefully pre-planted explosives. But to admit government involvement to themselves would be to acknowledge that the world is a scarier and more unpredictable place than they thought it was; than they want it to be.

But what is really scary are the consequences of not facing the truth. The consequences are exactly as we are seeing actually happening to us: climate change used against us to tax us even further and shut down our industry; a country and its people steeped in debt; unjust laws and restrictions put on us to fight the “War on Terror” – and a global government to oversee all these things.

It is best to face the truth sooner rather than later.