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)

The agenda is exactly the same all over the Western World: make people feel afraid of expressing opinions that are “off-message”. It’s globalism; global tyranny. It is just developing at slightly different speeds depending on the success of the opposition by decent, aware people. The threats to our freedoms – very basic freedoms, at that – are increasing all the time, as evidenced by this story: Footballer sacked over homophobic tweet aimed at Gareth Thomas.

Mike Ford, manager of the Southern Football League Premier Division club, said the decision was taken in response to Steele tweeting about Thomas’s appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. Steele wrote: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse”.

And that is it. Out the dressing room door you go, Steele.

Ford told the BBC: “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.”

But Mr Ford, manager of the diddy team playing three divisions down from the Football League, gives Steele no chance to make amends. He is an outcast and forced to wear a metaphorical yellow star in the football world.

Steele, 38, had a long career in the Football League playing for clubs including Shrewsbury, Oxford United and Leyton Orient, and was part of the Brighton squad that won the old Division Two in 2001-02.

Some careers end because of broken legs, illness and accidents. Mr Ford ended Lee Steele’s career because of a quip on the internet.

Reacting to the sacking, the Justin Campaign against homophobia in football said: “While it is never pleasing to see someone lose a position in a club or company, we fully applaud the club’s decision to terminate the player’s contract.

Fancy that; no mercy from the ‘gay’ lobby. No calls for a bit of common sense and sense of proportion. They don’t even realise that to show forgiveness and clemency would further their aims no end.

“For far too long homophobic comments like the ones Steele made have been defended using the erroneous argument that such remarks as simply harmless ‘banter’. However, we no longer accept racist ‘banter’, and likewise, we must never accept homophobic ‘banter’.

To help answer that tired old comparison with racism, and other points, I will turn to this interesting analysis on the Guardian Watch blog entitled, Homophobia – The Gays’ Secret Weapon.

The writer has some sympathy for the club’s position, but then states,

So for the footballer in this case to be sacked for expressing what is a very very common feeling amongst straight men [‘latent homosexual tendencies’], especially straight men who find themselves in environments surrounded by other men, such as football, seems incredibly unfair. He was basically sacked for being a man!

I think this tells us exactly what is going on – and deserves to be in bold text:

This increased use of ‘homophobia’ as a ‘criminal’ offence is all part of the Big Gay Project. Again as Simpson has so clearly explained (back in 1996 in his book Anti Gay for example), the ‘gay’ identity has developed in part through the development of the concept of ‘homophobia’:
‘So, in the As [After Stonewall] epoch, homosexuality, with its nasty medicinal odour, was now an increasingly redundant term. Instead, ‘homo-phobia’, a word with a nasty medicinal odour, was coined to explain the origins of the obviously mentally imbalanced idea that gay wasn’t good. While the innocent BS [Before Stonewall] homosexual was the victim of pathologisation and prejudice, the guilty AS [After Stonewall]  homophobe was obviously deserving of pathologisation and prejudice. ‘

Now onto the comparison with ‘ racism’:

I find this conflation of racism with homophobia troubling, in part for the reasons I have stated above. If ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are in fact an aspect of nearly all men, then ‘homophobia’ does not relate to an ‘other’, separate from the ‘homophobe’ as racism does.

However, there are ways in which ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ DO function in similar ways as discourses. The ‘born this way’ version of gay identities suggests that being ‘gay’, like having a certain skin colour, or being from a certain place, is innate, natural, fixed. But, as is often the case with identity politics there is an irony here. It is, in part, using Simpson’s ideas,  this ‘fixed, natural, innate’ gay identity that enables ‘homophobia’ to exist.  Without ‘homophobia’ ‘gay’ may not be here at all, and this is why gays use ‘homophobia’ so strategically in their crusades.

As James Baldwin has put it so eloquently:

“People invent categories in order to feel safe. White people invented black people to give white people identity. . . . Straight cats invented faggots so they could sleep with them without becoming faggots themselves.”

– James Baldwin to Nikki Giovanni

I might add to that statement – ‘faggots invented homophobia so they could continue to exist as a distinct identity group in an ever-changing world’.

So if we want to get rid of homophobia (and indeed racism, for whilst skin colour is something we are born with, the ‘black’ or ‘white’ identity is not), we need to challenge the categories on which it is based. And that means challenging the notion of a ‘gay’ identity, especially challenging the idea that ‘gay’ is particularly special, particularly oppressed, and particularly, to use Simpson’s word: ‘fabby’.

I don’t know where the writer gets the idea that ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are an aspect of most men; it would be interesting to read any believable research. Certainly, there has been a major shift in what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour. As the writer indicates, homosexuality was the mental illness of the past, but now not thinking that ‘gay’ is good is considered its replacement clinical condition.

The extra danger now to freedom is that once something has been labelled a mental condition, it makes it easier for ‘dissenting’ individuals to be abused by the state, as happened in the USSR:

Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

Many people wonder why one or two percent of the population has so much influence in how our society is evolving, or rather, being re-engineered, but in my opinion the main reasons for the promotion of homosexuality are these:

1) as a divide and rule tactic;

2) for the weakening of traditional family life, society’s basic unit of strength;

3) as one part of the agenda to erode the West’s moral values and culture;

4) to aid in the control of thought and speech.

It has nothing to do with equality, fairness and justice and everything to do with control of the masses. The Tories promised to reverse this madness of political correctness, but it keeps marching on. Of course it does; they are party to it. They wouldn’t be allowed to form a government if they weren’t keen as mustard. It’s a global phenomenon. It’s also surely one of the reasons we didn’t get our EU referendum. The EU is one of PC’s major steering groups and 27 countries are subject to its diktats, so that isn’t something the globalists will sit idly by and watch disintegrating if they can avoid it.

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.

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.

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.

This has to be one of the saddest sights in the world, indicating a union of two people of the same sex who are settling for a fake life together, denying themselves the joy of true marriage, children and grandchildren.

Just to prove that the SNP are as keen to follow the same agendas as the Lib/Lab/Con Party on support for the European Union and love of social re-engineering, talk of “gay marriage” is in the air north of the Border. And just like in those other parties, people who express an opinion contrary to these agendas are portrayed as being fruit loops. People like me who argue (reasonably) calmly and logically are the “nutters” while those who try to shout down people with opposing views by calling them names and demanding they shut up and apologise, are standing proudly atop the moral high ground.

Yes, all the usual names have been trotted out for people like Dunfermline MSP, Bill Walker, who signed fellow SNP MSP John Mason’s motion against marriage being redefined in Scotland. And those names are the same ones I have been called: “bigot”, “homophobic” and accusations of living “in the Dark Ages”.

Sodom and Gomorrah were millennia before the Dark Ages, so just who is living in the past here?

Subrosa writes,

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason’s objection ‘a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion’ – and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.

She is concerned that should gay “marriage” become legal in Scotland, Mr Mason’s motion may be needed to protect clergy who do not want to perform ceremonies for same-sex unions. She writes,

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they’re not a paid up member then they can’t complain.

This isn’t just about redefining marriage and therefore society as a whole, but making churches conform and denying all people the right to act on their conscience.

When Labour were in national government, they engaged in a campaign of degeneration of society while condemning anyone who held traditional views, i.e. often the majority. It is therefore not surprising that Labour MP Thomas Docherty wrote a letter to Alex Salmond about Bill Walker’s comments and said to the First Minister,

break your silence on the despicable and disgusting comments.

Mr Docherty then claimed that Mr Salmond had gone mental when they discussed the issue at the opening of a new school. But it seems to have backfired on the intolerant Labour MP,

Councillor Douglas Chapman (SNP), chair of Fife education committee, said,

Any suggestion that Mr Salmond lost his temper is absolutely incorrect.

I was in the room along with guests and senior council officers and nothing untoward happened, other than Mr Docherty’s approach was totally inappropriate given that the focus of the visit was making children feel really proud of their new school.

In fact, most people in the room were unaware of any supposed incident and Mr Docherty and his press office are guilty of pure fiction. If anything, it was Mr Docherty’s inappropriate approach to Mr Salmond that was aggressive and the First Minister’s response was a model of restraint.

Mr Docherty’s childish behaviour was questionable in raising a political issue at the opening of a new school, which was a day for the proud pupils, parents and teachers.

Mr Docherty then left – presumably to prepare his fantasy press release – and didn’t even have the good grace to stay to share the day with the children.

These actions will be seen by many of his constituents as being not only juvenile and inappropriate but wholly crass and opportunistic.

There seems to be a feeling among the general population that “gay marriage” won’t affect them at all. I disagree, because there are sound reasons why homosexual activity has been a taboo throughout the world, as it is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

And when homosexuality becomes accepted, that society naturally suffers the decline that comes with hedonism. As I wrote on Leg-iron’s coverage of the subject,

The sort of society children grow up in will define that society when they are in charge (or think and act like they are in charge).

The resulting sexual ‘revolution’ (of all sorts) has caused all manner of social breakdown in the West.

Naturally, this affects us all.

And it does in so many ways. Changes in society’s norms have seen the need for many more houses, which has resulted in a shortage and house prices and rents going through the roof. It is not just financially that social re-engineering is costing everyone, but through intolerance and rudeness, fear and crime and the attitude of the police.

A marriage is between man and woman. God declared it. The human anatomy confirms it. Healthy societies need healthy relationships for them to flourish.

This is not me being a “bigoted Nazi homophobe,” but a realist. If marriage is redefined, it will weaken society even further. We will all pay for it even more.

It is believed that much of the disorder during three nights of violence in London was orchestrated on sites such as Twitter, which was monitored by the police.

BlackBerry Messenger was also used by youths planning riots. The instant text messaging system cannot easily be monitored by police.

Essex Police apparently had no problem the other day, as they reassure residents they are working to keep county safe.

A 20-year-old man from Colchester who allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight has been charged with encouraging or assisting in the commission of an indictable only offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. He has been conditionally bailed to appear at Colchester Magistrates’ Court on September 1.

Essex Police officers,

have vowed to take a robust approach to anyone who uses social networking sites to stimulate fictitious rumours.

It reminds me of the jokes on Twitter that landed people in court. Paul Chambers very obviously just pretended that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport “sky high” and Tory Birmingham councillor Gareth Compton requested that someone stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death after her discussion about human rights on Radio 5 Live. They were arrested.

There had been calls from politicians for a Twitter and Facebook blackout during riots. I suppose this seemed easier for MPs than dealing effectively with the problem, having created it in the first place.

So who or what can we pin the blame on for these riots? Most commentators agree that genuine poverty is not the reason. People who are genuinely poor need food, shelter, clothing and fuel, not huge big tellies, designer trainers and even more bling.

Melanie Phillips blames the liberals,

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

She writes about the liberal intelligentsia’s attack on the family, welfare dependency, the victim culture and human rights, multiculturalism and the shattering of “any attachment to a shared and over-arching culture”

Ms Phillips has a special mention for the Hideous Harman,

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

Historian David Starkey caused shockwaves by suggesting that whites were becoming black. It was a dangerous thing to say in this day and age, but was he being “racist” as so many were quick to claim? Barrister and former Tory MP, Jerry Hayes, wrote,

So the cool analysis that David Starkey was trying to explain, despite the wailings, squeals of outrage and shocked indignation, is this. Many young people have adopted a way of speech and a way of life that is alien to the tolerance and decency that is Britain. It glorifies the workshy, feckless fatherhood, gun crime and drugs. It worships greed and self gratification no matter whom it hurts. If you want further evidence just look at the subliminal messages and popularity of Gangsta Rap.

He makes it sound like another form of liberal ideology: selfish self-indulgence with no real connection or commitment to the community as a whole.

Another Tory MP, Robert Halfon, wrote on his blog,

…moral relativism, moral equivalence, family breakdown and absent fathers, the weakening of social capital (the glue that binds community together), the failure of our education system over decades (a huge proportion of children leave school illiterate) and the glorIfication of the drugs/gang culture have all contributed to this disaster.

In other words, the liberal agenda of the past few governments and that of the controlled “entertainment” industry.

However, Mohammed Abbas and Kate Holton believe that London rioters point to poverty and prejudice.

“It’s us versus them, the police, the system,” said an unemployed man of Kurdish origin in his early 20s, sitting at the entrance to a Hackney housing estate with four Afro-Caribbean friends who nodded in agreement.

“They call it looting and criminality. It’s not that. There’s a real hatred against the system,” he added, listing what he saw as the police prejudice, discrimination and lack of opportunity that led him and his friends to loot shops, torch bins and hurl missiles at police Monday.

Is this what multiculturalism and political correctness have delivered? Well, I don’t think it ever was about equality, but divide and conquer.

“There’s two worlds in this borough. More and more middle classes are coming and we’re being pushed out. The shops are pricing stuff like it’s the West End, we can’t afford the rents. We’re the outcasts, we’re not wanted any more.

“There’s nothing for us.”

Are these genuine reasons for complaint or unacceptable excuses for those exaggerated tantrums in the streets?

Is this bad feeling between the “poor” and the middle classes yet another front in the divide and conquer war?

One of the knee-jerk reactions has been the serving of eviction notices to rioters who live in council houses. The first was in Wandsworth, but it was the son who was charged with breaking the law, not the tenant. This sounds as unjust to me as the looters ruining a man’s business. But when natural justice has been compromised to such an extent to accommodate the beliefs of others, political and religious, confusion was bound to reign.

What is the answer? If the problems we face as a society stem from the postwar liberal agenda and the socialists’ anti-family agenda and the divisive multicultural and political correct agendas then clearly these things must be rejected forthwith, because they have not brought the promised freedom or peace – that was just an illusion to get as all on board, but the reality is what we see today – a country in crisis – people without direction and little hope; broken families and fragmented communities; desperation dealt with through alcohol misuse and prescrption and illicit drug use.

Being tough on crime is important, but so is grabbing these failed, highly destructive ideologies by the scruff of the neck and throwing them into the depths of the ocean.

When English taxes are being used to subsidise services we apparently can’t afford for ourselves, I don’t discriminate between Scottish student paying nothing for uni or having their council taxes frozen and Greeks civil servants retiring at 53.

In another comment, Jim Morgan mentions the fact that we no longer have prescription charges in Scotland (as of this Spring).

Now, I think it is wrong that the devolved parts of the United Kingdom get these benefits and England doesn’t when we all pay the same rates of tax. It isn’t fair, but I think it is counterproductive to blame Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, especially as of the 650 Westminster parliamentary constituencies in the UK, 59 are in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. England has a whopping 533 MPs, allegedly representing their interests, so why not blame them when they clearly do not care about the “equality” most of them always bang on about?

Why blame a couple of million Labour voters in Scotland and Wales for the UK’s problems, while ignoring the larger number of Labour voters in England? This has bemused me for some time. I guess it is easier to blame others than to accept any responsibility for your own lack of action. Why hold your own elected representative to account when you can rant at the telly as News At Ten announce free prescriptions north of the Border?

The really stupid thing is that, while people get upset about tuition fees and prescription charges, the far weightier matter of treason has gone largely unnoticed and completely undealt with. Labour’s admitted re-engineering of society should have millions demanding trials for a number of anti-British villains who have skulked among us and slither through the corridors of power still.

Jim Morgan also writes,

England is governed by anti English British establishment.

Yes it is, but it is not a case of the rest of the UK ganging up on the English, giving them Chinese burns and stealing their pocket money so that we don’t have to pay for our prescriptions. The anti-British establishment hates us all equally, but the English are the dominant party and so they are the ones who have been earmarked for cultural genocide first. Likewise, our Judeo-Christian laws and customs are attacked because they are mainstream and have made us strong. The traditional family is undermined because it is the building block of a stable society. What is normal is being denormalised. Right becomes wrong and vice versa.

It is all to divide and conquer to bring this country to its knees. This is why I believe we should fight our common enemies together and not allow ourselves to be divided by all these crude, yet highly effective, social re-engineering tricks.

A comment from Paul Kevin Wiffen sums it up,

This is why the EU will always win! You people fall out with each other just like the Judean People’s Front verses the People’s Front of Judea. It’s the way the EU works, Divide and Conquer (they got it from Caesar’s Gallic Wars) they promote devolution, the Scots then hate the English and the English hate the Scots and hey presto, no-one attacks the EU any more! Get wise, stop having a go at each other and face the common enemy Brussels/Strasbourg. Otherwise we’ll be in EU chains forever!

So where are we going in this country? Will we carry on being paranoid and continue to whinge about being “offended” at every turn and demand “rights” designed to get one over our fellow man before he gets one over on us?

Will we ever learn to grow up and stop fiddling while Britain burns?