Things are still being banned left, right and centre, or threatened with censorship and people are being persecuted for daring to be religious. The Advertising Standards Authority has received complaints about Cranmer’s internet advert which he produced on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. It simply promotes marriage between a man and a woman, but this is ‘homophobic and offensive’ according to some. The ASA wrote,

We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification.

In Ireland, there is a move to ban the advertising of most cheeses during children’s television programmes.

Perhaps that’s the time most mice tune in.

In a California town, you need to buy a permit if you want to have your friends over to study the Bible:

Chuck and Stephanie Fromm already have been fined $300 for holding Bible studies for their friends at their home, and they face the potential for additional fines of $500 for each study held, according to a legal team taking their case to court.

Land of the free? In God we trust?

Next up will be three or four “official” church denominations like in China, all sympathetic to the ruling elite.

Rulers in many countries are terrified of real Christians because their beliefs are usually vastly different.

When Bishop Daniel Jenky urged believers to oppose President Obama’s “radical pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda” at the ballot box in November, he was hit with an IRS complaint thanks to a national secularist lobby group.

At a gathering of Catholic men on Saturday, the Illinois prelate had slammed Obama’s mandate forcing religious employers to cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs. The unprecedented attack on religious freedom, he said, signaled that the president “seems intent on following a similar path” as past dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Otto von Bismarck.

Those nice secularists were upset because what the bishop said seemed to be “a clear violation of federal law… Churches are tax-exempt institutions, and they aren’t allowed to intervene in partisan politics.”

So, evil politicians must be allowed to just get on with it without question? I wonder if Christians in Lithuania are allowed to question why a neo-Nazi youth group in their country has been adopted onto a council which receives European Union funding.

Back in California and it may soon be illegal for parents to talk to their own children about sexual desires they consider immoral.

California Senate Bill 1172 would make any kind of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) by therapists, psychologists, counselors and parents an illegal act punishable by arrest, fines and/or jail time.  The bill, which has already made it through its first committee hearing, would require adults seeking therapy or counseling to fill out a consent form containing specific questions on sexual orientation.  Most professionals who have reviewed the consent form and questions are against the measure.

UK politics is as bizarre as ever, with both Labour and the Tories seeming to be keen to hold an EU referendum in the next Parliament. It’s never *this* Parliament, of course. That’s because they are compulsive liars with no mandate from their globalist puppet masters to be allowed to honour their previous “cast-iron” pledges, but they will continue to make the same “promises” because they know that so many people find comfort in lies and that they keep getting away with it.

That’s it for now. I’m away to read the Bible and eat half a pound of cheddar. Needless to say, a warrant for my arrest will have been issued by the time you read this.

The ‘equality’ bandwagon keeps rolling on, despite Cameron’s promise to stop it (you mean you believed him?). Lynne Featherstone, the Inequalities Minister, wants us all to reconsider what marriage is so that two women or two blokes can tie the knot.  Ms Featherstone says that the church doesn’t own marriage, but as Cranmer writes,

But the state does not ‘own’ marriage, either, Ms Featherstone. It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature. The state cannot change nature: it can legislate to call the rain ’sunshine’, but the rain is still the rain; it’s neither good nor bad; it’s just the rain. And it will still make you wet, whatever you call it.

Marriage is essential for the functioning of society: in Scripture, it is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

There are three principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. It is the erosion of this foundation which has contributed to ‘Breakdown Britain’.

The thing is…

If, as Ms Featherstone says, ‘it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future’, why stop at a redefinition of marriage which includes homosexuals? If marriage is ‘owned by the people’, surely any redefinition must be subject to the democratic will, yet the British people have not been asked about this: proposals for ‘gay marriage’ were not included in any party’s manifesto at the last general election, and there has been no referendum. So is Ms Featherstone saying that a minority group somehow has the right to impose its ‘unnatural’ redfinition on the majority? If so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives? If the state has the authority to eradicate the heterosexual imperative, who says ‘equality’ must be the new immutable foundation? Surely it is up to ‘the people’? And if marriage may be polygamous, why not incestuous? If ‘the people’ wish to privatise the institution, there is no logical end to the varieties and expressions of ‘family, society and personal freedoms’ which will result. If, a decade hence, they want marriage to embrace consensual polygamy, incest and co-homeowners, who is Lynne Featherstone to stop them?

As the Roman Catholic adoption agencies discovered, and as those who administer school curricula are finding, the inexorable quest for equality does not deviate for any exemption: for equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space. There will be no equality until two men can marry in their local parish church, regardless of the theo-political misgivings of the vicar.

But ‘language evolves’, you say: marriage is being redefined to reflect the new societal norm. There was a time when ‘gay’ meant ‘happy’, Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a symbol of God’s covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13). Over the decades, homosexuals have appropriated ‘gay’ and ‘pride’ and the world has not ended. But these meanings have evolved incrementally, even naturally (and are still doing so, for ‘gay’ in teen vernacular has come to mean ‘crap’). But this was not the state decreeing change. The Government is proposing to redefine marriage forever, and it will use the full force of its bureacracy to inculcate the new reality: no longer will paperwork talk of husbands and wives, but of partners. No longer will we be male and female, but simply androgynous individuals. And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised. This is not organic change: it is societal revolution.

If ‘gay marriage’ is the conservative thing to do because, as the Prime Minister avers, it strengthens society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong? Are they all homophobic ‘backwoodsmen’ and reactionary ‘Turnip Taliban’? And let us not pretend the alliance against ‘gay marriage’ stops (or starts) at the Church: Lynn Featherstone is uniting the churches, synagogues, gurdwaras and mosques in a faith alliance against the Government. The religious conscience will not be cowed and bullied into submission in the name of ‘equality’, ‘fairness’ or ‘tolerance’.

Coalition For Marriage is uniting people of all faiths and none against ‘gay marriage’. So far, it has collected 39,000 signatures (how many have put their names to a petition in support of ‘gay marriage’?). If the will of the people is sovereign, surely Ms Featherstone must heed it. If it be for ‘the people’ to decide the definition of marriage, and the majority opt for one based on the complementary natures of men and women, who is she to say otherwise?

His Grace saved me a lot of work there, saying largely what I also believe. Two things he wrote seemed particularly chilling:

For equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space.

Some people will think this sounds good, but it is a sign of intense authoritarianism which will do nobody any good. Religious persecution is rife in the few (openly) communist countries which remain and this, of course, goes hand-in-hand with restrictions in freedom generally. You cannot kick out Christ and still enjoy the benefits of a Judeo-Christian culture. It clearly doesn’t work that way, so when the former Lib Dem councillor won his court case the other day to have prayers banned, and if pressure groups (this latest story is from Australia - it’s the same agenda everywhere) are successful in making religious education classes “culturally diverse and unbiased” then our very culture will continue to be eaten away. Children will believe that the values on which our society is based are no more important than those of any religious ethos in the whole world.

Some people have a fascinating hatred for all things Christian and for some devilish reason will risk any replacement, even Sharia law.

And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised.

There have been a number of registrars disciplined for not wanting to deal with civil partnerships, but full-blown ‘gay marriage’ will make conscientious objection more difficult. It would probably be impossible for me to get certain jobs because I am not ‘committed to equality’. At least, not the Government’s warped notions of what that word means.

It is not enough to treat people with respect or tolerance – you also have to agree with everything they do (unless they believe in normal British ethics and customs, naturally) and to help them to do it.

I have just read highlights of a recent interview between Elton John and his ‘partner’, and Peter Tatchell in ‘Attitude’ magazine (contains some bad language from Elton, of course).

Education against homophobia and all prejudice should be a compulsory subject in every school, from primary level upwards, with no opt-outs for independent and free schools and no right of parents to withdraw their kids. There should be exams in tolerance. The results should go on pupil’s records and should have to be declared when applying for higher education and jobs.

I have just asked him (under the link to this piece on his Facebook page) is this a new, sinister, objective in collective mind control? Agree with me or you won’t get a job??
 
And as Cranmer says, what’s to stop marriage being redefined ad infinitum? What happens when Muslim (and Mormon!) fundamentalists demand polygamy? And people ‘marry’ their pets, so why shouldn’t they have marriage rights so that their ‘partner’ is protected when they are dead? Don’t answer that, but it was one of the reasons put forward for civil partnerships.

And of course, what about the paedophiles? Don’t they have rights? People will say that’s different because it’s all about consent. I have read at least two stories about judges who thought that men who had sex with 11 and 12 year-olds had been led on and therefore had an excuse to behave the way they did. There have been suggestions in recent years to lower the age of consent to 13 in Northern Ireland and Scotland – when there is no more than a three year age difference. Homosexual acts were taboo, then made legal for 21 year-olds, then 18 year-olds and then 16 year-olds – to make the behaviour ’equal’ to heterosexuality, of course. Where will it end?

The terrifying thing is that some people believe this equality stuff so much that they will accept grown men and women legally being allowed to have sex with children.

Eventually, you’ll have to uphold this belief if you want a Council job, even one (or especially one) where the wellbeing of vulnerable children is at stake.

Peter Tatchell wants the age of consent reduced, but I’m not sure if he ever says what to, but you know how successful he has already been in changing society. He also believes that children have ’sexual rights’. We are made increasingly aware of ‘children’s rights’ generally, including their ‘right’ to seek confidential medical advice from their GP (part of the whole sexual revolution, of course). ‘Children’s rights’ sounds really good, but in practise, it actually means that the parents can lose jurisdiction over their own family and the state is in charge. During my visit to a doctor’s surgery a few weeks ago, I couldn’t help but notice the posters and leaflets about teenage sex and confidentiality. The state is encouraging promiscuity and then helping keep it a secret from the parents, thereby assuming control of their behaviour.

Far too many people in the West are delusional now after decades of intense media mind control. They have lost the plot to such an extent that they cannot even see how bizarre, unnatural and plain wrong it would be for two people of the same gender to get ’married’. Their minds have been trashed by technology! And this is why many people will believe in future campaigns involving children - if it’s being done for reasons of ‘equality’ or for sexual ’rights’ then it must be good and anyone who says otherwise is a ranting, hate-filled Bible-thumper who needs to realise that this is 2012 (or whenever it happens) and not the Dark Ages.  

And many will doubtless say the same things when objections are made about children sleeping in the beds of pervert adults with full support of the law (or man’s new interpretation of the ‘law’). The schoolchildren might have learned at the new religious education classes that Mohammed married a six year-old, but that this was a good thing (how could it not be; it’s Islam: the Establishment’s favourite religion!) and that it’s okay to be one of several wives to one man.

So you see, the possibilities for redefining marriage are almost limitless and the opportunities for change are already there. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples then I don’t think it will take as much effort by other groups to have their agendas catered for in the same way. Everyone is ‘equal’, right? Everyone’s sexual behaviour is ‘equal’, right? Children’s rights are starting to trump their parents. All religions are equal. With such a set-up, anything could now happen.

Already, over half of British children are born to unmarried and single mothers. Making such a mockery of marriage may make it even less fashionable to heterosexuals. The end result is easy to see: more people will be bringing up children under temporary living arrangements and the dysfunction in society will continue to worsen.

So instead of approving of everything the Government wants you to approve of and loving everything they say you should love, try making your own decisions on such matters. Realise why these changes are happening, if you don’t already, and if it isn’t too late, help restore the country to a more civilised place to live. Don’t say what’s happening won’t affect you. It will, therefore it is your right to have a say. Not only your right, but a moral obligation.

I am on disc number 14 of my Laurel and Hardy box set, so just seven to go after this one. I was right when I said they would last me till the Spring. That’s practically all I have watched in the past two months. I saw an episode of Hart to Hart as well. It was the one with the unbelievable plot and the incredibly corny dialogue. No, I can’t be more specific.

Nothing much changes from month to month anyway. The UK Government still cannot help but stick its nose into the affairs of other countries and threaten them with ‘democracy’.

And Cameron still minces around trying to be all things to all people: a Europhile and a Eurosceptic; against political correctness and pro-equality in all its unjust forms; pro-Christian and pro-secular humanism.

He probably also claims to be pro-life and pro-abortion as part of his devotion to two-facedness.

But of course, he is merely a puppet of the same forces as New Labour and he’s putting on an act and not a convincing one.

The football team I supported in my younger days went into administration: the Teddy Bears – the Queen’s Eleven: Rangers. To make matters worse, they had ten points deducted, although they could have done with getting ten points added on if they had hoped to catch up with Celtic. But imagine Glasgow without Rangers. It would be like Amsterdam without Ajax, Turin without Juventus, Brussels without Anderlecht or Liverpool without, er, Liverpool. And Celtic; what would become of Celtic?

Surely the Rangers brand is too big to fail and no top flight team in the world can match their 54 league titles. If Rangers fail, so will Celtic. Who in the East End of Glasgow is going to bother much after the loss of their other half? Where will the fun be in singing about the IRA when nobody’s chanting back about the UDA?

Or maybe it would be good for them both to perish, and Queen’s Park to resume their glory days of the 19th Century and Partick Thistle to start theirs. Maybe a new football order could grow, one which isn’t dominated by sectarianism, which makes the city look like it is populated by the last of the Neanderthals.

Labour MP, yes, Labour MP, David Lammy, has called for a return to Victorian laws on discipline, and basically condemns Labour Governments for their namby-pamby approach.

One day, even Labour MPs will realise that traditional values are/were better, such as effective discipline, traditional marriage, UK independence, Judeo-Christian-based laws, the right to life of the unborn, etc., but I fear that by the time it has seeped through their thick skulls it will be too late.

One day, they will realise that they actively allowed our precious country to be ruined through their own stupidity and cowardice. They will have to accept that they stood by as millions of unborn children were killed out of convenience. When the deceptions conjured up by the feminists evaporate, they will have to accept the truth that these human beings were murdered and that a woman doesn’t have the ‘right to control her own fertility’ while she is carrying another.

When society has finally collapsed in on itself, politicians will have no other option but to admit that their family-destroying agendas involving quickie divorces, sex ‘education’ and ‘gay rights’ were major contributory factors.

And when all our remaining freedoms and money have been siphoned off to pan-European and global institutions and on waging war for regime change to benefit big corporations, they just might consider how badly they misjudged this ‘New World Order’ they thought would solve the world’s problems, but instead brought increased repression and deprivation.

Jack Straw has also been talking sense. I know, I can’t believe it either, but he wants to implement Gordon Brown’s idea from 2003 (while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) when he, “argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain.”

Apparently, Gordon Brown thought it was a good idea to keep our money and spend it here on regional development programmes rather than laundering it by the £billions through the EU. And you thought he was completely bonkers, but he wasn’t. Not completely.

Even Alan Johnson also argued in 2003 that regional policy ought to be “resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels …”

Clearly, this incredibly obvious thing to do wasn’t done. That’s because the agenda has been for the EU to be allowed to gain as much power and influence over us as possible, making our escape all the more difficult the more we become entangled in its web. The UK (and the other 26 children in the EU) get their pocket money from the EU and the EU flag gets put on documents and signs so that people think of it as a generous giver of money, when all this time we could have done everything ‘they’ have funded, plus a whole lot more had our funds not been funnelled through the corrupt EU bureaucratic system first.

But of course, a politician’s default position is to toe the party line and that often involves a dereliction of duty to his country and constituents. When the politician is also a numbnut, we get the likes of Charles Kennedy:

Kennedy makes it clear that Cameron must never again isolate Britain as he did at last month’s summit when he wielded the British veto. The former Lib Dem leader, who is president of the European Movement, tells the Guardian: “We want to see the British government work with our EU partners to make the EU a vehicle for growth and employment. If we are to keep our place in the world we must regain our competitiveness and we can do that better when we work together. Britain’s place is at the centre of where decisions are made.”

Were we really “at the centre of where decisions are made” the EU might just be a tad more tolerable for us. It might be good for British business rather than strangle it with regulations.  

Kennedy is one of 18 pro-European MPs and peers from the three main parties who have signed a letter in the Guardian in support of the EU. Signatories also include the equally pointless ’Sir’ Menzies Campbell and ‘Lord’ Kinnock.

It is worth remembering that the Kinnocks have personally made enough money out of the EU (i.e. us) to fund a major regeneration programme which would benefit thousands of people.

It is clear why he loves the EU. He’s not daft, is he? He is living proof that socialism can be good for some people.

So, here’s hoping that this wave of sense continues to the point where feminism goes the same way as the T-Rex, political correctness is considered something out of the Dark Ages and the EU becomes as dead as a dodo.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be on the lookout for more outbreaks of political sanity.

There have been many different reactions to the news of the planned referendum for Scottish independence, from both sides of the border. There are many Scottish Unionists (even though few vote for the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party) and fancy there being so many English people who are pro-Scottish independence. Not because they think we can find success alone and they wish us all the best and ‘let’s stay friends’, but because they perceive that they subsidise the Scots and they are driven by spite over the issues of free prescriptions and tuition fees and they see Scotland as an albatross around their sassenecks!

But the whole world should appreciate us and lavish us with gifts for making life better over centuries. Everyone knows about the great inventions of the telephone, television, and deep-fried Mars bar, but did you know that?….

We scored the best ever World Cup goal? (Yes, in football!).

Invented chicken tikka massala (at least Glasgow chef Ali Ahmed Aslam lays claim to it).

James Simpson knocked the world out when he invented chloroform.

James Maxwell’s ‘three-colour method’ led him to present the world’s first colour photograph in 1861.

Golf was invented in Scotland. Everyone knows that, but did you know that James II banned it as an unwelcome distraction from learning archery?

Without Glaswegian engineer James Watt, “the Industrial Revolution might never have happened. He developed a way of making steam engines efficient, to speed trains along.”

Lord Kelvin discovered and named ‘absolute zero’.

Scotland can also boast of these:

Driving on the left (1772)

Peter Pan (J M Barrie).

‘Fax machine’ (1846)

Sir Thomas Lipton (of Lipton’s Tea fame) organised the first World Cup in 1909 (the first FIFA tourney was in 1930 of course, as every schoolboy should be able to tell you). West Auckland who represented England won. I say this to remind ourselves that England sometimes do well at things too.

First patent for a flush toilet by Alexander Cummings (1775).

Gin and tonic (don’t know who invented ice and a slice).

First hypodermic syringe by Alexander Wood (1853).

King James authorising his Bible.

Treasure Island (Robert Louis Stevenson).

Paraffin.

Penicillin.

Pneumatic tyres.

Postage stamp adhesive.

Radar.

William Cullen demonstrated the first method of artificial refrigeration in 1748.

Elvis was Scottish?? “Yes, even the father of rock was a Jock, as a fan discovered when he traced his idol’s ancestors back to Lonmay in Aberdeenshire in the 1700s.”

Tarmac.

Criminal fingerprinting.

Umpteen football managers who have led English clubs to victory.

Davy Crockett (apparently).

The Thirty-Nine Steps (John Buchan).

US Navy (founded by John Paul Jones).

US Presidents – “An astonishing 23 presidents of the United States have Scots or Scots-Irish heritage, including many of the most distinguished: Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. The George Bushes, senior and junior, also originate from Scotland, though obviously it was Texas that made them that way.” 

Vacuum Flask (Sir James Dewar “made the invention in 1892 but failed to get a patent and so did not profit from his ingenuity”).

David Livingstone.

Burns Night.

You get the picture.

There is ample consolation in all the above successes to counter the blow of finding out that the haggis, bagpipes and tartan were not Scottish inventions.

Unfortunately, we also gave the world bad things. The article lists some of them:

‘Scottish Mafia’ – “The advent of New Labour brought to the frontline rather a lot of old Scots, from Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to John Reid, Derry Irvine and Charlie Falconer.” New Labour, of course, was responsible for immoral wars for corporate empire; dumbing down education so much that McDonald’s needed to give school-leavers lessons in basic arithmetic before they could serve up a burger in a bap; did away with Section 28 so that children could have homosexuality promoted to them ad nauseam (no wonder they didn’t have time to learn how to count) and of course, the traitor with a face like a bag of spanners, Gordon Brown, sneaked off to sign the Lisbon Treaty, despite his party promising us a referendum.

David Cameron – another traitor and liar (EU referendum?) - is of Scottish stock.

Billy Connolly – used to be funny.

What happened to us?

Savour Archie Gemmill’s goal from 1978 when he helped defeat the Dutch 3-2.

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.

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.

1. Enforcement: These ladies agree: we should worry about those crazy people who don’t want to pay vast amounts of tax so that the EU can afford to orchestrate all our lives.

2.  Animal Rights: “The bats in the roof are protected, so we were unable to fix the hole and the rain came in.” [This one probably is a regulation already.]

3. Enforcement: An EU inspector rides into town incognito.

4. Animal Welfare: Poultry are forbidden from smoking.

5. Child Welfare: The moment an obese parent has to say goodbye to his child. The girl will be returned if he manages to lose 15 stone.

6. Animal Rights: Bears are reintroduced into Scotland, and as they are a protected species you have to let them eat you.

7. Health & Safety: Skeletons on bicycles must wear top hats and be accompanied by another cyclist at all times.

8. Environment: Children must dress up as penguins once a month to drill into them the need to pay lots of green taxes to stop global warming or all the real penguins will die of sunstroke.

9. Animal Welfare/ Health & Safety: When approaching a panda, it is best to do so wearing a Newcastle United strip as it will think you are also a panda and not be alarmed. [Although you do have to hope the panda isn’t a Sunderland fan.]

10. Enforcement: Masked EU Enforcers abduct this child for refusing to dress up as a penguin.

11. This picture has been removed because everyone is now complying with this particular law.

12. Animal Welfare:  If asked by poultry to help move a plank of wood, you must come to their aid.

13. Eugenics: Humans will be genetically modified to grow no higher than sixteen inches, to “save the planet”.

14. Eugenics: This boy is already thirteen inches high and knows that he must not exceed the maximum of sixteen, so has started smoking as he has heard it will stunt his growth.

15. Women’s Rights: Women are encouraged to whack their husband when they talk back. This one  is really serious as she has already dressed for his funeral even before he has returned from the pub.

16. Animal Welfare:  Pigs must be kept dry while writing their Christmas cards.

17. Climate Change: This is what will happen to you if you don’t pay green taxes. Lots of them.

18. Climate Change: This is the future if you don’t pay all those green taxes to stop global warming – temperatures will soar so high that you’ll need to take off all your clothes – then all your skin.

19. This EU directive is no longer necessary. Those who disobeyed it have all now been dealt with.

20. Equality & Diversity: A blind person may now shoot deer, but must have two people shouting “woo-hoo” so he knows where to fire. [NB There is a serious conflict of equality vs health & safety here. Commissioners are working on a solution and need more money to help them think.]

21. Eugenics: People will be allowed to keep wild animals as pets as a method of population control.

22. Eugenics: This girl is 17 inches tall and must be shot. She smiles and willingly accepts her fate – as a blood sacrifice to Mother Earth. She will be awarded the EU Medal of Honour (posthumously).

23. Climate Change: Climate experts studying data believe that 105% of the body’s heat is lost through the top of the head. The combination of a helmet and kitten reduce this heat loss by a staggering 134% and may help stop global warming. Experts believe trousers may help too.

24. Health & Safety: Very tall people are not allowed to carry children in their arms due to new height restrictions. This law will be rescinded once nobody exceeds 16 inches tall.

25. Science: “There is nothing to fear from genetically modified humans,” said Kenneth, who looks like a raven.

26. Roads: Bob knew that once the EU had changed all the road signs into Latin the chances were high that he would become lost.

27. Animal Welfare:  Alcoholics Anonymous for dogs was set up despite the failure of a similar scheme for newts.

28. Power Hungry Nazis: Ladies love the EU Commissioners. The fact that they are dead from the neck up doesn’t seem to bother this woman.

29. Animal Welfare: While old people were laid out on trolleys in the hospital corridors coughing up blood, Glenda made sure that the goats were contented.

30. Eugenics: Although less than 16 inches tall, the little Chinese man is the eldest.

31. Health & Safety: Smoking causes wrinkling of the skin and turns you into a dolphin with long pointy fingers.

32. Health & Safety: After the banning of beards, those who refuse to shave have to wear deep sea diving helmets to keep in the bacteria.

33. Health & Safety: Swimming pools have been banned altogether. Major swimming events are still permitted, but take place on the athletics track with the participants inserted into barrels of water at the start. EU Commissioners feel this is a fair compromise that will satisfy everyone without ruining the sport.

34. Women’s Rights: At beauty pageants, women will be allowed to remain anonymous to preserve their dignity as they wiggle their bodies around for the pleasure of shabby little men with thick glasses.

35. Eugenics/Snitches: “Well, you look over 16 inches tall to me. Let me measure you –  make my day! And I pledge allegiance to the other flag – the one with twelve stars.”

36. Eugenics/Snitches: A 17-inch giant is marched off after a valiant and true EU citizen sneaked up behind him with a tape measure then called the snitch hotline.

37. Health & Safety: Elephants must travel in the back seat. Rhinos in the front.

38 Women’s Rights: To end the male domination of sport, women are encouraged to play rugby. To get the hang of it, office managers must help them kick marrows about the office.

39. Nutrition: Young Welsh male voice choir singers must be given access to fresh watermelons.

40. Eugenics/Snitches: “You see, my dear, this little chap is an example of the perfect EU citizen: he is very small – even smaller than you, does not have a beard and is stupid enough to believe the propaganda.”

41. Eugenics/Law & Order: Prisons in the future will be very small and most people will be in one.

42. Freedom, they mean. Freedom is slavery.

43. Health & Safety: This bearded man was caught not wearing his deep sea diver’s helmet, so as punishment, he is forced to go around for a week with a fox’s head glued to his groin.

44. Health & Safety: French horn ensembles must not play on a railway line in front of an oncoming train.

45. Health & Safety: This woman is being comforted after her companion was shot dead by the blind woman just after shouting, “Woo-hoo”.

46. Employment Law: The EU’s unemployed are being retrained as blackboards.

47. Health & Safety: Another reminder of the terrible consequences of playing the French horn in the path of an oncoming express train. Even though he has no lungs, the woman is taking no chances and has blocked up her ears with cotton wool, just in case the cat can play.

48. Public Decency: It is against the law to be in public with a bear behind.

49. Health & Safety: After an energy-saving fluorescent light bulb explodes spreading toxic mercury all over the carpet, these ladies find a couple of pillocks to act as a bridge so they can escape to safety.

50. Eugenics: This girl, terrified of the EU’s growth restrictions, is preparing to saw off her own legs so that she doesn’t need to worry about it anymore and can be free to love the EU with all her heart.

Please leave your own in the comments, but ensure they comply with every EU directive. Thank you.