Monday, January 24, 2011

P.P.S

Is publishing this shit even legal?
 
...this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education....abuse of childhood.... all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour....just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda...anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality....must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life...seemingly all-­powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it... risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites....

Don't click on this link. It will make you feel dirty.

17 comments:

  1. Not sure I'd want it to be illegal, but I'd quite like the publishers to think better of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am perhaps pleased to say that the link breaks my archaic work web browser.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's actually a service for linking to Daily Mail articles without increasing their pageview count (and advertising revenue):

    http://sim-o.me.uk/2010/10/media-watching-by-proxy/

    Meanwhile, the best response so far is:

    http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2011/01/melanie-phillips-quiz-of-the-day.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not for the moment asking if it ought to be illegal. I'm asking if, as a matter of fact, it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well she has a point, I mean, look at the front page of BBC News, barely anything that isn't being dictated by the Gay Agenda: police seizing scam mails, Jeremy Hunt starting an enquiry into B Syb B, slowdown in the UK economy... frankly, it's all about sex sex sex with these people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thing I'm just about to prove Melanie Phillips's point because I think she "must be considered a bigot".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Only the other week there was a whole Newsnight special on scattercushions.

    We're through the looking glass here, people...

    ReplyDelete
  8. The BBC is a propoganda machine for climate change zealots, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Under what law do you think it might be illegal? It's not incitement to racial hatred, it's not really behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, though reading it aloud in a gay bar might be.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From 2008, the law against incitment to hatred on racial or religious grounds was extended to include incitment to hated on the grounds of gender or orienatation.

    http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/parliamentary/2886.asp

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that as far as the legal side goes, her targets (in the article) are the government/BBC/judicial system etc. rather than homosexual people per se (like the use of "gay rights lobby" rather than "gays") - at least overtly. So there probably isn't a criminal case in there...?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure: do you think someone would get away with saying "I wasn't being anti-semitic, because I wasn't stirring up hatred against Jews, only against the Secret Elders of Zion?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If the 'Secret Elders of Zion' were distinct enough from the idea of 'Jews' then yes - but I don't think a court would accept that it was. By contrast, the idea of 'Gay Rights Lobby' could contain more people who were heterosexual than homosexual, by what I infer is her definition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not sure: do you think someone would get away with saying "I wasn't being anti-semitic, because I wasn't stirring up hatred against Jews, only against the Secret Elders of Zion?"

    Verges on a tricky area, actually. Not that the whole Elders of Zion crap-heap is anything more than an extraordinarily feeble excuse for anti-semitism, mind. But there is a murky area of debate wherein some people try to use criticism of Zionism - or Israel in general - as a cover for anti-semitism, while other people accuse anybody who expresses doubts about Israeli government policies of being anti-semitic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry.

    "Zionism" I take to mean "The strong belief in the right of the Jews to have an independent homeland, in what they consider to be the historical Israell" or something like that. I would have thought you could have used "Zionist" as a description without appearing racist. A bit like the distinction people make between "Moslims" and "Islamists". (I have tried, without success, to get people to adopt the term "Christianist.")

    "The Secret Elders of Zion" I took to be a reference to to a fictitious organization supposedly dedicated to the Jewish conquest of the world, by means of controlling the media, banks, schools, etc.

    One of the eighteen things I am going to get around to doing one of these days is reading up on the origins and influence of the "Protocols" hoax. When I first discovered that the far right believe that a thing called "Political Correctness" is being orchastrated by a secret comittee of (Jewish) communists in order to bring down western civilisation, I thought "Hmmm...Where have I heard that before."

    The idea that there is a thing called a Gay Lobby, demanding that children be taught about homosexuality because of some ulterior motive sounds, to me, a lot like the theory that there is a thing called the Jewish Conspiracy. But I'm getting a little ahead of myself...

    ReplyDelete
  17. The idea that there is a thing called a Gay Lobby, demanding that children be taught about homosexuality because of some ulterior motive sounds, to me, a lot like the theory that there is a thing called the Jewish Conspiracy.

    Outgroup homogeneity goes some way to explaining that, although it's by no means the last word.

    ReplyDelete