Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006

As bounced through the Commons last night without a debate :

Instructing or causing discrimination
11. —(1) It is unlawful for a person—

(a) to instruct another to discriminate unlawfully,

(b) to cause or attempt to cause another to discriminate unlawfully, or

(c) to induce or attempt to induce another to discriminate unlawfully.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) inducement may be direct or indirect.

(3) In this regulation a reference to unlawful discrimination is a reference to discrimination which is unlawful by virtue of any of regulations 4 to 8.

(4) Proceedings in respect of a contravention of this regulation may be brought only—

(a) by the Commission, and

(b) in accordance with section 25 of the 2006 Act.



Hmmm. So if I think that this law - the most undisguised attack yet by secular fundamentalists on the faithful of all the major world religions - is outrageous, should be resisted by all possible means short of violence, and that those who break it should be supported politically, morally and financially, I'd better not say so after the Queen puts the old thumbprint on.






ROLL OF HONOUR - Labour MPs against. Mostly from Old Labour working class constituencies. I see Frank Field was absent. Fair do's to David Drew - Stroud was (and still is to some extent) a hippy haven, the Hebden Bridge of the South, and alternative/green politicos will give him grief there unless I mistake.

Joseph Benton Bootle Lab
Tom Clarke Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill Lab
Frank Cook Stockton North Lab
Jim Dobbin Heywood and Middleton Lab
David Drew Stroud Lab
Peter Kilfoyle Liverpool Walton Lab
James McGovern Dundee West Lab
J Alan Meale Mansfield Lab
Geraldine Smith Morecambe and Lunesdale Lab
David Taylor Leicestershire North West Lab



ROLL OF SHAME - "Conservative" MPs for. Mostly comfortable Southern constituencies. I wouldn't expect more from Duncan/Letwin/Maude/Osborne/Cameron/Cokespoon or people called Hugo and Crispin, but Michael Gove ?

Peter Ainsworth Surrey East Con
Tony B Baldry Banbury Con
John Bercow Buckingham Con
Crispin Blunt Reigate Con
David Cameron Witney Con
James Duddridge Rochford and Southend East Con
Alan J C Duncan Rutland and Melton Con
Nigel M Evans Ribble Valley Con
Michael L D Fabricant Lichfield Con
Michael Gove Surrey Heath Con
Chris Grayling Epsom and Ewell Con
Nick Herbert Arundel and South Downs Con
Jeremy Hunt Surrey South West Con
S Robert Key Salisbury Con
Eleanor Laing Epping Forest Con
Andrew Lansley South Cambridgeshire Con
Oliver Letwin West Dorset Con
Andrew J MacKay Bracknell Con
Francis Maude Horsham Con
Patrick A McLoughlin Derbyshire West Con
Andrew J B Mitchell Sutton Coldfield Con
George Osborne Tatton Con
Graham Stuart Beverley and Holderness Con
Desmond Swayne New Forest West Con
Hugo Swire Devon East Con
Andrew Tyrie Chichester Con
Theresa Villiers Chipping Barnet Con
Bill Wiggin Leominster Con
David L Willetts Havant Con



Despite all said above, in a way perhaps it's all for the best. Christian charities who take State funding have been supping with the Devil for too long. Now, like the Catholic adoption agencies, they'll have to either close, find funding from the faithful, or worship at the temple of Rimmon. "The worse, the better" as the old Russian revolutionaries had it.

Of course, children/the homeless/whoever will suffer when they close. But whoever said this Bill was about them ? No, it's like the hunting bill. The point is not to save foxes, or to find adoptive parents for a child. The point is power. The point is to impose your will upon the enemy. The enemy being us.

28 comments:

Voyager said...

Churches have been fellow-travellers with this sort of thing for far too long.

If they had any sense - which they don't - they would create a Christian Marketing Company and use group buying power to cement their finances - they could print their own Christmas Cards, publish their own book catalogues with Amazon, and sign master-leases for equipment to get bulk discounts for member churches.

They could then dividend back proceeds to individual churches and encourage Christians to trade with Christians wherever possible.

Thus they could build a more coherent presence in this disintegrating society

FlyingRodent said...

If you want to resist commie secularism like this Laban, you should hook up with the Islamists.

They're not keen on their kids being told that it's okay to be gay either, and they're militantly against the secular humanist agenda too.

You could all march on Parliament in brotherhood, although not holding hands or anything.

Stowboi said...

Yes, children are much better off in the hands of 'committed' heterosexual Kristyaanz like Eunice Spry (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389711-details/Sadistic+foster+mother%27s+19-year+reign+of+terror/article.do).
Cormac Murphy O'Connor? Oh I do like being told what is right and wrong by a FOREIGNER committed to a foreign religion, don't you?

verity said...

Stowboi - How does it feel to be a predictable moron? Is it embarrassing? You sound bitter.

Voyager - Why don't you set up such a company? It's a wonderful idea. Would you make it interdenominational? It's a great notion.

Laban, I agree that in the eyes of the Left - and, for all his protective colouration, there are none more Leftist than Tone and the Crone - remember their CND marching days - we, and a stable society, are the enemy.

The issue of gay adoptions and the Catholic Church has been perverted into a "gay rights" issue. All the parties bleat that gay couples "have a right to adopt a child, once approved". But they don't. An adopted child isn't a badge of societal approval.

The only rights to be considered in this issue are the rights of the vulnerable child who is to be adopted by people others have chosen to be its new parents. The only person that matters in this is the child, who is weak, powerless,childlike and unsettled.

Straight adoptive parents have written about how difficult any adoption is for a child. New home. New people who are suddenly its parents. A past history of loss or abuse. A new school. A new life to learn.

People with experience note that children are cruel, and adoptees have a hard time when they first join a new school. Once they find out they're adopted, some children sneer at them and belittle them, saying their real parents didn't want them to they had to find charity parents. And many, many other cruel things that it is hard enough to help a newly adopted child through in a conventional family.

How much worse to have all these burdens and have your new family be "two daddies". It is absurd that such a thing should even be contemplated, never mind be pushed forward by people governing a country.

And do you think any of the new schoolmates' mothers is going to allow their children to go over and play with the new child who lives with "two daddies"?

This is just wrong! And perverting it into a "gay rights" issue is simply horrible.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am 100% behind the Church on this and I would not vote for David Cameron on a bet.

Sam Tarran said...

It's shameful how many Tory MPs supported this motion. Yet another attack by politicians on freedom, this time freedom of conscience.

Anonymous said...

The best line I've heard about gay adoption was from a guy who pointed out that if this new law means charities have to supply children to gay adopters becuase the law forbids discrimination, just what do the kids come under 'goods' or 'services' ?

DJ

verity said...

Yes, Sam. It's shameful. And Cameron was right there. He seems to think it's a gay equality issue. Of course, children can't vote.

pl said...

Apologies for the long post, but I'd like to provide a little history behind this legislation and it's predecessors, to put it into perspective and to perhaps prove that they've really only just started.

In 1971 the Gay Liberation Front published it's manifesto. One of the opening lines reads:

"The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality."

Further on in the document it states:

"The long-term goal of Gay Liberation, which inevitably brings us into conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by eliminating the social pressures on men and women to conform to narrowly defined gender roles. It is particularly important that children and young people be encouraged to develop their own talents and interests and to express their own individuality rather than act out stereotyped parts alien to their nature."

To state the obvious, they are fundamentally opposed to the heterosexual monogamous family arrangement, as it naturally discriminates against them, even though an increasingly overwhelming range of statistics points to this arrangement being the best for children.

The second statement puts the political gay lobby on an equal footing with the radical feminist agenda.

In summary, the goal is the abolition of the traditional family unit as the social norm.


The last 10 years of New Labour have proved that the agenda for social change outlined in the GLF manifesto is still alive. As the voting records show, the 'New' component of Labour is fully on board with the agenda, and the Labour party has close ties to political gay lobby groups like Stonewall (see the Summerskill family).

The method of change is small and incremental. A new law here and there... soon it adds up to something big.


The SOR Provision of Goods and services does not explicitly mandate the teaching of non-heterosexual lifestyles, but it does include in a broad sweep the provision of education, with no opt-out for any non-state schools.

It leaves schools open to prosecution for discrimination against homosexuals if sex education classes (for example) promote married heterosexual relationships as superior in any way.

The courts are likely to view it in this way. The JHCR review of the version of the regulations passed in NI reported:

' “In our view the Regulations should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong”, and “We welcome the Government’s acceptance that [the Regulations] should apply to all schools […] without any exemption for particular types of school such as faith schools” '

The NUT and the government is helpfully plugging the gap by recommending childrens books describing gay relationships and gay sex.

Needless to say, the other side to the anti-traditional-family plan is the current tax and benefits system.


Sources:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.html
http://www.petertatchell.net/history/longway.htm
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=682532002
http://www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/Word/additional_materials_04.doc



Over the last 10 years, far too many people (and mostly to blame are lazy journalists) have put New Labour's policies down to incompetence or misguided idealism. As somebody once said, Never ascribe to maliciousness that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. It seems the tables are turned on us this time.


A final note: why, if the homosexual lifestyle is equal to the traditional family lifestyle, do the SORs give opt-outs to blood-donor and insurance companies?


I hope somebody finds this interesting. The wider public need to become aware of the bigger picture.

Voyager said...

Oh I do like being told what is right and wrong by a FOREIGNER committed to a foreign religion, don't you?

Cormac Murphy O'Connor is an ENGLISHMAN born in READING, Royal County of Berkshire

I suppose Stowboi you object to Jesus too because he was a Jew ?

Anonymous said...

twgjrVoyager

My best guess would be that when Stowboi says Oh I do like being told what is right and wrong by a FOREIGNER committed to a foreign religion, don't you?, HE is the foreigner.

mister scruff said...

i dont get this - isnt the Queen a committed Christian?

so why doesnt she just refuse to sign off on this one, because morally, it would be against her conscience as "defender of the faith".

of course , it would cause an enormous ruckus, but Monarchists keep reminding us that the Queen is a final bulwark against idiotic lawmaking in parliament.

if this goes through with her signature, then surely she should abdicate in protest? i mean, if she's not "defending the faith" then what point is there in having a monarchy?

mister scruff said...

Direct link to the law in question

you can read the entire text on there. i'm going to have a read through it.

mister scruff said...

"Thus they could build a more coherent presence in this disintegrating society

7:53 AM "

damn good idea voyager. pretty sure the Evangelicals in the U.S. are already doing that sort of thing. and it seems to work for them - community cohesion in the midwest of the U.S. is pretty strong.

i'm atheist , but i'd certainly buy into something like that if it helps the cause of freedom and resists the growing "thoughtcrime" police state in the UK.

We should all remember what Voltaire said

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

obviously, those Tories that voted for this have forgotten the very meaning of the word "liberty". I certainly wont be voting for them at the next election. English Democrats or UKIP maybe.

mister scruff said...

looks like this is law for us little people. the regulations wont apply to the political elite.

quote:

Bodies to which regulation 8 does not apply:
1. The House of Commons.
2. The House of Lords.
3. The authorities of either House of Parliament.
4. The Security Service.
5. The Secret Intelligence Service.
6. The Government Communications Headquarters.
7. A part of the armed forces of the Crown which is, in accordance with a requirement of the Secretary of State, assisting the Government Communications Headquarters.


however, if you read through the regulations , there IS a religious opt-out clause:


in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.

(5) Paragraphs (3) and (4) permit a restriction only if imposed —

(a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or

(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers.

verity said...

When Cameron went along with the programme, that removed the last shred of doubt that I had harboured about him. There are no circumstances in which I, a lifelong Tory, would vote for a party led by this individual.

PL - Very interesting and you might like to forward your post to Melanie Phillips, who is taking a big interest in the intentional destruction of the family.

It is astounding how far they have been able to push this agenda, given that the family is the universal bedrock of all of humanity and has been since we first started walking around on two feet. Perhaps even before.

The left is toxic and never gives up. They will support anything that might serve to destroy Western civilisation. Anything at all. Including islam, which puts their beloved homosexuals to death. And persecutes women in unimaginably horrifying way. But, that's OK. Put the feminist agenda on the back burner in order to accommodate those who wish to destroy civilisation. They're all in it together, after all.

Britain is particularly craven about all this and I think it's because the English don't like to be accused of lack of fair play.

Finally, PL,I am one of the few people who has never thought for a split second that these vile individuals in government were incompetent. In fact, their competence at enforcing an abnormal agenda on normal British people is chilling and has been accomplished with great ruthlessness.

(I have nothing against gays, incidentally and some of my best friends, etc., but this agenda is not about gays. It's about destroying our cohesiveness as a country and,by extension, the West. Can you imagine the Chinese putting up with this crap?)

verity said...

Well, the Lords pushed it through, so it's now law. Damaged and vulnerable children are to be placed in highly unconventional homes. Ruth Kelly, a practising Catholic has welcomed the "victory", according to The Mail. She said: "These measures will help tackle the practical barriers and real, everyday problems faced by lesbian, gay and bisexual people"

Nothing about the children.

Observer said...

but Monarchists keep reminding us that the Queen is a final bulwark against idiotic lawmaking in parliament.

Not so. The Monarch does not see the Bills - the Royal Prerogative is exercised by Ministers

Dave said...

Question is, will this law have a dramatic effect on the number of people putting babies up for adoption?
Are stats availible?

verity said...

Dave - a lot of people put up for adoption are children who have been removed from violent parents - as well as from homes where parents are unable to take care of them, or who have died. They have already had traumatic little lives.

They need tranquility and stability and a normal family situation. It is awful that they are going to be used as badges of endorsement.

I really hate David Cameron. I hate absolutely everything about him. I hate him as much as I hate Tony Blair, and I never thought I would say that about anyone. All his bloody posturing and hawking his disabled kid around for political advantage, and now perfectly happy to sacrifice other vulnerable children for political advantage.

pl said...

Verity - thank you for the suggestion. I may well forward my post to Melanie Phillips.

The other very important point that voyager et al make is that for churches and church-run organisations to receive government funding is as to sup with the devil. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

The final destination of that route is illustrated by this quote:

' In 1934, during his second year as chancellor of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler invited the leaders of the evangelical churches of Germany to a meeting in Berlin. He goal was to quell mounting criticism from the Christian community of the Nazi regime and its attempts to subvert the churches. Among those present at that meeting was a fiery young Lutheran pastor from the Berlin suburb of Dahlem named Martin Niemoller. Niemoller would later recall this encounter as the moment from which he knew that Germany was doomed. Hitler was amiable and deliberately reassuring as he sought the support of these prominent churchmen. He promised the pastors that the position of the church in Germany was safe and secure - that its legal protections, its tax exemptions, and state support would remain unchanged under the Nazi government. Niemoller pushed to the front of the group to confront the chancellor directly and reject his casual consignment of Christians to social irrelevance. Standing face to face with Germany's ruler, the brash young pastor asserted: "Our concern, Herr Hitler, is not for the church. Our concern is for the soul of our country." An embarrassed silence followed his remark and it was immediately evident that Niemoller spoke only for himself. His chagrined colleagues quickly shuffled him away from the front of the room. Noting their timid reaction, the dictator smiled as he replied, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." '
(http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm)

How oft has Blair invited 'community' leaders to Number 10 to assure them that their organisations' freedoms are safe with him? How oft have they had their egos massaged into compliance?

verity said...

PL - Yes, Melanie is very concerned about the family being massaged out of existence. All the normal human ties are being broken down,one by one. I have never seen Blair as anything but a very evil man.

In my opinion, he is as evil in his way as Hitler. He has,in 10 years, picked apart the fabric of our national life, taken a wrecking ball to our constitution, with its checks and balances, destroyed our revising chamber, presided over the largest percentage of teenage - one might, in some instances, say child - pregnancies in Europe. None of the responsible boys and men are ever prosecuted. He has presided over an unimaginable invasion by alien people (and taken their side in disputes between us and them)and has created other favoured, protected groups. Put Britain under the power of the HRA, out of which, coincidentally, his wife has made a pretty penny.

He has also beavered away at destroying the bedrock of society - all human societies in the world - the family. Like a paedophile, he is pushing sexual knowledge down the throats of little children of five, removing parental discretion about when their child is ready to learn a little bit about sex.

He is utterly corrupt and abnormal and has done immeasurable damage to our once-stable society. If he doesn't get the appointed presidency of the EU, he will stay on in No 10 to finish the job of the destruction of Britain.

How people could have voted for him even once, never mind three times tells me how unperceptive people are. His face tells you everything you need to know about this individual.

Terry said...

I always felt the "demon eyes" poster was actually quite close to the mark

Veritas Manet said...

Voyager is right, mainstream churches have compromised too long with the world and the devil. Flyingrodent is merely cheaply sarcastic, with the accent on cheap. No-one can really answer such a dig unless FR is willing to announce what his/her beliefs are... Granted that their ideologies may overlap in some ways, it's stupid to suggest that Christians shd. link with Moslemsas their beliefs DON'T harmonise. Also totally unfair for Stowboi to suggest that Spry's behaviour is typical of Christians, not least because the sect she belongs to aren't technically Christian at all. It's about as ignorant as saying "Tony Benn's a Nazi because he's a Socialist, and Hitler was a National Socialist too". Hardly QED, is it? Fly away, ignorami.
But seriously, even if a heterosexual atheist socialist sees nothing morally objectionable in encouraging homosexual activities because he doesn't believe in ethics or morals (except where conservatives or Christians are concerned, when hey presto, a whole structure of anti-Christian ethics and morality springs into being for him before you can say "Dawkins", this could be because he hasn't really the wit to consider the question very profoundly. One question he MIGHT have to consider is, do problems concerning health arise here? B*******g another man is not nearly as bad as hunting a fox or voting for a rightist candidate, perhaps, but voting and hunting don't involve public health risks. And I'm afraid buggery does.
Perhaps he hasn't really considered the not-too-nice details of the various homosexual acts that are open to males.
I'm sure that some fellows merely contemplate in a purely Platonic way the various beauties of their adored ones, but would not DREAM of violating their idealism by giving any physical expression to their phantasies... Anglican bishops may pussy-foot about with talk of homosexual "genital acts" but quite franky the anus isn't part of the genitalia, any more than the mouth or the clenched fist are. I'm unwilling to embark on any too-detailed examination of the physical risks involved in the popular "Gay" practice known as "fisting": suffice it to say that severe damage to the sphincters can result, with associated incontinence. Hardly the sort of thing to wish on a child: would you recommend that a child be entrusted to a sodomitical "gay" couple that practised this sort of thing?
Other features of the "gay" lifestyle that are even more extreme and perilous will be explained to you if you Google such words as "rimming" or such terms as "scat scene". Suffice it to say that an authority on health matters condemned the male homosexual lifestyle on the grounds that it could easily involve a significant amount of "the ingestion of fecal matter". For the poor "gay" chaps who get badly beaten up on London's Clapham Common I have nothing but sympathy, only slightly tempered by the fact that they often haunt that place in the hopes of encountering violence from members of their own community. "Mummy won't be back tonight, darling: he went down to Clapham Common, ate someone's s**t till he threw up, then got his head kicked in by a big butch guy he'd just been b******d by and now he's in hospital and I've just heard he's tested HIV positive..."

verity said...

Terry - The eyes: I always thought it was piercing and predictive. How could anyone not have seen it and not instinctively understood the underlying evil? I understood it so well that I sold up in Britain and moved to France. This was a new Hitler.

Veritas Manet - You do nothing but harm with your foolishly overstated case. The gay lobby will condemn you for your ignorance.

I am opposed to gay men being able to adopt vulnerable children (unless the children of a relative who has died and to provide familial continuity rather than adopted out with strangers) not because such men will turn into paedophiles and/or cottagers. Most gay men are totally normal people except for their orientation, which is how they were born.

I'm not a man and I'm not gay, but I really resent your insulting picture of people who are accountants, senators and MPs, dentists, shoe salesmen, guys who pump gas, policemen and military men, professional chartered accountants who sit, free of charge, on charity boards and ... maybe ... the guys who will race to pick you up in an ambulance and try to keep you alive until you get to the hospital.

Your reducing them to a stereotype absoluely sickened me.

veritas manet said...

Yes, Verity, I used to think as you do...but you used the phrase "gay lobby" and the presence of that bunch alters things. To be homosexual is not necessarily to be "gay". I had/have friends who are homosexual, and friends who are "gay", a very different bunch.
Perhaps the "gay lobby" WILL be as threatening to me as you predict: I hope you won't be egging them on to do me any physical harm.
The mere homosexuals don't force their interests on me: nor do they talk as if they were imitating Jo Brand. They were/are not particularly interested in proselytising and in making propaganda, nor in converting others to their lifestyle. No interest was/is displayed in leather S&M gear,dressing up like US sailors, nor in shaving the head, nor in the right sort of denim wear, and they wouldn't dream of consulting "gay" contact media. Neither would they dream of going to Brighton for one of the big "gay" demos. that sometimes decorate that interesting town, where they would be shocked by the sight of semi-naked men ostentatiously cavorting, with much display of the buttocks, on open-topped buses.
The GLF was dreamed up by Marxist agitators at about the same time as they thought of the Animal Liberation Front, the Kids' LF and whatever else...they had a certain amount of success in politicising the homosexual percentage in this country, but some homosexuals angrily reject the use of the word "gay", as to them it carries a political connotation.
I've personally been very tolerant of my "gay" friends who seem to like recounting their adventures on Hampstead Heath or in Russell Square, and who seem to follow a promiscuous lifestyle with a sort of hell-bent (by which I mean self-destructive) enthusiasm.
Have you ever come across the sort of "gay" contact media which put AIDS sufferers in touch with those who wish to be infected and die in a sort of sick "gay" euthanasia, or to help those who would like to spread their infection to those who long for the kudos of martyrdom for the "gay" lifestyle?
I have: but of course what I say would be rightly considered as purely anecdotal, so I'd like to come back later with meaningful and verifiable references to such things.
My point, which I don't at present have the time to expand on, nor you, perhaps, the time to read, is that the "gay" lifestyle isn't just a harmless choice of the order of "Oh I'd prefer baked beans to mushrooms in my fry-up, and two sugars please" but a radical form of antinomianism. Yes, it may all hark back to the Nietzchean "transvaluation [which I suppose equals 'reversal'] of values" which in THIS context may be having a worse effect on our society than the interest that the Nazis supposedly took in Nietzche. Please try not to get too angry when people disagree with you, and don't bang on about being "sickened" oe you will have to sign off as "Disgusted of Cheltenham"!
Best wishes!

verity said...

Again - You overstate your case and render if high piched and irritating.

I agree that some people make a full time occupation out of being homosexual and those people will neither want to adopt children and would not be found suitable, even if they did. For one thing, people who occupy the dark underside of gayness are incapable of forming stable, long-term relationships. They would not be able to show such a record to an adoption agency, even if they did want to adopt a child, which they do not.

And yes, in a relationship of two men, you get a double dose of testosterone and that can be volatile.

But we all also know calm couples, usually professionals, who've been together for years, who do not have violent, angry natures, who have a wide circle of friends that includes straight couples and single women. They're close to their families. These are the ones who will be approved for adopting vulnerable children.

I repeat my case that children who have already led traumatic little lives should not be forced to bear the extra burden of being put into an unconventional home situation with "two daddies",no matter how stable and kindly and mature the "daddies". It is valuing the self-esteem of adults over the healing process that the child needs.

Yes, there is a whole gay sub-culture, but the people who live in that world won't have the inclination to adopt and they wouldn't be approved for adoption. That is not my argument. It is the mental and emotional well-being of the child that matters most.

Laban said...

I think Veritas is someone who wouldn't frighten the horses.

verity said...

I am so baffled by Laban's comment on Veritas that I cannot argue my points further.