• Conscientious Objection legislation.


    The above image has been deliberately chosen as it is meant to be provocative.
    “…..Conscientious Objectors….” Even today in 2014, a century after the beginning of the Great War, the term “Conscientious Objection” will provoke strong feeling.
    The first of the 20th Century’s conscientious objectors (‘COs’) nicknamed ‘conchies’ – a term of abuse – were called cowards for refusing to go to France as part of the British Army. But they were not cowards. For religious, ethical, moral or humanitarian reasons, they believed it to be wrong to take part in anything that involved killing fellow human beings.
    The above is history. Today the term “Conscious Clause” has been put forward by the group Coalition for Marriage for legislation aimed at protecting those who object to performing a civil marriage ceremony for two persons of the same gender.
    This proposal has been adopted by UKIP and presumably will appear in it’s election manifesto in May 2015.
    The British Gazette understands that UKIP wish to go further and proposes legislation to protect those such as Mr and Mrs Wilkinson, the bed and breakfast owners who refused to allow two men to share a room at their £75-a-night Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire in March 2010.
    Since they made their stand, Mr and Mrs Wilkinson have borne the brunt of much criticism from those who describe themselves as “Gay activists.” Mr and Mrs Wilkinson have been described as being “homophobic.”
    The British Gazette would describe this couple as Conscientious Objectors.
    On the subject of the “Conscious Clause” proposed by the group Coalition for Marriage and endorsed by UKIP, the British Gazette is now of the opinion that such legislation should be introduced but that it should go much, much further.
    Let us forget for the moment the difference of opinion between Mr and Mrs Wilkinson and Mr Michael Black and Mr John Morgan – the two would be customers. The British Gazette would suggest to the UK’s political establishment – which UKIP should now be considered to form part – that Conscientious Objection legislation is urgently needed to try and prevent nothing less than a third English Civil War. Historical note: there were two civil wars 1642 to 1644 and 1649 to 1651.
    The UK is now a vastly different country than the one that faced four long years of bloody war in 1914. The politicians of recent years have through their actions brought about multicultural and multi ethnic Britain. We have communities with lifestyles and mores that are diametrically opposed to each other. We have militant atheists, we have militant Muslims, we have devout evangelical Christians. We have groups of individuals who would describe themselves as one of the three aforementioned groups but add the descriptor “Gay.” And the one thing these vastly different groups have in common – apart from the certainty that at some point in time in the future each will die and will then discover whether or not their beliefs are correct – is their certain belief that they are right and the others are wrong.
    Let us now look at the leaders of the four established parties. In alphabetical order they are; Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg, Mr Farage and Mr Miliband. Three of these would have you believe that multiculturalism is not a problem. It appears that of the four only Mr Farage is aware that multiculturalism brings with it problems. Now let us address the question of a certain gentlemen called Mr Griffin. Mr Griffin (he of the BNP, not “DLT”) would have you believe that he and his colleagues could make multiculturalism “go away.” This is as delusional a belief as the belief held by Mr. Miliband that the UK can be “carbon free” by 2030.
    One of the crucial things a party’s election manifesto must have are proposals that are practical and capable of being implemented – within the realms of the physical laws of the universe.
    So, let us consider the UK’s situation: we have numerous communities each with diametrically opposed cultures, mores and beliefs. The UK is a small overcrowded country.
    It must surely be obvious – even to the delusional Mr Miliband – that these communities have to live in peace with each other. It is therefore absolutely vital that legislation is put into effect that will make this so. This does mean doing away with the Equality Act and replacing it with something sensible which will hopefully prevent a third civil war.
    The inquiry held by Sir William Macpherson into the Stephen Lawrence murder coined the phrase “institutionalised discrimination.”
    Those supporting the present Equality Legislation would suggest that “institutionalised discrimination” is a BAD thing. The British Gazette, having examined the dangerous state of the UK today, would suggest that “legislated institutionalised discrimination” is absolutely vital to preserve civil society.
    You see, the problem with the “politically correct” establishment is that they are part of the problem as they believe that their belief in “Gay marriage” of “Gay rights” is good and moral and deserving of legislative protection and that those who would oppose this are “homophobic” and not nice people.
    They then fret and worry and question themselves why so many young Muslims born and bred in the UK have upped sticks and gone off to fight for the so called Islamic State. Well allow the British Gazette to inform them: it is because these people regard the mores and culture of those such as Polly Toynbee as being “works of the devil.”
    What the UK now needs – as a matter of urgency – is a completely new legislative framework. A framework which will allow discrimination to take place. If such discrimination is allowed it can be controlled. Its effects mitigated. Crucially, all the communities must benefit. Thus we will see that those wishing to set up licensed premises and hotels for those who would describe themselves as “Gay men” can do so secure in the knowledge that they can take civil action against those who see their activities as evil and stage protests outside or even disruptive “demos” inside or outside such premises. Such would include the ability to prevent protesters from videoing those who would come and go from such establishments.

    It will of course mean that those such as Mr and Mrs Wilkinson will be able to discriminate against not only those who would describe themselves as “Gay” and “Lesbian” but also heterosexual couples who wish to share a room [and bed] but are clearly not man and wife.
    The problem with our deluded dim wits (Messrs. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband) is that in order to have tolerance it must work both ways. Thus in a multicultural society, to ensure tolerance it is necessary to institutionalise discrimination.
    It is also necessary to realise that this will mean that the differing groups will be able to carry on life in ways that are extremely objectionable to others.
    The British Gazette will give the following examples:
    - Muslim employers being able to enforce aspects of Sharia law – dress code for women, non consumption of alcohol, observance of prays and fasting.
    - so called “Gay” entrepreneurs setting up holiday camps aimed at men who would describe themselves as “Gay” with the ability to keep out those they would term “troublemakers” who would clearly not be able to be described as being “Gay.”
    - those such as Mr and Mrs Wilkinson to set up hotels and guest houses run along their mores and religious beliefs.

    The British Gazette would suggest however that the legislation may have to go further. At the moment, those such as Ms. Harriet Harman would suggest that whilst it should be perfectly lawful for a middle aged man to have annal intercourse with a 16 year old boy, it should be unlawful for a middle aged man to pay to have vaginal sexual intercourse with a prostitute who has not been trafficked and is not being coerced or threatened.

    Now, insofar as Ms. Harriet Harman’s views on prostitution is concerned, the Editor has some sympathy. He would agree with her that prostitution is wrong and should not be encouraged. That prostitution should NEVER be regarded as an acceptable career choice. It is for this reason that the British Gazette has argued in the past that it should not be legalised but that a way around should be sought to effect regulation – for reasons of public health.

    However, what is perfectly clear is that there now exists a body of opinion that regards the selling and purchasing of sexual services as a wholly legitimate activity in the same way as selling aromatherapy sessions for instance.

    The British Gazette has therefore shifted its opinion in the light of the realities of multiculturalism and would suggest that the supply of sexual services is legalised and regulated but ONLY with the existence of Conscientious Objection legislation to allow for active discrimination against such. Examples being; refusal by newspapers and employment agencies to deal with such vacancies. Refusal by such as Mr and Mrs Wilkinson to have such transactions take place on their premises.

    Write a comment