In our articles Conscientious Objection legislation of 29th September 2014 (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2014/09/29/conscientious-objection-legislation/) and Nasty people beware! Mrs May intends to ban you! Of 1st October 2014 (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2014/10/01/nasty-people-beware-mrs-may-intends-to-ban-you/) this organ sought to suggest to the politically correct coterie that rule this formerly sovereign land in their unlawful partnership with a foreign power (the European Union) that the way to prevent the Third English Civil War from breaking out in two, three or four decades time is to reverse their present policy of enforcing their particular set of beliefs through their “so-called” Equality Act.
It set out the obvious logic that in order to preserve the freedom of the numerous communities in the presently diverse UK to preserve and perpetuate their belief, cultural practises and mores, it was necessary to enshrine the ability for these communities to discriminate. This of course would apply “across the board”. It would mean that Christians can promote Christianity, Muslims promote Islam, and Atheists promote Atheism.
Unfortunately this organ’s advice is ignored. The campaign group Coalition for Marriage (Address; 8 Marshalsea Road, London SE1 1HL Tel: 0207 403 7879) have circulated the news that the government has published dangerous new regulations which require schools in England to ‘actively promote’ the rights enshrined in the Equality Act. As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage. They have sought counsels opinion on this. This opinion (written by Mr. John Bowers, QC.) can be found at: http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/JohnBowersQC-SchoolRegulations.pdf
It is the opinion of the British Gazette that this situation is so serious (in terms of the future conflagration) that a change of strategy is required by those such as Coalition for Marriage. We must not forget the potential consequences of failure: England becoming like Lebanon. At the same time those British Gazette readers who would come under the category of “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant” or “WASP” must realise that whilst they are concerned many of their fellow citizens whose ancestry hails from Pakistan are equally concerned. Many of these folk are extremely concerned about the seeming large number of British Muslims joining the terrorist organisation “Islamic State” – the late Mr Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda it seems is too “warm and cuddly” for their taste. These folk want to preserve their culture and traditions just as much as those in Coalition for Marriage. They realise that the politically correct agenda of the corrupt coterie illegally ruling us is in fact the recruiting sergeant for “Islamic State”, that it is Tony’s Blair’s “Cool Britannia” with is Gay pride marches and so forth that is the spur to the radicalisation of their children.
Of course, the biggest threat to the UK’s future is the state broadcaster, the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation. It is the politically correct elite running the BBC that now effectively control the country. British Gazette readers of course are not deceived by David Cameron. They know that his determination to legislate to allow civil marriages to take place between people of the same gender was not driven by a deeply held principle but due a deep desire to be seen as “not part of the Nasty Party” of Section 28 but the “Nice Party” of sponsoring Gay Pride marches – because he like the weak and cowardly man his is seeks to ingratiate himself with the opinion formers. In this he is like all court flatterers before him. Like those presiding over such courts before them, Queen Polly Toynbee knows exactly the cut of Cameron’s jib. She is not fooled in the least bit.
So the question is this: How should the campaign to preserve traditional values (such as marriage between a man and a woman) progress?
The British Gazette is of the opinion that the campaign and it’s language needs to be sharpened up. This is difficult as it is the nature of most Britons to be polite and non confrontational. This reticence however has been used by those seeking to promote homosexuality as a life style with huge success.
British Gazette readers will recall the late Robin Cook’s short lived “ethical foreign policy” when he was Foreign Secretary in Blair’s administration. Mr Cook sought to cajole those British Dependent territories into scrapping their remaining legislation which according to Cook discriminated against “Gays.”
This is instructive, as at the time the statues that so offended Cook in most of these territories did not actually proscribe homosexuality itself but the act of buggery. In this these dependencies in fact followed UK practise. When homosexuality was de-criminalised, the act of buggery was still a sexual offence. What took place in the 1960s was a campaign by some homosexual men to decriminalise buggery. What Cook objected to was that whilst (for the most part) these Dependent Territories had decriminalised homosexuality, they had not gone the extra mile and decriminalised buggery.
What is now clear is that this further decriminalisation actually cost the lives of many homosexual men as it facilitated the spread of AIDS.
There is in fact a strong public health argument to re criminalise buggery. Any such move of course will be howled down by the vociferous and powerful “Gay lobby.” Celebrity after celebrity will “come out” (excuse the phrase) in withering condemnation of such “bigotry.” Naturally the politically correct will be absolutely appalled! The unfortunate Nick Clegg may even have an apologetic fit!
Now at this point the British Gazette would ask you Dear Reader to imagine for a moment that homosexuality does not exist. Now let us continue. Let us for a moment consider a hypothetical man; a Mr X. Mr X is a married man. He is married to Mrs X (nee’ “Y”). Now Mr X is a rum sort of fellow and has a “spare time activity.” He works a five and a half day week at a local firm. The half day is Saturday – he leaves at 1:00PM. He arrives home at 3:00PM. The reason Mrs X believes is that Mr X goes to the pub with his workmates for a drink and a bar lunch. She therefore makes Saturday lunch for herself and their two children.
Unbeknown however to Mrs X, her philandering husband’s routine is somewhat different to that which he claims. Mr X does indeed go to the pub with his workmates and with them enjoys a meal from the pub’s carvery. He leaves the pub however at 1:45PM. His home is a mere 15 minutes drive from the pub. Mr X you see stops off at a local establishment that describes itself as a “massage parlour”. This as British Gazette readers will know is a euphemism for a brothel. You see Mr X has a sexual prediction that is unknown to his unsuspecting wife. He likes to indulge in what he and the prostitutes he is a customer of describes as “anal” which is short for anal intercourse – buggery in other words. Mr X is fully aware that his wife would not be willing to be buggered and therefore pays for this from another. Now Mr X uses a condom. The prostitutes and the brothel keeper insists upon it. A condom however does not offer 100% protection against STI (sexually transmitted infection) in these circumstances. This means that when Mr X has sexual intercourse with Mrs X, Mrs X is at risk. Now let us suppose that after leaving the pub one Saturday lunchtime, Mr X is apprehended by the police. A police officer in the Traffic Division is on patrol and sees Mr X drive off from the pub and notices that Mr X is not wearing a seat belt. As a result the officer puts on the “blues and twos” and pulls Mr X over. The officer asks Mr X to give a breath test. Mr X does so and the officer discovers that Mr X was telling the truth when he said that together with a pub carvery, he only had a soft drink, not an alcoholic drink. Whilst this meant that Mr X was spared a drink drive conviction and a driving ban, he was none the less given a fix penalty notice for failure to wear a seatbelt.
Now then, let us consider the situation surrounding Mr X. Mr X regularly performs the act of buggery with a paid prostitute. This poses a health risk not only for himself but Mrs X. These acts are not illegal. However, on the odd occasion that Mr X forgot to “belt up” he was apprehended and prosecuted.
Which of the two acts is more deserving of criminalisation? The act of buggery which places another at risk or the act of failing to wear a seat belt that places only the non wearer of the said seat belt at risk?
A campaign to re criminalise buggery would have the following advantages; it would help polarise and redefine the debate. It would raise the stakes. Most of all it would cause the BBC to make it a cause célèbre. Hopefully, it would enable Christians and Muslims to find some common ground.
Please note: The British Gazette and it’s Editor are fully aware that this article places us firmly on Mrs May’s list of nasty people! Those who wish to comment in support of the article are also likely to find themselves on that list. You have been warned!