Same Sex Marriage: The Sheep Dogs are Out!

Those who believe that democracy is a sham now have before them a proof that they can hold up in public. The political agenda of the ‘elite’ has taken precedence over all the usual democratic procedures. In the UK and France the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is being forced through both parliaments without due regard for consultation with the electorate.

Lead on!

Lead on!

The French government under President Hollande claim legitimacy on the basis of 53% of the vote at the election last year. This premise is false as SSM was not overtly discussed at the time of the election. Many of the electorate would have merely cast their vote to get rid of the previous incumbent, Sarkozy. Some 400,000 people protesting on the streets suggest that it does not command wide support. In England no political party had an overall majority and thus no mandate to impose SSM, which no Party raised prior to the election. The coalition government are simply pushing it through.

It does not matter what your individual stance on the issue is, the real story concerns the political agenda of the ‘elite’ and why single sex marriage is being rolled out globally. Who is behind this agenda and why single sex marriage at this particular time?

Let us not pretend that society welcomes this change to their otherwise orthodox lives. Let us not pretend that this is a necessary change. Let us not pretend that politicians are pursuing their course of action because of a groundswell of support. This is part of a much larger political agenda with a comprehensive perspective in mind. That it is being promoted worldwide tells us that it is not a locally generated programme. It would seem that local politicians are not in control and many no doubt will be against it but are, like us, being railroaded into accepting it.

There are many stories and films about conspiracy theories and some may suspect that I am perpetuating another. Some may also suspect that if I opened my door that the ‘men in white coats’ will be waiting to usher me off. I have no plans to open the door just yet!

However, suspicion needs to be clarified and in a democracy open and frank discussion is supposed to be an integral part of the process. But as with immigration, when people have voiced an opinion or doubt they have found themselves quickly attacked as: racist, bigot, nimby, homophobic and Neanderthal etc. This is the way now with our new brand of politics, intimidation. Where intimidation is allowed to thrive a democracy cannot exist. Intimidation was and is the preserve of dictators.

I don’t know of any religion that would openly welcome homosexuals into their church. So why are political organisations, predominately of the ‘left’ (more susceptible) intent on making same sex marriage into law? Why is it so important? Many people, probably the majority get married in a Register Office, while others chose a venue to suit their preference: castle, hotel, village hall or up a mountain etc. Humanists who are non- religious provide their own wedding ceremonies. Millions don’t even bother to get married at all. So why the sudden clamour for same sex marriage in a church, a synagogue or a mosque?

The suspicion must be that marriage in a church is not the real issue. Rather it is a determined action to loosen the yoke of the church, in effect to destabilize religion. Therefore we have to consider the possibility that the Gay community is not so much being supported in a campaign for equality but are being used as a battering ram by those who want to contain religion and its perceived power now and in the future.

Homosexuals are different; they acknowledge that fact and celebrate their individuality in various ways: clubs, bars, meetings, parades etc. On the other hand, perhaps these insular settings are because they feel ostracized in society. However, they are to all intents and purposes an independent body within our community. They want respect for who they are and if respect is forthcoming it will be reciprocated. That is community!

Unfortunately, Gay people know that not all agree or accept them. That some faiths will

Let's talk!

Let’s talk!

never reconcile themselves to acknowledge that being gay is okay. Have we reached an impasse that can only be remedied by recourse to a legal gavel? Is this a case of intransigence versus intransigence; of a simple, I will not accept ‘no’ as an answer? Is there a principle at stake? A principle is merely an opinion that your view is superior too or supersedes the other. That your view is correct is a political construct and becomes a motivation based on your belief. Is it really about equality for that is a whole different equation.

Can equality be a dictated policy handed down by those who hold power? Oh, laws can be passed; in fact we have laws; Equal pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1985, have they delivered the sought after goal? NO! Both these laws came up against the ‘One Great Demagogue’ – Capitalism! Not that the ‘One Great Demagogue’ would interfere in gay marriage but it’s illustrative that you can’t just pass laws and expect compliance forthwith or on going. You cannot force people to download your beliefs and delete their own. Who is right them or you? It’s a political catch 22. Take it away, Frankie – ‘Two Tribes go to war…’

Recent history has given us a lesson on forcing people to live together. With the disintegration of the Communist Bloc and in consequence the great communist experiment of forcing people to live cohesively, burst. The resultant break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia witnessed an eruption of sectarianism, and hatred spewed from every vent. Thousands died, neighbour murdered neighbour and genocide was only avoided by sending in the troops.

Now that the Junta has relaxed their iron grip on the people of Burma sectarianism has raised its ugly head and scores have died. Pent up feelings need to be let out and rationalized before they become a source of hatred.

The riots in Turkey this week (June 2013) are an indication of how pent up anger can suddenly explode onto our streets. The decision to bulldoze a local park in a small town fed into a national frustration and the petrol bomb came out.

An interesting point is raised by the Secular Society in their statement that “…individuals have rights, ideas do not.” However, if the individual has a thought and wants that thought to be transmuted into a benefit for themselves and/or those who share a common view, then they are promoting a political doctrine. Therefore taking a lead from the secularists, the idea has no rights. A further point of clarification is required here; does the individual have more rights than the community or society? If so, what is the point of democracy?

thCA2WEO4VAnother point raised is as follows: “Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens”. All sounds positive until you read the ‘rider’. “…insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights of others”. The question therefore is; how does the marriage of a heterosexual couple in a church ‘impinge disproportionately’ on the rights of others? The answer may lie with another statement, “Secularism champions human rights above discriminatory religious demands”. It would seem to me that the church simply want to maintain the status quo, to continue a process that has been in place for centuries, without causing harm to anyone. As alluded to earlier, there are many places and different ways in which a couple can get married.  Is there an ulterior motive for insisting on a church wedding? Also, note the word ‘above’ in the sentence, this tells us that human rights supersedes all religious conviction. We now have a clear political hierarchy that supersedes all other belief systems.

What puzzles me is a further statement from the secular group, “It ensures that religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of the state, and makes sure the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs”. Hm. Colour me blushing.

It’s a very complicated business this philosophy lark. Especially when you read more of what the group believe in. “Secularism is about democracy and fairness”. Good, I can agree with that wholeheartedly. But in light of previous confusion I thought I had better examine this statement in more detail. Using my Oxford dictionary (the world’s most trusted – according to the cover) I looked up the word democracy:

  • A form of government in which people can vote for a representative to govern the state on their behalf.
  • A state governed by elected representatives.
  • Control of a group by the majority of its members.

I then looked up the word ‘fair’.

  • Treating people equally.
  • Just and reasonable in the circumstances.

Needless to say I didn’t find anything that suggested the imposition of a diktat by a minority. I thought how do you treat people equally by taking away one person’s or group’s right and belief system and impose another’s right and belief system upon them? A funny old thing is equality. Excuse my cynicism!

Especially when one considers more thought from the secular school, “…does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief”. Back to the dictionary, I couldn’t resist, and found that a ‘tenet’ is a central principle or belief. Thus I would humbly suggest that marriage in the Christian faith is a ‘tenet’ and probably is in all religions.

It was not my intention to pick a fight with secularism, in fact I support a number of points they raise:

  • Separate the state and religion.
  • Ensure animals are stunned before killing them.
  • Democracy and fairness ( with intent and clarification)
  • Secular education for all – state and private

If you truly believe in education as a fundamental necessity for an open and constructive society then by principle you must oppose any notion of indoctrination, however, well meaning. How is a child to grow and be in control of their own thinking if the cloud of indoctrination pervades their every thought? To close to brainwashing for me! WE must remember Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am’.

If the advocates of human rights truly want equality then we must look to an old socialist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Louis Blanc 1839, Karl Marx 1875. That I would imagine is how you treat people equally; anything else is a political sham. Made up for and by political hacks!

We must be aware that human rights is based on human belief, it is a doctrine; as is religion, as is humanism, as is paganism and so on. Which one is ‘above’ the others will depend entirely on who holds the power.

Few should need reminding that two of the greatest proponents of equality in the 20th century were: Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, both devout religious men. A little earlier, we had Karl Marx, who advocated equality without the ‘opium’ of religion. Going back even further we have William Shakespeare, who through his character Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, questioned religious prejudice and inequality with the retort; “ if you prick us, do we not bleed.” I would contend that religion at its inception and by character is about equality. History is abound with champions and still we labour.

We may never know the logic behind the compulsion to introduce same sex marriage into the church. From one standpoint it is all about control, to ensure that in the future religion cannot override the liberal outlook of society. A further viewpoint that should be considered is that human rights legislation is being used forcibly to manipulate society. The law has become the ‘Great Oracle Deliverer’. Be warned, imposition is the tool of the jejune.

 

 

Human Rights: A View from the Stalls

 

It would appear that the politically correct have fully utilized the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to realise their political ambitions. Marx and Engels could not have conceived such a scenario; the use of a law to dictate policy to the nations that make up the European Union (EU). It goes without saying that in the world in which we live that human rights is an absolute must. However, how it is used should be a concern to all.

The Second World War had recently ended and society had witnessed atrocities that it never wanted to see again. It was the holocaust in particular and the massive dislocation throughout Europe and beyond. It was the fear of a Stalinist regime bludgeoning out from the East. It was the knowledge of the Gestapo, of the Russian Secret Police, the NKVD (later KGB). It was to prevent the horror of the 1930s ever being re-established. It was the imprisonment, without trial, of hundreds of thousands of people in both Germany and Russia. It was the spectacle of the Russian ‘show trials’. It was a desire to strengthen democracy. It was a plan to give more power to the citizenry so that dictatorship would not darken the sky over Europe again. It was an attempt to give future generations light in the lives.

It was a spectacular emotional outburst borne of the heinous crimes of World War 2. That was the background to the introduction of the ECHR. Without doubt an attempt to prevent genocide from crossing the doorstep of civilisation again. The aim was to halt the spread of Stalin’s corrupted version of communism and to block communism altogether. Dictatorship had brought only death and destruction; an agony of horror. The authors of the ECHR were trying to devise a way forward and their solution was to strengthen democracy. How might they cry to see how it is being used today?

Did they envisage human rights for convicted murderers and rapists? Did they anticipate a complete liberalisation of sexual orientation as an essential element to freedom? Are these what our forefathers had in mind having witnessed Hitler and Stalin? That democracy would be the preserve of minority politics?

Isn’t it ironic…

I am all in favour of the State being held in check, no logical person wants the State to be overpowering. Our hope for a free society rests on the shoulders of democracy and a free press. As long as these two principals can be seen to be transparent then we have a fair shot at retaining, free speech, the right to life, the right to liberty and security. Do we really need an all-embracing law fashioned by powerful emotion in the post war period to govern us? Make no mistake; the Convention on Human Rights is the new method of imposing a political philosophy upon us. You may find the founders have puked in their coffins!

Human rights law supersedes all other legislation. Parliament which you voted for cannot override HR law and European judges have the power to disregard ‘secondary legislation’ and deem Acts of Parliament as ‘incompatible’. Thus your elected chamber, the Houses of Parliament is subservient to the rulings of a cabal of European Judges and must uphold what the Judges’ decree. The government when submitting legislation to parliament have to ensure that the proposed ‘Bill’ does not conflict with the ECHR. The ‘Bill’ must fit within the remit of the ECHR or the courts will reject it as incompatible.

Q. Who rules the UK?                    Not you, OK!

Scenario: (hypothetical)

The government pass a law on Social Security, this is the main law. However, the ‘Bill’ may hold several sections these are the ‘secondary legislation’. So even though Parliament passes all sections of the legislation into law the Judges’ can dismiss the ‘secondary’ pieces out of hand and deem the whole of the legislation as incompatible. Wherefore art thou democracy?

Q. Is this how the original authors intended human rights law to work?

Surely the intention of the ECHR was to forestall dictatorship; hence article after article begins with the pronoun ‘everyone’. Article 2. ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.’ Article 8. ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life.’ Thus one principal aim was to empower the people as a battlement against the foes of democracy; creating a barricade of millions to thwart the dictatorial ambitions of the few.

Is democracy secure? Has the ECHR been the panacea envisaged? Or are we lumbered with a vision contorted by political expediency? I would have to put my money, all of it, on the latter point because I firmly believe that the vision of those who introduced the ECHR has been waylaid and subverted by the political agenda of an elitist minority.

Moreover, the ECHR is designated as a ‘living instrument’ which means that as society and attitudes change, the ECHR will adapt and adopt in the way it interprets the views expressed within society. However, as with all legal status ‘precedent’ will hold sway. Precedent is an interpretation of the law from years earlier. Therefore, if ‘precedent’ holds sway what is the point of ‘living instrument’?

Several points of clarification are needed; who interprets the change in societal attitude? Are the electorate consulted via a plebiscite/referendum? Are the parliaments of each nation state asked to consult their electorate? No! Non! Nein! No!

Any decision that has to be taken will be done by a cabal of Judges at the court of human rights. These Judges are political appointees and while some are conversant with general law, many are not well versed in the complexity of human rights law. A number of questions need explanation:

  • Who has appointed them and from what political perspective?
  • What do they in return expect from their appointees?

Do you smell something here? Does it begin with a capital C? You complete the word!

As for ‘precedent’ that is a judgement passed previously, perhaps 40 years ago. Now many may consider that attitudes were quite different when granddads roamed the earth, but for many the answer may be not so different. The problem comes with the term ‘living instrument’; is there not a contradiction here? We have a living instrument but precedent holds it tied to the chair. Hmmm

It doesn’t matter how you look at it, either as a living instrument or by precedent, we don’t get a say; it all comes down to the interpretation of the Convention on Human Rights. Judges’ rule ok! Have we uncovered the PC’s hidden bible? Every political philosophy has its bible.

Furthermore, I have a problem with the term ‘interpret’ / ‘interpretation’. Interpretation holds within its definition that an equal and valid alternative view can be had. Therefore, interpretation is open to interpretation. Which means the Judges’ might have got it all wrong. Perhaps we need to re-examine all precedents to determine if they have been interpreted correctly. Oh, my, Judges examining their own navels; can’t wait.

Big decisions are being taken, laws are being enforced but crucially the citizenry have not had a say in any of it. Democracy, the powerhouse of our freedoms is being made redundant by a law conceived over 50 years ago. The irony is that it is about human rights.Your great grandfathers laid down the law that you must now abide by and the interpretation of that law is not open to debate. The ‘living instrument’ will be determined by the Judges at the behest of their political masters. Living instrument, more like modern yoke! The politicians who impose an illusion of equality in an inherently divided society are playing a farce much greater than the creationist theory itself. I can hear our forefathers puking in their coffins.

Article 9 reads: You should not be indoctrinated by the State.

Unfortunately where there is no democracy there is only indoctrination!

Democracy

Quote

Sham     Sham     Sham

Sham:-  false, counterfeit or pretended; insincere.

That’s it folks, the perfect word to sum up politicians and much of that they impose upon us. Our lives are dominated by the decisions made by politicians, yet they rarely ask for our opinion. Why not?

There are several words that are used by ordinary people to describe our masters:

  • Accursed
  • Bickering
  • Chancer

You could probably work through a dictionary and find a word beginning with each letter of the alphabet that best sums them up in your own mind. (have a go).

We are all led to believe that democracy is the pinnacle of political development; that it is a safeguard against dictatorship and communism. That the parliament we elect serves our needs and thus is a true representative process.

“Free elections of masters does not abolish masters and slaves”.              Herbert Marcuse.

While the rhetoric might be O.T.T. the basic thrust is spot on. We elect politicians to serve our community only to find they serve themselves.

So we have one agenda but it seems members of parliament (M.P.) have their own:

  • Self
  • Party
  • Expenses
  • Income
  • Politics?

What type of person goes into politics?

“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career”. George Bernard Shaw.

When elected to parliament they are hooked on the Party reel. They are not allowed to vote as they see fit unless they are granted a ‘free vote’. The party expects them to tow the line or they will be reeled in by the ‘whips’.

Whips:- The Prime Minister’s  (P.M.) security guard who are sent round members to ensure that they follow the dictated line and turn up to vote.

When the government want to pursue a particular policy they impose a ‘whip’. A three line whip means every member of the Party is expected/ duty bound, to vote for the government policy. The M.P. is not allowed to vote on conscience or, heaven forbid, to vote for what the people want. That’s just not cricket, old boy.

Of course, the PM is the big guy (usually) and once ensconced in his seat, he hires an army of advisors. Obviously there’s no one in the Party good enough or trustworthy enough to do the job. What does that tell us? There’s even a guy to keep the PM popular. Get a new job; that would be popular!

Caucus,                                after caucus,     after caucus

Caucus:- a small dominant group of people taking independent decisions within a larger organization.

The PM usually meets with:

  • Advisors
  • Inner cabinet
  • Full cabinet
  • Then to parliament.

How many MP’s get a say on the policy issues? What’s the point of electing someone who has to do what they’re told? What part of the process is democratic?

Democracy is supposed to be bottom up. The reality is very much top down. This is more akin to Democratic Centralism, (Trotsky & Lenin).

They make promises, we elect them

They forget?, we regret.

Perhaps they need reminding:

“A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service”. Georges Pompidou, (late French president)

The wheels on the bus go round and round……..(sing along) And soon it’s time to kiss our babies, shake our hands and agree with all of our demands; out comes the goody bag with little sweeteners for us all.

The promise bag:

  • tough on crime
  • tough on immigration
  • tough on scroungers
  • tough on tax loopholes
  • tough on the rich

Tough, tough, tough- it’s all a load of puff! (Puff? You may have a different word in mind.)

Promises made

promises broken.

Hopes raised

Lies spoken.

Have you noticed a pattern? Politicians know what the people want but will never deliver. Why not? If the electorate don’t fully grasp the ‘possible’ of government, why don’t MP’s explain instead of treating us like imbeciles.

If politicians never listen, why vote? Simple, by not voting, you give them exactly what they want, election by default.

ME? I would make voting compulsory. Why?

Imagine the situation; 1,000,000 people vote for the Concerned Radicals Alliance Party (C.R.A.P). It could be 2m or 3m; aided by a free massive internet publicity drive.

Vote C.R A.P. and get rid of the ….!

There wouldn’t be enough toilets in the Houses of Parliament, to cope with the diarrhoea. (Diarrhoea? You can use your own shorten version.)

You have the power!

 

 

Sharing words of wisdom..let it……

For the present coalition government, a message

“…in politics the middle way is none at all” John Adams (1735-1826)

Does this suggest that Cameron & Clegg are slow learners?

For the PM Cameron:

“The concessions of the weak are concessions of fear”. Edmund Burke

And Nick Clegg, the little partner:

“It is impossible that the whisper of a faction should prevail against the voice of the nation”. Lord John Russell (1792-1878)

You gotta have faith…..

“All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy”.

Alfred E Smith, NY Times 1933