Despite a typical bit of sensationalism in the Mail on Sunday, Her Majesty the Queen will not sign a Commonwealth gay rights charter at Marlborough House tonight.
The new Commonwealth Charter declares: “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”
The Charter is only ‘designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the “empowerment” of women’ in the minds of a few libertarians in Britain and Australia and an editor at Northcliffe House with an eye on the market.
If the Charter had said explicitly ‘grounds of sexuality’ instead of ‘other grounds’ it would have been a gay rights measure, but the Commonwealth is not Westminster, or Canberra. A majority of nations still retain elements of historical Biblical morality and a charter with a reference to ‘sexuality’ would never have been agreed by all Commonwealth heads of government in December..
As the Mail says: “The ‘other grounds’ is intended to refer to sexuality – but specific reference to ‘gays and lesbians’ was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.”
Exactly. Except it was only ‘intended’ that way by some of those who stitched the wording together. For others, in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, there is not the slightest thought that ‘gay rights’ is a new Commonwealth ideal.
The Sunday Telegraph observed that ‘forty-one of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations retain legislation against homosexual acts. In parts of Nigeria and Pakistan those found to have taken part in gay sex can receive the death penalty, in Trinidad and Tobago it can incur 25 years in jail and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.’
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall, described the Monarch, for some reason, as a “feminist icon” and said: “This is the first time that the Queen has publicly acknowledged the importance of the six per cent of her subjects who are gay.”
(The actual evidence shows the latter figure to be around 1.5% in the West and nearer to 0% in Africa and Asia.)
For another more balanced view, here is the view of Tim Marshall, Foreign Affairs Editor at Sky News:
‘In her speech the Queen will say: “Our shared values… which are found in our new Commonwealth Charter – mean that we place special emphasis on including everyone in this goal, especially those who are vulnerable.”
‘She may say that, but the charter does not.’
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Thank you, Stephen, for bringing balance to this important issue!
Aren’t the rather strict laws against homosexuality in Pakistan and Nigeria due more to Islam than to Christianity?
Stephen and an Imam would make strange bedfellows, but at least they do agree that they should definitely not be in bed together.
Well, I guess it was us British who brought those laws in during the colonial era, and they have remained in Commonwealth countries whilst Britain has gone a-whoring and a-sodomising, so to speak.
Of course, in a more innocent age, simply being ‘in bed together’ would not be a problem. Your comment brings to mind this verse about ‘the day when the Son of man is revealed’ (Luke 17:30):
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Pakistan did not exist until independence. I don’t think there was a death penalty for homosexuality in British India.
I am equally confident there was a law against sodomy in India before partition.
Hinduism recognises a “third gender” ( tritiya-prakriti ) . I don’t think such experienced and wise imperialists as the British would have wanted to meddle much with such delicate internal questions (or with the Muslim law), so (as in England) they would not even have tried excessively hard to bring about prosecutions for sodomy, which as in England was illegal but certainly did not carry a death penalty.
The Mail newspaper was misinformed. it has alway been sensation news since I knew it.
Lets stick to our Christian values with a focus on the battle for generations unborn that must profess Christ as King over their lives personally and the earth at large.
Many that joined gay rights see it as fun but they’ve lost their mind to Satan who deceives and destroys.
Evil agendas never last for long. With our prayers in spiritual warfare, we shall win. Gay issue will be a thing of the past in the near future. A govt will rise, who will overturn evil legislations.
Shalom.
Thank you Stephen for serving the Lord Jesus Christ so boldly not fearing their faces. God bless
We were greatly relieved to receive this confirmation Stephen. It flags up the wishful thinking of the Mail on Sunday to its discredit and, no doubt, to the irritation of our Queen.
Why do you have to include the obligatory quotation from bloody Stonewall at the end of this article? Stonewall is an unelected extremist group which has no research basis for the ideas it spreads. It is self-important, and including it here just flatters its vanity.
It’s for balance, Monica. And it is interesting to see what they are saying.
Wrong to assume it was the British who brought in these laws during the colonialist era. Every society across the globe recognizes heterosexuality as the norm and anything else as an aberration. They wouldn’t exist otherwise!
You might like to read
http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/who-is-killing-the-gays/
Very true. And our society won’t exist soon, either.
The Ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality as a norm , in their own way. It was not an aberration for older men to have intercourse with younger boys, while usually having wives too, and with the boys expected to grow up into normal men. I must insist that this does not seem normal to me, but to the Ancient Greeks it certainly did, so Monica is wrong, or at least not entirely right.. Perhaps this is why the ancient Greeks are no longer with us, but then nor are the Ancient Egyptians or the Assyrians, or anybody from that time.
Also there is a continuing tradition in hinduism which sees matters differently from Monica or indeed myself. Some Hindus recognise a “third gender” ( tritiya-prakriti ) which consists mainly of apparent males who are in some way effeminate, and are expected to stay that way. It is considered normal for heterosexual men to have sex with them as with women.
So, Monica, there are two quite significant cultures at least who see these matters quite differently from you or me or from each other. I believe the Romans tended to go along with the Greeks (that is the ancient Romans, not the Roman Catholic church). They were quite a dominant force in their time, and Hindus are very numerous. Who knows what has gone on in Africa or South America (I mean amongst innocent pagan people).
I am in no way an expert on this, but it seems that traditional practices in Japan were quite similar to ancient Greece and Rome. In China, there was no clearcut universal opposition to homosexuality until christian missionaries and eventually communism arrived. The communist leader of China, the President of Russia, Stephen, and the Caliph of Baghdad could all share a celibate bed. I’m sure it would be a most interesting night.
Interesting the number of times you’ve quoted The Mail to back up whichever point you’re trying to make, that you now decide it’s sensationalist and untrue. I’ve been trying to tell you that for years !
No Jane, we have a policy of not quoting the Mail newspapers unless the info can be verified elsewhere. If you can provide an example from the last two years of us basing a story on something the Mail has written I’ll be astonished. I am very aware of how the Mail twists facts and invents stories, don’t you worry!
Are you Jane Glover the famous conductor ?
Of course, you don’t need to tell us one way or the other, but if you are not, it might be polite to make this clear.
I would not describe myself here as Mark Elder (not a bad ID) if I was not the conductor of the Hallé Orchestra.
This is also much more relevant than people might think, because Jane Glover the conductor had personal experience of Peter Piers and Benjamin Britten, once describing Britten as “my hero”. Has she changed her mind ?