Holy Sexuality Conference Cancelled

By

-

30 April 2015

After over 40,000 people signed a petition, the Holy Sexuality Conference in London was cancelled. — The Holy Sexuality Conference in London was cancelled after 40,000 dissenters signed a petition calling for its cancellation.

The “Holy Sexuality” Conference in London was cancelled after 40,000 people signed a petition calling for its abandonment.

Dubbed the “Gay Cure Summit” by GayStarNews, the 5-day conference was to be held from 21-25 April and aimed at helping people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction. According to the advert:

“This conference will be invaluable for those who are struggling with their sexuality or for those who wish to find out more about issues surrounding sexuality and same sex attraction to reach out to others.”

The three people supposed to speak at the event were Americans Mike Carducci, Wayne Blakely, and Danielle Harrison. These speakers explained that they found “redemption, victory, healing and freedom from their [homosexual] lifestyle.”

The conference was organized by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, a Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin and breaks God’s Commandment.

Kirsten Lundquist, the communications and media director of South England Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, was disappointed by the decision to cancel the conference, saying:

“Seventh-day Adventists are a people of peace who believe in hope and dialogue. However, it appeared that rather than drawing people together the conference had the potential to divide. The Adventist Church recognises that the individuals invited to speak at the Holy Sexuality Conference have compelling life stories to share but equally appreciate that there are those who take a different point of view.”

The entire statement can be found in this article.

However, many people took offense at the goal of the conference, saying that promoting the idea of curing homosexuality is “dangerous.” The UK Council for Psychotherapy even described “conversion theory” as abuse.

The conference was also denounced by political figures. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

“If anything needs curing, it is the outdated belief that being gay is wrong or something to be ashamed of. Sexuality is not an illness but an inherent part of who you are.”

In an article on Change.org, human rights activist Omar Kuddus called for the Government to refuse visas to people who seek to cure people of gay desires. Kuddus started the petition to cancel the Holy Sexuality conference, and he believes the Government should protect gay people from those who want to cure them.

“We are disappointed that in a society that values freedom of speech and divergence of opinion that there are those whose wish it is to silence individuals who hold a different point of view to their own.”

That same week, a similar event called The Transformation Potential Conference took place in Westminster. It was held by Core Issues, a Christian ministry organization. Although more than 13,000 people signed a petition to cancel it, nevertheless the talks were held on 14 April.

Ukip candidate Alan Craig, former leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance, was set to speak at this conference. However, organizers asked him to step aside so the issues discussed at the seminar would not be “associated with any one political party.”

Omar Kuddus also fought for the cancellation of this conference, believing these events are harmful to those who attend them. In a statement to the Evening Standard, Kuddos said:

“You don’t expect two gay cure conferences to take place in London at all, especially in the same week. I find it diabolical someone representing the group is allowed to preach hate in England. At the end of the day that is what conversion therapy is – sexuality is not a choice.”

The irony in this is that the very people who claim Christians want to “silence” gay people are the very ones who cancel conferences and want to refuse visas to people coming to speak at these events. They are the ones trying to silence differing opinions, embodying a tactic that prohibits free speech and cancels conferences.

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.

Scottish registrars given ‘conscience clause’

By

Stephen

-

10 March 2015

3

The Scottish Government has given registrars a conscience clause not to take part in ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies.

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 provides that local authorities must provide a registrar to conduct a same-sex ‘marriage’ but does not say that every individual registrar is obliged to participate.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government told the homosexual website PinkNews.co.uk: “Each local authority must provide an authorised registrar to conduct a marriage or civil partnership in the area chosen by the couple, regardless of that couple’s sexual orientation. It is a matter for local authorities to manage the provision of that service.

“There is no opt-out for individual registrars included in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.

“However, we have been clear that we expect local authorities to handle with sensitivity any registrar who objects to carrying out a same sex marriage on the basis of their religion or belief.”

Naturally, if the expression does not fall too awkwardly, the pro-gay National Secular Society is upset. It’s homosexual president, Terry Sanderson, complained: “The Scottish Government is putting local authorities in an invidious position of having to decide individually whether it is OK for religious registrars to discriminate against gay couples.

“There should be a clear policy to guide them and that policy should be that gay couples are entitled to equal treatment from all registrars.”

But Sanderson goes on to argue that the conscience of Christian registrars is increasingly being supported by the European Court of Human Rights.

Referring to the case of Lilian Ladele, who was sacked by the London Borough of Islington after she voiced concerns about participating in civil partnerships, he declared: “The court said that any policy aimed at restricting religious opt outs should have been agreed before any case is brought.

“Local authorities will have to make a very strong case for not allowing religious registrars to refuse to even administer same-sex marriages, let alone carry out ceremonies. If Lillian Ladele brought her case today, she would probably win.”

Indeed, a Christian registrar who was previously dismissed by Central Bedfordshire Council after refusing to conduct same-sex weddings was reinstated last year.

Margaret Jones, a senior deputy registrar at Bedford register office, was sacked by her employers after confirming that she would be unwilling to conduct same-sex weddings on the basis of her Christian beliefs.

However, Ms Jones was offered her job back after an internal appeal hearing in August last year (2014) found her employer had not taken a “balanced view” of her beliefs.

The tribunal overturned the decision by Central Bedfordshire Council, noting Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance “[encourages] employers and employees to find reasonable solutions to religion or belief issues at work”.

That outcome also had the National Secular Society convulsed by impotent fury, writing to the Council asking it to ‘clarify’ its position regarding employees’ requests to opt out of part of their job requirements.

Margaret Jones declined the job reinstatement offer, but Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, raged: “Discriminatory acts have a moral significance beyond the deprivation of the relevant service and the fact that other registrars could conduct the ceremonies is irrelevant.”

This may be no more than a faint glimmer of good news, but welcome as the homosexual juggernaut rumbles on.

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.

Faith Schools Must Promote “British Values” of Gay Rights

By

Robin

-

13 November 2014

8

Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan believes it is "crucial" for all schools to promote tolerance for beliefs that are different from those the school might believe. — Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan believes it is “crucial” for all schools to promote tolerance for beliefs that are different from those the school might believe.

Faith schools must promote “British Values” such as gay rights and other religions.

The Equality Act, effective last week, gives inspectors the authority to censure schools that do not “encourage respect for lesbian, gay and transgender people, and other religions and races.”

Inspectors will look for schools that are intolerant of same-sex “marriage” or engage in practices such as forcing girls to sit at the back of the classrooms.

These new rules were inspired by Michael Gove, MP for Surrey Heath, in response to the “Trojan Horse” incident in Birmingham, which revealed that extremist views were being taught in state schools.

In response to news about the policy, the Department of Education tweeted: “Nonsense to say schools ‘must teach gay rights’. We want schools to teach broad curric based on British values.”

The tweet, which was later deleted, offended many people because it seemed to make a distinction between promoting gay rights and “British values,” which many believe are the same thing.

Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt responded: “LGBT rights are British values. The Department for Education must back compulsory sex and relationship education, including LGBT rights.”

According to Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, the DfE needs to clarify whether it considers gay rights to be “British values.”

Christians have opposed the new policy, fearing that it will threaten their religious liberty. The DfE says that teachers who disagree with gay “marriage” are allowed to express their opinions in class, but they must respect gay children or parents and not discriminate against them.

Antonia Tully, national coordinator of Safe at School, a parents’ rights campaign of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, called Morgan’s announcement an “attack on every parent in the country.”

Tully said in a statement that “it’s quite clear that the new rules for schools actively to promote so-called ‘British values’ are all about indoctrinating children with a homosexual ideology. The prospect that schools will have to champion homosexuality or risk being downgraded by Ofsted strips all parents of their right to educate their own children about sexual morality.”

She added, “It is misleading to suggest that same-sex issues must be embedded in the school curriculum in order to protect children. Parents will be left powerless to keep their children safe from harmful sexual lifestyles. Nicky Morgan’s zeal to further the gay agenda is undermining every parent in the country.”

However, Nicky Morgan, secretary of education who succeeded Michael Gove, told the Sunday Times that it was “crucial” for Christian and Jewish schools to follow these rules as well as Muslim schools, despite the fact that the schools targeted in the Trojan Horse Plot were not faith schools.

Already an all-girls Jewish schools was punished last week and downgraded from good to adequate ratings for not meeting the new standards. According to inspectors who visited the school, there were “major gaps in students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Students are not provided with sufficient opportunities to learn about or understand people of other faiths or cultures. The school does not promote adequately students’ awareness and tolerance of communities which are different to their own. As a result, the school does not prepare students adequately for life in modern Britain.”

Despite this development, the DfE claims that faith schools are not being forced to teach gay rights, a notion that one spokesman declared was “complete nonsense.” Commenting further, he said that “Ofsted are rightly ensuring that schools do not indoctrinate pupils about gay people – or any other people – being inferior. The same goes for schools that do things like make girls sit separately at the back of the class. Both are practices which go directly against the fundamental British values of tolerance and respect.”

Morgan will soon begin a consultation suggesting that students taking GCSE religious education must study more than one faith, exposing students to views other than their own and offering them a more well-rounded education.

The question many parents will want to ask is this: Where will inspectors differentiate between upholding Christian beliefs, on the one hand, and teaching students intolerance, on the other? Contrary to popular belief, many Christians do not want to discriminate against others when they teach their views in faith schools. There is a big difference between teaching about other views and condoning them. Unfortunately, Nicky Morgan seems to be leaning toward making schools enforce the latter.

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.

Theresa May Resurrects “Snooper’s Charter”

By

Robin

-

12 July 2014

8

Theresa May is in favor of increasing internet surveillance in Britain. — Theresa May: in favour of increased internet surveillance in Britain.

Theresa May has resurrected plans for a “snooper’s charter” in order to counteract, she says, terrorist threats from British jihadists in Syria.

She stated again that she wants to “equip the state with greater surveillance powers—including the ability to access citizens’ email and social media accounts.”

May claims that it is vital for security authorities to have enough power to counteract terrorist in a world with ever-increasing internet capabilities. She claims that having this power is a matter of “life and death, a matter of national security.”

She related how many Britons have travelled to Syria to fight the Assad regime, and how this could represent a threat when they return to the UK.

It was of course British Foreign Secretary William Hague who encouraged the uprising against President Assad and paved the way for Islamist terrorists to become entrenched in Syria in the first place. The UK gave the anti-Christian rebels £32.5m. Only as a result of prayer and by the grace of God did the UK not send warplanes against Syrian government forces and make matters even worse.

May also claimed that at least 20 cases, 13 of which involved a threat to a child’s life, were dropped by the National Crime Agency in the past six months for lack of communication data.

Speaking at the Lord Mayor’s Defence and Security Lecture, May said that “the real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public.”

She believes that internet technology has given criminals more ways to commit crimes, and that the Government needs to be able to match these criminals in technological advances, which includes accessing information that can help stop them. She even referred to the internet as a “breeding ground for criminals.”

Emma Carr, acting director of privacy campaigner group Big Brother Watch, asserted that May differs from the majority opinion on this issue.

“Yet again the Home Secretary is clashing with the broad political consensus that no new powers should be introduced until a full independent review into the currently available surveillance legislation and oversight mechanisms has taken place,” she said in a statement.

“We know from surveillance transparency reports published by private companies that they largely comply with law enforcement requests for communications data.

“Therefore, if the Home Secretary is stating that communications data was unavailable in specific cases, then that would suggest that a warrant was either not submitted to, or was rejected by, the companies in question. The question therefore should be why is this the case?” Carr added.

May introduced the “snooper’s charter” proposal last year to increase surveillance of people’s internet and phone communications, but it was blocked by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. He believed her plans would be opening up doors for all sorts of mass surveillance by the government.

If passed, the proposed legislation would require internet firms to keep records of all email and social media interactions for up to a year, in case these records need to be accessed in an issue of national security.

Based on recent reports, May appears to want this legislation passed before the next general election.

May also denied a “surveillance state” programme as alleged by Edward Snowden, and she affirmed that Britain did not rely on the US to illegally obtain internet records.

“There is no programme of mass surveillance and there is no surveillance state,” May asserted.

However, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has already been accused by privacy campaigners of spying on citizens by hacking unlawfully into personal information.

Privacy International alleges that GCHQ was illegally spying on people and has broken the European Convention of Human Rights by doing so. This document ensures citizens a right to privacy and freedom of speech.

Privacy International claims that, based on information from whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the GCHQ and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) used a monitoring programmed called Tempora, which “taps into the network of fibre-optic cables which carry the world’s phone calls and online traffic.”

The deputy director of Privacy International, Eric King, said this was the “modern equivalent of the government entering someone’s house and reading their diary, correspondence and journals.”

May denied these allegations as well, calling them “nonsense” and affirming that everything the Government is doing in surveillance is perfectly legal.

The Government received more criticism when Charles Farr, Britain’s most senior security official, said in a statement in mid-June that the Government is allowed to access citizens’ personal messages on social media sites because they are regarded as “external communications.” These include searches on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, in addition to emails from non-British citizens.

This is the first time that the Government openly stated that they intercept, without a warrant, what citizens believed were private messages.

Farr said that today the biggest threat to national security in the UK and beyond is from “militant Islamist terrorists,” and it is therefore necessary to find these suspects before it becomes too difficult to trace them. If the government was only allowed to monitor individual people or locations, this would not provide an adequate degree of protection which the people expect.

In addition, ministers have proposed this week to enact emergency laws that would require phone companies to keep records of people’s phone calls, texts, and internet history. Labour and Liberal Democrats are supporting this move but also warned that they will not allow this new law to reinstate a more extensive “snooper’s charter.”

Many allegations have been recently made against the Government regarding surveillance, followed by profuse denial from Theresa May. Are online terrorists really a threat to our national safety and is this the only way we can counteract terrorist threats? It is hard to say. But one thing remains certain: as much of a danger as terrorism may be, an even greater danger arises when a populace is willing to surrender substantial liberties for the promise of security. As we pointed out earlier this year, the normalization of the modern surveillance state arises from the universal human temptation to surrender freedom for the often illusory promise of increased security. That is why, when Government officials begin talking about “matters of life and death,” one must be cautious about the motivation behind it.

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.

Baroness Hale Backtracks on Bull v. Hall Ruling

By

Robin

-

24 June 2014

4

Baroness Hale, pictured, has called into question whether or not the law makes accommodation for Christians beliefs.

In an unexpected turn of events, Supreme Court Deputy Baroness Hale has said that she “may have been wrong” in her earlier ruling against Christian bed and breakfast owners who refused a double bed to a homosexual couple.

The UK’s senior female judge called for a re-think concerning her decision to condemn Peter and Hazelmary Bull of discrimination against homosexuals. In addition, she said that the law has done little to protect Christian beliefs.

Baroness Hale’s remarks,which have come more than six months after the Bulls’ final appeal was refused, call into question the relationship between gay rights and religious rights

In 2008, the Bulls refused to rent a double bed to a homosexual couple in their Marazion Bed and Breakfast called Chymorvah House. The same-sex couple, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, took the Bulls to court, where Lady Hale and four other judges eventually ruled that the rights of the gay couple trumped the religious freedom of the Bulls.

Lady Hale declared that the Bulls will not have to pay Preddy and Hall’s legal costs for the case, which was in the original sentence. In addition, she said that laws which ignore the consciences of Christians will not be and may need to be adjusted to include a “conscience clause” for Christian business owners like the Bulls.

Speaking to Irish lawyers, Hale used the Bull case as one example among many recent cases that may have been unfair to Christian beliefs. In this speech she asked: “Should we be developing an explicit requirement upon providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of religious beliefs?”

“It is fascinating that a country with an established church can be less respectful of religious feelings than one without”, Hale was quoted in the Telegraph as saying. “It is not difficult to see why the Christians feel that their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected.”

Mrs. Bull was glad to be relieved of the case costs, and hoped that her case would pave the way for other Christians in similar situations.

“It is too late for us, which is a shame, but at the same time I hope her comments will restore some kind of balance back to the issue,” Bull said. “I am glad that something positive looks as though it will come out of this although I would not call it a victory.”

The Bulls nearly closed their B&B because business had declined, and they could no longer keep up their advertising. However, thanks to financial support from different supporters they were able to stay in business.

Mrs. Bull added that she had no hard feelings toward anyone, but thinks that the Supreme Court “missed a big opportunity to put something right.”

“We are certainly not homophobic but hopefully the pendulum is being corrected. I have never been able to understand why two different lifestyles cannot live together harmoniously,” Bull added.

Mrs. Bull’s comments touch on issues of concern in cases like these. Christians have been given the blanket reputation of “homophobe,” while gay people have refused to allow others to disagree with their lifestyle at the expense of their own convictions.

Christians do not call non-Christians “Jesus-phobes” or some other nonsensical term. Contrary to popular belief, it is indeed possible for Christians to have different views and to still treat other people as humans created in the image of God.

While gay rights activists are very fond of calling Christians “homophobes,” in reality they are usually even more intolerant of Christians than Christians are intolerant of homosexuals.

It is hoped that the courage shown by Peter and Hazelmary Bull, together with Lady Hale’s recent remarks, will pave the way for rulings in the favor of Christians to practice their beliefs.

China Projected to be “World’s Most Christian Nation”

By

Robin

-

30 April 2014

3

The church in Liushi, China, was built last year under the disapproving eyes of the Communist Party. — The church in Liushi, China, opened last year despite being frowned upon by the Communist Party. Christianity in China is growing at a phenomenal rate.

According to a report in The London Telegraph, Christianity is growing so rapidly in China that it is projected to be the “world’s most Christian nation” by 2030.

Churches have gradually been reopening since Chairman Mao’s death in 1976. This includes the 5,000-capacity Liushi church that opened last year, which housed thousands of worshipers who gathered on Easter Sunday.

This £8 million church features a 206-foot cross and has twice as much seating capacity as Westminster Abbey. It represents China’s rapid conversion from Communism to Christianity and its transformation to one of the largest Christian populations in the world.

Although China is still officially an atheist country, its population does not reflect that as much as it did previously. China currently has 1.3 billion citizens, and if current trends continue the country could soon have more Christians than any other nation, even if they will remain a minority.

Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University, affirmed the above statements by predicting that China will be the “largest Christian country in the world very soon.” He said it could even happen by “less than a generation.”

Protestant Christians numbered one million in 1949, as opposed to the 58 million it has now. Professor Yang estimates that the Protestant Christian numbers will increase to approximately 160 million by the year 2025, putting China’s Christian population ahead of the United States, whose 159 million Protestant members are declining. By 2030 China’s Christian population would be more than 247 million people.

Many congregations have consented to Communist Party oversight in order to worship in their churches. However, millions of Christians worship illegally in underground “house churches” to avoid the “prying eyes of the Communist party.”

In an interesting “role reversal” China is now sending out missionaries of its own, even though it had often been the country receiving missionaries in the past. One underground church leader said that it is easier for China to send missionaries than it is for countries like Britain, South Korea, or America.

The Communist Party does not know quite what to make of it. There have been recent reports of government moves against one large Christian church, while a Roman Catholic shrine has been desecrated. But some leaders say that religious groups benefit society by providing social services and relieving moral crises.

Liushi’s preacher, Ms. Shi, carefully calls her church “patriotic,” and says that her church’s two missions are the gospel and serving their society. She said that “without God, people can do as they please.” She believes that Christianity offers moral stability in a society.

However, this rapid growth of Christianity might not come without its challenges. Despite China’s constitution guaranteeing citizens their right to practice “normal religious activities,” Christians are still closely watched by the government. The goal is to ensure that church services “do not diverge from what the [Communist] Party considers acceptable.”

The state, according to the unnamed house preacher, still wants the churches to preach in a Communist manner. In order to keep with this pro-Communist mindset, the Party “shunned” sections of the Bible that show people refusing to obey the king in order to obey God.

The church leader said that the Communists “do not trust the church, but they have to tolerate it…because the growth is there…they do not want the 70 million Christians to be their enemy.”

Many government leaders still believe that religion is a “sickness” that needs curing. Their overall fear is that Christianity will become an opposing political entity that might eventually overthrow their Communist system.

The Communist Party is at a loss as to why Christianity is growing so quickly. It is ironic that China is turning toward Christ as Britain is abandoning its faith. Let us pray that this growth of the Church in China will continue, and that it might spark new life in our church to stand strong amidst persecution.

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.

Muslim Takeover Investigation Expands to 25 Schools

By

Robin

-

23 April 2014

1

Park View School — Park View Academy spent money on loudspeakers used to call students to Islamic prayers.

The initial investigation of an alleged “Islamic takeover plot” of a Birmingham school has widened to include 25 different schools.

When we first reported on this in our earlier article ‘Muslim schools take-over plot revealed‘, we had no idea how far this plot extended. Since news first broke, the Birmingham City Council has received over 200 reports concerning this inquiry.

The reports involve both primary and secondary academies and consist of calls and emails from staff, parents, and governors.

The allegations made by school teachers include the bullying of non-Muslim staff members, separating boys and girls during classes and assemblies, and banning sex education.

This concern was first raised last November when an anonymous letter known as “Operation Trojan Horse” emerged, outlining the hard-line Muslim plot attempting to take over UK city schools, four of which were apparently infiltrated. This letter encourages parents to rebel against school leaders if the schools are “corrupting their children with sex education, teaching about homosexuals, making their children pray Christian prayers and [carrying out] mixed swimming and sport.”

The instructions in the letter advocate more emphasis on Islamic studies as well as gender segregation in classrooms. The letter additionally says that the goal is to “ensure these schools are run on Islamic principles.”

A key part of the investigation is to determine whether or not the plot is genuine. Sir Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham City Council, does not believe it is. But he does think that “there are issues…to look at carefully—issues perhaps around how a governing body behaves, perhaps what is said and done around the school.” His concern was that community relations could be in danger of falling apart.

One school governor also thinks the letter and surrounding allegations are a hoax. In addition, Tahir Alam from Park View Education Trust called the investigation a “witch hunt” that was based on “all sorts of false allegations.”

Birmingham city council’s chief executive, Mark Rogers, attributed these allegations not to a Muslim plot but to “cultural traditions” in immigrant communities that are at odds with England’s national school curriculum.

In response to these reports, Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, instructed Ofsted inspectors to fail any schools in which religion is “getting in the way of learning and a balanced curriculum.” These investigations come partly because of accusations that Mr. Gove has shown a “shocking degree” of complacency with school policies.

Next month the results from the investigation will be published, and they are predicted to show that students are being proselytized with conservative Islamic ideas . If this is true, governors and head teachers who are found “inadequate” on these grounds could be dismissed immediately.

Last week Michael White, a former UK school teacher, revealed that some teachers were aware of the plot over 20 years ago but dismissed him instead of doing anything about it. White said that the Local Education Authority (LEA) listened to his claim but “didn’t want to exchange one set of problems for another.”

Khalid Mahmood, a Birmingham MP, said that for at least eight years the council knew about these claims but did not act for fear of “appearing anti-Muslim.” The height of the scandal is at Birmingham’s Park View Academy, where it is claimed that £70,000 was used to purchase loudspeakers to call pupils to Islamic prayers.

Despite the mounting evidence, authorities continue to downplay the seriousness of this case because of its so-called sensitive nature. As one reporter noted, nobody involved “wants to be called an ‘Islamaphobe’ or a racist, nor do they wish to be labelled a right wing conspiracy theorist.”

Even more unfortunate is that some potential whistle-blowers are afraid of losing their jobs if they come forward with what they know. If people fear that speaking out against Muslim infiltration of their school policies could cost them their careers, how can we hope for any change to take place? Moreover, as British leaders are anxious to show themselves to be multicultural, it is unlikely that Ofsted will be able to actually fail schools in which the religion of Islam is entrenched.

Christian Preacher Wins Compensation for Arrest

By

Robin

-

11 April 2014

2

A Christian preacher won £13,000 last week in compensation after being arrested and held in custody for 19 hours simply for quoting the Bible.

The arrest occurred three years ago when John Craven was preaching in Manchester city centre. Two teenagers approached the street preacher to ask what he thought of homosexuality. Craven read from Revelation 21:8, which says that sinners will be burned in a lake of fire. He also quoted John 3:16 and said that “Whilst God hates sin, he loves the sinner.”

Following Craven’s response the boys began kissing each other in front of Craven and making “obscene gestures.” Soon the youths called a mounted policeman, claiming that Craven’s comments had “insulted” them and caused them “harassment and distress.”

The policeman arrested Craven for possibly committing a public order offence. The officer allegedly took Craven “roughly by the arm” and told him that he was under arrest. The officer did not ask for Craven’s name or address and handled him roughly.

Craven was taken into custody, and remained in a jail cell for about 15 hours. He did not receive food, water, or medication for his rheumatoid arthritis.

This event happened in 2011. On March 29th Craven was finally awarded his £13,000 compensation after a three-year legal battle against the Manchester Police. This battle has cost the public purse approximately £50,000. Mr. Craven won his damages under the Human Rights Act.

In response to his arrest, Craven said:

“I never intended to cause anyone harassment, alarm or distress. I preach the gospel, which means good news and the love of God for all.

“At the end of the day God loves everybody, but homosexuality is a sin and I am not going to contradict the word of God.”

Police Superintendent Alan Greene could not go into detail, but admitted “We can acknowledge that we did make mistakes and kept the claimant in custody for too long.”

This is just one of several incidents involving the persecution of Christians in Britain. In one of our other articles, we have listed several examples of the rising totalitarianism that is spreading over Britain. Christianity is coming under fire, which results in Christians being marginalized and prohibited from freely expressing their religious views. But this victory gives us some encouragement to Christians who boldly proclaim their faith.

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.

The Criminalisation of British Christianity

By

Robin

-

18 February 2014

5

Ed West warns that Christianity is becoming criminalized in Britain

Journalist Ed West raised concerns that heavy-handed policies are increasingly criminalising Britons who hold to the Christian perspective.

In an article for The Times (which can be read on Anglican Mainstream here), Mr. West suggested that even non-Christians should be worried about how people who hold unpopular views on sexuality are increasingly being strong-armed into silence.

If those who hold views different from the mainstream really are guilty of hate crimes, West asks, then shouldn’t those individuals be suspended from work or arrested? If so, do we really want to live in a society that criminalises opposing opinions?

In his article West drew attention to the reaction of London Mayor Boris Johnson to the bus campaign advertising conversion therapy for homosexuals. (Read our report of the event from last April here.) Although West disagrees on the effectiveness of ex-gay therapy, he argues that such ads should not be banned simply because liberals find them offensive.

The past half-century has seen a social revolution akin to the Protestant Reformation, in which previously accepted orthodoxies have become heresy within a generation, and homophobes are the new Catholics. And when something becomes unspeakable, it is easy to push it out of the public sphere or even criminalise it, especially when politics acts as a replacement communion of belief. If, as many believe, traditional views on homosexuality are more hateful than misguided, why shouldn’t those who express such things be suspended from their jobs or arrested?

West goes on to warn that “as our Christian blasphemy laws were finally put to rest in 2008 they were being replaced with ‘hate’ laws…neo-blasphemy laws in all but name.” Instead of religion as the untouchable element in their lives, many in Britain are now striving for a complete, criticism-free identity. Liberalism advocates this identity by “categorizing every view with which it disagrees as offensive.” As such, liberalism is well on its way to becoming the newest 21st century-religion, but with its ideals trampled in the climb to the top.

West’s concerns echo warnings issued in 2006 by Dr. N. T. Wright, then the Bishop of Durham, who told the House of Lords that there were quickly developing a new class of crimes which “have to do, not with actions but with ideas and beliefs.” He continued:

“People in my diocese have told me that they are now afraid to speak their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for fear of being reported, investigated, and perhaps charged. My Lords, I did not think I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime…. The word for such a state of affairs is ‘tyranny’: sudden moral climate change, enforced by thought police.”

Christian Voice has reported on a number of high profile cases where Christians have found themselves on the wrong side of the totalitarian thought police (see the section ‘Discrimination Against Christians in Britain’, at the end of this article.) Just last month we reported on the arrest of an evangelist in Dundee for nothing other than preaching the gospel. To such tendencies West raises an important questions that liberals would do well to heed: do even liberals wish to see a society in which every belief other than their own is treated as a criminal offense?

BBC investigates Social Service child-snatching

By

Stephen

-

14 January 2014

4

Jayden Wray's vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken 'into care'. — Jayden Wray’s vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken ‘into care’.

The BBC’s flagship current affairs programme has investigated child-snatching by social services.

In a landmark edition of Panorama screened last night (13/01/2014) entitled ‘I want my baby back’, a number of cases of horrific injustice were revealed.

The programme is available to watch on BBC iPlayer for a year and is required – and sobering – viewing for anyone interested in families and justice in the United Kingdom.

According to the write-up: ‘Panorama reporter John Sweeney investigates the secretive world of the family courts and asks whether some parents may have unfairly lost their children forever’.

Presenter Sweeney traveled to Spain to interview one mother who fled the country after her elder daughter was taken and ‘freed’ for adoption in the secret family courts.

Like other parents in the film, and many others whose stories were not told, her child was taken after X-rays showed multiple bone fractures, leading to accusations that she or her partner had physically abused the infant.

But new evidence is linking fragile bones with vitamin D deficiency. In the landmark case of baby Jayden Wray, his death from multiple fractures led to his parents being charged with murder and having their surviving child taken ‘into care’.

Paediatric Pathologist Irene Scheimberg's brilliance should lead to a major rethink on juvenile fractures. — Paediatric Pathologist Irene Scheimberg’s brilliance should lead to a major rethink on juvenile fractures.

But a post-mortem carried out by paediatric pathologist Dr Irene Scheimberg, interviewed for Panorama by John Sweeney, revealed that Jayden’s bones were so brittle they snapped in her fingers.

All charges were dropped by the police, and a judge ruled that Jayden’s bereaved parents should have their other child returned.

Some very uncomfortable details emerged during the Panorama programme.

Firstly, parents like those of Jayden Wray who protest their innocence are looked upon as uncooperative and ‘in denial’ by social workers, value-judgments which lessen their chances of being re-united with their child. However, if they admit any kind of guilt, they won’t have their baby returned anyway.

Secondly, the programme revealed something of the merry-go-round of medical experts who are paid to present evidence on behalf of social services departments in the family courts. Thousands of pounds are paid out for preparing evidence and presenting it at a hearing. The experts find themselves depending on social services for a considerable income which they know will only continue if they present evidence which supports the position of social services, which appears always to hang on to a child until the bitter end.

Investigative journalist John Sweeney of Panorama

One qualified expert radiographer even told a court that cases of vitamin D deficiency were unknown in white children of Caucasian parents, something which is blatantly untrue.

What the programme did not investigate was the huge sums paid to social services and adoption agencies in the event of a successful adoption. This successor to targets, which also had financial rewards for being met, mean that a single baby is worth £27,000 in adoption grants to somebody.

That might explain why children’s charities always seem so keen on the present system and, put with panic over cases like that of ‘Baby Peter’ why SS departments are so eager to take children ‘into care’.

There are so many children in care now that a scheme to speed up the adoption process has recently been trialled. This, according to the Guardian, has left parents reporting being ‘bulldozed’.

The only bit of possible good news is that Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said in November last year that parents of children taken into care should no longer be gagged by the courts and journalists should be allowed to report on proceedings. Only the death penalty is more drastic than removing a child, he has said.

But opening up the family courts is not going to happen any time soon, and until it does, what John Hemming MP described last night to Mr Sweeney as ‘a tsunami of injustice’ will continue in the secret family courts with their retinue of tame experts and their backdrop of adoption payments.

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 we welcome comments on this story but that all persons wishing to comment must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed, however meritorious they appear.

Law Society pushes homosexual propaganda

By

Stephen

-

21 June 2013

16

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, is promoting the London Gay Pride parade and sponsoring a conference looking ‘Beyond Legal Rights’, Christian Voice can reveal.

Last year, the Law Society banned a conference on marriage which had been booked at their HQ in London by Christian Concern. CC were told just days before the event that it breached “equality and diversity” policies.

The conference speakers held mainstream views that marriage is between a man and a woman. They included academics, the head of a political think tank and a writer for the Telegraph newspaper.

Most reasonable people would take the view that the Law Society should have as much freedom to let their conference rooms to whoever they please as a Christian hotelier should have to decide who can sleep under their roof. But for Lawyers to allow a booking and then break their contract doesn’t set a very good example to the rest of us.

Christian Concern have now reached an agreement with the Law Society in which the Society agrees that they are entitled to hold their views and can book the premises in future. But CC point out that this kind of what they call ‘censorship’ is happening before any change in the law on marriage.

What will happen after ‘gay marriage’ is enacted is anyone’s guess, but our guesswork can be helped by the Law Society’s foray into the promotion of sodomites’ rights post ‘gay marriage’.

Fiona Woolf in her regalia as an Alderman of the City of London

As well as taking part in the London Gay Pride Parade on 29th June 2013, and despite promising to hold ‘a debate on same-sex marriage’, the Law Society is sponsoring a conference next Thursday under the banner of the ‘InterLaw Diversity Forum’ to ‘secure real equality for LGBT+ people now that a comprehensive legal framework has been achieved’. ‘Special guest speakers’ are Tim Hailes, MD of JP Morgan and Fiona Woolf, a previous president of the Law Society and diversity advocate who is about to become Lord Mayor of the City of London.

Now they have – or are about to get – legal equality (don’t tell them that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill now going through Parliament isn’t ‘equal marriage at all) ‘the gays’ want even more.

Dressing up their demands in terms of ‘anti-violence’ and ‘anti-LGBT+ bullying’ (no, we don’t know what the + is for either) ignores the fact that most violence against homosexuals occurs within their own network, and that their anti-bullying programmes encourage bullying. The real agenda will be about how to shut up those opposed to them and how to push Christians out of public sector jobs.

You heard it here first.

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.

Darwin Day sees evolution in primary schools

By

Stephen

-

12 February 2013

457

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP laying down the law.

The Government has handed atheists a Darwin Day present by promising to indoctrinate primary school children with evolutionism.

Education Secretary of State Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has decided to force primary schools in England to teach evolutionary theory. The announcement was made as part of last week’s English Baccalaureate climb-down statement.

It will be another triumph for the overwhelmingly-secularist arts world to chink the champagne glasses over as they celebrate the quite proper increase of status of humanities subjects such as music and art in secondary school examinations.

However, the decision raises questions about issues of conscience for primary school teachers, who cover more subjects than their secondary colleagues and cannot simply keep out of the biology department.

Richard Dawkins - not as nice as he looks. — Richard Dawkins – not as nice as he looks.

Shortly after being appointed two-and-a-half years ago Michael Gove bowed to pressure from evolutionary biologists including Richard Dawkins and banned from Secondary School biology classes any talk of a possibility that organisms show signs of having been designed. If last week’s statement is followed through, it will be the first time evolution has been taught as a subject in primary schools.

The decision can be seen as an act of desperation by secularists, who are worried that the holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution are becoming increasingly visible and talked-about, not least in the scientific community.

Charles Darwin, 1809 - 1882. Published 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' on 24th November 1859. — Charles Darwin, 1809 – 1882. Published ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ on 24th November 1859.

Today, 12th February 2013, is the 204th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and is promoted as ‘Darwin Day’ by atheist bodies such as the British Humanist Association. The BHA website boasts a ‘campaign against the teaching of Creationism in British schools’, which has been successful beyond their wildest dreams, and a ludicrous ‘international campaign’ to turn ‘Darwin Day’ into a public holiday. These pages are worth clicking on to for intelligence as to what the enemies of Jesus Christ are up to.

Sadly, a link on the BHA website to ‘answers to 21 anti-evolutionary questions and arguments’ sends the visitor to the schools campaigning page instead and a google search reveals no such document.

Interestingly, there are webpages elsewhere claiming to answer creationist’s questions, but they fail to do so. Here is one attempt; I love the admission that evolution needs time – lots and lots of time.

Yeast reproduces every 15 minutes. Over the course of a day that is almost 100 generations, 35,000 generations in a year. In human terms that amounts to 876,000 years, taking 25 years for a generation, or over a million years if you ascribe 30 years for a generation.

The Carlsberg Brewery have been using the same yeast for 130 years, during which time it has gone through over 4-and-a-half million generations.

The yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis is named after the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen, where it was first isolated in 1883, 130 years ago. Carlsbergensis has gone through 4,550,000 generations and it is still the exact same strain of yeast as in 1883. It hasn’t mutated into anything else for 4-and-a-half million generations. One might say it hasn’t needed to, but where is the evidence that it could even try? In human terms those generations amount to 130 million (130,000,000) years.

New Scientist, a bastion of evolutionism, claims our ‘evolution from apes’ began ‘6 million years’ ago. But the evidence from the yeast is that 130 million years would not be enough time even to start the process. 6 million years of human ancestry is like expecting yeast after 6 years of brewing to jump out of the vat and become a mushroom. No doubt it shares just as much of its DNA with something else as we do with monkeys. But that genetic information relentlessly reproduces it as yeast.

Here is an attempt to answer a whole bunch of questions posed by the American creationist Kent Hovind. Astonishingly, barely one question is actually answered.

I don’t have a lot of questions for evolutionists, I just have one. Well, actually, I do have a lot, but one will do, and it is this:

Who put the tuft on the head of the Tufted Duck?

What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?

You see, I know the answer, from a creationist point of view, at least.

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.

Yorkshire Council Admits Mistake in Ukip Foster Row

By

Robin

-

26 November 2012

8

Education Secretary, Michael Grove, condemned the decision as “indefensible.”

A Yorkshire council today admitted it made a mistake in removing children from foster parents because the couple were members of the UK Independence Party. (Read the Times article about it here.)

The children, a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, were removed from the foster couple by the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in South Yorkshire following allegations from social workers that the parents’ political affiliation was at odds with the children’s European backgrounds. (The Ukip party favours Britain’s complete withdrawal from the EU.)

The social worker in the case alleged that UKIP is a racist party and that the children’s “cultural and ethnic needs” might be compromised by the foster parents. However, the council admitted that the South Yorkshire couple, a qualified nursery nurse and a former Royal Navy reservist, were good foster parents and provided proper care to the children.

The children had been with the foster parents for about eight weeks. During this time they were encouraged to share their own folk songs and speak their native language, which the foster parents were attempting to learn.

The Council’s admission of error occurred after Education Secretary, Michael Gove, condemned the decision as “indefensible” last weekend, leading to an investigation of the Council’s behaviour.

In a statement earlier today, council leader Roger Stone commented that “Membership of UKIP should not bar someone from fostering. The council places the highest priority on safeguarding children, and our overriding concern in all decisions about the children in our care is for their best interests.”

Labour leader, Ed Miliband also criticized the Council’s totalitarian actions. He was joined by Michael Grove, who heads the Government department responsible for children’s services. Mr Grove promised to investigate what happened and to “deal with” the situation. He commented that

“Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible. The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families…. Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available to children in need.”

The couple have still not received the children back, nor have they been given a public apology. The wife told The Daily Telegraph: “We feel that we have personally been slandered and we would like a public apology from Rotherham. We would also like something in the form of a letter stating that they have got it wrong in this case and that it will not be on our records that we have had children removed from our care.We just want a clean slate.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that social workers and local councils have used their power as leverage over parents whose views are not politically correct. Last June we reported on the story of Toni McLeod, who has taken up residence in Ireland to try to escape the tentacles of Durham County Council. Durham council is attempting to gain custody of Mrs. McLeod’s baby because of her allegedly anti-Muslim views.

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)

Pro-Lifers shock Brighton Students

By

Stephen

-

24 October 2012

5

Abort67 at Brighton Uni Oct 2012 — Students file past the Abort67 witness

Pro-Life activists caused a stir yesterday by displaying abortion imagery at a Brighton campus.

Christians from Abort67 stood outside Sussex University with the graphic pictures as the students turned up in their hundreds for lectures.

The banners the activists used had only recently been returned to them following their acquittal on public order charges by Brighton Magistrates last month. The material had been held by Brighton Police since their arrests last year.

Andy Stephenson of Abort67 was asked about the location of the witness and said yesterday: ‘Why university campuses? Because not only are 19-24 year olds having significant numbers of abortions, but this is where our future leaders are.

‘We saw people change their minds in this way today. One guy who was studying nursing at another university talked at length with the team and left saying he was going to try and get us a three hour lecture spot for his medical faculty. Others included a Law student who moved significantly in his position.’

Abort67 Hiding the Truth — Pro-abortion students attempt to obscure the pro-life message

Pro-abortion students mounted a counter-demonstration after a couple of hours, standing in front of the pictures shouting and swearing in the hope that people wouldn’t notice the pro-life witness.

Andy Stephenson continued: ‘I am fairly certain that the rest of the day, the only topic of conversation on campus was abortion. Indeed before I even had a chance to unpack our things, a blogger at Huffington Post responded with an article.

‘It is unlikely (though not impossible) that those so entrenched in their pro-death position will ever move, but they are not our target audience. A majority of people are just plain ambivalent about abortion. These are the ones with functioning consciences and enough intellectual honesty to recognise they have been lied to about who the baby is and what abortion will do to him/her.

‘I am always amazed that pro-aborts don’t see the irony in what they blindly recite over and over. If people are distressed by what they believe to be a noble choice, it is because abortion is a distressing act. Of course, we are grateful for the coverage and the inclusion of one of our graphic images that will now be seen by countless people.

‘Do the pictures work? The pro-aborts think so.’

Please sign our simple online petition to Parliament to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/repealtheabortionact/

See our previous story: 18/09/2012: Anti-abortion activists win their case

Evangelist not guilty in Tesco case

By

Stephen

-

24 September 2012

5

RajDartford1 — Stephen Green congratulates Raj Bhachoo outside Dartford Magistrates Court after his victory on 24th September 2012

A Christian evangelist has been found not guilty of a public order offence after he handed out leaflets criticising Tesco’s decision to donate £30,000 to the 2012 London Gay Pride parade.

Raj Bhachoo, a Christian Voice member, was arrested, kept in a police cell for hours and charged with “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 following a complaint by the manageress during a leafleting exercise outside the Tesco store in Gravesend, Kent in January 2012

The case was due to be heard by Dartford Magistrates this morning. But on reviewing the evidence and recent legal decisions including that involving Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, the prosecuting barrister offered no evidence.

The magistrates duly dismissed the case.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, was asked by the defence to give evidence in the case, but, for the second time in a case involving Mr Bhachoo, his evidence was in the event not required.

Mr Green also prepared expert evidence for a case in March of this year when Raj Bhachoo was acquitted after sending a highly critical email to the Stonewall lobby group. A key Stonewall witness failed to turn up in court and the case collapsed.

Michael Phillips, solicitor, represented Raj Bhachoo on both occasions.

Just a week ago, Mr Phillips represented two Christians from the Abort67 group, seeing all charges against them thrown out by magistrates in Brighton. Last February, Michael Overd faced a trial in Taunton after two homosexuals objected to his preaching. Mr Overd, who subsequently joined Christian Voice, was also acquitted.

In September 2006, Stephen Green was himself arrested, locked in the cells for four hours and charged under the same Section 5 by the South Wales Police Minorities Support Unit for handing out evangelistic leaflets at the homosexual Cardiff Mardi Gras. At the subsequent hearing, an embarrassed prosecutor dropped all charges.

Stephen Green said today: ‘Christians just keep winning these Section 5 freedom of speech cases. It is not against the law to preach against sodomy, to tell the public the facts about homosexual lifestyles, nor to display graphic images of the effects of abortion. These things might upset people, but they are not threatening, they are not abusive, they are not insulting and they are not against the law.

‘We actually need no change in the law, but we do need police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to provide training to officers and prosecutors on the law and on their duty to protect people exercising their freedom of expression.

‘In the abortion case, the police officer who attended admitted in court that the only training he had ever had on the implications of freedom of speech was ten years ago.’

Nationwide in ‘Bigot’ award challenge

By

Stephen

-

14 July 2012

15

Christian Voice Press Release – 10.40 hrs 14^th July 2012

The Nationwide Building Society is to be challenged over its association with the Stonewall ‘Bigot of the Year’ award at its AGM this coming Thursday.

Stephen Green, who was shortlisted for the award last November along with Sir Brian Souter, Bishop Arthur Roche, Bill Walker MSP and the eventual ‘winner’ journalist Melanie Phillips, plans to put down a question at the AGM, to be held in Manchester at 11am at the Bridgewater Hall in Lower Mosley Street, Manchester, M2 3WS. Doors open at 10am and any Nationwide member with at least £100 in savings or owed on a mortgage can attend.

Mr Green, who is National Director of Christian Voice, the group best known for its successful campaign against Jerry Springer the Opera, is a Nationwide member. He said today:

‘Nationwide sponsored the 2011 Stonewall awards dinner, which did not stop the greedy lobby group charging £180 a ticket (£150 plus VAT). I intend to ask how much money Nationwide gave, whether they knew the nature of the event they were sponsoring, whether they support the redefinition of marriage, one of Stonewall’s key aims, and when they plan to apologise for bank-rolling an event which insulted and humiliated not just a humble Nationwide member like me, but respected public figures.

‘In particular, Sir Brian was awarded a knighthood by Her Majesty in June 2011, just months before he was vilified by Stonewall.

‘Nationwide have said they are “not supportive of the vilification of individuals” and that they “have made this clear to Stonewall”. They have pulled out of sponsoring future events, while remaining ‘members’ of Stonewall. No-one on the Nationwide Board of Directors has yet been man enough to apologise to any of the individuals concerned, and I think they should.

‘Of course, not one of those shortlisted was invited by Stonewall to attend, which was a grave discourtesy. But as “Bigot of the Year” is merely an attempt by Stonewall to bully and humiliate someone in public life, Stonewall won’t ever find the courage to invite those shortlisted for fear that the winner might tell the assembled gays a few home truths.

‘It seems homosexuality can only advance by insulting and browbeating its opponents. But I hope the Nationwide experience will send a message through the world of business that the Stonewall awards dinner is a toxic brand.’

ENDS

For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.

Note: You can send an email to the Nationwide Chief Executive, Graham Beale:

gjbeale2@nationwide.co.uk

Note: Previous article on the Stonewall ‘awards dinner’ and Nationwide’s involvement:

Stonewall ‘cowards’ call Melanie Phillips ‘Bigot of the Year’

Land Address for Stephen Green and the Christian Voice office:
Wernlwyd, Pen-y-bont, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6QN
01994 484544 / 07931 490050

Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness:

Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land: