Scottish Parliament buildings in Holyrood, Edinburgh
Yesterday morning the Scottish Government announced that they would be presenting legislation to legalize gay ‘marriage’, following news that 74 out of a total of 129 MSP’s are in favour of the plans.
The policies to change the definition of marriage are expected to hit Scotland as early as next year. (Read yesterday’s BBC news report, ‘Gay marriage to be introduced in Scotland.’)
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been the main party pushing for these changes, although the measure is supported by all of Scotland’s main political organizations.
The Scottish parliament came under pressure to change the definition of marriage from The Faith in Marriage group, a coalition which includes the United Reformed Church, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation. Gay rights groups like Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network and Amnesty International have also been focusing attention on Scotland, realizing that any act implemented by the Scottish parliament could have ramifications for the UK Parliament, forcing them to fast-track similar plans for England and Wales.
Scotland’s deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, summed up the current mood when she commented: “We are committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal, and that is why we intend to proceed with plans to allow same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships. We believe this is the right thing to do.”
Not everyone agrees that this will be best for Scotland. The Herald newspapersaid that redefining marriage is fraught with legal difficulties and accused the Government of failing to do “its homework on the legal consequences”.
The paper concluded: “Religious beliefs which are central to the lives of many must be protected, not least by those who support the legalising of marriage between same-sex couples in the name of liberty. We must not replace one form of discrimination with another.”
Unlike the legislation proposed by the UK Parliament for England and Wales, which would only affect civil weddings, Scotland’s legislation would allow same-sex couples be ‘married’ in religious ceremonies provided they have the consent of a religious body. Holyrood has insisted that no church organization would be forced to participate, and MSP are looking to amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure religious groups opposed to homosexuality have an opt-out.
Not everyone has been reassured by Government’s promises. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said it should be up to the Scottish people since it raises “serious implications for freedom of belief and expression.”
Christian Voice has raised similar concerns, suggesting that promises to protect religious liberty are not to be trusted. In a recent interview with Robin Phillips, Phillips commented “The promises Government has made in this area are worth less than the paper they’re printed on, as MPs with a legal background and Church of England lawyers have understood almost from the outset.”
Muslim Reaction
The proposals have come at a great political cost since it means that the SNP will lose the support of Muslims throughout Scotland.
Bashir Maan, a spokesperson for the Glasgow’s Muslim community, commented: “We have made it clear to Nicola Sturgeon that we have been very pro-nationalist but if they go ahead with this we will not be happy. There are about five or six thousand Muslims living in her constituency and we hope that she will listen to us.”
Mr. Maan’s coments were echoed by Saleem Aslam, chairman of Taleem ul Islam mosque in Pollokshields, South Glasgow, who said: “Another government could get elected and abolish the opt-out or it could be challenged under human rights laws and then we are back to square one.”
“Running Scared”
The public has asked the Scottish government to allow a referendum in order to find out what the people of Scotland actually want. When they refused, a spokesman for the organization Scotland for Marriage commented: “The Equality Network is running scared of a referendum because they know they could lose the argument. Which just shows they couldn’t care less about ordinary people. They want to force their view of marriage on everyone else, whether people like it or not.”
He continued:
If they believe their own hype, if they believe their own polls, they should have the guts to put it to a vote. Their rejection of a referendum shows that, for all their talk, they know most people don’t agree with them… Redefining marriage will have massive knock-on affect in Scotland. Schools will be pressurised to teach gay marriage to kids…. Legal experts say the Scottish Government doesn’t have the power to protect churches from being sued over their support for traditional marriage.
Prayer and Action:
Thank God for the strong resistance on this issue. Pray that the church will stand up and fight for God’s sacred institution of marriage.
If you are in Scotland, Email your MSP – Email address here – to ask him/her to oppose ‘Gay Marriage’.
The Book of Common prayer assumes that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Last May, Stephen Green and Robin Phillips co-authored a briefing paper titled The Trivialisation of Matrimony: A Response to the Government Consultation Paper. Since then a number of questions have been raised about Government’s proposals and the effect it could have on the church. Below Robin Phillips fields some of the most common questions.
Q: What is the general climate of opinion about this issue?
A: Most people in England and Wales (the areas to which the changes will apply) are still adamantly against changing the definition of marriage. A ComRes poll found that 70% of the public are against the changes. There is also strong opposition within Government. The Prime Minister could be facing the biggest revolt among Tory members since 1990. We also know that thousands are refusing to renew their subscriptions to the Conservative party while some major donors have withdrawn their financial support. Now that the Church of England has made such a decisive stand, the public opposition can only increase.
Q: Can you tell us a bit about the Church of England’s involvement in this issue?
A: Last month Government’s three month long consultation on this issue was punctuated with a dramatic submission from the Church of England, in which the church warned that Government’s actions could lead to a historic stand-off between church and state. The submission suggested that the proposed reforms for England and Wales “would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.”
The church’s submission also warned that the proposals could accelerate a schism between the church and the state, culminating in the complete disestablishment of the Church of England and the removal of the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church.
The Church of England is not known for overstatement so these warnings should be taken seriously. They come after church officials spent months consulting with lawyers on the ramifications of Government’s proposals. One of the chief concerns that arose out of this analysis is that Government will almost certainly be powerless to keep its pledge to limit same-sex ‘marriages’ to civil rather than religious ceremonies. The legal advice given to the Church of England has confirmed that once these proposals are put in place, equality legislation from the EU will kick in to make it illegal for the Church to provide wedding services to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples. That is why there is such concern.
The stand-off between Government and the church on this issue is unprecedented since the time of the Reformation nearly 500 years ago. Legal scholars and journalists alike have warned that it could involve “snipping the threads” of the delicate balance between Church and state.
Q: So do you have any idea what is driving the Prime Minister to push ahead with these plans in the teeth of public opinion?
A: According to Cameron himself, he is being motivated by his Christian beliefs. He recently commented, “I have come at this issue of equal marriage principally because I’m a Christian.” But this is indeed a strange sort of Christianity that makes him so eager to overhaul thousands of years of Christian practice and to risk the disenfranchisement of our nation’s established church!
A more realistic assessment is that Cameron is being driven by the desire to appear progressive and modern, the same principles he appealed to when arguing that we need to change the rules for the crown’s succession. Initially Cameron seems to have thought this would help the party in the next election be shedding what is perceived to be the Tory’s ‘toxic’ image. I don’t think he anticipated the strong backlash he would receive.
We also have to remember that the Prime Minister is under a lot of pressure from the liberal democrat component of his government, pushing the party further to the left than it has ever gone before.
Q: Presumably Cameron also wants to shoulder up to the homosexual lobby?
A: Well, that’s the funny thing. You see, before the Coalition Government introduced these proposals, very few people in the homosexual community were even lobbying for same-sex ‘marriage.’ A poll conducted by Catholic Voice in February found that out of 550 homosexual men, only 40% identified a change in marriage law as being a priority.
Even the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall, was not calling for it, though they required little persuading to jump on board the bandwagon. Even now, many leading gay rights activists have remained among Government’s fiercest critics. Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as openly homosexual, is opposed to any attempt to redefine marriage. So is Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, who was the first Cabinet minister to enter into a civil partnership. Bradshaw commented, ‘This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships. This is pure politics.’ Gay journalist Andrew Pierce recently argued similarly, noting:
Mr Cameron seems to have learned nothing from the follies of the Labour government when it comes to imposing an equalities agenda on Britain’s leading faiths….
Ministers have ruled out extending civil partnerships, which became law in December 2005, beyond the gay community. So we gays will enjoy rights denied to heterosexuals. What an absurd state of affairs.
The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer.
But I do. We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?
Q: Can Government be trusted when it promises to protect religious liberty?
A: The promises Government has made in this area are worth less than the paper they’re printed on, as MPs with a legal background and Church of England lawyers have understood almost from the outset.
The trajectory of what will happen if these proposals pass is pretty clear, and will almost certainly go something like the following.
First, Government will restrict same-sex weddings to civil ceremonies, ostensibly to protect the freedom of the church. In fact, Government will even go so far as it make it illegal for same-sex weddings to occur on religious premises.
The second step is that almost immediately, a same-sex couple will apply to be ‘married’ in the Church of England and, when they are refused, they will claim that their human rights have been violated. With the assistance of a pressure group like Liberty the couple will then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
Step three is that the European court will rule that British law breaches equality legislation, since it allows service providers (in this case, the established church) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Step four is that the European court will then instruct the Church of England to offer its services to all couples who ask, regardless of their gender.
When the fourth step in this process is reached, the Church of England will face a situation comparable to the Catholic adoption agencies that had to either compromise their beliefs or shut down. As Dr Sharon James, spokesperson from the Coalition for Marriage, warned, “once gay marriage is introduced, it won’t be the Government’s remit to say whether it can happen on religious premises or not because it will be the courts who decide any cases brought against individuals and places of religion.” She added: “If this happens we can see people with good conscience being taken to court because of their deeply held beliefs.”
Now in one sense the Home Office is right when it says “We have been clear that no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages as a result of our proposals.” The Home Office is doing just enough so that the European Court of Human Rights can do the rest, but when that happens they can claim it’s been taken out of their hands. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone let the cat out of the bag in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview when she said, “it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.”
Q: But we don’t know for sure that the European Court of Human Rights will rule like that, do we? They may decide to respect religious freedom.
A: Actually we do know. As of last March, it’s no longer even speculation. In the case Gas and Dubois v. France, European judges made a landmark ruling which stated that governments are not required to introduce same-sex ‘marriage.’ However, they also said that if a government chooses to extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, then it would be a violation of human rights for homosexual couples seeking ‘marriage’ to be denied rights and privileges offered heterosexual couples.
There is just no way the European Court is going to sit by and allow one of their countries to sustain a two-tier system in which same-sex couples are denied access to a service (i.e., religious weddings) available to heterosexual couples.
Q: If it comes to that, what options does the Church of England have?
A: At that point, the Church of England wouldn’t have very many options outside of simply complying. That is why the Church is working so hard right now to make sure it doesn’t come to that.
One possible solution (although it is uncertain that even this would work) would be for the Church of England to cease acting as an organ of the state and simply offer weddings as a private organization. That option is currently being discussed by senior Anglican officials, although it could open up a chain of unintended consequences leading to the total disestablishment of the Church of England.
Q: Why’s that?
A: Well, because offering wedding and funeral services is central to the Church of England’s existence as an established church. These functions are central to the preservation of the parish system which lies at the heart of the Church’s integration in society. If the Church of England began offering weddings as merely a private organization, it would de facto be a private organization and it would become increasingly difficult to justify subsidizing the church with tax payer’s money. Also, people could begin to ask why the Queen is head of this private organization and not other private organizations.
Q: Christian Voice has written before about the importance of common law. Do the proposals to change the definition of ‘marriage’ relate to that at all?
A: That’s a great question, but before I plunge into the answer, it may be helpful to briefly explain what we mean by common law. I always go back to the legal scholar William Blackstone (1723–1780) who, is magisterial Commentaries on the Laws of England, talked about common law as being the lex non scripta (unwritten laws). The reason he called them unwritten is because “their original institution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of parliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom.” These traditions and precedents that make up common law form the backbone of the British constitution and are vital for the preservation of our nation’s legal integrity.
Now to call these laws “unwritten” may be misleading for, as Blackstone reminds his readers, such laws are indeed recorded “in the records of the several courts of justice, in books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises of learned sages of the profession…” What the term ‘unwritten’ connotes (and this is central) is that the binding authority of common law does not depend specifically on Parliamentary statutes, even though much of it has been codified by Parliament or by the courts. Rather, the binding authority of common law derives from the authoritative role played by precedent within the British constitution.
The common law is not something that can be dismissed at a whim for the sake of political expediency. As Blackstone again pointed out, “precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust: for though their reason be not obvious at first view, yet we owe such a deference to former times as not to suppose they acted wholly without consideration.”
It seems strange even having to make such an obvious point, but the traditional understanding of marriage is a foundational pillar of common law. The common law understanding of marriage, assumed by the Book of Common Prayer, was expressed in the Church of England’s recent submission when it asserted that marriage is “essentially the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”
This understanding of marriage goes beyond merely being part of the common law; in an important sense, marriage is the very foundation of common law. This is because marriage keeps alive the insolvable between family, church and state. Once marriage goes, all of our common law becomes potentially compromised. This is precisely why the Church of England has argued that our entire system could begin unravelling if marriage is redefined. It could precipitate a chain of unintended consequences culminating in the removal of the Queen as the head of the Church of England.
The Anti-Christian Co-op Bank is taking over a large number of Lloyds TSB bank accounts and all Cheltenham & Gloucester customers, forcing Christian customers to look around for some of the alternatives listed in this article.
The branches that will be going over to the Co-op Bank will not be initially be branded as Co-op banks. Such branches will be called TSB Banks as opposed to Lloyds TSB Banks (and will not have the name Co-op included in the title). If the logos and branding and name are similar, the less observant could easily give their trade by mistake to the Co-op and not to Lloyds TSB. The Financial Times reports that the move is not good news for savers.
But the main concern about the Co-op bank itself is the way it discriminates strongly against those Christians who take their faith seriously. See: http://www.repentuk.com/coop.html
Despite their ‘fair trade’ policies, they are clearly not the bank for Christians, nor for that matter the bank for anyone who does not support ‘gay rights.’
Those who will be affected by the Lloyds TSB changes will receive letters through the post advising them if their branch is one of those to be transferred. Customers may then object to the changes and demand that their account is transferred to a Lloyds TSB branch rather than remain with the branch that will automatically become a Co-op owned bank and be called TSB bank. The branches concerned are listed here, (confusingly, in the main list, in order of address not town):
Christians disillusioned with the High Street banks in general have the option of the Reliance Bank for ordinary banking. They are owned by the Salvation Army and 75% of their profits go to the Army’s work among the poor and dispossessed. http://www.reliancebankltd.com/reliancebank.nsf/pghome?openpage
For savings, there is also the Kingdom Bank, owned by the Assemblies of God, Britain’s largest Pentecostal denomination. http://www.kingdombank.co.uk/Funds deposited by savers are lent to Christian projects for the advancement of the Gospel.
2Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Gal 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Show the Co-op who’s boss! Join Christian Voice today!
The awards were mainly to applaud people who had advanced the homosexual cause in some way.
Among the awards was an anti-award called ‘Bigot of the Year’ intended to insult and vilify a number of people particularly opposed to the gay rights agenda. Those shortlisted were the respected Sir Brian Souter, Bishop Arthur Roche, Bill Walker MSP, journalist Melanie Phillips, who was the eventual ‘winner’, and Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice.
Stonewall did not even have the courtesy to invite any of those shortlisted for this ‘Bigot of the Year’ award to the dinner. Perhaps they were afraid someone might answer back – bullies never like it when someone stands up to them. Or perhaps social intercourse is just not one of their strong points.
Christian Voice members gave out leaflets about Nationwide’s involvement with Stonewall to the society’s members attending the AGM
The Nationwide’s position is that 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 of this kind. However, the Society remains as a member of Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Champions’ programme in which they go a lot further than merely treating all of their employees equally, to which no-one could object. Click ‘Sexual Orientation’ on the Nationwide link here.
Stephen Green is a Nationwide member and went along to the AGM in Manchester on 19th July 2012 to ask the Nationwide Board of Directors the following questions:
(1) How much of your members’ money did you vote to the Stonewall awards dinner?
(2) Did you know the nature of the event you were sponsoring, and were the names of all the awards disclosed to you in advance?
(3) Which Nationwide Board members attended the Stonewall awards dinner?
(4) Whether Nationwide support Stonewall’s aim of the redefinition of marriage?
(5) When will you apologise for bank-rolling an event which insulted and humiliated not just a humble Nationwide member like me, but respected public figures? and
(6) When will you be big enough simply to say sorry to the individuals concerned?
Graham Beale, Nationwide Chief Executive, supplied the answers:
(1) They gave £60,000 to Stonewall for the dinner (which did not stop the greedy lobby group from charging £180 a ticket) and they gave £5,000 as a prize to the ‘Community Group of the Year’ which turned out to be ‘UK Black Pride’.
(2) They didn’t find out the names of the awards until afterwards (which seems rather inept – and they must have known the name of the Community Group award in order to provide the prize).
(3) No Nationwide board members attended (very wise).
(4) Nationwide has no corporate position on the redefinition of marriage (unlike Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s – but more of them at another time).
Gay ‘marriage’ supporter Ellen DeGeneres was made the spokesperson for JCP
J.C. Penney stock has crashed following news of gay ‘marriage’ support.
Since February when the company made homosexual activist Ellen DeGeneres its new spokesperson, their stock has dropped 50%, achieving what is known as ‘junk’ status.
In February stock was at $41.32/share, while this month it is selling at $20.02/share.
The destruction of the company is attributable both to prayer and to the boycott campaign among those who were offended by the company’s pro-homosexual posturing, particularly the American Family Association’s advocacy group OneMillionMoms.com.
In February Monica Cole, director of OneMillionMoms, predicted that Penney’s campaign might backfire since only an estimated 1.7 percent of the population is homosexual. (See ‘Family group challenges retailer’s use of lesbian icon.’)
“Rather than build on the faith-based traditions of founder James Cash Penney,” the AFA commented in a press release yesterday, “Johnson has abandoned family values and taken the company into a financial tailspin by embracing social activism. Families are the backbone of Penney’s existence. As long as it pushes homosexual marriage, families will go elsewhere.”
The AFA press release gave the following snapshot of the company since its same-sex ‘marriage’ crusade:
February 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
JCP announces Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson.
JCP launches catalog ad featuring two “gay” moms.
JCP launches catalog ad featuring two “gay” dads.
JCP stock rated “junk” by S&P. JCP fires marketing exec.
Stock price: $41.32
Stock price falls to $35.67
Stock price falls to $25.83
Stock price falls to $20.02
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
Christian Voice Press Release – 10.40 hrs 14th 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.
‘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:
In a lecture urging us to use discrimination in the type of Great Books we elevate, Patrick J. Deneen contrasts two competing visions of liberty that have been given in the literature of the Western tradition. There is first what he calls the ‘older conception’ of liberty, which focused around self-government and the limitation of boundless desire. This is contrasted with a newer understanding which asserts that liberty gives us the right to pursue our desires ceaselessly. Deneen comments,
The older conception of liberty held that liberty was ultimately a form of self-government; in a constrained world, the human propensity to desire without limit and end inclined people toward a condition of slavery, understood to be enslavement to the base desires. This older conception of liberty as self-government was displaced by our regnant conception of liberty, the liberty to pursue our desires ceaselessly with growing prospects of ongoing fulfillment through the conquest of nature, accompanied by the constant generation of new desires that demand ever greater expansion of the human project of mastery.
Mr. Deneen’s insights (which can be read in context here) address the question of liberty as it relates to individuals, although the same distinctions apply when it comes to the state. Should the liberty of a nation be measured by its ability to constrain unbounded desire and therefore to pursue responsible self-government, or is a nation’s liberty predicated on government’s ability to grant fulfillment to an ever-expanding corpus of new desires – desire which are then converted into, so called, ‘rights’?
Questions such as these are important because they lie behind many of the issues our nation is currently having to face.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
The six-colour rainbow ‘diversity’ flag being carried in today’s London ‘Gay Pride’ parade.
A scaled-down version of Gay Pride, without the usual motorised floats, snaked through London earlier today, funded by Tesco and the Mayor of London. BBC Report here.
Homosexual employees of Tesco and KPMG took part in the parade, while bankers were represented by Barclays and Lloyds TSB. The prison service, the police, and the environment agency were among those representing Her Majesty’s Government. Amnesty International also took part.
The parade passes down Whitehall in central London, near to government offices and 10 Downing Street
The Stonewall lobby group is working overtime trying to present homosexuals as normal people whose love should be recognised by allowing them to ‘marry’, but even in today’s scaled-back event, sex and bizarre forms of sexual expression were to the fore as usual.
The parade featured drag queens, people with their backsides on show, men in what we understand is ‘bondage gear’, sexually-charged costumes, the hostility of Stonewall and Queer Resistance, under-age participants and people whose tee-shirts said: ‘I’ll bet you’re thinking about sex’.
It was an in-your-face offensive onslaught of aggression, intolerance, depravity and division designed to intimidate and assault the mind.
It comes as no surprise that people with such a slender hold on morality should also be incapable of financial stability.
Gay-friendly organisations and individuals failed to come up with money they had promised the organisers. Pride London admitted the funding shortfall which led to the scaling-back of the parade had arisen “not because we have a lack of pledged funds, but because we were unable to collect enough funds from those pledged to provide the strict financial assurances”.
Aggressive and intolerant: ‘Queer Resistance’ activists leave London’s Trafalgar Square in today’s ‘pride’ parade.
It was those financial shortages which led to a panic last month culminating in the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Council, London Fire Brigade and Transport for London asking, for the first time, for “concrete assurances” that Pride London had the cash to pay the upfront costs associated with the event.
Despite £100,000 of public money from the Mayor of London’s office and £30,000 from Tesco and an offer of support from Diageo, the makers of Smirnoff vodka, the event in its original form became ‘unsalvageable’.
As a result, the parade was scaled down to a ‘protest’ march in which floats could not be allowed, the start time was brought forward by two hours and street parties were banned.
Participants in this year’s London ‘Gay Pride’. They and the children who saw them need our prayers.
Normal people will be shocked and saddened that fellow human beings, made in the image of God, could fall so low – and that certain of our politicians encourage them. Earlier in the day, our youth worker helped with the giving out of evangelistic leaflets near the start of the parade. Please pray for souls to be saved from hell through that witness.
Please pray also for the many children who took part in the parade and viewed it from the pavement. May the Lord heal and protect them and forgive their parents for assaulting young minds with such images as we have seen.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
If the reforms pass, then Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, could be given the right to use an honorary title.
A 10- minute rule Bill is being put forward today that would enable the partners of gay peers to receive titles.
Under the current system, the wife of a knight, lord or sir is given a title and becomes a lady, although the reverse does not apply.
The proposed reforms, put forward by Tory MP Oliver Colville, would extend this privilege to the partners of gay knights and lords. For example, Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, would be given the right to use an honorary title.
What remains vague is exactly what title the partner in perversion would be eligible for since currently the only title available for the spouse of a male peer is ‘lady.’ Somehow, “Lady David Furnish” doesn’t quite seem right.
Mr Colville hopes his bill, called The Honours (Equality of Titles for Partners) Bill, will bring ‘equality’ to the system. The motion is significant because it comes at a time when Government is already considering Lords reform. It insists “that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for husbands and civil partners of those receiving honours to be allowed to use equivalent honorary titles to those available to women”.
Mr. Colville commented, “If you are made a peer or a knight, your wife automatically gets the title lady, but if you are gay or are a woman and become a dame your partner gets nothing. I just think it’s an anomaly which needs to be put right.”
These proposals will be debated in more detail when the question of gay ‘marriage’ comes before Parliament.
PRAY: We have warned again and again that tampering with the definition of marriage will start a chain reaction of unforeseeable consequences. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has not passed Parliament, Mr Colville’s Bill gives us a glimpse of the types of problems our nation will face if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized. Pray that God’s judgement will fall upon those who are devising these wicked plans. Also ask our heavenly father to allow this 10- minute rule Bill to expose the tangled web of absurdities that arise from abandoning God’s natural order.
WRITE: To your MP and protest against these plans. Ask for your concerns to be forwarded to the relevant minister. Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
Dr Charles Reed, described as the Church of England’s Foreign Policy Advisor, has sent out an email distancing the Archbishops from the comments in the submission. They did not make the remarks personally, he said. The submission, says Dr Reed, was prepared by the ‘Europe Bishops’ Panel’. It was then submitted by the ‘Mission and Public Affairs Council’, which is a sub committee of the Archbishops’ Council, direct to the Select Committee. In a subsequent email, Dr Reed clarified that neither Archbishop approved the submission, and he is ‘not aware that either (of the) Archbishops saw the submission’ before it went out in their name.
On his blog, modestly entitled ‘ethical comment’, Dr Reed is rather more bullish about the submission. He says he was encouraged by the opposition it drew in the pages of Eurosceptic publications. He writes:
The first of Dr Reed’s sensible comments was the submission’s second paragraph in which he cast the UK as unequivocally ‘without credibility’ and ‘unreliable’ for exercising a veto last December 2011:
‘At the December 2011 European Council, the United Kingdom found itself not only without allies, but without credibility as a negotiating partner as it opposed measures which were intended to achieve broad policy goals which are fully in line with UK national interest. This exposed the domestic constraints on the British government and left its partners with the impression that it was an unreliable partner. An opportunity to show solidarity with partners was missed. The UK must work to rebuild trust with its EU partners.’
The report set out ‘aims for work at all levels of the Church in the Europe of the new century’ among which were:
‘to work locally, nationally and internationally with other churches to ensure the most effective presentation of the Gospel, to join in debate and action for the future of Europe, the harmony and values of its people, and the building of peace and social justice in this continent and beyond’;
There was ‘particular emphasis upon sustainable development and tackling world poverty.’
The two leading lights of the Europe Bishops’ Panel emerged as the Rt Revd Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, and the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill. The latter was also the Chair of the Council for Christian Unity, the CofE’s ecumenical body, at the time of writing. The Panel appointed a secretary to give voice to their views. That secretary was Dr Charles Reed. This is what Dr Reed says about European policy on his blog:
‘For the Church the primary purpose of politics – even European politics – is the promotion of human flourishing and the conditions that are necessary to make this happen. On the whole the Church has over the years held that while it has reservations over certain characteristics of European integration – its democratic deficit etc – our propensity as humans created in the image of God to be creative, productive and responsible and generous beings is enhanced by pooling certain elements of national sovereignty in a common European project.’
So far so pan-European. According to its terms of reference, ‘The Panel is committed both to promoting and shaping an open and transparent Europe close to its citizens and to monitoring the EU institutions in so far as they affect Church life and practice.’
This mandate is interpreted freely. In 2008 the Europe Bishops’ Panel complained to the European Commission that ‘the EU Budget fails to provide sufficiently for the European common good.’ It went on: ‘Faced by the global challenge of climate change, the EU budget should be refocused in support of low carbon growth both within the EU’s border and beyond.’
Also in 2008, the Europe Bishops’ Panel appointed the first Church of England Representative to the European Union, the Revd Dr Gary Wilton. The Panel, at the hand of its secretary, Dr Reed, also sent a submission to a European Union Committee on climate change. Like the submission to the Commons Select Committee, it was sent under the name of the Archbishops’ Council.
Describing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as ‘the jewel in the crown of the EU’s climate change programme’ the submission argued for more carbon trading and the ‘innovation necessary to achieve a low carbon and sustainable economy’ before going on to discuss which industries and sectors of the economy should be in the scheme and which should not, all from very practical points of view. Climate sceptics will not be impressed.
The submission is on the website of the Climate Justice Fund, a joint Tear Fund and Church of England enterprise set up in September 2009 following a General Synod resolution passed in 2008. The Fund is setting up projects to help African communities adapt to drought, and campaigning on climate change. The man in charge of it is Dr Charles Reed, now described on its website as the ‘International Development Secretary for the Archbishops’ Council’.
There may not be any reliance placed on scripture in reports from the Europe Bishops’ Panel, but they refer ‘to the integrity of God’s creation, the vocation of humanity to actively steward and care for creation, and the awareness that climate change is already impacting disproportionately on many of the world’s poorest communities.’
In 2010, this time in the name of the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops’ Europe Panel (which appears to be the same thing as the Europe Bishops’ Panel) sent a submission to the European Commission on ‘EU 2020: a new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market.’ They complained that the EU strategy was too materialistic. ‘The EU 2020 vision would be made easier if the vision for an economically efficient and innovative market economy is (sic) supplemented more clearly by policies for solidarity that extend across national borders to assist the most disadvantaged’, it said.
Dr Charles Reed describes himself as the Church of England’s Foreign Policy Advisor and as the International Development Secretary for the Archbishops’ Council. He is referred to in the Church of England’s Seven-Year Plan on Climate Change and the Environment as the Church’s International Policy Advisor, and elsewhere as being from the Church’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, which is a division of the Archbishops’ Council.
Dr Reed is a House of Lords staff member for the Bishop of Wakefield, where he becomes the Archbishops’ Council’s Parliamentary Adviser on Foreign Affairs. He is the Secretary of the Europe Bishops’ Panel, he writes their submissions, and via them, he establishes the position of the Archbishops’ Council, which the Archbishops themselves do not approve, and may not even see. Dr Reed also represents the Church of England on the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches.
Dr Charles Reed is in all but name the Church of England’s Foreign Secretary, but hardly anyone knows of him. He keeps in the background and lets others take the glory – or the blame – for what he writes. There will be different opinions on the various positions he brings the church to adopt, but no-one can doubt that Dr Reed wields considerable power and influence in our national church.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
The website of Richard Dawkins is full of the story of a pensioner in Lincolnshire who has allegedly been told by police not to display an ‘insulting’ poster rubbishing religion.
Atheists have been desparate to find just one case where the police try to use Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 against one of their own, in order to counterbalance the multitude of recorded heavy-handed police actions against Christian preachers.
Now they think they have it. John Richards, of Vauxhall Road, Boston, has been told that if he displays in his window a modest A4 landscape paper with the words ‘Religions are fairy stories for adults’ he could be in breach of the Section’s provisions which state that:
‘a person is guilty of an offence if they display a sign which is threatening or abusive or insulting with the intent to provoke violence or which may cause another person harassment, alarm or distress.’
The Boston Standard makes it clear that Lincolnshire Police have said they will only attend if someone makes a complaint. In a statement, they said: ‘If a complaint is received by the police in relation to a sign displayed in a person’s window, an officer would attend and make a reasoned judgement about whether an offence had been committed under the Act.’
So yet again, Section 5 is not the great bogey-man some are pretending it is. The Police and CPS quite often prosecute Christians under it – this author was prosecuted under Section 5 in 2006 – but to our knowledge, with the exception of Harry Hammond in Bournemouth, and his was a special case, not least because he died before an appeal could be heard – not one person has been convicted.
We need to realise the true reason the National Secular Society want Section 5 amended is that the constant stream of stories of police clamp-downs on freedom of speech against Christians is a thorn in their flesh, garnering public sympathy and publicity for the Christian viewpoint.
Unlike Peter Tatchell, who although wrong is at least honest, It is not remotely because they champion freedom of speech for their opponents.
For most people, and certainly most Christians, the truly laughable aspect of this poster is that it is written by a man who, if he is like every atheist this author has met, believes the fairy stories of abiogenesis and evolution.
If he is true to his preconceptions and if he has actually thought about it, by rejecting the reality of a creator God, John Richards believes that nothing exploded and became everything, that life just happened spontaneously, that fish grew legs and lungs for no apparent reason and decided to walk around on the sea-shore, that whales, fed up with life on land, swivelled their spines round, grew flippers, developed blow-holes and resistance to water pressure and flopped back into the sea, that bats were rats who grew wings (overnight or over millions of years and how did they get around with no front legs and emergent non-functioning wings?), and so on and so on into millions of totally farcical scenarios.
The Bible says: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7).
The truth is that the poster is truly insulting. It is an insult to the intelligence. But what do you expect from an atheist?
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
The parental rights of Christer and Annie Johansson will not be terminated, a Swedish district court ruled.
Last week’s ruling comes three years after Domenic Johansson was forcibly abducted from his parents by social services minutes before the family’s departure for India.
In a press release issued last Thursday, the Alliance Defence Fund commented
The court stated it could not ignore the unanimous and extensive testimony of first-hand accounts of friends, family, and others that Domenic Johansson’s parents, Christer and Annie, were properly caring for him prior to Swedish authorities seizing him in 2009.
“The government shouldn’t abduct and imprison children simply because it doesn’t like home schooling,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. “We encourage Swedish authorities to release Domenic to his parents in light of the court’s ruling, and we hope the European Court of Human Rights will reconsider its recent rejection of Domenic’s case in light of the Swedish court’s determination. This family’s human rights have been unimaginably violated.”
“This is a tremendous day for the Johansson family,” said HSLDA Director of International Relations Mike Donnelly, one of more than 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance. “HSLDA and ADF have been supporting them since Swedish officials took their child–a grotesque abuse of their human rights. Dominic has not been returned home yet, but we have every hope that he will be soon.”
HSLDA is a 29-year-old, 80,000 member non-profit organization advocating the legal right of parents to home-school their children.
Swedish authorities forcibly removed Domenic from his parents in June 2009 from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor did they charge the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because he was home-schooled, even though home schooling was legal in Sweden at the time he was taken into custody.
In December 2009, a Swedish court ruled in Johansson v. Gotland Social Services that the government was within its rights to seize the child. ADF and HSLDA attorneys filed a lawsuit, Johansson v. Sweden, with the European Court of Human Rights in June 2010 over the matter. That court recently declined to hear the case even after additional submissions from ADF and HSLDA attorneys, but the new ruling from the Swedish court determined that Domenic’s mother and father are suitable to exercise parental rights over their son, bringing new hope that the child will be returned home.
Following the ruling, Christer Johansson commented,
It feels pretty good to win. The social authorities have been running around winning for the last three years. It was pretty important that we won this because, if we didn’t, we would have permanently lost our only child. There is something very wrong with people who would keep a family separated this long for no legitimate reason….
I don’t think we’d be here today if it weren’t for the support of many thousands of people through their emails, telephone calls and letters,” he said. “We know many people have been paying attention to this, and we are so grateful for their constant and consistent support. We want to say thank you to all of our supporters!
It remains to be seen if Swedish officials will take prompt action to end the separation of three years. Even though the specific issue of Domenic’s restoration was not discussed by the court last week, one would hope that the ruling will make it difficult, if not impossible, for social services to continue to keep the child in state custody.
PRAY
Now that the court has recognized that the Johansson parents were offering Domenic proper care and that it would be unjust to remove their rights, it remains only a small step to recognizing that he ought to be returned to the parents. Pray that officials take this final step to end this family’s misery.
Also pray for Domenic’s health. HSLDA reported that “A review of Domenic’s medical records shows that there have been health issues since he was placed in foster care.”
WRITE
HSLDA Attorney and Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly said, “Many thousands of families have supported the Johanssons with letters and emails and with their prayers and concern. Now is the time for all concerned supporters to call on the Gotland social services authorities to do the right thing—return Dominic to his parents now!” You can do that by contacting the following:
Swedish Social Services Committee
Socialnämnden
Gotlands Kommun
621 81 Visby
SWEDEN
The social workers
Marica Gardell
marika.gardell@gotland.se
Marie Kransberg
marie.kransberg@gotland.se
Gunvor Allqvie
gunvor.allqvie@gotland.se
Head of social board
Hanna Westerén
hanna.westeren@gotland.se
SOCIAL workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because of a mother’s political views.
Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she would pose a “risk of significant harm” to the baby by having ‘inappropriate friendships’.
The 35-week-pregnant mother recently married Martyn McLeod, a serving soldier just back from Afghanistan, but social workers have told him that as a full-time soldier he would be unable to care for his child, reports the Sunday Express.
Mrs McLeod, Antonia (Stella) Evans as she then was last year, was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm, common assault and being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control, as reported in the Northern Echo.
Her three previous children from different fathers are in care. She was in the English Defence League for a time. She is now said by Durham County Council to have joined the anti-Muslim North West Infidels (motto: ‘Keep the Faith’) which she denies (see her letter to the Sunday Express below).
Social workers say the child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately. Documents prepared by social workers and seen by the Sunday Express mention Mrs McLeod’s alleged previous alcohol and drug misuse, her “aggressive behaviour” and alleged “mental health issues”.
The social worker’s report goes on to say: “Toni clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off group in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.
“Toni has been a prominent member of the EDL. They claim they are a peaceful group, however, they have strong associations with violence and racism.”
According to the Express, Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.
Her case has been taken up by John Hemming MP, who chairs the Justice For Families campaign group. Mr Hemming said: “This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.
The Lib Dem MP is far from being a supporter of the EDL, but contrasts Mrs McLeod’s treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.
He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like. … Freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”
Mrs McLeod is now planning to move to the Republic of Ireland, out of the jursidiction of British social services, in order to give birth to her baby in safety. She will be following a route taken by many other mothers. Her husband is planning to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child. He said: “Toni would never harm a child.”
Durham County Council told Mrs McLeod on Friday that her unborn baby was being placed on its child protection register but would not comment to the Express.
Obviously Toni McLeod has not behaved well. Nevertheless, should Durham Social Services be allowed to use her political views as even part of their portfolio of excuses to take her baby?
If ‘inappropriate friendships’ with people who hold politically incorrect, or even downright unpleasant, views disqualify a mother from looking after her child, how many of us would social workers actually allow to be parents? Christians, home-schoolers, eco-warriors, anti-Muslim campaigners, pro-marriage activists might all find themselves at odds with the views of social workers. There is no statutory definition or even government guidance of what constitutes ‘significant harm’. Social workers can interpret it to suit themselves.
Cases of children being taken into care have shot up recently as social workers become ‘risk averse’. In the wake of Baby Peter, social workers are deciding it’s more than their job’s worth to leave children out there in the hands of real parents coming across their radar. And of course although they say they may be ‘damned if they don’t’ take a baby into care and that they are ‘damned if they do’, in reality they are never ‘damned if they do’ (except in the courts of heaven) because no-one can call them to account.
We became involved in two other cases of Social Services baby-snatching recently. In one case, astonishingly, a young mother was told she could not be trusted to bring up her children because she had herself been in care. The care system by that logic becomes a self-perpetuating empire.
In another, a father has been told he is a risk to his children because he was sexually abused when he was young. In neither case has any harm occurred or been alleged to any of the children involved. It is so easy to allege ‘a risk’ of harm, and the family courts simply accept what social workers allege.
In addition, Toni is now married, and to a serving soldier just returned from Afhganistan. In Afghanistan he has, according to our political leaders, been fighting to protect our security. Is it right that the security of his own family life is at risk when he comes home?
Toni McLeod was last recorded living in Mellanby Crescent, Newton Aycliffe, which is mid-way between Darlington and Bishop Auckland. Her real need is for total deliverance from the things of this world which have ensnared her. Pray that the Lord will raise up a Christian local to her to minister to her. We so often talk about ‘getting alongside’ the poor and disadvantaged. Here is a woman and indeed a family who have everything stacked against them. They need support, they need true fellowship, they need the Gospel.
Please note that we can write about this story now. If the McLeod baby is taken into care under a court order, it may well be we cannot write about it any more on pain of contempt of court, under the rules of secrecy which govern the family courts.
Contact details to raise this issue with Durham County Council:
Children and Family Care Dept:
Tel: 0300 026 0000 Fax:0191 383 5752 Email: scd@durham.gov.uk
Further to the above story, a letter by Toni McLeod was published in the Sunday Express 24th June 2012:
‘I would like to put the record straight about allegations made against me by Durham County Council and repeated in last week’s Sunday Express (“Why try to take baby from EDL mother but not from ‘terrorists’?”). I have told Children’s Services in Durham they are not true.
‘I am not a racist and I now regret going to the EDL demonstration at which I was arrested in 2010. I do, however, strongly support the British Troops and will continue to back our boys. I have character references from Muslim and Sikh friends. I am not involved with North West Infidels.
‘I have never owned a Pit Bull. It was a German Shepherd I owned.
‘I do not have a mental health problem. I am not and have never been a drug addict. I have not drunk alcohol in 2012. I did get drunk on one day in 2011 when I was told that my children were not returning to me.’
Toni McLeod. Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
Further still, we have now seen the response of Durham CC. They say:
‘We have been contacted by a number of groups and individuals following national publicity surrounding Toni McLeod. Durham County Council will not comment on the confidential circumstances of any case, however we would like to reassure you that, contrary to what may be suggested, we would never consider removing a child from their family on the basis of their parents’ political beliefs or occupation.’
The trouble is, the documents seen by the Sunday Express reveal that Durham CC are doing exactly what they say they do not do.
Four weeks later we are still also awaiting a response from Mr David Williams, promised by Cllr Henig, to the following FOI Act questions:
‘Would you kindly advise me what targets, financial incentives and monies, for example those payable for fostering and adoptions are at present in place for cases like this?
‘How much are foster parents paid by Durham and do any foster parents have familial or other links to social services or Durham County Council staff?’
It will erode public confidence in a system which is already under suspicion if children are being snatched to make up numbers, advance careers or profit the local authority or individuals within it.
It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the topsy-turvy world of homosexual politics, where sea-change shifts in ideology happen almost as a regular occurrence. Once the gay community finally seems to have reached a consensus on some important point, the parameters will shift and they will adopt a new ideology, sometimes the opposite of what they once affirmed.
Once the homosexual community virulently opposed any notion that there is a genetic base to homosexuality; now, anyone who denies the genetic theory is automatically labelled a homophobe.
Once the homosexual community relentlessly championed the notion that sexuality is fluid. Those were the days when anyone who denied that we can choose our sexual identity was classed as a bigot. Now the gay community insists with equal virulence that our sexual identity is something we are born with.
Once more the tables are turning, and this time the issue concerns the role of children.
For years advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that same-sex parenting either makes no material difference to children, or makes a positive difference. Both of these views can be found in the thought of Judith Stacey, professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at New York University. In an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse recounts how Dr Stacey argued that the gender of a couple makes absolutely no difference to a child.
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
Despite Dr Stacey’s remarks at Bowling Green State, the New York University professor has elsewhere suggested that the gender of same-sex couples does actually matter, because having two moms makes a positive difference for the children entrusted to their care. In other words, lesbian parenting is an improvement on traditional households containing a father. Commenting on 81 different studies for an article “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” that appeared in of Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 72, Issue 1, Stacey and Biblarz leave the reader with the distinct opinion that traditional man-woman parenting just cannot come anywhere near the benefits generally provided by two lesbians. Here are some quotes from their article:
“Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”
“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”
“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”
“Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”
“Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.”
The basic picture is not hard to discern: homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents, especially if they are two lesbians.
This was also the point made by an article published in the New Scientist in 2010. Titled, ‘Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers’, the article reported on the results of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study which supposedly discovered that “The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests…”
“in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t…. And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.
All of this reflects what has been common orthodoxy among the defenders of gay rights. Whether they argue that same-sex parenting is equivalent to man-woman parenting, or whether they argue that same-sex parenting is actually superior, no one has been willing to say that it simply doesn’t matter at all. Indeed, up to now it has been taken for granted that the needs of children should be paramount, and that is precisely why the gay community has bent over backwards to try to show that same-sex parenting (and by extension, same-sex ‘marriage’) benefits children.
At least, until this week.
Now that a study has come out which purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually fare worse, pro-homosexual writers are changing their tune and saying that the question of children is now irrelevant.
In an article that appeared in Thursday’s Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic suggested that the needs of children should actually be bracketed off as immaterial to the debate over same-sex ‘marriage.’ Mind you, Filipovic doesn’t think children will be adversely affected if the Government decides to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’, and she disputes the recent study on methodological grounds. However, she is adamant that even if children did suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions. She writes
The “gay parents are worse parents” argument shouldn’t just fail because it’s false; it should fail because even if it were true, less-than-ideal child outcomes do not justify the state’s refusal to extend the fundamental right of marriage to consenting adults.
The fact that Filipovic considers same-sex ‘marriage’ to be a ‘fundamental right’ shows that she has already assumed the conclusion she is trying to establish, a fallacy known as circular reasoning. After all, we do not normally consider something to be a right if it systematically hurts other people. If the state can withdraw someone’s right to live a free life when the person starts putting other people in danger, how much more should a highly contested ‘right’ like gay ‘marriage’ be contingent on the effect it might have on other people, especially children.
Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic argues that even if children suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions about same-sex 'marriage.'
It follows that in trying to decide whether the state should make same-sex ‘marriage’ into a human right, it is crucial to ask what effect this might have on children.
My question to Filipovic is this: how many children would have to suffer before it becomes is legitimate to acknowledge that the needs of children are relevant to the debate on same-sex ‘marriage’?
Filipovic actually makes an ingenuous argument to prove that the needs of children should be disregarded. After all, she pointed out, we don’t ban deadbeat dads from getting married even though it is probable that they will have a negative effect on children. Neither do we ban prisoners from getting married, even though it is again probable that they won’t make the best parents. So why should we restrict same-sex couples from getting ‘married’ just because we think children flourish best with a mom and a dad?
The answer should be simple. In cases like the deadbeat dad or the prisoner, what we are dealing with is someone exercising a right that is already recognized as existing. However, if we are considering using the law to create a new right, it is only responsible to consider the social ramifications, including the effect any changes might have on children.
Unfortunately, if Filipovic’s article is indicative of the new climate of ideology, the needs of children simply do not matter any more.
A few days ago, people calling in to Premier Radio were challenged to say what was wrong with David Cameron’s plans for ‘gay marriage’. In the main, they knew it was wrong, but they could not articulate why. You may feel the same, but you don’t have to be tongue-tied any longer.
Our pro-marriage briefing The Trivilisation of Matrimony opposes Cameron’s ‘gay marriage’ plans, firstly from a biblical perspective, and then by unpacking all the other arguments (see contents below). We are not ashamed of the Cross in Christian Voice, and the words of Jesus Christ on this issue form the cornerstone of our objections. We are so keen to get this accessible 16-page booklet into your hands, we are giving it away free if you join Christian Voice today.
Join Christian Voice today, and get The Trivilisation of Matrimony and our latest newsletter, leading on the ‘gay marriage’ issue, absolutely free! We’ll also send you Britain in Sin, which lays out the anti-Christian legislation passed in the last sixty years and our information-packed briefings Understanding Islam and Labelling Halal – all by return of post. You won’t want to miss any of those! Join over the weekend and we’ll have everything in the post for you on Monday.
The only decent photo we can find of the London World Naked Bike Ride
Naturists and CO2 protesters are combining forces this Saturday (9th June) for a naked bike ride through London.
The ride, described as ‘liberating’ by Time Out, will assemble at Hyde Park before a nine-mile route past London landmarks brings it back to starting point.
Organisers expect around 1,000 people to strip off whatever the weather. It is billed as ‘an annual protest against oil dependency and the culture of cars, as well as a celebration of the human body’.
Similar rides are planned for Cardiff and Exeter on the same day, Brighton and Bristol on Sunday, and Glasgow on 14th July. (STOP PRESS 05/07/2012: Glasgow Naked Bike Ride was cancelled! Strathclyde Police said ‘the organisers have cancelled their plans after liasing with Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Police’.)
The dress code is said to be ‘as bare as you dare’. Full nudity is apparently optional, although photographs of previous events show that particular option to have been taken up by the majority of the exhibitionists taking part.
Despite the much-vaunted antagonism of most participants to oil and petrochemicals, none of those taking part will be stripping off their trainers, which cannot be made without petro-derivatives. Comfort apparently takes precedence over principled opposition to oil-industry products.
More seriously, the event will not just expose those parts of the body more politely concealed, but the inability of our current laws to proscribe indecent behaviour.
The English common law offence of ‘indecent exposure’ is declining in use (see statistics link below) in the face of Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which applies to England and Wales. Section 70 of the The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 is identical. This reads:
66 Exposure E+W+N.I A person commits an offence if— .
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and .
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. .
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; .
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]
With the prosecution having to prove an intent to cause alarm or distress, it appears that only men who deliberately expose themselves to women in the street – so-called ‘flashers’ – are now being prosecuted. Anyone intent on merely flaunting his (or her) nudity in public can drive a coach and horses, or in this case, merely a bicycle, through the legislation.
The common law offence of outraging public decency still remains. According to ‘Wikipedia‘ (Not always authoritative but they give references including this one on prosecutions):
‘Modern case law has established two elements that must be satisfied for the offence to be committed:
‘1.The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established, and
‘2.it took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually seen it.
‘The offence is currently prosecuted around 400-500 times per year.’
Which brings us back to the common law offence of indecent exposure. This is still prosecuted (see link on prosecutions above. Either offence could possibly be brought into play if enough people complain to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or to the relevant chief constables of the other forces.
In Scotland the law, not having the liberal Sexual Offences Act 2003 on this matter, is slightly stronger. Despite that, a similar naked bike ride took place in Glasgow last year and was escorted by the Strathclyde Police. This year it is scheduled to take place on 14th July and concerned members of the public north of the border will no doubt be speaking to the police.
‘Indecent Exposure
‘Source: Common Law
‘Any person who publicly exposes the private parts of their body in a shameless and indecent manner in the presence of the lieges commits a crime at common law.
‘There must be a lewd and indecent intention, mere carelessness is not criminal.
‘Although the definition uses the term “any person”, generally speaking, only males are charged with this crime. A female who exposes the private parts of her body could competently be reported for a breach of the peace, lewd practices or shameless indecency, depending upon the circumstances.
‘Powers: Common law power of arrest. ‘
Much depends on what the police perceive as public attitudes. If no-one is bothered in today’s climate, they won’t bother either. On the other hand, if there is significant public concern the police might take action. With around 500 offences of outraging public decency prosecuted a year in England and Wales, and with prosecutions still being carried out in Scotland for indecency offences, this remains a live issue.
Please pray that enough people will be outraged by these displays of indecency on our streets to complain to the police forces concerned:
Avon & Somerset Constabulary
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Metropolitan Police
Sussex Police
South Wales Police
Strathclyde Police
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
Peter Tatchell, arch-republican that he is, has been moaning in the Guardian that the Queen is not ‘gay-friendly’.
We disagree – and show why below.
The charge sheet compiled by Mr Tatchell includes HMQ having not visited AIDS victims or mentioned LGBT people in her broadcasts. She had to be bullied, he says, into allowing homosexual staff in the royal household to bring their ‘partners’ to the annual Christmas ball at Buckingham Palace. ‘It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban’, he fumes.
Christian Voice can always be relied upon to take up the cause of the monarchy especially in this Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee year, so in Her Majesty’s defence to the Tatchell onslaught, we offer the following:
In 1967 HMQ gave her royal assent to the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised sodomy and gross indecency between men in private. The Act, brought in because a few homosexual civil servants had been caught with their shirts lifted, spawned the entire homosexual industry. The first ‘gay rights’ march was held in 1972. Bars, shops and magazines catering to the ‘pink market’ quickly followed. Sex education could now mention and even promote homosexuality. Britain was already slouching towards Gomorrah just fifteen years into the Queen’s reign.
There was a bit of a blip in 1988 when HM allowed Section 28 of the Local Government Act to outlaw teaching that homosexual relationships were normal, but Her Majesty went some distance to making amends in 1994, when her Criminal Justice and Public Order Act reduced the minimum age for sodomy to 18, legalised it upon women as well and redefined enforced sodomy as ‘rape’ to equate sodomy with sexual intercourse.
In the late 1980’s, Her Majesty’s Government spent millions trying to convince everyone that AIDS was not a homosexual disease, and spent further millions on ‘health education’ and free condoms for homosexuals and anyone who wanted one. She may not have visited AIDS victims as often as the late Diana Princess of Wales, but Her Majesty’s Government fund their Highly-Active Anti-Retoviral Treatments to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
In her armed forces, which are very dear to Her Majesty’s heart, homosexual men and women became able openly to serve from 1999. By 2008, all three services were marching in uniform in the London Gay Pride march. As Peter Tatchell admits, her majesty’s homosexual staff can bring their partners in perversion right into Buckingham Palace for the annual Christmas ball.
Her Majesty gave homosexual men legal access to sodomise 16-year-old boys in 2000 with the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. Two years later, Her Majesty decided that homosexual men and women could legally adopt children.
With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Her Majesty removed the offences of gross indecency and sodomy altogether. Section 28 (that 1988 blip) was removed in the same year, giving homosexual teachers and their allies full rein to promote homosexuality to both secondary and primary school children. In what was a bit of a boom year, she also gave her gracious assent to the idea that people committing criminal offences should receive heavier sentences if the victim was homosexual.
Then in 2004, Her Majesty hit a new peak by giving Royal Assent to the Gender Recognition Act, which allowed transsexuals to go back and falsify their original birth certificates, and the Civil Partnership Act, which gave pairs of homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples.
Peter Tatchell, who has a thing about queens, in the 2003 London Gay Pride parade
In 2003, the Sexual Orientation Employment Regulations had opened up all jobs, even those working with children and young people, to homosexuals.
Following that, Her Majesty gave her consent to the Equality Act 2006. That empowered the Queen’s ministers to bring in in the Sexual Orientation Regulations to force Christian hoteliers to let rooms to homosexuals in Northern Ireland. Great Britain followed with identical regulations in 2007.
2008 saw the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which brought in a homosexual incitement hate crime law and abolished the ancient offence of blasphemy, to the delight of secularist homosexuals including Peter Tatchell, who tried to read the lewd Gay News poem in public some years before. In the same year, she removed the need for a father or a mother in laws governing assisted reproduction in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, paving the way for lesbians and homosexual men to acquire children using donors and surrogates.
The Equality Act 2010, to which Her Majesty gave her gracious consent, placed a duty on local authorities to promote transsexualism and homosexuality as two of the ‘protected groups’ to be favoured by government and public authorities – including schools – throughout England and Wales.
Her Majesty’s Government is now working out ways to introduce ‘gay marriage’. If that is enacted, which God forbid, Her Majesty will easily give it her royal assent, just as she has given her royal assent to every previous bit of ‘gay rights’ legislation.
Contrary to what Peter Tatchell asserts, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has undoubtedly been the most ‘gay-friendly’ monarch in British history.
Proposals to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ will provide the perfect mechanism for the homosexual lobby to realize one of its long-term objectives: the criminalization of all opposition to homosexuality.
For years the UK gay community has dreamed of creating a society in which criticisms of homosexuality are punishable by law. However, up to now they have only been able to achieve this on a sporadic basis through a combination of intimidation, vague public order acts, and pro-homosexual members of the police.
If same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized, however, the gay lobby will be given a mechanism to begin targeting defenders of traditional marriage on a systematic basis.
At least, that is what Stephen Green and Robin Phillips have argued in a recent briefing paper published by Christian Voice. The authors show that changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would create an atmosphere hostile to freedom.
The briefing paper, titled The Trivialization of Matrimony, suggests that legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ could also have broad implications for Christians across every sector of public life. Green and Phillips pointed out that pension providers, businesses, insurance companies, teachers and private individuals would all be required to accommodate a new and unprecedented definition of ‘marriage’ or fall foul of the law.
When questioned about the guarantees of religious liberty peppered throughout the Governments’ consultation document, Green and Phillips replied that these promises are not to be trusted. “It is a significant fact,” they pointed out, “that throughout the consultation document not once does it guarantee protection to those who may have religious reasons for not recognizing the civil ‘marriages’ of same-sex couples.”
“When civil partnerships were first introduced, Government was adamant that this was not a half-way house to same-sex ‘marriage’, though subsequent events proved otherwise. Similarly, although the current Government is adamant that the new proposals are not preliminary to making churches solemnize same-sex ‘marriages’, what is to stop a future Government, or even the same one, from pursuing the itinerary of ‘equality’ to this final step?”
“Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone stated in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview that ‘it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.’ This could happen sooner than we think. Equality laws introduced by Labour in 2007 and subsequently enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act could make it difficult, even illegal, for Government to try to maintain this two-tier system of civil marriage and religious marriage.”
“In short, what Government is proposing to do is to change how all of us define marriage. Those who refuse to cooperate with the redefinitions will be found in breach of the law.”
“Governmental Intrusion”
The concerns raised in the Christian Voice briefing paper echo warnings that other defenders of traditional marriage have issued over the past five years. When fighting against same-sex marriage in the state of California in 2008, Dennis Prager wrote a revealing article entitled ‘California Decision Will Radically Change Society.’ Prager pointed to some possible consequences to allowing gay ‘marriage’:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman….
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger—if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized.
S. T. Karnick argued similarly in an article for Salvo magazine titled ‘The Tyranny of the Minority.’ Karnick pointed out that far from being the tolerant option, those who champion same-sex ‘marriage’ are actually fiercely coercive and intolerant:
“Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one…. What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such ‘marriages.’ Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.
“Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group’s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population.
Criminalizing Opinion
Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’. If gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, it is likely that the rubric of what constitutes ‘insulting behaviour’ will be broadened to include any advocacy of traditional marriage.
These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has yet to be legalized in the UK, there is already a significant move to persecute those who dissent from the grinding uniformity demanded by the homosexual lobby. Consider just a few instances as a foretaste of what will occur on a much larger scale if same-sex ‘marriages’ are enshrined in law:
In October 2001, a pensioner held up a sign that said, ‘Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism, Jesus is Lord’. He faced abuse from a crowd which culminated in the police arresting and then convicting him under the Public Order Act 1986 for being insulting. (Read the report at The Free Speech Debate website
In November 2003, the Bishop of Chester was questioned over his views on homosexuality by Cheshire police after commenting that psychiatrists could help homosexuals to re-orientate themselves. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually dropped the case saying the Bishop had committed no crime. (Read the report in The Chester Chronicle.)
In December 2005, Joe and Heather Roberts were interrogated by Lancashire police after complaining to their local council in Fleetwood (Wyre Borough Council) about council tax money being spent on promoting gay rights. Both the Police and the council at the time refused to admit they were wrong. After the threat of legal action, the Council and the Police apologised to the Roberts and settled out of court.
In December 2005, author Lynette Burrows was interviewed by the police after she expressed disapproval of homosexual adoption on a talk show. The policewoman who talked to Mrs Burrows said that a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her and that it would be kept on record by the police. (Read the Telegraph report.)
In February 2006, Dr N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, mentioned in a speech before the House of Lords about the way people were being censured for moderate comments disapproving of homosexuality. He observed, “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.” (Read his speech, ‘Moral Climate Change and Freedom of Speech.’)
In September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested and detained in police station for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police said the arrest was because the tracts Mr Green was distributing contained Bible verses about homosexuality. (Read the BBC report.) He was charged but the prosecutors dropped all charges. South Wales Police paid a sum in compensation.
In June 2008, Iris Robinson, wife of Irish First Minister Peter Robinson, was investigated by the Serious Crimes Branch of the PSNI (Northern Ireland Police Force) for speaking out against homosexuality. (Read the Belfast Telegraph report about it.)
In 2008, Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane was sacked from his job with Relate because he confided that he would not be comfortable counselling homosexual couples about sexual problems. (Read the BBC news report.)
Since 2008 British Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because of their refusal to place children with homosexual couples. (Read the LifeSiteNews report about it.)
In December 2008, Pilgrim Homes had £13,000 of funding removed by Brighton Council because the home refused to ask its elderly Christian residents every three months if they were homosexual. Funding was only restored when Pilgrim Homes promised to ask the residents about their sexual orientation on admission. (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
In January 2009, the Earl of Devon (Hugh Courtenay) had his licence to hold wedding ceremonies at Powderham Castle near Exeter revoked by Devon County Council. The justification for removing his licence was that the Earl’s Christian beliefs prevented him from allowing civil partnership ceremonies to be held on his property. (Read about it in the Telegraph report.)
In 2009, Christian Registrar Lilian Ladele faced the sack because she asked if she could be exempt from registering civil partnership. Even though she won the case against Islington Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the case and ruled against her. (Read the Guardian report about it.)
In April 20, 2010, street preacher, Dale McAlpine, was arrested for allegedly telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin. The 42-year-old Baptist was put in jail for seven hours causing “harassment, alarm or distress.” (Read the Telegraph report.)
In 2011, housing manager Adrian Smith has had his pay slashed as a punishment for saying on his private Facebook page that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’. (Read the Daily Mail report about it.)
In May 2011, Oxford student Sam Brown was celebrating the end of his exam. In the course of his celebrations, he said to a policeman, “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?” He was arrested under the 1986 Public Order Act for making “offensive homophobic comments”. He remained in jail overnight before the police dropped his case. (Read the BBC news report.)
In February 2012, hoteliars Peter and Hazelmary Bull were sued using Government money after refusing to offer a double bed to a homosexual couple in 2011. (Read the Guardian report about it here.)
In May 2012, the author of the Archbishop Cranmer blog was being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for posting a petition in support of traditional marriage and displayed an image advertising The Coalition for Marriage’s campaign to protect traditional marriage. The image showed numerous heterosexual couples getting married but no same-sex couples. The Advertising Standards Authority launched the investigation in order to determined whether the advert promotes homophobia. (Read the National Secular Society’s report.)
In May 2012, the Law Society cancelled a planned conference organised by Christian Concern called, “One Man, One Woman. Making the case for marriage for the good of society.” The conference was organised by the World Congress of Families but was cancelled by the Law Society on the grounds that it is “contrary to diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage.” Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented, “Since when can debate be against diversity? …This action by the professional body…demonstrates how discussion on traditional views on marriage is being shut down before any change in the law to redefine marriage has come into force. If this kind of censorship is happening before gay ‘marriage’ has even been legalized, what will happen afterwards?” (Read Cristina Odone’s article, ‘Heterosexual marriage? I’m sorry, you can’t discuss that ‘)
In May 2012, Roman Catholic schools in Wales got reprimanded by the Welsh government for circulating a letter written by Archbishop Nichols of Westminster in support of traditional marriage. The Welsh Government alleged that the schools support of traditional marriage failed to give students a “balanced perspective.” (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
PRAY: With the UK Prime Minister and the United States’ president both publicly advocating the legalization of gay ‘marriage’, it is appropriate to reflect on what this would actually mean in practice.
News breaks that some favoured politicians and bankers from the United Kingdom are shunning our gracious Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations this weekend to cosy up to the movers and shakers of the world’s elite.
The ‘Bilderberg’ group is meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, USA from 31st May to 3rd June under the chairmanship of Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO of AXA, to plan and plot world events. Whatever these people decide, and their plans do not always work out, it is likely to be designed to benefit them first and the rest of us a long way behind.
On the invitation list from the UK are:
* Bankers Marcus Agius, Chairman of Barclays and Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman of HSBC Holdings.
* Oilmen Robert Dudley, Group Chief Executive of BP and Peter Voser, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell
* Journalists John Micklethwait, the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator of The Financial Times and the FT’s Chief Economics Commentator, Martin H. Wolf. Vendeline von Bredow, the Business Correspondent of The Economist and the same publication’s Foreign Correspondent, Adrian D. Wooldridge are denoted ‘Rapporteurs’ for the meeting, but despite that designation, and the presence of such well-connected journo’s, don’t expect to see anything about the meeting in the papers. It’s top secret, you see, with armed guards and a publicity ban.
The UK’s gay mafia is well represented with Peter, Lord Mandelson, who is now Chairman of ‘Global Counsel’, whatever that is, and Nick Boles, MP, a member of David Cameron’s kitchen cabinet and a good friend of modernisers Boris Johnson and Francis Maude. Kenneth Clarke, MP is a long-standing Bilderberg member and part of its inner circle, as are Agius and the remaining UK delegate, retired diplomat John Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Only recently, the Bilderberg Group has started a website and now publishes a press release. You can see it at http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2012.html and you can click on the other buttons on the site to see the full list of those attending together with the ‘Governance’ of the group.
Apparently, ‘the privacy of the meetings, … has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely’. ‘Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced’. ‘Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued’.
So that’s alright then. Pray that all plans for globalism and world domination are thwarted. Pray this Psalm:
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
We have received this at the Christian Voice office:
SUBJECT: RADICAL MUSLIMS ARE CONSTANTLY THREATENING ME & FAMILY TO MURDER US AS WE ARE CHRISTIANS
Dear Bro. Stephen Green in Christ,
Greetings to you in the name of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ from Nutangram village in India!
I would like to introduce myself with you that I am Aimazan Bibi. I live in the village named Nutangram under Murshidabad Police station, Dist. Murshidabad, West Bengal State, India.
My husband name is Gaffar Shaike. I and my entire family accepted Jesus as our Lord & Saviour and we are followers of Lord Jesus Christ. I am conducting House Church fellowship at my own house on every Monday and few other Christian brothers & sisters are attending at our fellowship from last few years.
On 30th March 2012 , while I had invited few Christian families for lunch and for prayer meeting at my own house. While we had started prayer service, numbers of radical Muslims forcibly entered to my house and attacked our prayer meeting at around 2.P.M.
Annu Shaike, son of Nizammuddin Shaike started to kicked my stomach & head mercilessly and injured my hand. Even he twisted my hand very tightly and tried to break my hand but God saved my hand.
Later on radical Muslims mocked, abused to my Christian brothers & sisters. A mob of about 100 Islamists gathered and they were shouting anti-Christian slogans and threatening to murder us. Even they pushed, kicked and slapped us.
When my Christian brothers & sisters tried to flee, the radical Muslims blocked their way. Ahammed Shaike, son of Late Kalimuddin Shaike, leading the extremists group to beat all the Christians and killed them for the sake of Allah. Mohammed Kuran Shaike, son of Ahammed Shaike beat to my mother who is 65-year-old widow Moyazan Bewa. Ahamed’s wife Mrs. Salema Bibi started to beat to another Christian women Selina Bibi. All other Christian men & women received minor injuries. Two small children present at the meeting were crying in fear.
Christian brothers & sisters somehow made their way out and scattered, but Mohammed Aanu Shaike with a sickle chased us and wanted to murder us as Ahammed Shaike encouraging him and all other extremists as we are Christians.
Ahammed Shaike, his family members and their extremists group always threatening me & my family that they are openly telling us that they will murder us as we are Christians.
My hasband, Gaffar Shaike submitted written complaint to the local Police station on 31st March 2012 and copied to District Magistrate & Superintendent of Police in Murshidabad district. But, so far police or Administration didn’t take any action. Therefore, Ahammed Shaike, his family members and their extremist groups are giving more troubles to us and forcibly coming to my house and telling us publicly that they will murder us as we are Christians.
I humbly request you kindly pray for God’s protection for me, family & all other Christians in Nutangram village. Also I request you kindly write a letter to the Authorities of my country & State and request them to look after our situation. So, that they might take necessary action and provide protection for me & family and other local Chistians in Nutangram.
With regards,
Aimazan Bibi
* Please write to the authorities : such as
1. President of India: MRS. PRATIVA SINGH PATIL, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 004 Fax: 011-23017290 & 011-23017824 Email: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
2.Prime Minister of India: Dr. Monmohan Singh Fax: 91-11-23019545 / 91-11-23016857 Email: manmohan@sansad.nic.in
3.Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr. P. Chidambaram Phone: 23092161,23092011 Fax: 23093750, 23092763 Email: websitemhaweb@nic.in
4.Chief Minister of West Bengal State, Miss. Mamata Bannerjee Office Fax : +91 33 22145480 Email : cm@wb.gov.in
5.Governor of West Bengal State, Mr. M. K. Narayanan Raj Bhavan, Kolkata 700 062 Phone: 033-2200 1641 Fax: 91 – 33 – 2200 2444 / 2200 1649 Email: secy-gov-wb@nic.in or governor-wb@nic.in
Note: UK residents may approach the High Commissioner of India, London: His Excellency Dr. J. Bhagwati: India House, Aldwych, London, WC2B 4NA Tel: 020 7836 8484 Email: hc.office@hcilondon.in
US residents may approach the Indian Ambassador Her Excellency Ambassador Mrs Nirupama Rao 2536 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20008, United States (202) 939-7000 Contact page through www.indianembassy.org
