Section 28, Dirty Tricks and the “gay” vote.
I’m reluctant to mention this as I’m not too comfortable with the Conservatives targeting the “Gay vote”. Couldn’t care less about them targeting people who happen to be Gay to vote for them, the more the merrier I say. But I’m a gut individualist who doesn’t like the idea of Identity Politics. As you can imagine I support people voting on whether the policies of a political party will be good for them and their country, not whether the government is proffering tax subsidised goodies and perks to their particular group.
Were the Tories right to apologise about Section 28. Absolutely, the government should not interfere in peoples lives, between the sheets or outside them as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else. And if Homosexuals wanted to point out to kids – look, this happens, there’s nothing wrong with you if you feel this way, and if you need to talk to someone about it you can do here, then the Conservatives were wrong to block this. Yet at the same time I also suspect that it wasn’t Homosexuals who were giving out helpful advice, but the Homosexual lobby who were pushing an agenda, which is a very very different thing. To them I would say the same thing that I say to the Government – don’t interfere in peoples lives.
We move on to Labour’s divide and conquer technique. Saying the party is rammed with Homophobes. I’m sure the Conservative party has Homophobes, but if you think it is confined to a section of the Tory party you are very much mistaken. I also suspect that if you stuck a gay person in a room of Conservative “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” they would be treated with a damn sight more courtesy and respect than a Labour Working Men’s Club in an old pit town. This is yet another attempt by Labour to create “issues”, slander the opposition, and create a belief that you need the state to look after you because you are incapable of looking after yourselves.
I suspect that Homosexuals, like every other strata of the population will be looking at the economic record of Labour and casting their vote accordingly. The Conservatives don’t really care anymore what you get up to between your own sheets, but they do want you to be able to afford the damn sheets in the first place. Thanks to Zanu Labours economic policy this is less likely. Like “Mr 10%”, this another blatant attempt to shore up what Labour see as a crumbling core vote. And as Ian dale says, Gay people have their own eyes and they can see what you’ve done to this country.
I found a great quote on the comment section of Ian dale's piece...
It's all clear to me now. I can't believe I didn't see it before.'The Tories plan to cut the number of UK homosexuals by 10%, whereas Labour is committed to investing in homosexuality. There will, in fact, be a 0% rise in total spending on all things homosexual under a Labour government. Labour has brought forward capital spending related to homosexuality, to help homosexuals through this downturn which, of course, started in America.
Labour is seeking to help the most homosexual members of society, whereas the Tories would do nothing. They are the 'do nothing party'.
I hope the leaked government memo above helps clarify the situation for all of you. It certainly worked wonders for me.
P.S. Reading the Labour apologists' posts has been a great source of amusement. I thought such pent-up frustration and bitterness was the preserve of the opposition, not the incumbent government? Ah well, best to get some practice in, eh?
10 immoderate opinions:
Gay's, Tories, Libertarians, Lefties, Greenies, BNP, Christians, Muslims or any other campaigning group should not be using their positions as teachers, youth leaders etc to recruit children to their cause.
If they do then the proverbial ton of bricks should decend upon them.
As to the the thorney issue of teachers et al being approached on any of these subjects they should refer the children to management and not get involved.
Why are you capitalising common Nouns? Your Article is written in English, not German. The whole Effect is one of Wierdness.
The Great Simpleton: Gay's
Are you a greengrocer?
nah, just a bad typist and proof reader
//Yet at the same time I also suspect that it wasn’t Homosexuals who were giving out helpful advice, but the Homosexual lobby who were pushing an agenda, which is a very very different thing. To them I would say the same thing that I say to the Government – don’t interfere in peoples lives.//
But isn't pushing an agenda an essential part of forming an identity, a way to organise people to achieve things. It seems unlikely that things like the removal of Section 28, Civil Partnerships, and the social changes that have made homosexuality more acceptable, would have occurred, were it not things like Stonewall. They provide a way of showing people that you can be homosexual and happy and healthy. It is arguably true that the lives of gay people have been improved because of lobby groups.
Do you think that the social changes we have seen, could have come about without gay lobby groups?
You can be left handed and happy and healthy but must you go on and on about it as the gays do..
Remember that left handed people have to put up with the door handles on the wrong side of the door.And have to shake hands right handed. etc. where is the justice?
//You can be left handed and happy and healthy but must you go on and on about it as the gays do..//
Well, if people were killed for being left handed, lost jobs for being left handed, were called abominable and unnatural, a perversion, than it would be entirely correct for left handed people to form their own lobby group. If left handedness was punishable by imprisonment or execution in large parts of the world, than yes, left handed people should go on about it. We have historical precedence. Left handedness was seen in places as the sign of the devil. Samurai' were forbidden from being left handed.
Do you honestly equate the persecution experienced by homosexuals with the inconvenience experienced by left handed people in a right handed world? And would you not think it correct that if left handed people were persecuted like gay people are, that it would be entirely acceptable for them to form lobby groups?
"Were the Tories right to apologise about Section 28. Absolutely, the government should not interfere in peoples lives, between the sheets or outside them as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else."
Clause 28 was [incorrectly] draughted to prevent schools being used to teach the children in them that homosexuality was an equally good way of life as a heterosexual existence.
This was one of Mrs. Thatcher's few but decent tries to prevent cultural Marxism using schools to subvert real marriage.
Her civil servants were, if memory serves, obstructive and so framed the clause that it applied only to local government - but not to the local education authorities, which is where it should have applied.
My student conservative association at that time, if it had attended one of those all-eras historical re-enactment festivals, would have more than half mustered in as the '101 Queens' Own Brideshead Revisited Light Infantry', so homophobia was not exactly part of my early adult life, but even those chaps saw the point that teaching children it was equally ok (to some value of ok) to be gay as not being gay was a risky endeavour.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, virally speaking the last thing the LEAs should have been doing was to encourage shit-for-brains teenage boys to bugger around.
The country's a better place for decriminalising homosexuality as such: freer and more tolerant; cheaper to police; less prone to one kind of official corruption due to blackmail in public life, and so on.
But telling kids that it's just the same; that just because there's no legal penalty any more there's no moral hazard involved and using taxpayers' money and State power to do so is wrong.
NN,
A good summary although I would add that it wasn't so much the teaching of homosexuality as OK and equal that S28 was aimed at, but teaching anything about if in fear of proselytising.
It's not the school's place to indoctrinate children on the issue. Either for or against.
Post a Comment