With Friends Like These... The End Of Western Civilization Moves Ever Closer

Nigel Farage, a man unable to win a seat in Parliament after 7 attempts nor able to win Brexit without the help of Boris Johnson, got to spend an hour with Donald Trump this weekend. It is hard to imagine much more of a diplomatic slap in the face to Britain's Government (and to the United Kingdom itself) than this from the man soon to lead the US. Farage actively participated in hurting his own country's reputation, and took time to take holiday snaps.

But the supposed defenders of British values, Brexit supporters chief among them, will see this only as a victory for their fight against the status quo. They do not value Britain's history, institutions or ways of doing things. They don't value our power or reputation. They're revolutionaries intent on disrupting our constitutional arrangements.

The United Kingdom has come to a crossroads. On the left is Corbyn and his Labour party. They are quiet and meek in the face of opposition (see reserved support for Brexit and an attempt to paint Trump's victory as indicative of an up turn in Labour's own fortunes!) and far too friendly with Vladimir Putin (the dodgy leader of Russia who, if you haven't been paying attention, has been engaging in a war of aggression with Ukraine for the last couple of years). Corbyn's attempt to cheer up his troops this morning was to point out that they managed to HOLD a couple of council seats recently.

Meanwhile on the right we have a Tory party determined to take us out of the EU. They are no longer engaging with EU institutions, despite previous promises to keep working as part of the EU until the end. They've got no support in the US from the next administration, have sullied our relationships with our neighbours and aren't even that friendly with Putin. They've isolated us for no good reason.

And then on the far right we have Farage who has placed himself as Britain's unofficial ambassador to Trump alongside Marion Le Pen (of the French FN). Putin and Trump are fluttering their eyelashes at each other. A dark alliance is forming and the characters involved couldn't spell statesmanly, let alone act it.

I've always been a proud Brit. I've none of the usual liberal hang-ups about our imperial history. I fully support our actions in the Second World War and the Falklands War, warts and all. Dresden and the Belgrano were terrible, awful events but we didn't start those conflicts. I like Churchill, respect Thatcher and worship Her Majesty, the Queen. It takes a LOT to make me feel ashamed of our country.

But as we begin to align ourselves against our European friends and neighbours, and send out feelers towards Putin and Trump, I fear that rather than finding ourselves in peril (as I thought we would be after Brexit) we may well BE the peril.

For the first time in my life my loyalties lie outside this country, with the people of continental Europe. The Tories and Labour are weak and morally suspect. UKIP has lost the battle for votes but is winning the battle for hearts. The Lib Dems can mount a small resistance but aren't going to turn the tide. And the nationalists await to help kick us while we're down.

We're probably done for as a serious contender for a leader on the world's stage now. We're at risk of becoming a satellite state of the new Trump/Putin axis. For all their talk of defending Western civilization, the right have happily overseen it's decline. The left would only be too happy to see the back of it too.

I've got no answers. No solutions. This re-alignment seems to be inevitable. Europe has a great many issues to overcome (the rise of the right, the idiocy of the social justice obsessed far-left, uncontrolled immigration, democratic deficit). I'm unsure if it'll be able to survive. But now I'm rooting for it to thrive as the liberal centre of the world. The continuation of our culture may well depend on it.

UKIP Aren't Just Wrong On #EqualMarriage, They Are Very Confused

***Edit, I have since carried out further research showing UKIP's legal argument regarding the ECHR is completely without merit. See here***

I have a great deal of respect for the libertarian position on marriage, a position Steve Baker MP has written about before. Indeed, I was only writing last post about my own dilemma in both supporting equal marriage and wanting Government out of the whole business. So take it as read that I hold no animosity towards those who stand back from the marriage equality debate for some related ideological consideration (be they anti-marriage queer radicals, or purist right-wing libertarians).

I even have respect for those who oppose equal marriage because it goes against their personal beliefs. Do not think I don't understand where you are coming from even if I think you are completely wrong and that attempting to enforce your beliefs on my relationship isn't something I find endearing.

But there is one anti-equality argument that I cannot put up with. It is the hypocritical "faux-libertarian" argument most typically spouted by UKIP supporters. I've dealt with this before in a rather light-hearted look at David Coburn's Pink News article back in March (my commentary can be found here). When, earlier this month, UKIP released their latest comments on their marriage equality policy I didn't feel the need to elaborate further but today I've seen David Coburn and others using his article and his sexuality to defend that same policy. That, I felt, needed a response.

They start their 15th November 2012 post bigging up their libertarian credentials with the bizarre comment that this is why they support civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are a Government issued contract and are in no way "libertarian"!

They then summarise the Government's current proposals (which may change shortly, I admit) to only legislate on equal civil marriage. They rightly point out that many LGBT people are religious and may find these proposals unsatisfactory and may even take the case to the courts to allow them to marry in religious premises. This I understand completely, and suspect it is quite likely that a couple may well do this in these circumstances and probably with the support of Liberal Judaism, Unitarians and the Quakers.

That is when they make a few leaps of logic and assumption without providing evidence.

1) They suggest that this hypothetical court case would lead to the Government FORCING churches to marry same-sex couples. 

That is quite a leap indeed, surely you would think that if the case was successful the Government is more likely to open up religious marriage equality whilst allowing continued protection for the dissenting religious organisations? Personally, based on fact that "civil marriage" is more an imaginary concept than a legal one I suspect the Government may well include provisions allowing this in the original legislation.

2) This being UKIP, they suggest these authoritarian changes would be foisted on the country by the evil European Court of Human Rights. 

I quote:

We believe that, give.n (sic)  the current nature of the European Court of Human Rights' attitude to such matters, there is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.

Hmm... what are the current attitudes of the ECHR towards equal marriage? They do not feel the need to compel countries to give marriage rights to LGBT people. Channel 4's FactCheck does a good summary on this. They are right to point out that several European countries have introduced equal marriage and there has be no similar legal case as predicted by UKIP. It's all pointless speculating and only serves to remind us that the law should be carefully written to protect religious liberty (for both those who want to marry same-sex couples and those who don't).

3) UKIP then express shock at suggestion Government might ban religious organisations from marrying same-sex couples.

If the Government has it in mind to forbid Churches from marrying gay people, that would be a monstrous piece of tyranny: let Churches and faiths decide for themselves.

Don't tell UKIP this as they might faint, but that is the current situation! Allowing Churches and faiths to decide for themselves involves giving them the legal right to marry same-sex couples but not forcing them to use it. This sort of mind-bending logic really does make me wonder who wrote this policy and whether it is more from opportunism than belief in opposing equal marriage.

After this they continue to moan and speculate about how evil forcing churches to marry same-sex couples would be. Based on no evidence. Nothing. Nada. Oh and then they say "It is not a priority" (put a pound in the "Overused Argument" jar please).

It is a policy that flies in the face of libertarianism, lacks critical thinking and appears to be written by someone who doesn't really oppose equal marriage but just wants to appeal to people who do. It is extremely hypocritical for UKIP to complain about the Government not allowing religious organisations to marry same-sex couples at the same time as opposing equal marriage. It is a conflicting and hastily written piece.

Coincidentally it was published not long before UKIP's Croydon North candidate Winston Mackenzie and their leader Nigel Farage made the issue part of the Croydon North by-election. Shame on them.

UKIP need to make a decision. They need to do one of three things:

1) oppose marriage equality completely on the basis that same-sex relationships are "different" to opposite-sex ones
2) step back from the debate and make a libertarian case for marriage reform.
3) embrace marriage equality as a marker on the long road to liberty.

Their current policy shows them up as exploitative, ideologically dodgy politicians of the worst kind.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Two Queens On The Throne and Other Stories

Join me on a journey through some of the interesting, supportive and crazy articles and comment pieces in the media over the last few days!

Let's start with this one from the Sun. Gay marriage law means 'there could be two Queens' on the throne. No, they aren't suggesting Elton John and David Furnish might suddenly be in the running for a promotion. This story actually deals with an interesting question, one the Daily Mail has also picked up "The Honourable David Furnish? Gay partners of knights and peers may be given courtesy titles in latest equality drive". What are the more blue-blooded and well-honoured LGBT folk's spouses to call themselves? It's interesting, to me at least, because it'll bring into sharp relief the question of such titles in general and the lopsided way they are applied. The female spouses in opposite-sex marriages tend to take the males titles but not the other way round. Will this debate be avoided or are we heading for a major change? It's extremely interesting to imagine and I do hope it's not brushed under the carpet but dealt with in a thoughtful and innovative way.

The Daily Mail has been foremost among the newspapers opposing equal civil marriage, and one of the arguments advanced is that marriage means something unique and shouldn't be applied to a relationship other than that between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. So an article about civil partnerships today made me smile. "Gay prisoners to marry inside some of Britain's toughest jails... as long as they pay for the ceremonies themselves". I thought marriage wasn't for the gays??

Over at the Express group we have two very different comment pieces this weekend. In the Express we have Nigel Farage offering yet another non-libertarian argument against marriage equality. Apparently, it's all Europe's fault. Who'd have guessed?? In the Star we have Sally Bercow. Not only does she argue for civil marriage equality but even goes further to demand religious marriage equality. Nicely balanced Express group!

Brian Sewell offers a very confused argument about an imaginary policy David Cameron has that would introduce religious marriage equality. Yet another case of "It's alright to be homophobic if you're gay" perhaps? It's funny how the gay men against this stuff have to make a big deal about being gay as if that makes their opinion worth more than anyone else. Isn't that what the right wing accuse us of doing? Tut tut.

As we head towards actual legislation I think the questions raised (on consummation, adultery, titles etc.) will become ever more interesting and far more wide-ranging than some of us realised (although the antis understand that at least and like to chirp about how complicated it all is at every opportunity) and the antis comment pieces will become even more unhinged and inconsistent. Fun times ahead.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist