When LGBT Activists Become The Bad Guys

Lots of people know about the Stonewall Riots but less people know about the homophile movement, including such groups as the Mattachine Society, who were around at the same time. The reason for this is that the Stonewall riots were not approved of by these more mainstream LG organisations. This disapproval ultimately cost the homophiles the support of LGBT people in great numbers as they, rightly, regarded the Stonewall riots as just violence against unjust actions by the local authorities.

Ever since then there has been a great deal of conflict between LGBT folk willing to take radical action (such as Peter Tatchell and OUTRAGE) and those who work in less provocative ways (like Stonewall, although I suppose being absolutely useless is pretty provocative to some). From the Compton's Cafeteria riots and the Stonewall riots, we have incidents such as the White Night riots, the various antics of the UK Gay Liberation Front and more frivolous incidents such as when lesbian activists invaded the BBC newsroom. We should not overlook the importance of these radical (and often violent) actions in support of LGBT rights. Most of the great leaps forward have come through peaceful legal or political action, but these radical actions kept the spirit alight during the darker days. There is a time and place for both types of action.

But things are really coming to something when radical action involves spray-painting "Tastes Like Hate" on a fast food outlet, or bullying people in entry-level jobs (whilst lying about your sexuality, Harvey Milk would NOT be proud) or it involves being dicks to a homeless guy reading a Bible. When did our righteous anger at injustice become so petty, so hateful and so anti-intellectual? Radical actions these were not.

We need a new rule for LGBT activism: don't be dicks. Look at how the least appealing members of the anti-LGBT movement act and DO NOT COPY THEM. It's really quite straight forward. Do sit-ins, kiss-ins, protests and marches. Be respectful but clear and direct. You don't need to be angels but try not to be the sort of person any decent individual would cross the road to avoid.

It really isn't that hard, is it?

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

Connecting Atheism And Nazism: Pope Irony?

During the Holocaust thousands of LGBT people were tortured, persecuted and killed. The Nazi's views of family life and focus on procreation rendered those with different sexualities to suffer a great deal (along with many other groups of untouchables be they Jews, Communists, democrats, Jehovah Witnesses, Roma, the disabled, the list goes on).



So it was ironic to hear Pope Benedict XVI criticise atheism and link it to Nazism despite atheisms modern form. His hatred of LGBT folk, his focus on the family and on procreation (which leads to higher STD levels in countries who take his demand they do not use protection seriously), is concerning.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

Some atheists, like me, actually believe in REAL religious freedom. As I said in my last post, I'm prepared to stand up for even the most bigoted person's freedoms. I don't want anyone to be killed, I have no great idealistic dream of nationalism (in fact I despise nationalism), and I don't believe in Social Darwinism.

So who is more like the Nazis? The Pope who seeks to control LGBT people by supporting retrograde laws to keep us in a repressed role in society. Or me, an atheist, who believes people should be free to believe what they like, to practice their religion how they like, and to moan about upstart heads of major religions whenever they like?

Personally the world I hope for, one free from intolerance and stupidity, is a world away from the dark dreams of the Pope for a world where everyone agrees with him.

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

The Final Insult

Not only do we have to fund the State visit of Pope Benedict XVI, but now his Cardinals get to fling insults at our country whilst our Government must maintain a welcoming diplomatic front so as not to upset the Pope!!

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

Cardinal Walter Kasper, 77, made the remarks in a German magazine interview.

The Vatican said the cardinal had not intended "any kind of slight", and was referring to the UK's multicultural society.

It added that he had simply pulled out of the Pope's visit due to illness.

The German-born cardinal was quoted as saying to the country's Focus magazine that "when you land at Heathrow you think at times you have landed in a Third World country".

He also was reported to have criticised British Airways, saying that when you wear a cross on the airline "you are discriminated against".

Vatican sources said Cardinal Kasper was suffering from gout and had been advised by his doctors not to travel to the UK.

The Pope is spending four days in Scotland and England, starting on Thursday.

The BBC's correspondent in Rome, David Willey, said the cardinal's reported comments were "a slightly clumsy thing to have done on the eve of the visit".

However, he added that he did not think it would have much effect on the Pope's trip to the UK.

Would somebody please inform Her Majesty that she has a great deal of backing if she wanted to "forget" he was coming to visit and spend a relaxing, long weekend in Balmoral. Really, we wouldn't mind, Ma'am!

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

What can the Prop 8 fight teach us in the United Kingdom?

California and the United Kingdom are completely different in both social and legal terms. The fights for marriage equality in the two different jurisdictions may as well be held on different planets. In California it is organised and “militant” against powerful, organised opponents. Here in the United Kingdom it's disorganised and... well.. most gay men, lesbians and bisexuals don't really care, it's brutally honest I know but we must not deceive ourselves. Despite what the loony homophobes might say, the LGBT “community” in the UK is not “militant” and is quite happy to just get on with life. The hurt wounds have been bandaged over the last decade and few have much fight left in them. Our opponents are weaker than in the USA and, perhaps, more unready for any fight.

Which gives those of us still fighting for equality a pause for thought. What can we learn from California's Prop 8 campaign in 2008?

It's not about getting an organised campaign in the same way as California. I just don't think there's the groundswell of feeling necessary for that. And it's not about money. What it is about is knowing what the opponents of marriage equality will do in order to keep equal rights from those who want them.

In California, Prop 8 supporters (as evidenced by this recent report) were quite willing to fear-monger and spread lies to get their way. If we are to ensure that their allies don't try the same here, during the run up to any legislative action to get marriage equality, we must be prepared to pre-empt and counter these lies.

The main lie was all about religious freedom. In California Prop 8 advocates claimed, erroneously, that marriage equality would force religious organisations to hold same sex marriages on their premises. Of course, as the treatment of divorcees in the Catholic church shows, this is patently untrue. Marriage equality is, however, a religious freedom issue; there are now several religious orders that want to conduct same sex marriages. The Government's ban is what is hurting that freedom, not the prospect of marriage equality.

Another tactic is the “won't somebody think about the children” defence. In California the following advert was used to support the ban on marriage equality:



As you can see it works on the basis of appealing to the residual fear and prejudice in even the most kind heterosexual parents. “Your children will be taught it's okay to be gay. Homosexuality is a choice. Your child might turn gay.” It is important we get out and say that this is not an education issue. Homosexuality is not a behaviour that can be taught. This is an issue about the freedom for adults to marry who they wish. It's a message that must be clear and must be heard loudly.

It is important we ensure our Parliamentarians are contacted NOW so that these issues are clear in their minds. That is why I keep going on about writing to your MPs and other representatives. If you really support marriage equality then you simply must do it. If we don't tell them our side, you can be damn well sure the Churches and other religions will tell them theirs.

It is also important to rebut arguments. Don't let these arguments stand, be it in newspaper adverts or on comments on blogs. Respond and correct, politely of course, wherever you encounter erroneous arguments. Don't delay or think someone else will do it.

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

First They Came For The Burqa...

This week has seen renewed efforts to ban the burqa both in our country and in France (a country I can see from the end of my road!).

Whilst the British story is more of a legislative joke, the tone of Philip Hollobone MP is pretty offensive. As a MP he doesn't really have the right to pick and choose which constituents he will meet and talk to just because of what they are wearing. We must stand up and point out the ridiculous nature of the suggestion he wants to ban people from wearing an item of clothing and won't even talk to someone wearing it! Is he saying it is okay for religious symbols and clothing to be banned? Will he now stand up for Government bodies who ban crucifixes? I don't think so.

In France, the National Assembly has vote to ban the burqa. Whilst this is not the final stage of the process, it is incredibly disappointing that a country founded on the concept of liberty would try to stop people choosing what they can and can't wear.

Now I understand the issues behind the burqa are intensely complicated. But dealing with them by banning the burqa is, as Liberal Vision says, about as sensible as banning black eyes to stop domestic violence.

Government should not be telling it's citizens how to live their lives. That is the basic foundation of liberty.

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

Standing Up For Homophobes

Anti-gay preacher arrested for 'homophobic' election leaflets. That's the headline of a story today on Pink News. His crime? To write an election leaflet that was insulting.

According to the Colchester Daily Gazette, it condemned gays and lesbians and said they should be jailed.

Mr Shaw was arrested on June 11th on suspicion of inciting hatred, specifically homophobia. He was released on bail without charge until the middle of next month.

"Inciting hatred"? A bit like this:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is the teaching of Judaism and Christianity. And really this Paul Shaw is actually seeking less than what his religion would require. Are we to start locking people up merely for what they believe, and attempting to encourage others to believe?

If he was inciting VIOLENCE then I'd support him being locked up. Inciting violence is always wrong, whatever the case. But he wasn't. He was inciting hatred. Hatred is, in my opinion, morally wrong and something we should work against. But we cannot legislate against it. If we did, our prisons would soon be full.

Freedom of speech must be paramount, the right to speak freely where not inciting violence is one that should be cherished. Even if some stupid idiots use it to speak from some dark place within themselves, or from a religious text such as the Bible. We must defeat them with the power and quality of our arguments, not make them martyrs by silencing them for holding incredibly backward views.

I'd argue people such as Westboro Baptist Church do us a favour by being so ridiculously hateful that it renders their arguments invalid. Let the homophobes be hoisted by their own petards.

It's the insidious homophobia demonstrated in things such as this video from the Catholic Church we must really fight against.

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

Flags, Flags, Flags

Late last year I wrote "For The Flag", at which I bemoaned the upcoming World Cup as I knew it mean seeing two things I hate: 1) disrespectful display of flags and 2) St George's crosses everywhere. (Declaration of interest... I'm human first, British second, Kentish on the outside and sometimes, when it suits, European. English does not feature)

I was not wrong. I have returned to my home town since that post (a move that I must say is possibly the best decision ever made) and here, in deepest, darkest Kent, English patriotism is strong.

Sadly this patriotism is not of the deep, respectful and reserved kind. No British stiff upper lip allowed. This is the loud American patriotism that believes displaying the flag at every available opportunity is the only way to be patriotic. Sadly the American respect of their flag has not transferred across at the same time.

When did people start thinking that they could be proud of the flag and deface it with letters and graphics at the same time? It irks me greatly. I know, I know. People are free to treat their property however they like, and to pledge allegiance to whatever "country" they so wish. But as I said in For The Flag, that doesn't mean I can't moan about it.

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

General Election Excitement!

Yes, yes... in that lull between Eurovision selections and the Eurovision contest itself, I'm far too open to outside influences.

Right now, the outside influences mostly getting my attention are those ramping up the excitement over the upcoming general election. Ever since I moved to Greenwich my interest in Westminster politics has been extremely low. But it's being inflamed once more and I'd forgotten how much I love the stats, polls, and policy u-turns that an election invariably throws up.

I've been amusing myself with messing around with some fun election sites and thought I'd share them with you...

Vote Match operates on a rather simplistic method of answering yes/no to different statements to give you an idea of how closely your beliefs match those of the big parties. My results were, rather predictably, 78% to the Lib Dems, 56% to the Labour Party, 43% to the Green Party and 41% to the Tories.

Vote for Policies is a little more interesting offering anonymous packages of policies from which you choose the one you agree with most. I got 75% Lib Dem, 25% Labour.

Rate My Tory is great fun, allowing you to view some of the more dubious records of Tory MPs and PPCs.

There's UK Polling Report, of course, which is one of those stat-porn pages so beloved of psephologists (and me).

The Times 2010 Election Map is quite fun too.

And don't miss the Labservatives inspiring campaign!! Time for... more of the same?

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

Mercy Killing: A Touchy Subject

My political beliefs are a mixture of liberal (for American readers this means something quite different to what liberal means in America) and libertarian tenets and policies. So you'd think I'd be fully behind euthanasia and mercy killings and, logically, be supportive of Ray Gosling as he faces prosecution for the murder of a former partner.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the awful situation he faced, I cannot in good conscience support the concept of someone who not only acted independently to take the life of someone else but who announces it to the world at large later on.

My beliefs about individual liberty mean that, if someone leaves a living will stating that if a) or b) occurs then they should be allowed/helped to die, I must accept there is a place in our world for euthanasia. But I cannot accept that informal agreements between individuals that are not even written down should serve as an excuse to allow a mercy killing to pass unchallenged. If we turn a blind eye and allow such flimsy, unsubstantiated excuses to stand then our murder laws will become meaningless.

Euthanasia should be legal. I have MAJOR personal reservations about it's morality and it's affect upon medical staff, but my beliefs in your right to do what you want with your body far outweigh my own petty concerns. But there must be accepted, agreed standards for when and how this can happen and I believe Ray Gosling's case cannot ever meet any such FUTURE standards that as yet remain unagreed. He should be tried for murder, and his fate decided by a jury of his peers.

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

The Pope, Equality And The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has made great strides in bringing equality to it's citizens. Whilst I might not agree with exactly how it's done sometimes (I'm big on ensuring legislation defends free speech), I still wholeheartedly support the reasons for equality legislation. This is quite simply about ensuring all citizens are equal before public institutions.

This has come despite the usual religious opposition to the liberation of women and the GLBT community. On the one hand they defend the laws protecting them against religious hatred and on the other they attack laws protecting those who wish to live their lives in a way they disapprove of. This sort of hypocrisy is to be expected. But the Pope, who expects us to fork out £20 million for his upcoming state visit, has crossed a line.

When your average citizen criticises our way of doing things, I see no problem. But when a head of state, who also happens to be the leader of the world's biggest religious organisation, whose predecessors have a history of control and manipulation of other nations, starts telling us what to do or when to do it then they should expect some consequences.

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

"Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

My rights are not based on a "natural law". They are based on the laws formed by the Parliaments and Governments of this country, and in the European Union. What does the Pope want? A country where Catholics can be banned from jobs, from access to services? I think not. Yet he wants the right for Catholics, and others of faith, to be able to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs (or even their EXACT beliefs)? Does he not see the slippery slope that would create? This cannot stand!

His crude homophobia and obvious dislike for democratic Government makes him unsuitable for an officially sanctioned state visit. Tell him, if he comes, he comes on his own terms (and pays for it too).

I shall be joining the National Secular Society's protests against his visit and I hope you will too.

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

Nick Clegg Comes Out For Human Rights In Britain

I've already said Nick Clegg was the only one of the three main party leaders to support gay marriage, but today he has gone further and has become the first major party leader in history to proclaim his support for full rights for GLBT people in this country. Of course it's not a surprise but it is worth reminding ourselves that Tory and Labour party leaders do NOT support gay marriage nor are they willing to go as far as Nick Clegg is and finally make us equal citizens by removal the small and petty things that single us out, such as the Blood Doner ban.

The Independent states these among his proposals:

* Force all schools – including faith schools – to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless".

* Change the law to allow gay men and women the same marital rights as straight couples, including the symbolic right to use the word "marriage" rather than civil partnerships.

* Reverse the ban on gay men being allowed to give blood.

* Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.

* Review Uganda's membership of the Commonwealth if its government was to bring in the death penalty for practicing gays.

Now what will be interesting is whether this might move the Tory or Labour position as it opens up another much needed avenue of attack for the Lib Dems. In the case of the Tories their homophobic policies of the past leave them very vulnerable to accusations of prejudice, and David Cameron's complete lack of ideology means it's quite possible he'll happily declare himself for gay rights just to appeal to as many people as possible. Time will tell.

Well done Mr Clegg!

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

For The Flag

This country is full of, so-called, "patriots". Most of them don't even appear not know which country they are in (i.e. the United Kingdom NOT England) but regardless of that I'm flabbergasted at the disrespect these people show to even their own flags.

There's a pub near me, thankfully closing down soon, called the Royal George. Outside they fly, quelle and surprise, the St George's flag. Now I'm putting aside my unionism for this post so no insults from me here. But these flags are shabby, dirty and ill cared for. I have to ask: why bother? What is the point of making a big show of having flags, things which most countries have laws protecting how they are displayed, and then not caring for them. It's hardly patriotic, but based on my travels around London and Kent the flags there are actually far better than some. I've been past some pubs that actually have HOLES in their flags.

The same was true for the Greenwich Police Station who, until recently, was flying a dirty, holed Union flag. This is a Government body, and they can't even fly a decent looking flag. If there was some deeply interesting history behind the flag, perhaps they can be forgiven, but I doubt that was the case.

I know, we don't have a tradition of respecting our flags like America does nor do we have any rules or regulations governing civilian use of flags. In fact the Union flag isn't even, officially, the flag of the country (it is officially a flag of the monarch). But still... if one is to claim to be patriotic (which I think flying a flag is a statement of) why don't people care for them more?

Let's look at two examples from yesterdays "English" "Defence" League protest.

Firstly we have a bizarrely featured Union flag. Let us first ignore the strange juxtaposition of "English" and "Union flag" and instead focus on how they are holding that flag. Surely, if these folks are so passionate about their country, they would be treating the flag a little less like a "Happy Birthday" banner flying off a motorway bridge?

Then we have these rather delightful fellows holding DEFACED St George's flags. These people need to learn about flag poles. But then again this might involve some sort of education which they are clearly lacking.

Despite my rather irrational, and rabid, dislike for the St. George's flag, I'm not looking forward to the World Cup. Around that time people will drape St George's flags out their windows onto dirty walls, hang them from their cars and generally cause me to grow increasingly angry at their obviously FAUX patriotism.

I know, this is very petty stuff. But this a blog and a blog's main raison d'etre is the petty stuff not fit to print! Honestly folks... if you are going to do something, at least do it properly!!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Tory Party: Not My Choice

Disclosure: I'm a Liberal Democrat (American readers will read that somewhat wrongly I suspect!). As someone who considers himself a libertarian I believe the Lib Dems are the closest fit for my political beliefs, and whilst I don't subscribe to all their policies I would be very happy to see a Lib Dem Government.

I've hated the Tories pretty much all my adult life, a consequence I suspect of being a child of Thatcher's Britain and being gay. Also I think that the fact that the most important "issue" to me is not healthcare or the economy but basic human liberty means a vote for the Tories is not something I would ever consider. But New Labour's erosion of those very human liberties, among many other failings, has made me a little more sympathetic to the Conservative Party. But still... this conference has reinforced why I, personally, could never bring myself to vote Tory.

Some articles that really sum up why I will stick with the Lib Dems, thank you very much, include:

We have been warned: the nasty party is still with us - Guardian

Cameron praises civil partnerships but prepares to put Iain Duncan Smith in charge of families - Pink News. Don't get me started on the lack of support for marriage equality.

Cameron’s speech: hollow and hypocritical - Liberal Conspiracy.

Biased sources? NEVER! ;)

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Attacking Scottish Nationalists For Once

As someone who lives in London, I spend a lot of time (or at least I used to!) attacking English nationalists, who seem to get quite annoyed that I single them out over the Scottish. Well that's just geography for you, not a political statement of support for the SNP. So it gives me great pleasure to link to an article about one the SNP's shady illiberal views... they have a few...

The SNP and its pro-religionist homophobic agenda


This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Some People Love The Mayor Of Doncaster

But I don't know why.

I've said before I have concerns over the values the English Democrats attach themselves to (such as the racist policies of the England First Party as per my post here).

Now my least favourite Mayor, Peter Davies (see my concerns about him here and here) of the English Democrats has come out with perhaps the most startlingly awful statement of the month.

"The one thing to be said about the Taliban is that they do have an ordered society of some sort and that they don't have hundreds of cases of children under threat of abuse from violent parents, as we have in Doncaster."

What on Earth is he talking about? The Taliban are INFAMOUS for their child abuse. Check out their abuse of boys (who they train to DIE). Oh and their wonderful ordered society:

In October 2001 Oxfam International reported that:

* Over 750,000 Afghans (including children) are disabled due to mines and high incidence of polio
* Clean water is available to less than 15 percent of the population
* The immunization rate among children is as low as 10 percent
* There is a high incidence of mental health problems, particularly among women Source

We do have social problems in this country, but suggesting that the Taliban would make a better job of things is an insult to decency, humanity and all that is good. Our troops are out there fighting these guys and he's back here suggesting they aren't all that bad. It's a bit like someone suggesting during the Second World War that "at least the Nazi's would make the trains run on time". Perhaps he might try to find examples of decent nations who have a better way of doing things, perhaps in Europe for instance? Oh sorry, no he'd rather suggest we all turn into fundamentalist Muslims than suggest something good might be found on our own Continent.

And worse he is no better than any other politician with his spinning. See this article from the Daily Mail in which it is claimed his anti-political correctness drive (which sounds just as pointless as any diversity drive would be) identified an "ethnic minorities welfare rights service " that could be culled. Actually that service was scrapped three years ago, as revealed by the Private Eye, well before Mr Davies came along and began his bizarre populist and reactionary stint as Mayor.

I just hope I'm wrong about the English nationalists liking this guy, because if I'm not then they really are screwed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Population Nightmare

As the right wingers and Tories lament the "flood" of immigrants into this country causing our population to rise (something this figures actually show is slowing down) I lament something more fundamental.

Nobody cares about their children's quality of life. They just keep having children, making the population grow larger and larger which will only serve to make your children's lives worse and worse. Our descendants have ever increasing house prices, water shortages, and a deterioating natural world to look forward to in their future.

I don't believe in controlled population reduction. It stinks of totalitarianism. But we as a society must begin to face up the fact that we cannot continue to have so many children if we wish to improve the quality of life for the generations to come.

The great hope was that as countries become more developed the birth rate will fall, but today's news, along with recent research suggests that there is a point reached where developed nations start to increase their fertility rate at certain point of development.

We must begin to do SOMETHING to stem the tide, to ensure our children can grow up in a green and pleasant land, to fight for a world where there is plenty to go around.

As soon as you want to discuss the high population of this country, and of this world, you face accusations of Nazism, eugenics, genocide and other such preposterous things. But it's time we did face up to the fact... something has to be done.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

It's Liberation Day!

To those British folks down in the South Atlantic, today marks 27 years since the end of the Falklands War when the British territories of the South Sandwich islands, South Georgia islands and Falkland Islands were freed from the clutches of an invasive force sent to occupy them by a military dictatorship.

As someone born after these events, and who is a bit of a liberal/leftie, I have noticed quite a lot of criticism of the Thatcher Government for their part in the events. And I'm not talking about criticism of the fact they paid little heed to warnings about an Argentinian invasion or their general handling of the war. But actual criticism of us going to war in the first place. The Socialist Party, Militant, the Communist Party, Tony Benn. All were against it because, get this, we'd never been interested in the Falklands Islanders before (sadly pretty true) and thus this war was all about a capitalist countries (that's us by the way) prestige. Maybe it was. But that is all "grand idea" sort of stuff. Back down out of the clouds of ideology, on the ground, we had a couple of thousand people who had NO ONE ELSE to look to for their right to live freely in the lands of their fathers under a Government of their choosing. If we hadn't gone, what would have become of them?

Whether Thatcher was going to war to protect the people or to protect the interests of an elite few, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately our forces defeated the invaders and liberated the islanders. Duly humbled, we decided that maybe the Falkland Islanders did deserve a bit more money and protection than before. And duly disheartened the Argentinian regime which had decided to invade the Falklands as one of it's last ditch attempts to hold power, fell to a democratic one.

This was not a imperialist adventure, this was fight for the right of self determination for the people of those islands. We must always remember that, and be proud that our country, when called upon to do it's duty, did not shy from it.

The Falklands War is one of the few wars in the history of the United Kingdom that I can truly say was a "just war". If you have a problem with that one, then the Second World War must be really difficult to stomach.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The English Democrats: Reasonable Nationalists?

The English Democrats say on their FAQs:

Politically our policies are neither left nor right. We have a commitment to a mixed economy, but also require protection for the vulnerable and would advocate developing public ownership policies for key strategic industries. We are implacably opposed to globalisation, economies based on "cheap labour" and the offshoring of English jobs.

That is certainly laudable. They also state:

"English & Proud" - that's what English Democrats are - why should it be implied that you are a "Bigot" or a "Racist" simply because you are proud of your Country - we English Democrats are simply pro English.

Here, here I say. Being patriotic for one's country (even if I don't agree on the semantics here) should never be considered racist. But then, why are they allowing the England First Party to hang out at their conferences?

England First has as their first part of their brief/manifesto (sic) the following:

1. Stop all further immigration and start a programme of voluntary repatriation of non-European immigrants back to their lands of ancestral origin

Erm... that's racist (or racialist depending on how one likes to use these words). That's really racist. "Ancestral origin"? There's being against multiculturalism and then there's being against people because of their "origin". They are rather different things both in reality and in moral terms.

But not only does the England First Party offer it's support to the English Democrat candidates in some elections (something the EDs are powerless to stop), it also is allowed to speak at ED conferences. They even get photo ops with the parties European election candidates!! See here for pictures!

I hope the EDs have issued a firm denunciation of the close relations with the EFP, otherwise their claims to be tolerant English patriots who are neither of the left or right spectrum's of politics are really very hollow indeed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

English Democrats: BNP Lite

You know I don't agree with taxpayers money being used on frivolous things (such as gay pride parades) so you might think that when the newly elected Mayor of Doncaster said he was withdrawing funding from gay pride I would be quite pleased. Sadly his entire manner and the policies of his nationalist party, the English Democrats, suggest that this was not a decision brought about because of economical shrewdness but from a prejudiced position. And a good decision made for bad reasons is not something we should applaud as such bad reasoning can have ramifications in the future that are not so acceptable.

Peter Davies, of the English Democrats, said: "My policy on gays and lesbians is very simple.

"I don't think councils should be spending money on them parading through town advertising their sexuality."

Nice way of putting it there. Why did he not say "My policy on community events in Doncaster is that they are for the organisers and supporters to fund, whilst my administration has a duty to ensure taxpayers money is only spent on things that are practical and beneficial for all the residents of Doncaster"? Because he is not formulating a sound policy but scoring political points with his core constituency of backward, regressive idiots.

I look forward to him NOT paying for the almost inevitable St. Georges Day parade next year. Because otherwise this decision will be nothing but a case of homophobia rather than sound governance.

Here's a hint for English "Democrats". Next time don't have a policy on "gays and lesbians". Why the heck would you need one unless you were either biased towards or against them? Personally I think political parties should start treating the GLBT community as ordinary citizens and get over all this stupid posturing.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

March For England Seems To Not Understand Respecting Our Troops

When our troops came under verbal attack from some radical anti-war protesters in Luton recently, they maintained their professionalism and dignity in the face of the insults and taunts of the protesters. Some who had come to the parade to pay tribute to the troops were, somewhat understandably, undignified in their response but the police managed to maintain some form of order. That day served as a reminder of the professionalism of our armed forces and police, and our protection of the rights of free speech for all (something we need to see more of admittedly!) no matter how repugnant that speech is.

Alas, some organisation named "March For England" organised a peaceful protest that got out of hand over the weekend in Luton, with slogans such as "No Sharia Law in the UK" and "Respect our Troops". Whilst I very much agree with the sentiments, I somewhat think the organisers missed out on one major thing: this sort of protest is bound to draw in the wrong elements and in so doing bring dishonour upon the troops whom they claim to be defending.

And some of the protesters this time certainly sound like lovely representatives for the cause of respecting our troops:

"Groups of young men in balaclavas and England shirts chanted outside the city centre and one balacava-clad protester held a Rottweiler on a chain, while others clashed with police in riot gear. One Asian man was hit across the face with a banner and left with a bloody nose."

Mmm... English nationalism at it's best. These people should be roundly condemned for allowing this sort of a mess to be carried out in the name of respecting our troops! It is a hideous insult to their courage and reserve.

Our British soldiers deserve a better tribute than this rabble of "English" people.

If we are to stand up for the rights of our decent citizens and our honourable troops then we must do so peacefully, decently and with integrity. If we are to defend our way of life from sharia law, and religious stupidity, we must do so through the proper channels (the law, our Government and the way our society works). We must integrate our communities and not allow differences which sow terror and violence among our population.

Riots, racist attacks and disorder serve only to bring our country into disrepute, and stoke tensions in areas that need few reasons for outbreaks of violence. We must engage with our minority communities and bring them into our society and not show them reasons to avoid integration such as has been done here.

How can we imagine that by showing our way of life to be full of hate and violence we are going to encourage the young minority community member to engage with mainstream society? I'm not a Christian but surely reaching out with love (not tolerance, we don't wish to tolerate people, we need to embrace them as our neighbours!) is far better than doing so with hate.

We might achieve a little more.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist