“Deliberate Distortion of Truth by Homosexuals”
Constantly, we hear homosexuals claiming supposed ‘hate crimes’ are being conducted against them. Most people think the term is substantiated by actual crimes of large proportion, and so homosexuals are right to bring it to our attention. But, is this correct? No, it is not! As with everything else claimed by homosexuals, it is a blatant and preposterous lie, a deception used to gather sympathy, as ‘evidence’ for demanding pro-gay laws to ‘protect’ them..
Let us now examine what ‘hate crimes’ and ‘hate speech’ are, and what is really happening. Yes, homosexuals are being attacked, but not in the hyped-up way homosexuals are claiming. But, so are other people being attacked (in much larger numbers)!
The definition of ‘hate crime’ does not help, because it relies less on actual facts, than on the ‘perception’ of the one making the complaint. And I can assure you that an homosexual will ‘perceive’ a wrong even when one does not exist! Indeed, gay activists invent incidents and ‘crimes’ so that they can give ‘padding’ to their complaints. Thus, someone can be arrested only because an homosexual says he or she ‘perceives’* the person hates him/her or is motivated by prejudice. This is not good law! And why have a separate category of ‘crime’ anyway, when existing laws adequately cover what happens? (2014 guidelines now say this is not a reason for arrest – but how many police authorities listen to it?).
What is a ‘Hate Crime’?
You would be forgiven if you thought a ‘hate crime’ was something that only happened to homosexuals, because that is what homosexuals want you to believe! They keep on… and on… and on… and on… But, ‘hate crime’ has a much wider application than mere homosexuals.
For example, in the UK Metropolitan Police area alone there were 1,359 homophobic ‘hate’ incidents in the 12 months leading up to January 2006. But, there were a staggering 11,799 racist and religious incidents in the same period! (Note that an incident is not necessarily an offence, so the actual number of offences is very low). Yet, homosexuals are trying to convince the public that so-called ‘homophobic hate crimes’ are committed in overwhelming numbers! (When the Gay Police Association in the UK made a claim of ‘many’ assaults on its members for being gay, it could not provide even one such case as proof to the Advertising Standards Association! This shows that making fake claims is normal amongst homosexuals). The reason is that they want to stain the character of Christianity and those who do not support their lifestyle.
In reality when non-offences are removed, there are very few actual crimes. But, homosexuals will not tell you this, because they want to lump together the most minor of incidents with actual offences (which are very rare). Such incidents are not supported by much that is genuine, such as if the homosexual has provoked people to react badly… an increasing problem worldwide, as daily news items prove.
(Note that the word ‘homophobia’ is of very recent origin and was invented by gay activists as a means of making their cause more spectacular. It is virtually meaningless as a word. Also, though only coined a few years ago, its meaning is constantly being changed and amended by gay activists, to suit whatever point they wish to drive home to the public at any one time. It is unfortunate that police use the same word, when it has no real meaning to anyone who is rational, but they have been forced to do so by gay activists).
When looking at supposed ‘hate crimes’ one should look in detail, because gay activists are well-known for inventing and encouraging hatred and violence towards themselves. They do it because they want the numbers of ‘hate crimes’ to be boosted, so that they can press government for more pro-gay laws and protection. The fact that they can get hurt is not of consequence to them, so long as they can reach their goal. Check that a crime has actually been committed. Check the charges. Check to see if there was provocation by gays. Check actual language used. Check the attitude of the police and if the officer attending is also gay. Check everything – because gays lie, consistently and constantly.
Gay activists throughout the world deliberately provoke national and local police (and local people), by holding illegal parades, knowing they are bound to be treated roughly and that locals do not want their presence anyway. They pass out leaflets they know will offend, so a reaction will arise. And, privately, they deliberately try to pick-up non-gay men, who react angrily to what they see as an insult to their manhood.
(It was claimed that this happened to Matthew Shepard in the USA, who was murdered because of heterosexual anger at being approached for sex by him. This was a lie – he was murdered because others tried to rob him – it had nothing to do with his homosexuality. It was publicised as an homophobic murder by gay activists, because it suited their deception). Though perverse, this is what is happening everywhere and thus ‘incidents’ are increasing, based on a false argument. (https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-and-preventing-crime--2/supporting-pages/hate-crime )
The fact that homosexuals go out of their way to attract attention cannot be denied. They gather in large numbers to promote their lifestyle, in so-called ‘gay pride’ parades, where they use foul and obscene language and are half-naked, gyrating in sexual movements designed to shock. Then they wonder why they are ‘attacked’ or disparaged! Far worse, police chiefs allow their gay officers to march in uniform in these parades. They see and hear the obscene and pornographic behaviour, but do not effect any arrests. Any wonder I no longer trust the police? If a uniformed officer marches in a gay parade, it is evidence of political preference for one VERY minor sector of society.
Thus, we can justifiably claim that we cannot trust gay police (or their chiefs). How can we, when they attend a parade, see and hear what is against the law, but make no arrests because it would mean charging fellow gays? Yet, the same officers will make much of arresting Christians who object to homosexuality!
Homosexuality is still considered to be immoral and disgusting by the majority of people in any country. This is because homosexual behaviour is unnatural and unsafe, usually using perverse sexual practices. Yet, it is lifted high by homosexuals as something ‘good’ and suitable to be flaunted! Previously, homosexuals kept to themselves and society tended to simply avoid them or not have much to do with them. Now, gays flaunt their immorality and use law to batter society with. There are bound to be clashes.
Basically, homosexuals are rubbing the noses of ordinary people in the mess called ‘homosexuality’, and then complain when those they thus abuse react badly. On top of that homosexuals are creating law after law in their own favour, even though their distinctives as a ‘minority’ are based only on sexual choices. These laws are being forced upon everyone, and repression is used to stop opposition. So, just who is making a rod for their own backs? Just who is responsible for bad reactions?
In any normal society led by good government, opposing groups argue their case and the best argument wins. Not so in the West, particularly in the USA and UK! Instead of rational argument we have imposed laws and a repressed majority, whose views are withheld and denied… pro-gay laws and regulations are simply imposed on everyone, without discussion or amendment, or the people’s consent or wish. That is what makes it a fascist regime led by a fascist style government.
It does not end there, because apart from repression, suppression, and oppression, there is Marxist-style brainwashing. Logically, homosexuality has nothing to commend it, and the only way it can be thrust forward as a main concern is by brainwashing the country into submission, with lies and deception.
Worse, children are being taught how to act in a perverse way. Just who is being wicked? The result of this evil abuse of our children by our schools, will be many more homosexuals and a dramatic increase in HIV and AIDS, with more deaths. Just who needs to be suppressed? Hate crimes are the domain of homosexuals not heterosexuals. Even when wrong, heterosexual behaviour is usually along normal lines. Is it more hateful for one or two leering homosexuals to be attacked in the street after deliberately provoking heterosexuals to react, or for thousands of homosexuals everywhere to abuse our children and repress millions? What is the rational answer?
Gay writers have said ‘heterosexism’ badly affects homosexual well-being. Is this a joke? Homosexuals perform weird or perverse sexual actions, some of which are nothing less than totally disgusting. As a result they become ill, or permanently injured, and many die. Then they have the gall to demand that the rest of us accept what they do and pay for treatment! It is homosexuals who badly affect the rest of society – not the other way around!
In one article by gays, a lesbian complained that she was assumed to be heterosexual whilst in hospital. As 99% of all people are not gay, this is reasonable! Why should staff ask if a person is one of a perverse 1%? If there is nothing to commend homosexuality, why should anyone wish to know a person is homosexual, unless the homosexual has a disease that could transmit to them?
An Invented Category
If we disregard all of the above we come to the question, ‘Why?’. Why have a category called ‘hate’ crime? It is all engineered by gay activists, not by necessity or by actual crime figures, and this false category of ‘crime’ was coined by Marxists many years ago, so as to get rid of opposition in Russia. Whole police and justice departments have been invented to go with the invented category! The name ‘hate’ is not about the crime itself, but about supposed attitude. It is the same as having a category called ‘Getting Up Late’, to cover driving offences caused by late people whose alarm clocks didn’t work. Or, what about ‘Sudden Hunger’ crimes, where people steal food from supermarkets because they want a snack?
The name ‘hate’ is not about the crime at all, but about what people are supposedly thinking. Which is why many, including myself, believe the category is a political statement and not a police or legal issue. We do not have ‘Getting Up Late’ crimes and special police units to combat them, because we already have laws that govern driving offences. Same goes for ‘Sudden Hunger’ – we have laws against shoplifting. We already have many laws against physical assault and vicious verbal abuse. So, why have the nonsensical name ‘hate crime’? Attitude or motive might, or might not, have a bearing on sentencing by the judiciary, but it has nothing to do with the existence, or not, of an incident or crime.
The name relates not to crime itself (being beaten or killed) but to attitudes. (The attitude may, or may not, be the cause of the motive). Attitudes have a limited place in law and are only possible support evidences. They are not the crimes themselves! Maybe we ought to have a ‘Gotta Reach my Quota’ category to cover police who stop all and any motorist on minor charges (or none at all), because their superiors want them to reach their quota of arrests, and who feel frustrated when they are coming to the end of their shift? Or, maybe, a category called ‘I Don’t Like Your Face’ to cover police action against someone simply because they (the police) got out of bed the wrong side and decide to harass someone for no particular reason? Can you see what I am getting at?
There are already categories of crime adequate to cover attacks on the person. They describe the crime itself, not attitudes. This is an important point, because the latter makes thinking a crime. It passes-over the actual crime or incident and concentrates instead on what is inside a person’s head – or what others perceive to be in the head. This is dangerous. Even when dealing with theology, I often receive criticism of this or that statement I have made, based on what the reader perceives my attitude to be… and they are usually wrong!
The crime itself is an objective fact (so long as the one complaining has not invented it), and cannot be sustained unless there are witnesses or some other proof. But, the ‘attitude’ of a perceived law-breaker is beyond the proper sphere of law, because it is subjective. Really, if someone is attacked physically in the street, the attacker’s attitude does not prove a crime has taken place. The proof is in the fact that someone is hurt or dead! In some cases attitude is not part of the crime, so how can police and law make attitude a crime?
For example, an homosexual may be punched in the street. He goes to the police and says it was a ‘hate crime’, because, when he was punched, the attacker shouted “You dirty faggot!”
But wait… was it a hate crime? What if the homosexual had solicited a passing non-gay male? The person might have been afraid and lashed out because of that. Or, he might have been enraged by such an activity – many heterosexual males are affronted by gay behaviour – and hit out almost automatically. In that case there was no hate, just outright (and justified) anger. In both cases, if taken to court, one can establish that a crime had taken place (the attack), but leniency should be offered because of the circumstances, where the actions of the victim were the cause, not the supposed ‘attitude’ towards him. This especially applies if the attack was spontaneous and reactionary.
Even if the man had been murdered several hours after an affront, all this indicates is that premeditated homicide had taken place, for which there is already a crime category. If there was no actual affront, the crime can still be covered by existing laws, because the categories relate to objective facts, not to supposed attitudes. The category of ‘hate crime’ is, then, superfluous, except as an aid to statistical data. To maintain such a category is to divide society and to create special discriminations against the majority (99%). As current laws and regulations prove, these are usually against heterosexuals and in favour of homosexuals, for no genuine rational reasons.
The UK Government Should Read This!
In ‘Hate Crime Politics’, Rob White of the University of Tasmania, (Theoretical Criminology, Sage Publications, 2002) refers to Jacobs and Potter, who challenge the idea that there is a major hate crime ‘epidemic’, and who criticise the making of specific laws to combat what they see as an illusion.
As Rob White rightly asks, “Does hate crime exist? And to what extent?” He says that those who perceive such a threat demand “greater legal and police protection, leading in some places to the imposition of specific hate crime laws and… anti-discrimination legislation.” Tell the people of the UK about it! We are already under the burden of these illusory perceptions, to the detriment of the whole country, including homosexuals! We are already irrationally repressed by government.
White sees the whole thing as a political process (which it is) that “transforms the social landscape and bringing intended as well as unintended consequences.” Jacobs and Potter properly assert it is very difficult to ascertain that a species of crimes are based on bigotry. “This is because hate crime is inherently ambiguous conceptually, and hard to demonstrate empirically.” This is why most incidents called ‘hate crimes’ are said to be hate crimes by one who perceives them to be such, even if there is no evidence! We have entered the ethereal world of the mind, with almost no hard and fast proofs, but plenty of exploitation by self-interest groups!
Jacobs and Potter, again rightly, say that the “main problem is one of exaggeration flowing from well-intentioned efforts to deal with prejudice.” It would be very hard to justify gay demands for their own laws as ‘well intentioned’ given their total hatred for any opposition to their position! But, ‘exaggeration’ is certainly the case. Homosexuals hate anyone who opposes them (including quieter homosexuals!), and so they invent crimes against gays in order to give ‘evidence’ to police, who, in turn, protect them against illusory paper tigers!
Jacobs and Potter say that the size of a supposed ‘hate crime problem’ “depends entirely on how the definition is manipulated, calling into question the concept’s very utility.” Added to this, how can an incident be called a ‘hate crime’ if the one who was attacked provoked the reaction in the first place, by performing or saying what is widely considered to be filthy or perverse? Was that a ‘hate crime’, or was it a justified response (anger) that sadly led to an illegal act (violence)?
If it is viewed as a ‘hate crime’ then the ‘problem’ will be larger in size. But, if it was the natural reaction of a person who is affronted by a sexual approach or flaunting of a sexual perversion, then it may even be a moral reaction couched in an illegal response! It is no longer a ‘hate crime’ but something akin to a ’crime of passion’ committed after extreme provocation.
As an example, a vicar I know was in town with his wife. He went into a public toilet. Whilst he was there, a man came to his side, uttered a filthy request, and touched the vicar’s private parts! The vicar was so outraged, he turned spontaneously and punched the man on his jaw, laying him out cold. The vicar walked out, furious, leaving the man on the floor. Now, was that a ‘hate crime’? Or, was it justified? Only an irrational man will say it was a ‘hate crime’. Frankly, I would have reacted just as angrily, too.
“… in addition to raising technical legal criteria and conceptual difficulties with the definition and measurement of hate crime, Jacobs and Potter argue strongly against the introduction and retention of hate crime laws. Here, among other points, they question the assumption that hate crimes affect victims more severely than other types of crime, or that such crimes have a more severe impact on the community. More generally, they see the proliferation of hate crime laws in the USA as demonstrating the impact of ‘identity politics’ on criminal law. According to Jacobs and Potter, this phenomenon shows the success of advocacy groups in passing symbolic legislation which affirms their worth and identity.”
Indeed, the whole reason for gays demanding hate crime laws as a definition, is not to have freedom to do what they wish, because they live as they wish anyway; it is to do with wanting equality with what is normal and good. Once they obtain that, they will shift from being equal to being superior. That is their declared intention, so there is little need to search out what homosexual groups actually want. (2015 note: This has now happened).
We must also ask why so-called ‘hate crimes’ are supposedly so abundant nowadays. Do you not think it odd that suddenly, after millennia of putting up with homosexuals in our midst, there should be a claimed large number of attacks? It does not make sense, unless we admit that gays are manipulating facts and figures, and making claims that are invented or exaggerated!
Without doubt, gay activists are encouraging attacks on themselves by openly defying law and morality, especially in front of those who they know will be affronted. They are engineering situations that will bring anger upon them, enabling them to then lobby for greater protection of their lifestyle. That is why you will note that their claims are for protection of their lifestyle and not for their persons! In this way, they expand the meaning of any pro-gay law far beyond what is usual, creating a vast number of potential ‘crimes’… dare to oppose or question any part of that lifestyle and you will be arrested! This is not rational and it is certainly not good law!
White says, “Herein, however, lie potential problems, such as giving politicians an easy way out: denouncing the problem becomes a substitute for addressing it. In such cases, the law is used as a ‘quick fix’, displacing attention and resources away from broader community-building strategies.” This is true, especially in the UK, where government gives the illusion of ‘helping’ gay groups by issuing insane laws to protect what is a perverse sexual choice; this is an excellent smoke-screen for its many failures in community relations, caused by its own irrational thinking. That their laws hamper and oppress the majority does not matter to them, so long as pro-gay laws appear to take the ‘heat’ from their governmental failures.
Why else would a government blatantly seek one of its own pro-gay departments (e.g. the UK Women’s Unit) to write gay legislation whilst ignoring the views of the majority? As has already been said, the rational way is to allow ‘sides’ to argue their case. Without this, and by imposing laws that favour only a small number, whose way of life has no merit, the government is being fascist.
And without rationality, Marxist brainwashing becomes an added tool to be used against the majority of the population without mercy or thought for consequences. If an argument is valid and obviously acceptable, it would not need fascist techniques to silence the majority, or Marxist tools of thought manipulation to control thinking! Even if an argument is valid, but the majority do not wish to acknowledge it, then that is just tough on those who propose it! We must not impose an argument, but must wait for an opportune time to re-present it.
White says that Jacobs and Potter raise vital questions about how crimes are socially constructed to suit a minority, who manipulate facts and figures, research and public announcements, to mobilise opinion along its own path. This, he says, must be recognised and examined (and objected-to). There is nothing wrong with lobbying, when what is desired is a genuine, good, social change. But, what if the group that is lobbying literally lies and deceives to get its own way, as happens with homosexual groups? It behoves government to check every fact and figure, without showing a partisan spirit in favour of any particular group. Without this, the government becomes a part of the lies and deception, and makes bad law bordering on treason.
If a group, such as homosexual, demands laws in favour of itself, we must ask what those laws are designed to do. In the case of homosexuals, laws are meant to ‘protect’, and even promote, a lifestyle that is immoral, unnatural and unsafe at its core. If that was the only effect then we might let it go under sufferance. But, such laws go much farther, by suppressing and oppressing contradictory arguments, and bringing immeasurable harm to the majority, removing ‘freedom of speech’ (see later notes on this) and academic freedom.
This is not good law, but manipulation of a whole nation in favour of a very small number of people whose contribution to society as a group is nothing but harmful and destructive, the latter being observable fact and not mere ‘perception’.
What is happening in the UK is that those who are perceived to be ‘victims’ are enacting a socially destructive lifestyle, but they are also demanding that everyone else supports them. Using law to make this demand is futile and counter-productive, because the very law that protects the so-called ‘minority’ is actively oppressing the majority, and this will eventually turn to actual hatred against the supposed ‘minority’ and its governmental allies. The rational action would be to listen to the ’sides’ and to examine the case on its actual merits.
It is not rational to highlight differences and to create laws based on them, if those differences are considered to be repugnant by the majority of society. After all, we do not create laws to specially protect murderers, or rapists, etc. So, why do we create laws to protect people whose perverse sexual choices are their own invention? For centuries homosexuals have lived amongst us without much fuss. Now they wish to become ‘equal’ (as a prelude to becoming superior), when what they do is without any kind of merit whatever.
Most in society do not wish to accept homosexuality for any reason, so to enforce it is social suicide and the beginning of future social unrest. White says that the proliferation of hate crime laws are not “necessarily the sole answer”. Rather, he says, “Taking action on hate crime invariably requires a multiplicity of approaches across a range of institutional domains. Issues surrounding definition, quantification and institutional response… are important at a grass-roots level – precisely because they constitute one of the many battlegrounds upon which social inequality is fought.”
This is why the UK application of irrational repressive laws against the majority in society is a folly and an injustice, and, as a matter of justice, must be removed. There has been no genuine attempt at discussion, no examination of the facts and figures, and no sensitivity to what the majority in society actually want. Pro-gay laws have all been designed by gay or pro-gay committees and put in place without public acceptance or discussion. This is a sure sign of a fascist-Marxist philosophy at work.
So-Called ‘Hate Speech’
What is ‘hate speech’? This is a vital question, given that its origin is not in modern concerns, but in Stalinist Russia’s oppression of dissidents. The West is bordering on making laws against supposed ‘hate speech’. Once these come into being, western freedoms will be lost and dictatorship will rule.
One Christian writer, well qualified to present papers on causes of homosexuality, and AIDS information, had his book rejected by a number of USA publishers (even self-paying publishers!), who said the content ‘bordered on hate speech’. Even though the contents were actual facts, no publisher will touch the material for fear of offending gay activists… yet gay activists can say whatever they like against Christians. Censorship is now rife in the USA and UK.
In Britain this is well advanced. The UK now only needs to impose ‘hate speech’ laws to make the country fully totalitarian. That is why the Gay Police Association (GPA) is trying its best to bring such a law into being. Then, those who demand, and get, laws to protect them, will deny, as they now do, the same protection to anyone with a different view. Thus the GPA, for instance, will not only lobby to get free speech banned, but it will be at the forefront of making sure it is upheld, by arresting those they hate! Cannot government see the danger and injustice in all this? If the GPA get away with their demands, they will become both judge and jury, Marxist dictators using fascist techniques to silence people they are supposed to be working for! A genuine police state.
In the United States the First Amendment prohibits restriction on speech. Yet, throughout the USA, academics are losing their jobs for saying almost nothing against homosexuality. In one case a gay professor had a librarian dismissed merely for recommending a particular book to a student. The book contained solid and legitimate arguments against homosexuality. In no way is that professor’s action acceptable or rational. He was, however, fascist in his reaction.
Students everywhere are warned not to speak against homosexuality, and can be removed from their degree course if they do not speak favourably of it. And in the world of commerce, employees who do not accept pro-gay sentiments are being dismissed. This whole scenario is rife in the UK. In a very real way, it would seem we are approaching the prophesied time in Revelation, when people will be denied work, food and shelter, by the devil’s men, whose desire is evil.
Hate Speech is said to be speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group. It is a highly controversial term, because its validity depends entirely on ‘perception’ rather than genuine facts. For example, homosexuals see as hate speech anything said by Christians against their sexual choices and lifestyle. This is even applied to real societal facts and figures. Yet, homosexuals do not need anyone to degrade them – their very actions are degrading, to themselves!
Thus, if someone says that most cases of AIDS are amongst gays, this will be construed as ‘hate speech’, even though official figures prove it! If a Christian says the Bible condemns homosexuality (which is true), this is also construed as ‘hate speech’. Clearly, what happens is that homosexuals do not want any kind of opposition, and to eliminate it they invented (or, rather, reused an old defunct communist label) a class of offence called ‘hate speech’. In this way, they can totally control or eliminate opposition, simply by calling it ‘hate speech’. Effectively, all opposition, even doubts or questions, is thus stopped. Since when do straightforward facts and viewpoints constitute ‘hate speech’, if such are expressed without hatred?
No person should incite hatred towards others. That is true. But, to stop legitimate argumentation by calling it ‘hate speech’ is itself hate speech’! It is now acceptable for homosexuals to use any curse and swear word, and threat, against those who oppose them, but not for those they curse to argue back. So, who exactly is using hate speech?
Re Jennifer Hornsby: ‘Free Speech and Hate Speech: Language and Rights’, in ‘Normativita Fatti Valori’, Ed Rosaria Egidi, Massimo Dell’Utri, and Mario De Caro. Macerata, Quodlibet, 2003, pp 297-310. (Quoted from Birkbeck ePrints, University of London).
Ms Hornsby says that the principle of free speech is a “principle of political morality” and questions what makes its protection defensible. We must agree that certain ‘free speech’ cannot be defended per se. For example, what if a group went around telling young children that it was exciting to jump off the top of a building, and encouraged them to do so, thereby killing them outright? Can we defend that as ‘free speech’? No we cannot (any more than we can justify condoning homosexual brainwashing of children, when what they teach is fatal). There are, then, limits to ‘free speech’.
But do facts and figures and plain speaking, without hatred or incitement to hatred, allow others to stop such speech? No, of course not. Yet, that is what homosexual groups are doing. And it is what Tony Blair (2015 note: Now carried on by David Cameron) does against anyone who merely shouts ‘rubbish’ at one of his campaigns, or who holds up a single placard objecting to his politics!
Is it ‘hate’ to declare what the Bible says about homosexuality? Of course not. If a so-called Christian called for the murder of gays, then that is certainly hate speech. Stating a text from scripture is not the same thing. Nor is saying that it is immoral to be homosexual; this is what Christians have said for two thousand years, without a shred of evidence that it caused others to attack gays! Once legislation calls that ‘hate speech’, law is being used to suppress the mind itself.
The arguments about hate speech in Hornsby’s paper are based on linguistics, but are interesting. Replace the title ‘libertarian’ with ‘gay’ and the paper makes sense in a UK setting. That is, it is gays who harm the rest of society by stopping free speech, not the other way around. No true Christian, for example would contemplate issuing hateful comments, even if they issue Biblical ones. Homosexuals, however, want to silence every possible opposition, whether issued quietly and without hatred, or not.
Hornsby, referring to mental intermediation and reciprocity, says that the speaker is responsible if the hearer is made afraid or is abused by speech. The problem is not this, but with what is meant by fear and abuse.
Is it abuse to tell a person that his sexual choice is considered to be wrong? Is it abuse to say that it is perverse? Or, that it is not natural or not safe? What if the facts support these statements – are they then ‘hate speech’ and, if the facts support the statements, can the hearer legitimately claim that he has been made afraid or has been abused? If we tell a murderer that he is a killer who must be put to death – is that ‘hate speech’ because he is made afraid? ‘Hate’ is a moral term, so how can those who reject morality make a claim that is morally based?
If an act is unnatural, then that is what it is. If it causes fatal disease, then that is what it does. If a person is told these things, it is not ‘hate speech’ even if the hearer is offended or hurt by the speech. It is simply truth.
Thus, “(This is held in place by) a doctrine in U.S. Constitutional debate as mental intermediation. The doctrine has been invoked in American Court judgements directing that codes of practice on hate speech are unconstitutional. According to the doctrine, the effects of a speaker’s words on a hearer are mediated by the hearer’s psychology. If your speech offends me, then the explanation is that your words work in my mind to lead me to feel offended. Between your speaking and my pain, is my thought. So, by the light of this doctrine, my construction of your words is as much a determinant of whether or not I suffer as a consequence of your speech, as your uttering the words. Offensiveness caused by speech is considered to be under the control of the hearer as much as the speaker. It is said to be ‘belief-mediated’.”
At heart, then, the hearer who claims to be hurt by speech is hurt as much by his own decision to be hurt, as with the decision of the speaker to speak… if indeed it was his intention to be hurtful. Thus, what is ‘hate speech’ to one, is not hate speech to another; it all depends on belief. Even if the hearer reciprocates; that is, simply hears hateful content and takes it to be such, straightforward facts uttered in plain language, without hate, cannot be called ‘hate speech’.
I am often the target of hateful and vicious statements by gay activists, but I do not let them bother me. Thus, they are ‘hate speech’ but I do not let it affect me. I just feel very sad for those who utter such stupid comments. I could, of course, turn inward, become depressed and make a charge of ‘hate speech’. But, I do not. Hence any idea that the utterances are ‘hate speech’ is killed stone-dead!
One of the best responses to supposed ‘hate speech’ is no response! If it is completely ignored, the temperature plummets and there is no real ‘victim’. It is true that in some circumstances a person cannot escape or turn away from hatred, but such is rare, especially if provocation by the ‘victim’ is present. In many cases, there is not even ‘hatred’ anyway, only a muddled reaction in the attacker’s mind. But, it is in homosexual activists’ best interests to keep the pot boiling and to call ALL responses ‘hatred’.
Was Nazi ‘hate speech’ against Jews ‘hate speech’? To a particular juncture it was unpleasant and unjustified. It was only when the speech was deliberately used to bring about violence against Jews that it became ‘hate speech’. What made it different was not attitude, but the evolution of statements into incitement to violence and death. Once we accept that ‘hate speech’ is saying anything someone else does not like, even if it is truly disgusting, then we are on the road to dictatorship, totalitarianism throughout society, and oppression. Perceiving hatred is not itself a reason to arrest people. But, seeing and hearing actual physical results of hatred, such as an attack on the person, is different.
The answer to hateful speech (real hate, not the invented kind of homosexual imaginations) is to ignore it, or to publicly denounce it, but allowing a right of reply. Then, if desired, the one who supposedly offends can justify himself publicly. Homosexuals do not allow this, but use fascist-style suppression to silence critics.
Characteristics of Derogatory Terms
“(libertarians) claim what we might call the quid pro quo character of speech: speech can be answered back.” I think the writer is being simplistic here. Christians, for example are not ‘libertarians’ (though they may superficially appear to be so by demanding ‘free speech’). They only wish to have the right of reply and the right to respond to homosexual arguments.
The quid pro quo argument runs like this: “If A speaks hatefully to B, then, provided that A and B exist in a regime of free speech, B need not be the loser; for B can do to A what A did to B. It would be wrong to regulate hate speech, then, according to the libertarian, because where free speech reigns, there is redress for the hurtfulness of hate speech, in speech itself.”
Again, it is noted that this is not what is meant by the Christian, who merely wants to defend himself against the homosexual activist, whose whole intent is to silence him. This can be done by upholding his right to say what his belief demands, which is a repetition of what the Bible says. But, what the Bible says is considered to be ‘hate speech’, so the homosexual refuses any kind of argument, even if it is not hateful as such. The emphasis is not on content but on a rejection of morality, opposition, or alternative views.
Hornsby says that gays have no reciprocity, because they do not have access to similar words of insult to aim at those who oppose them. That is, there was no linguistic asymmetry. This is clearly a misconception, for abuse first came from gay activists, who coined words such as ‘homophobic’, ‘homophobia’, and used words like ‘bigot’ and far worse. Most arguments I have had in print invariably mean gay activists use foul language and pornographic images to denigrate me! It is not Christians who use non-reciprocal terms, but gay activists, whose approach is filled to the brim with actual hatred and filth. Using law against critics is proof of this.
In reality neither group should utter hatred for each other and, in Christian terms, no Christian has the Biblical right to hate others (though God does). On the other hand, all Christians must stand for what they believe in, as contained in the Bible… which does not utter hatred either.
We go back, though, to definition. If I utter speech referring to a fact, is it hate speech? For example, if I say “You kill puppies for fun. That is despicable!”… is that ‘hate speech’? No, of course not. It is a fact. So, if I say “Anal sexual acts, by heterosexuals or homosexuals, are unnatural, biologically perverse and unsafe!”… is that ‘hate speech’? No, it is not, because it is a statement of fact. It is no different from a doctor telling a patient “Your cancer is caused by smoking, because you have been taking poison into your system, which is irrational and unsafe.” How can stating facts be ‘hate speech’, even if the hearer does not like what is said, or ‘perceives’ it to be hateful? To regard honest and true facts as ‘hate speech’ is to turn language into a farce.
Yes, it is true that there are ‘inequalities’ between heterosexual and homosexual groupings. But, this is because there is no ‘equality’ between things that cannot be equal! (See article, Ceteris Paribus, O-281: homosexuals defy logic). Is death caused by ‘natural causes’ equal to death caused by deliberate self-harm? Of course not.
Thus, death by natural causes is not equal to death caused by rejecting morality and indulging in the unnatural acts of anal sex. Is the normal teaching of biology to children equal to teaching them ‘how to’ act out perverse sex acts, which lead to fatal diseases and social disruption? Of course not. Is normal argumentation equal to total oppression and suppression of ideas? Of course not.
The ‘inequality’ applied to homosexuals is for a purpose, one that improves and not detracts from social good. It is for the betterment of the homosexuals themselves. But, if they prefer not to observe what is good, then they must at least not silence others who speak against such irrational thinking and acts. Is it ‘rational’ to act in such a way as to endanger self and others? Of course not. So, why is it hate speech to point this out in measured and ordinary terms?
Hornsby speaks against ‘free speech’ for logical reasons, because total freedom is itself a kind of repression, especially if the ‘other side’ does not have equal access to similar terms of reference. No Christian can support total free speech, but only a modified form of it, i.e. the opportunity to put forth an alternative argument, or even opposition. This is all that is desired, because otherwise we enter into a fascist state of mind.
In a section referring to Marx, Hornsby says “Libertarians are apt to characterise their opponents as placing considerations of equality ahead of considerations about freedom.” In the current ethos, gay activists not only deny free speech, or even a right of reply, to those who oppose them, but they are actively bringing in laws to silence any kind of right of reply, and even thought itself!
As has already been said, gay activists do not want equality as such. They wish to go beyond equality, to achieve total breakdown of law and morality, so that they can indulge in their activities without check or hindrance, even when they harm others in society. This is contained in their ‘gay agenda’.
AOL was sued over ‘hate speech’ in its chat rooms (Out-Law.com news), by a Muslim who said anti-Islamic statements were allowed in forums. Much depends on what was in the chat rooms. If the chat was filled with vicious and openly disgusting content, then it should not be condoned. One major reason for this is that children, and those without a trained faculty of analysis, could believe the propaganda and misuse it. But, if it merely expressed anti-Islamic sentiments, then the action is to be deplored. On thousands of websites, Muslims speak scornfully and hatefully about Christians, and about the West. So do gay activists, often with disgusting language. Yet, no Christian will sue them over ‘hate speech’! It is just ‘par for the course’.
The ridiculous point, however, is that AOL claimed that it had no time for hate speech. In reality there are many gay sites that speak hatefully about Christians, and which contain foul language and obscene material offering sexually-perverse material. Will AOL have “no time” for that, too? Of course not, because the numerous sites provide them with an income - and attacking Christians is easy!
Civil liberties groups in the USA opposed the banning of ‘hate speech’ on the internet. The same groups also uphold homosexual rights. The connection is, that by banning all ‘hate speech’ gay groups would also have to moderate their language. So, they fight the ban for everyone. In this case the ban would have been on racist and xenophobic words. (PC World.com 2nd Dec. 2002). But, the next step would obviously be to ban anything said against homosexuality.
“It seems that racists and Nazis are never far from the centre of concerns about free speech.” (Jeremy Waldron, ‘Boutique Faith’, London Review of Books, 20th July, 2006). How true! Fascists hate freedom of speech, and will do anything to outlaw it. Just like modern fascists, including gay activists and Islamists, who use ‘hate speech’ against all who oppose them, but deny them the right of reply. Cleverly, gay activists have taken over many key posts in the media, so that they can silence people with pre-censorship. So, even if they have a right of reply, it will never be heard.
In 1977 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fought for the freedom of Nazi’s to march through Skokie, Illinois, with swastikas, uniforms and vile leaflets. They fought in the courts for this and won. The same ACLU today is heavily involved in fighting for the ‘rights’ of gay activists to spread their awful doctrines by fascist means, but they will not fight for the rights of Christians.
Again, it shows there is no reciprocal opportunity for Christians to freely express their legitimate views about homosexuality. (The Skokie march did not take place, but a Nazi named Collins marched his cronies in Chicago, handing out leaflets saying ‘Death to the Jews’. That was acceptable to the ACLU, but they do not allow freedom for Christian objections).
Apparently Voltaire did not say “I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, a writer thought that it would be his ‘attitude’: “How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He might have thought it, said Beatrice Hall, when a book written by Helvetius was burned. (In ‘Courting the Abyss’ by John Durham Peters, who said the statement was made by English writer, Beatrice Hall, writing under a male pseudonym in 1906). It does not matter if Voltaire thought a book was trifling or not, just as gay activists think Christian objections are trifling. The idea is alive and kicking – that no man should suppress valid opposition. That goes for Christians as well.
Christians need not accept anything that offends. They may even speak against it. But, they cannot support the wicked hatred expressed in the face of the vilest homosexual activities, by some who call themselves ‘Christian’. The main claim is always the same: we must have the freedom to speak out against something we do not accept and which is universally wrong. We may even use strong terms to denounce it. That others do not think it is wrong is not relevant. The point is that we have to tolerate the expression of views of others, even when we loathe what is said. And those we speak against must do the same against us. God will deal with wicked men and give them their just rewards, not us.
So-Called ‘Hate Speech’ & Marxism
Very strange: the Islamic Imam, Iqbal Sacranie, was knighted by Tony Blair, even though Sacranie condoned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and said “Death is perhaps too easy” for him! Yet, Blair is doing all in his power to outlaw Christians and what they say from scripture, and he supports gay activists who loathe Christianity and who are subverting it by law! This is consistent, of course, with the Marxist foundations of his political party.
In Santa Monica, a Jewish businesswoman, Bunnie Meyer, put some awful posters in her window against Palestinians: “Palestinians are pigs, murderous scum pigs”, “scumbag cockroaches descended from the bowel movements of pigs”, etc. A local activist group held a protest. However, city officials said, “For language itself to be a crime, it has to be more than just ugly speech or hate speech.” (Re Loni Petersen of the Hate Crimes Unit, L.A. County District Attorney’s Office).
Immigration lawyers disagreed with this finding, calling Meyer’s posters hate speech inciting violence against Arabs. In response, Meyer said the first went up two years previously, after a ‘bus bomb killed people outside Haifa. She was reacting to those she considered to be murderers. “It’s not about racism,” she said, “It’s about violence. These are lying, thieving, murdering, scumbag terrorist pigs.” (Source: Marxist Mailing List Archive).
We can see that she is reacting against terrorism, but that she fails to do so in a constructive way. Is what she said hate speech? Or, simply a badly worded reaction? After all, she cannot prove that all Palestinians are terrorists. But, she is not calling for hatred or violence towards anyone. She is merely ‘shouting off’ against those she thinks are evil. I am not splitting hairs, but pointing out what the words are doing. This is vital in a time when the most innocuous statement can be called ‘hate speech’.
I think you will agree that Meyer’s language was extremely strong. Yet, the city leaders did not say it was ‘hate speech’. So, why label Christian opposition to homosexuality as ‘hate speech’ when it is ordinary low-key language, with no curses, foul language, or violence? You may as well say Father Christmas was uttering hate speech when he said ‘Merry Christmas, everyone’, knowing that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not observe Christmas! When ordinary language is called ‘hate speech’ there is serious trouble brewing in a country!
Sunera Thobani (a radical Marxist academic) delivered a talk to a women’s conference. I have no interest in her talk per se, but in her talk she objected to American foreign policy, using well-attested facts. What caught my eye was that her talk was labelled ‘hate speech’, and she was accused of a ‘hate crime against Americans’ because she questioned USA policy. (Source: ‘War Frenzy’, Marxism No. 1, 2003: www.socialist.ca).
This is what ‘hate speech’ is really about – stopping the opposition from speaking against your own position. As we saw earlier, it is political manipulation and nothing else. Tony Blair loathes it when anyone opposes his dictatorial attitude and activities. He makes out that his antagonists are haters, and even uses laws to get rid of them. Socialists are very good at that. But, how can mere opposition warrant a charge of ‘hate speech’? None of us likes to be challenged openly, but how many (like socialists and gay activists) overstep the mark by bringing charges against those they dislike or who they do not want to be opposed by? Only fascists and Marxists!
“If old Karl Marx, the embittered inventor of communism, could return from the grave, he would no doubt be surprised to find that most of the 10 planks of his Communist Manifesto, issued in 1848 in collaboration with Frederick Engels, have been happily adopted or are at least supported by, Americans.” (Charley Reese, ‘Marxism Lives’, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1/1/98). Yes, the USA is now building its house from the planks of Marxism, even though communism was torn down as unworkable. One of the signs of Marxism is the construction of anti-people laws, including those of ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’.
Political Correctness & Hate Speech
‘Hate speech’ is a product of ‘political correctness’, a code of practice that stops anyone saying or doing anything not liked by a minority group. FrontPage Magazine in communication with Theodore Dalrymple said, “You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil, because of the ‘violence that it does to people’s souls, by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.’ Can you talk about this a bit?” (Source: ‘Political Correctness - the Revenge of Marxism’, by Baron Bodissey, in Gates of Vienna, June 14th, 2006).
In response, Dalrymple says: “Political correctness is communism propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.” This is exactly what gay activists are doing to peoples of all countries, but especially in the USA and the UK. Gay activists do not care if we learn anything, or if we agree. They are solely interested in gaining power – which they already have in abundance – to obliterate opposition. The gay agenda provides for this, and one of the key tools used is humiliation and intimidation.
Dalrymple continues, “When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse, when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to cooperate with evil, and in some way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
This is what is happening in the USA and UK. Look at emerging university policies on sexual orientation in both countries and it becomes plain. Free thought is being disbanded in favour of lies and deception, and the process is being controlled by gay activist groups. Everyone else is simply ignored. Indeed, most people are unaware that these policies are even being made! This is political correctness with a vicious edge, and it is Marxist in character. Fascism is merely a way of reaching the Marxist goal quickly!
Dalrymple adds that when he talks with people who lived under communist regimes, they tell him that we are just as brainwashed by political correctness as they were. In my own communications I receive similar comments from those who, having lived under Soviet communism, fear coming again under communist control… which they see arising fast from the poison pit of political correctness. But, they also say that they had more freedom than we now have, because at least there were dissident groups (albeit illegal). If you do not think this is so, then read the entire Gulag Archipelago series of books by Solzhenitsyn!
“… one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead… Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by ‘poverty, oppression and marginalisation’, a classic Marxist interpretation.”
Is not this how gay activists speak about their own case? And the reason they give to impose iron-fisted rules and laws upon all of society? Is this not the way of the UK government, in its fear of losing control? And is this not why even opposition parties start to sound the same, for fear of suffering the same fate in the future? Hate speech is a natural bedfellow of socialism. For many years I have warned that the UK Labour party is the ‘blunt end’ of Marxism. Now, the blunt end has been sharpened to a cut-throat razor, and socialism is slitting the throat of society.
Of ‘soft’ Marxists, Dalrymple says, “they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels.” Such as gay activism. “We are now paying the price for this… their critics (are) vilified and demonised… (they have) achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of, had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilisation and destroy its foundations.”
If you want proof that this is so, read ‘After the Ball’, the book containing the real gay manifesto, and which is now openly touted as gay law! The aim is not just to get homosexuality accepted. It is far deeper than that. The aim is to completely tear societies apart and to replace them with gay-infected ideology and practices. Marxism! This is already happening, but no-one stands up to gay activists.
Multiculturalism & Hate Speech
We are in days of vast movements of people; immigration on a huge and unprecedented scale. One of the most migrated-to countries is the UK, where the number who move there amount to the size of a small town every year! (Presently running at 1,000 a day!). Such a small island cannot sustain this, but the government allows it to continue and lies about it, ‘promising’ only 1,000 immigrants a month.
The issue is not about multiculturalism or multiracism, but about common sense. It is also about a simple fact, that when a country loses its identity it starts to disintegrate internally. This is what we are now seeing in the UK, where racial tensions are very high and rising. This is not just due to government forcing the country to take in and accept all kinds of strangers without question, it is mainly about those strangers refusing to become British, and opposing the very country that has taken them in.
Not only that, but they are forcing UK born citizens to accept their alien religion, or else, and demanding that we pay for their religious beliefs. Added to that, the government is destroying British identity, deliberately and systematically.
What is true of different cultures is also true of homosexuality. This is why many ordinary people tell me, without my asking, that they have two hatreds today – Islam and homosexuality! They are very angry that two minority groups are dictating what they will and will not say or believe. Resentment is building. But, this is exactly what socialists want! When the whole boil erupts and the accrued poison spurts out, it is time to radically transform society into the image of Marxism. But, who is going to take notice?
“What we call ‘political correctness’ actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920’s, and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behaviour. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.” (‘Multiculturalism and Marxism’, Frank Ellis, www.reversespins.com . He is professor of Russian, University of Leeds, UK).
Already, gay activists in the USA are trying to get those who oppose them to be classed as mentally ill. Do not laugh it off; gay activists have been very successful in getting what they want thus far! I have a deep distrust for the UK government, and have a suspicion that it is using the gay issue to subdue and control the nation.
This is not a far-fetched idea. In his study of towns and villages in the UK, sociologist Ronald Frankenberg noted how some village leaders allowed young thugs to run riot. What was happening, was that local leaders did not like certain people, and passed on hints to the thugs that this was so. The thugs, always ready for trouble, enjoyed lashing out at the targeted people.
Meanwhile, when the targets had been dealt with violently, the leaders made suitable official tut-tutting noises and vowed to clean the streets of the thugs. But, in secret, they made sure their targets were attacked, by chatting ‘innocently’ about them in the pubs, making sure the thugs were nearby. In this way they appeared to be critical of the thugs, but, in reality, the thugs were doing their dirty-work by controlling people who were opposing local politicians! (‘Communities in Britain’, Pelican Books, 1977).
“… by the late 1960’s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities…(today) the result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious.” Yet, this is in the same USA that ran anti-communist campaigns! “Today’s dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behaviour, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.”
“(Soviet) totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very idea of a private opinion or point of view, had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge, and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world.” This is where the USA and the UK are going, very fast.
“Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is ‘tolerance and diversity’… Judicial activism undermines the rule of law, ‘tolerance’ weakens the conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free enquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality.”
“As cited by Robert Conquest in ‘The Harvest of Sorrow’ (p143), the state’s view of this class (i.e. peasants) was ‘not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything.’ Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.”
Solzhenitsyn repeats this in his gigantic history of the Gulags. In one part he says that it was simple to bring a whole class of people down: a leader only had to say that all people with red beards were criminals, and, suddenly a whole new class of evil men existed, to be put down! Remember – this is where the West is now going. Christianity as a whole is being set up as a target.
The UK government, in what seems to be an astonishing act of repression, is now leading antagonism toward Christians. And the government are using gay activists to fuel their coming crushing of dissident voices. What better way to destroy criticism of socialism* than to eliminate the entire class of people who might object to them, Christians and conservatives? (*2015 note: Now, ALL political parties, even conservatives, are socialist in policies).
Once everybody has been violently traumatised into being PC, violence and oppression is no longer needed, because everyone will comply. We then reach “steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.” Does this not frighten you? It should! Because it is happening right now, under your noses.
“Russia’s descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of what happens when a nation declares war on the past, in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise. Dostoevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted, but Solzhenitsyn experienced them first hand.”
“One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today, is the idea that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation)… Feminists, blacks, environmentalists and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth, because they are ‘oppressed’. In the misery of ‘oppression’ they see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who ‘oppress’ them. This is a perfect mirror-image of the Marxist proletariat’s moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie… To borrow an expression from Robert Bork’s ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah’, black and feminist activists are ‘case-hardened against logical argument’, just as Communist true believers were… Indeed, feminist… activists openly reject objective truth.”
“One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in the universities and in the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities… It is the desire to be accepted that makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries.”
“(In the West, there is not Soviet-style government) and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent… The case of Prof. Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by police. The attempt to silence him was based on the provisions of Canadian hate-speech laws. This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the old Soviet Union. To find it in a country that prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is… disturbing.”
“Such a society would be well on its way to becoming totalitarian… in which our minds would be wards of the state. (Such a country) would not have concentration camps (Ed. Yet!), but it would have re-education centres and sensitivity training for those sad creatures (who dissented).” We already have the latter, and even our police are trained to be PC (excuse the pun), though few personally advocate it.
Afraid to Speak
Carey Roberts thinks that unless we accept the reality of what political correctness really means, the USA will lose its First Amendment freedoms. (‘Afraid to say what we think’, Renew America, 21st June, 2004).
“Political correctness has its roots in cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxists know that democratic capitalism cannot be overthrown by external force. So they seek to undermine Western society like a cancer, attacking from within.” Just like homosexual activists.
“…campus speech codes began to sprout. In the workplace, speech codes became subsumed under the rubric of sexual harassment. If a boss called his secretary ‘honey’, or a doctor referred to a patient as ‘dear’, that could get him into trouble. The next step in the unfolding PC campaign was the passage of hate speech legislation.”
What this kind of social manipulation does is to create an elite, whose power is in their ability to be PC and to uphold a particular unsustainable and irrational theoretic stance, without having the slightest touch of conscience. That is how communists operated, and still do. They retained their power by being brutal without thought, accruing wealth and power simply by adhering to the ‘party line’; the ultimate PC dictators.
These are already evident in the West. And younger police officers tend to be the most vigorous and intellectually-blind advocates of ‘hate crimes’, because they have been brought up in an atmosphere of acceptance of all kinds of perversity, and are already brainwashed. They no doubt have many gay friends, who they think they know well… but they are probably completely uninformed as to what homosexuals actually do and want. Even if they do know, they will be conditioned by relativism.
Police officers have discretionary powers. When these officers decide to arrest someone on the pretext of a ‘hate crime’, they have already discriminated against the one they have arrested, because the tag ‘hate’ has been attached. And, if the officers are themselves gay, or pro-gay, the result will already and invariably be a foregone conclusion.
My use of the word ‘pretext’ is deliberate, because of reasons found in this paper. If ‘hate’ is a word of subjectivity, then any arrest on that basis is bound to be subjective first and objective second (if at all). Why not just arrest the person on an assault charge? Younger officers are more likely to make such an arrest, rather than issue a warning, because of the brainwashing they have received, not just from their friends and the general ethos, but also because of ‘sensitivity’ training they receive with a bias towards homosexuality. They will be most eager to show their outrage and personal reactions.
We live in a fearful time, when those who are supposed to protect all of society give preference to those whose behaviour is immoral and deceptive. The same younger police will even have the gall to denounce a moral response to homosexuality, even though such a response has existed for thousands of years. (They do not seem to discern that what gays claim to be a universally accepted lifestyle is actually a delusion invented by their own propaganda, and spread amongst youngsters).
But, this is consistent with what is happening generally. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) wrote that “bourgeois capitalist civilization must be overthrown by discrediting existing beliefs and replacing them with revolutionary or proto-revolutionary beliefs; ‘free expression’ is actually repressive… because anti-revolutionary groups and individuals (can) express their beliefs and values – values that must be overthrown.” He advocated “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly for conservative or Christian individuals and groups (and called to) denounce them as ‘hate groups’, atavistic, fascist, or intolerant. He wanted to denounce conservative or Christian speech as ‘hate speech’ and said we must not allow colleges or universities to become ‘forums’ for politically incorrect speech.” (2015 note: This is what Obama is now doing in the USA).
Thus far Marcuse’ ideas are found in abundance in the West, to our discredit. He went on to advocate:
“liberating tolerance: intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left; new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in the ‘educational institution’ to indoctrinate students in ‘progressive’ values; speech codes on campuses; a rejection of the values of Western civilization as ‘regressive’, and a rejection of the ‘Western canon’ of literature as ‘regressive’, promote Marxism as ‘progressive’; denounce and discredit those who resist this ‘progressive’ agenda as ‘reactionary’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ or the ‘extreme right’, etc.” (Quoted from personalwebs.oakland.edu)
ALL of these ideas are current in the West! That is why the USA is now infested with revolution from its own people against its very existence. Gays lead the ‘fight’ because they want total control and total freedom to act as they wish, even though what they do is dangerous and immoral.
“The events of 1918-24 are not ‘ancient history’. They are highly significant… 1918 matters because that was when Marxism began mass-murdering people, and we don’t understand modern fascism without a deep understanding of the bossy bourgeois command-and-control model of authoritarian socialism that is mainly based on Marxism. With the current revival of interest in mass democratic and libertarian socialism come hopes of a few malignant Marxist druids to revive their leftist putschist plots.” (‘Marxist-Leninist Holocaust Denial’, by pr, Melbourne Indymedia, 17th August, 2006).
The link between fascism and Marxism is firm. The brutal immorality of the communist regime was instigated because Marx thought his ideas would bring a bright new tomorrow. But, all it brought was mass murder, intense prevailing fear and loss of the freedom to think and speak. That is why it finally collapsed in Russia not so long ago. Yet, homosexual activists, who are fascist-Marxists at heart, want to replace Western culture with the very same failed ideas. Not for the good of the people, but simply to satisfy their own corrupt desires. Destruction and reconstruction of whole civilisations in the process is no problem to them.
A Roman Catholic was fired by Maryland governor, Robert Ehrlich, because he said he does not approve of homosexuality; an Italian journalist cannot go back to Italy because she will be sued by a Muslim group for speaking out against radical Islam; a British neo-Nazi was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust; a college man was ‘found guilty’ by California Polytechnic State University, of putting up a poster advertising a conservative speaker. “What do these examples have in common? They are the logical outgrowth of a dangerous trend sweeping the Western world: the criminalisation and censorship of speech.” (‘When Speech becomes a Crime’, Cinnamon Stillwell, San Francisco Chronicle; quoted from FIRE [Foundation for Individual Rights in Education], 28th June 2006).
“Outright censorship and draconian speech codes have long been a staple of Third World authoritarian regimes. But Western democracies and, in particular the United States (where the First Amendment is supposed to reign supreme), have always prided themselves on protecting free speech. Yet, because of the creeping reach of political correctness, one can now be put in prison, lose a job, be kicked out of school, or be otherwise censored, simply for uttering an unpopular opinion.” (Note the UK situation, which is far worse. Now, no media will allow anything against homosexuality to be issued).
“It’s called ‘hate speech’. If there ever were a more Orwellian concept, it would be difficult to find. For, much like the concept of ‘thought crimes’ in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, hate crimes and hate speech suppose intent on the part of the ‘perpetrator’, that may, or may not, have any basis in reality. What is often mere criticism or disapproval is labelled ‘hatred’, and thus made worthy of punishment. Such a perspective demands that one thinks only nice thoughts about others. But, when did it become law that we have to like everyone?”
“Even highly objectionable speech such as Holocaust denial should not be criminalized. Such speech would be better fought on the battlefield of ideas than in the courtroom. The academic frauds and conspiracists pushing Holocaust denial should have their work thoroughly discredited and challenged, not censored. Furthermore, throwing Holocaust deniers in prison merely creates martyrs.”
This is the very route homosexuals will not take, because they know their arguments do not hold water! Rather than subject their views to proper examination, they use a smoke-screen and take the attention from their invalidity, by making others into criminals and ‘haters’. Yet, all their critics do is put forward legitimate objections and counter-arguments. For gays, Marxist and fascist techniques ‘cut to the chase’ so that they need not explain their position.
“Gays are another group included in the growing ranks of the ‘protected classes’… While one can be sued, fired or expelled from school in the United States, for expressing disapproval of homosexuality, or what’s come to be known as ‘homophobia’, in Canada one just might be thrown into prison…. all too often those on the receiving end are conservative or Christian… falsely accused of ‘hate speech’ when they exercise their rights to freedom of speech.”
“At best (hate speech legislation) sets the scene for whining, bickering, and retaliatory immaturity. At worst, it turns us into a police state, kills democracy and gives power to a dictator.” (Joan Braddock, a resident of Auckland, quoted in the Liberal Party website, 2006).
“Hate speech legislation is the next logical step in the Marxist agenda. Basically, it is legally enforced political correctness. PC in turn came to us thru Marxism and Maoism. Is it any wonder that one of the key proponents of hate speech legislation in the Labour Party in the mid-1990’s, was well-known Maoist, Alick Shaw? Hate speech legislation will cripple any attempts to put race relations on an even keel. It will further divide our nation, which is why the Marxists push it.” (ChrisD, same source as above).
“The right to defend unpopular, offensive, and even false opinions, has long been a part of Western tradition, a tradition that tended towards increasing liberty until the trend was reversed in this century. Of course, the Nazi barbarians themselves were not exactly great defenders of freedom of speech… The censors always produce seemingly virtuous reasons for limiting freedom of expression. Only the contents of the reasons change, in order to fit the superstitions of the times.” (‘In Defense of Hate Literature [sort Of]’, Pierre Lemieux, London Political notes, No. 137, 1997).
“The standard arguments for free speech are well known, or are they? We cannot know the truth-value of an hypothesis if its opponents are forbidden to challenge it, or if its proponents are not allowed to defend it. Most of an individual’s beliefs, including his scientific beliefs, are justified by his perception that they have emerged unscathed from the free confrontation of ideas and the unrestrained search for facts. And we would be hard-pressed to find a single idea now generally accepted, that was not offensive for the majority at some time in history.”
“Strange it is that men should admit to the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.” (John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty’, 1854, P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909).
Exactly the point! Homosexuals want to silence those who oppose. This is not because they are convinced by their own arguments, but because they are not! They know that open discussion of their case would result in a mighty defeat, so they opt for the hammer of Marxist repression and kicking others with fascist jack-boots. Universities join them by denying open discussion and academic freedom of research and presentation. They build speech codes, punish and warn with sexual orientation rules, and sack staff and students who are uncomfortable with such a dictatorial regime. How can rational people put up with this mess of intellectual sewage? (“Would Nietzche, Marx, or the Surrealists, pass the test of hate literature?” [Lemieux, as above].)
“Far from being a site of free thinking and free exchange of ideas, the university seems to have become a laboratory for new forms of censorship and conformism. Kids come to college, and for the first couple of weeks of freshman year, they’re in a sensitivity course, where they’re told what they are allowed to say, and what they are not allowed to say. They are subjected to thought-control programmes the minute they arrive. That is not a very good start.” (‘How have students become these self-righteous young authoritarians?’, Wendy Kaminer talking about free speech on campus, 11th November 2006, in Althouse.blogspot.com).
“In many cases (in Canada), the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government’s official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being ‘wilfully blind’ to the effects of his actions.
This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks ‘Canada is now a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion (of political correctness). Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated’.” (‘You Can’t Say That’, David E. Bernstein, 2nd December, 2003, National Review Online. He is professor of law at George Mason University).
However, as Canadian homosexuals have discovered, the very PC movement they have espoused and pushed, is now starting to hit them back, as authorities raid and punish gay shops that sell pornographic material! This will eventually happen all over the world, as gay-promoted movements start to crack-down on gays themselves. Once you start-up the mighty engine of PC, everyone is crushed by its solid wheel, including those who wickedly began its wanton rampage.
This was also discovered by those who advocated authoritarian repression: “Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn first-hand what it is like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy.” (see earlier section).
This paper could be filled with hundreds of pages of arguments against the concepts and unfair practices of political correctness, hate speech and hate crimes, because they are all unified in what they say, so we will end the quotes here.
Without doubt, the above concepts are bad for society as a whole, even for those who advocate them. They prevent the proper and serious interchange of ideas and opinions. But, far worse, they prevent a genuine search of the facts (which are denied) and the modification of concepts by the age-old and honourable system of reasoned amendment that is so crucial to academic progress and understanding, which percolates downwards to non-academic men and women. Without it, the populace is fed lies and deceit, unfounded pseudo-facts and one-sided speech.
So what if Christians oppose homosexuality? So what if homosexuals oppose Christians? Let them argue it out in public! But, they don’t, because homosexuals do not want free movement of either speech or ideas. Nor do they want anyone to necessarily agree with them. They just want to do whatever they please, without restriction. All they want is obedience. The only way they can do this is to stop others from discussing their ideas openly. Can you discuss homosexuality openly, and in the media? No you cannot! The media is mainly run by homosexual radicals, who censor not just what is put out, but materials not yet put out, preventing it from reaching rational minds in the first place!
What we are seeing is the combination of Marxism and fascism, a combination so filled with hate for free thinkers that its very presence blinds those who ought to know better – our politicians, legislative bodies, police, universities, etc. So, it is very strange and against all logic and rationality, that such vehement hate is overlooked in the formation of hate speech and hate crime laws! It is hatred against the people to invoke such laws, and this is why I earlier said that governments who produce these laws are treasonous. They hate the people they govern, and show it by punishing all who stand in their way.
I have no doubt that Christians are going to be targeted soon. And why not? The Labour Party in the UK is socialist, the blunt end of Marxist communism. They will use gay agenda issues to crush all opposition to their dictatorial regime. (2015 note: Tories are doing the same thing today). Gays will do it to gain unlimited sexual freedoms and control, but they, in turn, are being manipulated by government (who are manipulated by Stonewall!), so that they will become the henchmen of their socialist masters. Which is why fascism is rife.
The writing is on the wall, but who can see it? It is plainly seen, but fear of being punished is forcing people to shut down and be silent. As I always tell those around me, if you try to hide from a vicious enemy, all that happens is that it takes a bit longer to be found. And then they kill you anyway… so you may as well go down fighting!
Homosexuality is a distasteful matter to tackle, but it is one of the enemies of Christ, and we must not allow it to progress without challenge. If all that was happening was that gays wanted freedom to do what they want to do, then the problem would be much smaller. But, in reality, they want control not just over speech, but also over conscience and the preaching of the Christian Gospel. Plus, they demand control over our schools and over our children, to make them into fresh gays. This cannot happen without a fight. So fight, before it is too late.
We suggest that you keep a look out. If you think (‘perceive’) something an homosexual says about you, or about Christ, etc., is ‘hate speech’, whether verbally or in print, complain to the police. If everyone did it, all the time, we would help to combat what gay activists are doing.
This is not a triviality, it is about survival of freedom to preach and teach scripture. Block the courts with cases. Block the appeal courts. Make the government recant of its foolish reliance on gay propaganda. Yes, this is radical and at first glance might even seem to be against what we ought to do. But, it is not. Christians are not door-mats and should stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes this means defending, legally. God is in control, but that does not mean we must hide away and pretend all is well.
© December 2006 (Revised February 2015)
Published on www.christiandoctrine.com
Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
Do you value the content of the Christian Doctrine website?
Then please 'Make a Donation' to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries