The Quest For Victimhood
Homophobic Hate Crimes
If they could, gays would ban website's like this because it reports on the terrifying
truth of their distressing addiction. It is suspected that the Gay Police Association
are keeping a close eye one this site. Already, it seems, the West Midlands and Staffordshire
police have failed to close one Christian website critical of homosexuality in the
police. In fact, if Stonewall get its chance, and a Home Office Minister has promised
more discussions in 2007/8, then homophobic remarks in song or other media will be
criminalized. Tony McNulty MP, at the Home Office is open for further discussion.
This could effectively shut down any debate on homosexuality per se.
Proposals came sooner rather than later. In a surprise move in October 2007 the Government
added an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill before Parliament.
This outlawed freedom of speech in the form of a ‘homophobic’ hate crime carrying
a maximum penalty of seven-
Speaking in support of the amendment, and no doubt egged-
This has the hallmark of a ‘useful idiot’ making wholly misleading and incorrect claims, which is all the more surprising since Turner is formally addressing parliament. It was notable that he gave no evidence whatsoever to support his claim. His utterly fallacious assertion, for that is what it is, is incomprehensible when proper account is taken of the significant volume of tested research which reveals that a significant number of gay men attest to their own initial victimisation at the hands of older predatory homosexuals. It’s a good example, however, of how Labour has been infiltrated by homosexual propaganda. They are now firmly and formally colluding with and amplifying deviant and aberrant behaviour among those addicted to anal/oral sex.
Turner would do well to consider another timely study published in the Empirical
Journal of Same-
If anyone was going to provide parliament with definitive and substantial hard evidence
that so-
His first example of
hate speech was about the rap lyrics of Jamaican Beenie Man and others. Only those
lyrics that referred to gays was mentioned, whilst offensive and demeaning references
to women, race, religion and even rival rappers were ignored. What is remarkable
about these lyrics is that they are expressed in an obscure Jamaican patios and Summerskill
attempted to translate them so they could be understood.
Those who heard him asked
for any direct evidence that such reggae lyrics led to criminal offences against
homosexuals.
He failed to provide any simply because none exists.
Summerskill confined
his objection to the internet retailer Amazon for selling such CD’s. He suggested
they should be banned. Amazon’s policy is that to do so would threaten free speech.
Since the recording industry are responsible, why has Stonewall not made any objections
to them?
What he did not say was that Peter Tatchell’s self-
Nothing
was said about the then Solicitor General Lord Falconer’s response to a query from
Lord Avebury on 18 December 2002 in which he stated his legal opinion that, ‘To solicit
or incite another to commit a crime (through, for example, homophobic song lyrics)
is indictable under common law, even if the solicitation or incitement has no effect.
Therefore a crime would not actually need to be committed to convict people of incitement
to violence against homosexual people.’ Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General concurred.
Interestingly,
during the same period Abdul El Fiesal, a Jamaican convert to Islam was charged and
convicted with incitement to murder Jews, Hindus and Americans under the Offences
Against the Persons Act 1861. He was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.
In 2003 reggae
artist Bounty Killer cancelled two concerts in the UK fearing he would be arrested.
He returned in March 2008 for two concerts in Bradford and Birmingham. However, because
of protests by Tatchell’s ‘Stop Murder Music’ campaign they were cancelled. He returned
again and gave a concert at the Stratford Rex, London, in November 2008. It is currently
posted on YouTube. This carried the full approval of the Metropolitan Police after
assurances that homophobic remarks would be strictly censured in accordance with
the Reggae Compassionate Act. A previous concert had passed without incident. The
Home Secretary’s approval would also have been sought in the granting of a visa.
Tatchell condemned the Commissioner of Police as a hypocrite. However, Tatchell’s
critics think his campaign is really aimed at the Jamaican authorities attitude to
homosexuality itself.
Interestingly, evidence is now emerging that the American rap
industry is riddled by a thriving gay subculture where anti-
Then
there’s Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 which prohibits anything that would
incite the molestation or murder of homosexuals. Anti-
The change in law that Summerskill
called for was already in existence in Northern Ireland, but not one complaint or
allegation had been made. Similarly, he failed to note that in 2007 the Brighton
Council had banned all offending rap music from entertainment venues on pain of closure.
He also referred to an isolated circulation of a BNP leaflet that associated homosexuals
with paedophilia. Remarkably, this was his only reference to a claim of a surge in
hate literature.
He took exception to a private website that had been set up on Facebook
called “Homo’s burn in hell.” It transpired a minor official of the Conservative
Party had done this. It was an absurd mischievous exaggerated parody that was quickly
removed.
Stonewall’s evidence was ambiguous, tenuous and atypical and their demand
for a major change in primary legislation is manifestly disproportionate.
Summerskill
said the Crown Prosecution Service had informed him that there had been a 167 percent
increase of offences with a homophobic element and that there had been 600 cases
in the last two years. He ignored the recent statement a week earlier by the CPS
that concluded, “…homophobic crime is being tackled head-
In contrast,
in 2007, twenty-
His main example of homophobic violence was in the singular
murder in 2005 of gay Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common. Stonewall continues to exploit
this one single murder for political advantage for it is all they have. Since then,
of course, he has gone on to claim more.
If Ben Summerskill can only give one case
of murder against a gay persons by alleged homophobes, then let’s attempt to redress
the balance a little with some information on gays who have killed other homosexuals,
or raped others. That discussion is to be found on the next page -
As
an interesting aside, research on male prison rapes in America (1999) reveal that
most rape victims are white and the perpetrators are black. It is suggested this
is evidence of black racism and hate in which the act of rape is intended to humiliate.
Curiously, prison homosexuals are classified as either ‘active’ or ‘passive’ The
latter group are perceived as effeminate ‘fags’, who provoke sexual encounters and
‘punks’ who seek protection. The ‘active’ group are identified as ‘wolfs’ who sexually
act aggressively. Whit supremacist wolves try to do the same thing to black punks.
The similarity between the Nazi ‘Femmes’ and ‘Butches’ can be usefully drawn. Moreover,
clear evidence here of politics and power which undermine any notion of the much
vaunted gay gene.
There is also the unconfirmed suspicion that gay violence and theft
against homosexuals who “cruise” parks, public places and toilets is the work of
other gays wishing to vent their frustrations. Remember, it was Kirk and Madsen who
first noted in their book
When it was put to him, Summerskill was unable to draw
a line between offensive behaviour and inciting hatred and revealingly stated he
had no evidence to prove any connection between hate and violence against gay people.
His direct evidence was merely a personal assumption that it existed. His case thus
lacked any empirical rigour.
Religious opinion came in for particular scrutiny. He
was concerned that fundamentalists claim that all gay people are paedophiles. He
suggested such opinion was acceptable if it was done in a “temperate” manner, but
then agreed that hate could be expressed in a temperate way that just added to the
confusion. In his view, references to sodomy or young people during the debate was
‘distressing and completely gratuitous'. This was another exaggeration. It is also
rather odd since, in the case of sodomy at least, anal intercourse is at the heart
of the homosexual lifestyle, which is also the menacing source of HIV, and now, increasingly
anal and oral cancer among gays. Summerskill wants to avoid direct public discussion
of homosexual behaviour and would rather we concentrate on their rights.
His appeal
for a temperate manner deserves additional attention in another direction. As the
chief executive of Stonewall, he is responsible for making homosexual oriented awards
each year. The aim is to honour or disgrace leading public figures. One such award
is for ‘Bigot of the Year’ and the more prominent the person the better. The idea
is to shame and vilify. Since he shows no moderation or restraint here, the annual
nomination should go to him because he is not only an intolerant bigot, but a hypocrite
as well. Between 2006/09 he was a Commissioner with the Equality and Human Rights
Commission. Its aim is “Championing equality and human rights for all,” so isn’t
it about time that he started respecting peoples opinion which differ from his instead
of castigating and humiliating them in public? His prejudices clearly undermined
hit fitness for office as an appointed Commissioner.
Summerskill can turn a blind
eye to the scurrilous and blasphemous banner declaring ‘Jesus is gay’ placards carried
at Gay Pride marches. What then about Sir Ian McKellen; Stonewall’s co-
During
the course of the debate in May 2008, Liberal Democrat Evan Harris put an outrageous
suggestion in the commons. Nicknamed Dr. Death because of his radical views and commitment
to abortion and euthanasia, he is a former junior hospital doctor. There are unconfirmed
rumours as to his sexuality, though he stridently pushes gay rights and is President
of the party’s gay and lesbian lobby group as well as being the Vice-
He castigated the Government’s proposals because they didn’t deal with the “real
mischief” of the situation. Namely, the ability of organisations and individuals
publicly to correlate gays with paedophilia. “I can think of nothing more inciting
to, or more designed to incite, racial (sic) hatred than making that analogy…” he
remarked. He viewed this as a grave omission. He predicted problems of this kind
would emerge from the “odious religious right”.
Two prominent conservative members
immediately castigated him for his bigotry.
However, a chilling totalitarian proposition
by Liberal Democrat Lord Thomas of Gresford subsequently surfaced in the course of
the debate in the House of Lords. He has an illustrious record in law. Given that,
it was surprising he stated emphatically that there was no association between homosexuality
and paedophilia and proposed an amendment that would have criminalized anyone who
said so. This was a crass folly because his assertion is entirely groundless. If
this amendment had got through, universities and public libraries throughout the
nation would have to ban serious academic books about the association of homosexuality
and paedophilia. It would also have stopped future research on the subject. This
was truly a real threat to freedom of speech.
This denial of an association is all
the more remarkable given the indisputable fact that even homosexual researchers
have clearly established a scientific connection between the two conditions.
Although
the government proposals were successfully carried making it an offence to use words
or behaviour, which are threatening and intended to stir up hatred, an important
amendment to safeguard free speech was also successfully conceded. This had been
tabled by Lord Waddington on the Conservative benches that stated "for the avoidance
of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging
of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken
of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."
Dissatisfied, Jack Straw as the Minister for Justice, again challenged to the Waddington
amendment only to be defeated once more.
The police came in for particular criticism
for their heavy-
Previously,
the act had been used by the police in regard to public disorder and violent conduct
associated with threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Now the police
were perceived to be regulating thoughts, an altogether unintended diversion.
It seems
likely that a residue of distrust towards the police resulted in Lord Waddington’s
amendment getting through. The situation is now clearer. The police can no longer
jump upon anyone who is critical of homosexuality, as they have done in the past.
What is neatly in evidence here is simple homosexual propaganda at work that largely
exaggerates simple trivia. First, is the distortion of the incidence of so-
Recall for a moment the fact that Stonewall are relying on the fabricated
6 percent of the population of 60 million persons as being gay, which gives a raw
figure of 3.6 million homosexual men and women in society. This contrived figure
had been previously obtained from Duncan Campbell of the
He is now joined
in these distortions with Stonewall’s Head of Policy, Ruth Hunt. She released a ‘research
‘ paper in November 2008 about lesbians in the work-
However, the lesbian claim was quickly followed with another
puzzling statement from Ben Summerskill. In June 2009, Stonewall launched its formal
guidance for employers regarding possible religious tensions that may arise from
the implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Again based on the 6 percent
rule he identifies 1.7 million gay people in a work force of 29 million. Incidentally,
this figure is a mere footnote in the governments assessment. Nevertheless, one must
ask, where are the other 1.9 million? Are these the 2 million invisible lesbians
in the community, or are they at the cradle or coffin end of life? It does not seem
possible for the majority of homosexuals to be unemployed. And how come there are
more lesbians than gays when national trends elsewhere in the world show the reverse?
Stonewall have deliberately chosen the 6 percent figure because it effectively inflates
the number of homosexuals. This is foolish because, remarkably, they locate the largest
pool of homosexuals (1.9 million) in the smallest pool of non-
Remember we have previously identified the 6 million homosexual men and women in
America. This was the evidence submitted by 31 gay and pro-
There’s another curious dimension to this! If we confine ourselves strictly
to the adult population of the USA and the UK and extrapolate the percentage of homosexuals
in each nation we find the following. For the USA, 6 million homosexuals in a adult
population of 217 million represents 2.8 percent of the adult population. For the
UK, Stonewall’s 3.6 million homosexuals in an adult population of 42 million represents
8,6 percent of the adult population. Therefore, the number of homosexuals in the
population in the UK is approximately three times greater than in the USA.. Perhaps
Stonewall can furnish us with an answer to this imponderable allusion?
A month later,
on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in America, Ben Summerskill was interviewed
by
If, as Summerskill claims, there are 3.6 million homosexuals in
the community and 2.8 million of these are voters over 18 years-
Stonewall are misleading the public by misusing data from the governments report
on civil partnerships. The data they use, as we have previously noted, has been contrived
by a journalist. The report indicates a possible pool of homosexual men and women
for the UK to be between 2.13 million and 3 million. It could be argued that even
these figures are too generous. However, what they clearly suggest is that Stonewall
have gilded the lily with their 6 percent rule to inflate the number of homosexuals
in our society.
We now know that the Women's and Equality Unit run by Angela Mason
are hopeless at their guesstimates. They predicted 425,699 gay marriages by 2050,
then drastically revised it down to 42,550. . It is difficult to take their report
seriously, yet this is exactly what Stonewall has done after embellishing other figures
even more.
There is, however, one government department that can significantly help
us determine more accurately how many homosexuals are in the community. It’s a surprising
source, whose evidence was only glanced at by the Equality Unit. Little wonder, then,
that their forecasts went so wrong.
The Health and Protection Agency (HPA) was set
up to collate, collect, analyse and interpret information on infectious diseases.
Consultant Epidemiologist Doctor Valerie Pelpech heads the unit concerned with HIV/AIDS
and other sexually transmitted diseases. In March 2009, the HPA reported that there
were 2,830 new cases of men who had contracted HIV in 2008. Let’s think about that
for a moment? Incidentally, Britain has almost twice as many new cases of HIV than
any other western European country. The figures have doubled since 1999 and continue
to grow., and 14 percent of HIV sufferers are immune to the three of the most common
classes of anti-
First, for years the government have spent billions
warning people of the danger of catching HIV/AIDS. Some irresponsible agencies have
done so saying it is safe to have sex using a condom. This is a lie. Others, however,
get round this by suggesting it is ‘safer’ to do so with condom use. Second, consider
Stonewall’s data of 3.6 million homosexuals. Most homosexuals have a history of being
less than careful when it comes to condom use, especially when their senses are confused
with drug taking. Many have simply abandoned it altogether. Homosexuality is also
characterised by its hedonistic pursuit to have multiple partners. Should we conservatively
assume these homosexuals have sex twice a week that amounts to 2.6 million incidents
of penile/anal sex, or 10.4 million each month. This comes to an annual rate of incidents
of intercourse of 124.8 million.
Yet, only 2,830 men have contracted HIV in 2008
out of approximately 124.8 million incidents of intercourse. This is further evidence
that the Stonewall figure of 3.6 million homosexuals is woefully disproportionate.
Much depends on how homosexuality is defined. The popular view is that it is fixed
never to change during ones lifetime. In the light of current scientific evidence
this is a grotesque opinion.
The HPA define their ‘at risk’ group as men who have
sex with men (MSM) during the preceding 5 years. They quite correctly concede that
defining homosexuality is a ‘major challenge’ because they do not represent a distinct
group of individuals. MSM emerge as a ‘fluid group’ as a result of a shared behaviour,
changing over time. They cannot be recognised as having innate characteristics like
that of race and concede that estimating the population size of MSM is particularly
difficult. This evidence clearly contradicts the notion that homosexuality is fixed
over a persons lifetime and makes a nonsense of the Summerskill claim that it is
innate.
What the HPA do is to carefully examine the statistics obtained from the
Nevertheless, the HPA indicate that given their estimation
of HIV prevalence among MSM, there is a strong need for targeted intervention strategies
in this group with MSM remaining the group most at risk of acquiring HIV in the UK.
Extrapolating their 2008 data they estimate a population of MSM at 502,626.
The HPA
are dealing, not with men who have had the odd passing encounter with homosexual
activity, but with men who have had sex with another man over a five-
Should
we generously allow for 500,000 lesbians, this would mean that the total population
of homosexual men and women in the UK is about 1 million persons. This figure is
significantly below that of either Angela Mason’s Women's Equality Unit or Stonewall.
So let’s contrast the Mason/Stonewall (MS) claims with those derived from the HPA
and NATSAL II.
Out of a UK population 60 million MS believe there are 6 percent or
3.6 million homosexuals This study shows only 1.7 percent representing 1 million
homosexuals. Out of a working population of 29 million MS believe there are 6 percent
or 1.7 million homosexuals. We show only 3.5 percent or 1 million. Out of a voting
population of 48 million, MS believe there are 6 percent or 2.8 million homosexuals.
We show only 2.1 percent or 1 million.
Spurred on by political considerations they
have attempted to sustain the myth that homosexual men and women are more numerical
and thus significant than they really are. They have thus gained increasing access
to power and influence within the functions of government and society, far beyond
what their number should justify. They are now a significant entrenched protected
interest group in a sphere of political interests that sees other minority bodies
displaced not just from favour but fair treatment.
Finally, in 2010 The Office for National Statistics smashed the exaggerated claims of both the former Labour government and Stonewall in revealing, for the first time, that only 1.3 percent of men claimed to be gay, 0.6 percent of women claimed to be lesbians and 0.5 percent considered themselves bisexual. The survey called the Integrated Household Survey involved some 450,000 UK adults. Outside of a full national census, it was the biggest survey of its kind. It also revealed that whilst the gay population was small, it was highly educated and economically successful. Homosexuals men and women were twice as likely as heterosexuals to have a university degree and nearly half of all gays and lesbians work in managerial or professional jobs. These facts seriously undermine Stonewall’s repeated claim for victimhood status. Not surprising, gay lobby groups largely dismissed the findings.
Combining these percentage figures gives a 1.4 percent population of homosexuals of whatever kind. If we apply the Stonewall technique we find that out of an adult population we discover only 588,000. This neatly corresponds to the extrapolation made earlier by the HPA.
There is another perspective to the assertion by the HPA that only identifies half-
The Department of Health (DofH) and
the HPA keep records of PEP treatments for health workers but not to none health
personnel though the latter intend doing so from 2010. However, some limited information
has come from a surprising source -
In September 2009, SIGMA published a research paper
on work carried out in 2007 involving some 6205 gay respondents. It’s shortened title
is the
The GMSS survey found that 3.4 percent (212/6205)
said they had ever tried to get PEP’s and that 2.4 percent (146/6205) had ever taken
PEP’s. It reported that, “Compared with the number of men engaged in sex with a risk
of HIV transmission the proportion seeking and taking PEP remains very small.” This
comparison is indeed small because it is based upon a small sample, so let’s look
at it in a different light. If we compare the percentage figures to the wider base
of 502,626 homosexuals identified by the HPA we come to a different judgement. Combing
the first and second GMSS percentages against the 502,626 we find that 29,000 gay
men have tried to get or taken PEP’s. Other evidence in the report shows an increasing
trend of participation which may indeed reflect increased dangerous sexual practices.
The survey also sought evidence on how many had received a vaccination for Hepatitis
A or B. None is available for type C. It found that 30.6 percent had been vaccinated
for type A and 54.9 percent for type B. Again, if we compare the take-
It is not a flippant question,
but what is this costing the National Health Service (NHS) each year in pandering
to the variable sexual urges of homosexuals? It is, indeed, far from being a “very
small” matter.
Putting aside the cost of providing PEP’s on the NHS, the HPA revealed that preventing HIV infections among homosexuals in 2008 would have saved some £700 million. They estimate it costs up to £360,000 to treat a single case over a lifetime and the number of new cases each year simply gets higher. Deborah Jack Chief Executive of the National AIDS Trust said that, “Preventing just one infection can save a quarter of a million pounds.”
Statistical findings from the American National Health Institute (2002). Indicate
that nearly 11 million people are directly affected by cancer, compared with slightly
more than three quarters of a million with AIDS. Spending on AIDS patients was more
than seven times that of cancer patients. They observed that AIDS spending distracts
from research disproportionately for other diseases that affect more people.
Consider
another report! The Home Office publicly funded Gender Identity Research and Education
Society published its Gender Variance in the UK: Prevalence, Incidence, Growth and
Geographic Distribution (June 2009) It had four objectives, three of which were concerned
with transphobic hate which they are unable to measure. Largely irrelevant, its most
interesting part is in trying to identify how many transsexuals we currently have
in society. They “think” there maybe 300,000 transgender people some of whom may
be casual intermittent cross-
However, according to Martyn Brown of the
In August 2009, NHS in Scotland revealed spending more
than £1.5 million over the last five years for transsexual sex change operations.
Health boards are now required to provide these specialist facilities following a
legal judgment in the Court of Appeal in 1998. Apparently, NHS Greater Glasgow and
Clyde has paid £506,000 for nine women and twenty-
In the light of the previous discussion consider this teasing conundrum?
Medical opinion expresses considerable empathy for surgical reassignment for those suffering from gender dysphoria, or Gender Identity Disorder (GID), but are less enthusiastic about surgery for cases of gender dysmorphia, or Bodily Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD). The former prefer the opposite body to that with which they were born, the latter express just as excessive a preoccupation with bodily image or imagined physical defect.
Perhaps, more telling are those cases of Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), or apotemnophilia, who typically want one or more of their healthy limbs amputated. When this was first done on the NHS it created a public outrage.
For certain, both gender dysphoria and gender dysmorphia are emotionally based conditions in much the same way as those suffering from BIID. Why are the feelings of one group less valid than the feelings of another resulting in differential treatment regimes? These three groups have persistent feelings that their bodies are not what they should be and so seek surgical modifications.
So why is it that doctors are not prepared to amputate healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs, but conveniently acquiesce to the removal of healthy body parts between the legs? This reflects the notion that it is easier to mutilate the body than it is to cure the mind. Thus, medical attempts to mutilate the body succeed only in obscuring an inflexible reality.
On the very day the Waddington amendment was brought into force, Summerskill vowed
his determination to minimise its impact. Was he now grateful that gays were further
protected from violence and hate? Hardly, instead it was, “...another historic step
towards legal equality.” In other words, the self-
Stonewall’s sustained
attempt to gain the advantage of special treatment and special laws undermines the
notion of equality of law. Hate crime laws for gays and lesbians create special minority
group protections which violate the principle of equality under the law . Equal protection
should mean one law for all irrespective of any differences, not separate laws invented
because of them.
If the provision of the new Act had been in place in the past, then
cases such as Harry Hammond, Councillor Peter Willows and others would never have
been prosecuted. This is because they lack any element of threat to stir up hatred.
Indeed, the current Act does not disallow words or behaviour that are abusive or
insulting.
This is clearly not a victory for the homosexual gay-
The reason
for this is two-
At the moment, homophobia is only crudely defined but many if not most gays want
it to mean any words or action that are likely to offend homosexuals. Thus, heterosexuality
and its affirmation could become an offence against the state. Far-
Notwithstanding, before the ink was dry on the Waddington amendment to cater for free speech , the Government returned within the year in an attempt to repeal it.. This amounted to astonishing political manoeuvring and reflected a desperate unwillingness to accept normal political conventions. It is also a measure of just how far this government will go to satisfy the pink lobby. Clause 61 of the Coroner’s and Justice Bill is an attempt to displace the Waddington amendment. In fact, four unsuccessful attempts were eventually made by the Government to discard Waddington’s amendment.
During the early stages of the bill it was also clear the Liberal Democrats were keen to reinstate Lord Thomas of Gresford’s amendment under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to criminalise any association between homosexuality and paedophilia. Driven by Evan Harris MP, it was David Howarth who stood as the mouthpiece to urge the reinstatement of the previous abortive amendment making it an offence punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment for anyone to suggest an association between homosexuality and child abuse. This second attempt also quickly fell by the wayside.
The Stonewall Gay British Crime Survey 2008
Funded to the tune of £26,900 of taxpayer’s
money and with the full support of the Home Office, Stonewall presented a 39 page
survey entitled, ‘Homophobic Hate Crime: The Gay British Crime Survey 2008’. Vernon
Coaker MP, Under Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, toasted the launching ceremony
in June 2008. Following on from the survey, the Minister has promised further talks
with the view to adding new questions to the British Crime Survey that will highlight
homophobic violence and abuse.
Ben Summerskill, from Stonewall enthusiastically hailed
it as ‘…the first statistically significant national survey of its kind into the
extent and nature of homophobic hate crime.’ So the report deserves close scrutiny.
This
constitutes their third gloomy survey that it is hoped will add more clout to their
call for additional changes in the equality laws which are soon to be strengthened
even more by the Government. They want to compel public bodies to promote homosexuality
as a legal duty. As we have already observed this will include governmental bodies,
local authorities, the police, fire service, hospitals and schools.
Unfortunately,
Summerskill does not appreciate that the survey is a million miles from what he generously
claims. We should not be surprised with this considering he is faithfully following
one of Kirk and Madsen’s calls to always portray gays as victims, as indeed will
be the homosexual respondents wishing gladly to gild the lily.
Indeed, there are
significant methodological failures within this latest report that need to be highlighted.
Note the title is about ‘hate crime’, yet chapter 2 through 8, out of the 9 chapters
are about ‘hate incidents’, an altogether different category. Observe even that the
term ‘hate incident’ is a generic phrase that can simply mean anything from a slur
to a shove. This blurs comprehension in spite of the fact the survey indicates various
categories of incident.
Following police guidelines, a hate crime has two components.
First, an unlawful act motivated by hate. Similarly, a hate incident is not necessarily
an unlawful act but is an occurrence motivated by hate. As we have already observed,
it is this latter category that has caused a lot of problems for the police who have
foolishly overreacted. For example, recall the impetuousness of the Cheshire Police
in investigating the Bishop of Chester who made an unremarkable scientific statement
about homosexuality.
Further, one does not necessarily have to hate for a hate incident
to occur.
It has merely to be perceived by the victim that a person is motivated by
such hate. It is wholly subjective. So, another example would be the Oxford student
who was arrested for calling a police horse gay. The police later justified their
actions on the subjective basis that the remark was, ‘…not only offensive to the
policeman and his horse but any members of the general public.’ This, despite there
being a gay student friend close-
It is unfortunate that this flimsy subjective definition has
crept in and the result is a lack of clarity even confusion in defining offences,
whether criminal or not.
The Stonewall report adds to this uncertainty. It is confusing
to note data in which two types of activity are being measured within a single question..
For instance, questions that combine both hate crimes and hate incidents are put
and they may overrate or underrate the incidence of crime because the level of hate
crime is camouflaged.
An observer will never know the true facts of the matter. It
most certainly does not define how much hate crime homosexuals are suffering. For
that we would need raw data on say how many suffered common assault, actual bodily
harm grievous body harm or wounding in instances where physical assault is claimed.
Such matters are not addressed at all which results in undermining any certainty
in the report..
Indeed, Summerskill has previously claimed that homosexuals run, ‘The
risk of being attacked or abused on the street or in their homes remains an everyday
reality.’ So why is this evidence not properly documented in the Stonewall survey?
Out
of the hundreds of questions put to the 1,721 gay respondents only two are central
to the issue of violent assault upon homosexuals. The rest mostly concern ‘hate incidents’
in a rank of 10 categories ranging from insults to vandalism. Another reason why
the title of the report is a clear misnomer.
Under the bold heading of VIOLENT CRIMES,
the report claims that,
• One in six victims experiencing homophobic hate incidents experienced physical assault
• Four percent of all lesbian and gay people have been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation in the last three years
The first question relates to both incident and crime but the period is not stated.
The second question is strictly about assaults, which by their very nature are a
crime and it covers a three-
What do these findings reveal?
It is this!
Of the respondents surveyed,
• The first statement says that out of the hate incidents experienced by the victims surveyed, 1 in 6 had been assaulted. The actual figure is 414 victims had experienced a hate incident.
• The second statement reveals 69 respondents had been assaulted over the last three years.
• Briefly put, around 414 have experienced a hate incidence and around 69 have been assaulted over the last three years.
Presented in this way makes the picture much clearer and exposes the contradiction
of severe homophobia in society.
Since the category of assault is ignored it may
conceal the fact most are at the lower end of severity like common assault This certainly
undermines Summerskill’s previous intense warning about the frequency of risk.
Moreover,
the Stonewall survey figure of just 69 claimed assaults over a three-
Another claim that ‘One in five lesbian and gay people
have experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident in the last three years’, clouds
the question because it certainly does not identify the degree or definition of crime
or none-
The survey also states that one in eight homosexuals
have experienced homophobic hate incidents in the last year. This is of concern to
only 215 respondents. It further states that one in five have experienced it once
in the last three years. This amounts to 344 respondents, or about 115 a year. Such
evidence undermines the Stonewall claim of extensive societal homophobia.
Then there
is the injudicious technique of using data for different time scales. In some cases
the question covers only one year and in others it combines three. Like is not being
compared with like and no explanation is given for this. This latter data covering
three years could certainly inflate the negative disposition of living as a gay person
and smacks of statistical cheating. It is reasonable to ask if this is deliberate?
There
is another significant problem. The survey is supposed to be about England and Wales
yet data from Scottish respondents is included. Once more, YouGov plc conducted an
internet survey with a sample of 1,721 respondents. What is the ratio of Scottish
respondents to the others? Has it been included because the data maybe worse in Scotland?
If so, this would seriously distort any findings? Why is no explanation given to
account for this inclusion? A recent report on the homosexual internet website Pink
News suggests that 15 percent of gay men in the Lothian and Borders Police area have
been attacked in the last year. It seems likely some of this data is reflected as
a sample in the Stonewall survey?
Then there is the question of the underreporting
of homophobia. As we have noted, the homosexual lobby keep pushing this issue in
order to magnify the seriousness of their victimhood. This latest report does just
that with another twist.
Lumping hate crimes and incidents together, it states three
in four gay victims underreport incidents. That is then compared with the rate of
three in five victims who did report a crime to the
How statistically significant is this difference? Well, the Stonewall report also
indicates that 68 percent of homosexuals do not report an incident. So we are comparing
underreported gay related incidents with the 60 percent of reported crime to the
British Crime Survey.
Interestingly, 88 percent of the hate incidents involved insults
and harassment with 68 percent of victims not reporting the matter. Of those, 77
percent thought the matter was not serious enough, or that the police would do nothing.
This noticeably demonstrates the triviality of the incidents.
The survey makes another
astounding claim that 1 in 8 homosexuals have experienced a homophobic incident in
the last year. This, is said to be the equivalent of 450,000 gays, which is utter
nonsense because it relies on the fabricated 3.6 million figure of homosexuals in
our society.
It is useful to contrast these extravagant claims with the situation
elsewhere. The American Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group, claimed that
5 percent of the population of some 305 million are homosexual. They claim this represent
some 10.5 million homosexuals and lesbians. However, the best available evidence
in the 2000 USA Census supports a lower figure of only some 4 million.
As a matter
of fact, a two-
To validate its case the survey contains histograms in other
chapters but not the one dealing with the hate crime of assault. If one had been
added then it would have been clearly visible to the eye that homosexuals do not
face physical abuse to the extent it is suggested. It is also possible to note that
Scottish data is given in some histograms but not others. This smacks of inconsistency.
Interestingly, all Stonewall’s surveys include significant anecdotal quips intended,
no doubt, to win public appeal. But this is hardly science.
Remarkably, of the 57
anecdotal quotations in the survey, only 2 refer to experiencing personal violence
and then only of a minor kind. For a report that is supposed to be about hate crime
this is far from satisfactory.
If Summerskill thinks; as he has previously stated;
that this survey is ‘pioneering research’ then he needs to sort his marbles out.
It is an absurd travesty dressed up to look like authoritative convincing research.
His claims of significant homophobic hate and violence is misrepresented, overstated
and thus undermined.
This survey panders and pampers to the pink lobby. It is an
unconvincing charade of puffed up propaganda because dubious figures fulminate in
a foolhardy fraud.
But watch out! If he now he wants a compulsory shortlist of homosexual
candidates for Parliamentary elections then he had better brush up on some authentic
surveys that reflect reality. Right now we face the challenge of another slippery
slope into certain sodomy.
It beggars belief how the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, can waste so
much time in welcoming this report. It reflects the degree to which the Home Office
has been thoroughly duped by another contrived gay moral panic. Now we discover that
nearly 14,000 people are being treated in our hospitals each year for stab wounds
and the Home Office didn’t even know about it. The Government has truly displaced
its priorities.
The doom laden wailing and gnashing of teeth by Stonewall of rampant homophobic hate and violence is now exposed by the sheer lack of evidence. Especially when what minuscule evidence they have of only 23 claimed assault victims a year is related to their other spurious claim of 3.6 million homosexuals in the community.
In the real word, homosexual male-
In contrast to the damming alleged evidence by Stonewall, how do we account for the
fact that each year the same organisation brags about the increasing popularity of
Gay Pride events which are held in growing numbers throughout the country? Another
recent indicator contradicting gay doom and gloom comes from a survey carried out
by YouGov for the Centre for Social Cohesion, July 2008. In a university survey of
600 Muslim and 800 non-
More remarkable still, in June 2009 The Times reported on the result of a survey conducted by Populus. Social affairs correspondent Rosemary Bennett stated, “A revolution in attitudes towards gay men and lesbians is indicated in a poll which shows that a majority of the public want homosexuals to share identical rights to everyone else.” The survey revealed,
• 61 percent of the public favour, not just civil partnerships, but full-
• 49 percent support gay adoptions
• 51 percent want children to be taught in school that gay marriage is of equal value to traditional marriage
• 68 percent back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians
Bern Summerskill reacted to express a “most pleasant surprise”. Yet, in spite of that, he continued to stress the urgency of dealing with homophobic bullying in schools. The article went on to refer to the murder of gay barman Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common. Summerskill has now twice erroneously identified the slaying of Michael Causer in Liverpool as a homophobic murder. It’s a measure of his desperate attempt to find another victim.
A homophobic killing it manifestly is not!
First, Gavin Alker, 19, who had been charged with the homophobic murder of Mr Causer,
was cleared by the jury. Second, the trial judge, Mr Justice Timothy King, ruled
that the conviction of murder against 20-
Ben Summerskill also now claims this murder as a homophobic killing. In this case O’Connor was sentenced to just over 11 years. Contrast this with the Dobrowski case where the assailants where jailed for 28 years. The judge remarked that the sentence would have been halved if it were not a homophobic murder.
Undaunted, Stonewall steams on ever more confident that it has captured the heart
of Government. Within a week following the Gay Hate Report, the Secretary of State
for Business, John Hutton MP launched another ‘pioneering research’ by Stonewall
about sexual politics in the work-
Research it is not. It strictly comprises of the anecdotal opinions of 100 committed homosexual men and women who have an agenda.
As far as Ben Summerskill goes, the greatest prize was that within 24 hours of launching this latest report he was personally invited to 10 Downing Street to meet with Prime Minister Gorgon Brown for discussions on homophobia in schools.
Homophobia in Schools
We have another example of the misuse of statistics by Stonewall. Consider their
independently commissioned survey on homophobia in schools (2007) which identified
150,000 homosexual children. The Schools Health Education Unit (SHEU) carried out
this survey. Stonewall then released selected findings favourable to their cause
during July 2007. In doing so, they have deceitfully misquoted government figures
on the prevalence of homosexuality in our schools. The survey was confined to Secondary
Schools. In 2007 there were 2,86 million pupils and some 205, 000 teachers.
Stonewall
claimed that homophobic bullying in Britain’s schools has reached almost ‘epidemic’
proportions. Alarmingly, 150,000 gay school children are identified as victims. This
‘major survey’ entitled The School Report of secondary schools reveals almost two-
• Sixty-
• Ninety-
• Forty-
• Seventeen per cent [or 195 pupils] experienced death threats.
• Ninety-
·• Half of teachers [or 103,000 teachers] fail to respond to homophobic language when they hear it.
• Thirty percent [or 343 pupils] of lesbian and gay pupils say that adults -
• Less than a quarter of schools have told pupils that homophobic bullying is wrong.
Surprisingly, the SHEU report does not identify 150,000 gay and lesbian pupil victims. This figure has been carefully contrived independently by Stonewall. It has been included by Ben Summerskill in the Introduction of the report. According to Alan Wardle, Director of Public Affairs at Stonewall, the figure is an ‘extrapolation’ of government figures which loosely allude to the possible number of homosexuals in the population.
It is a remarkable twist that Stonewall is again using the bogus claim of Dennis Campbell of the Observer who initially asserted that 6 percent of the adult population was gay or lesbian. Stonewall in turn; have applied the 6 percent rule to the school population to arrive at a clearly exaggerated total of 150.000 gay pupils. It is worth noting that in May 2005 this same organisation claimed other research that asserted a homosexual school population of some 60,000. No mention is now made of this or how the total figures have dramatically expanded in just two short years.
If, however, we use the latest Government statistics of the homosexual population of 1.4 percent of gay, lesbian or bisexual persons to the of the secondary school population of 2.8 million we arrive at a total homosexual group of some 39,000. This is considerably much lower than that claimed by Stonewall. Moreover, this smaller figure presents considerable difficulties of definition when considering the fluid and changing nature of the sexual identities of young people. This, apart from the fact that it is disclosed in the report that any expression of Christian sexual ethics is viewed as homophobia.
Many useful idiots in the form of national and local politicians have swallowed the report in its entirety and now campaign alongside Stonewall to brainwash young school kids on alternative lifestyles.
Furthermore, in a further 2008 report entitled ‘Serves you right: Lesbian and gay
people's expectations of discrimination’ Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of
Stonewall reiterated the 3.6 million gay people fabrication. He boasted the report
was a ‘first statistically significant survey’ of some 1,658 gays and lesbians by
way of an internet questionnaire. Carried out by YouGov, it shows Stonewall have
bags of ready cash to push their cause when their not getting it from the government.
Predictably, the survey results reflect significant expectation by gays of societal
homophobia. It’s major distraction, however, is that it is centred on feelings, perceptions
and expectations and not on real experience of prejudice. Thus, the report is less
useful than it first appears.
Homosexuals know the value of a victim status as a
powerful political tool in gaining societal sympathy. So, it’s not difficult to appreciate
their inclination to exaggerate perceived prejudice as a function of their end-
Summerskill uses
the basis of this flimsy survey; indulgently described by him as ‘compelling new
evidence’ of prejudice; to push for yet further legislation to force public bodies
to additionally promote ‘equality of service’. At present it is illegal to discriminate
against homosexuals, but what Stonewall wants is to discriminate in their favour.
So, for example, a gay recruitment target of six percent could be set for public
bodies like teachers, police, fire service, nurses, etc. This is affirmative action
gone bonkers.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Based in London, The Royal College of Psychiatrists
boasts some 13,637 members. Within it is a Special Interest Group representing homosexual
concerns. Established in 2001, it has about 400 members not all of whom are associates
of the college. It thus includes independent gays and lesbians. Indeed, there are
persuasive reasons to believe this group is dominated by practicing homosexuals who
carry out a function similar to that of Division 44 of the American Psychiatric Association
in advancing the homosexual agenda. Their objectivity has to be carefully scrutinised
because certain vulnerabilities and interests peculiar to homosexuality may be seen
as needing particular protections.
On the basis that any discrediting of research
by gays on gays amounts to homophobic prejudice, members are allowed to conceal their
sexual orientation. This neat twist obscures their motivations. Just imagine the
vituperation if they discovered a critic was an undeclared Christian fundamentalist.
Surely, an interest must be declared in order that an audience can make an informed
judgement?
One of the leading Executive Officers is Doctor Michael King, professor
of primary care psychiatry at University College London. With others, he has recently
been instrumental in attempting to influence the Church of England in its ‘Listening
Exercise on Human Sexuality’. He is a homosexual and sexual health adviser to Stonewall.
Their
report says that homosexuals have previously been pathologized victims of medical
science, until the American Psychiatric Association announced in 1973 it was no longer
a disorder. Accordingly, the origins of homosexuality is genetic and/or determined
by uterine environment. Sexual orientation is thus not a choice. In '...their view'
substantial research indicates homosexuality is compatible with normal mental and
social health. Gay relationships are subject to variability of quality and durability
due to the lack of support by societal, religious and familial interests. It promotes
civil partnerships which should stabilise same-
Quite what the Royal
College make of the normal mental and social health of homosexual sado-
Serious studies and epidemiological research does not support King’s thesis that
same-
This Special Interest Group clearly reflect a classical gay agenda with
academic frills.
A counter argument to these claims can be found in a recent scientifically
rigorous submission by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
(NARTH) in their substantive report,
The same criticism can be made of this latest submission by this Special
Interest Group within the Royal College of Psychiatry.
Interestingly, Professor King
has also recently been involved in a heated row with an American Catholic psychiatrist
about another of his research findings. Entitled, 'A systematic review of mental
disorder, suicide and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people' (2008)
it stresses the degree of victimhood suffered by homosexuals. The research concludes,
'LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse
and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.'
Since this study too, concentrates
on homosexual victimhood; a wholly subjective choice; one must question the overall
objectivity on the basis that sexual politics are at work here. Indeed, since their
are distinct parallels, they could be perceived as the academic branch of Stonewall
itself.
This higher pathological risk by homosexuals is affirmed in a considerable
volume of international research. So there is nothing new in this recent review.
Confusion arises in identifying it cause. King's research paper does not do so formally,
but when subsequently interviewed by the media he informally identifies societal
homophobia as the reason. This is untenable for we lack adequate empirical data on
its frequency, duration and intensity. This is exactly the same problem that Stonewall
faced in their much vaunted ‘study’.
In contrast, the NARTH paper previously referred
to, demonstrates that homosexuality itself has its own inherent psychic structure
that is damaging resulting in aberrant pathological behaviours. They note that several
cross-
The Demise of Heterosexual Culture
An important point in the debate about homosexuality is that politicians have to start being more honest, the media more objective and the medical profession more open about a sexual culture that is inherently devastating and so demonstrably unhealthy.
If not, and presently this seems likely, homosexual practices are increasingly likely to adversely affect society. Evidence suggests the institution of marriage will be grievously harmed and with it the inner contentment, health and happiness of future generations of our children. Conventional marriage, which is the bedrock of society, is under threat of death by a thousand cuts. The detrimental effects of single parenthood, for example, is leading to increasing numbers of dysfunctional families. This then contributes to dysfunctional communities where social cohesion has all but evaporated.
Paula Ettelbrick, one of Americas leading gay activists has observed, 'Being queer means pushing the envelope … radically reordering society's view of reality … transforming the very fiber of society' (Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, 1993).
Gay marriage deliberately adds to this demise. It is possible to draw one solemn reassurance from this. History teaches that homosexual communities have eventually withered before society regains the stability of a traditionalist marriage dominated by a heterosexual culture.
After studying eighty primitive and sixteen advanced societies, J. D. Unwin's massive anthropological comparative study 'Sex and Culture' concluded that cultural achievement and sexual licence were incompatible for more than one generation. Societies only flourished where absolute monogamy was practised.
Similarly, the French Revolution freed the bonds of family with a 'free union' and established laws facilitating easier divorce by mutual consent. Social disorder rapidly followed as women and children were abandoned. So the National Convention had to reaffirm the family and the Napoleon Civil Code eventually led to divorce being outlawed altogether in 1804.
More recently, is the Russian 'free love’ Bolshevik Experiment of 1918 when a revolutionary Family Code severed the concept of marriage. Divorce rates soared by nearly 70 percent and the social fabric of society critically deteriorated. By 1929, Lenin was appalled with the consequences of the policy he had created and in 1936 the Supreme Court repudiated most of the earlier ideas and introduced measures to strengthen and support the family unit.
Civilization requires the regulation of human sexuality and relationships. No society — ancient or modern — has survived by advocating a laissez faire approach to sex and sexual relationships. Every society, no matter how liberal, sanctions some sexual behaviours and proscribes others. Every society establishes some sexual norm.
Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of sociology at Harvard University, pointed to the regulation of sexuality as the essential first mark of civilization. According to Sorokin, civilization is possible only when marriage is normative and sexual conduct is censured outside of the marital relationship. Furthermore, Sorokin traced the rise and fall of civilizations and concluded that the weakening of marriage was a first sign of civilisational collapse
The creative relationship between a man and women is biologically unique. Two of the most important things that come from traditional families are procreation and parenting. The basis of parenting is richly complemented and profoundly harmonised by the binding structures of familial interaction and association. The family take on a generational dimension which ensures continuity that contributes positively to a communal social consensus. The child is linked in a long line of blood relations,
Relationships which involve same-
However ungracious same-
The gay community may intend that same-
We need to recognise the competitive political edge of the homosexual lobby which strives to create a family, not necessarily for its true domestic qualities, but rather to convince society that their lifestyle is as good as any. Although only a gay minority interest, the opportunity for marriage and family is still pushed by those who are disinterested, in the desperate hope it enhances homosexual culture. The goal is to attain an undeserved dignity by presenting homosexual families as normal, even noble. But this lacks both stability and substance.
As a result, the growing number of homosexual scholars have to ignore, even conceal
through devious erudition and substandard study, the fact that homosexuality invokes
dark and damaging forces which destabilize the harmony of an ordered society. What
they cannot contest are the very real consequences to themselves of disease, ill-
An Alternative
We in turn, must render genuine compassion to help them break away from an unfulfilling
lifestyle. In fact, thousands of homosexuals demand it from a psychiatric profession
that callously denies dysfunction and turns it's back away from true concern. Thus,
cruel addictions are abandoned, which is clearly why many gays seek solace in non-
However, unless gays can convince us that homosexuality is inspired by nature, their case is conceptually weakened, if not destroyed. They have long suggested their condition is a biological variation rather than a psychiatric defect. But looked at impartially, the substance of orthodox science has advanced over exotic homosexual theory. And this despite current psychiatric methodology and theory, or should we say the lack of it? Too often, psychiatry is privately packing patients in with gender reassignment surgery without proper regard for the ultimate consequence! There is considerable disquiet within the profession.
Current medical science indicates that homosexuality may have its genesis in deficiencies
in psychic gender patterning, in deviance initiated by adult-
In the final analysis, homosexual activists are determined to impose upon Western
society a neo-
It is worth observing what radical activist Peter Tatchell said in a speech to the
European Feminist Summit in London in February 2008. In a speech intended to undermine
traditional values he remarked, ‘...we are sexual subversives who unravel the straight
machismo that underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation.’
Clearly, there are glaring contradictions within homosexual politics. On the one
hand gays argue that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality, while on the other
undermine heterosexuality as being unnatural, oppressive and socially conditioned.
Then there’s the vexed question of paedophilia. Homosexuals don’t mind mixing it
when considering heterosexual paedophilia, but become apoplectic at the mere suggestion
of pederasty by gays. Unsurprisingly perhaps, that the pugnaciously subversive Peter
Tatchell should support the idea of pubescent sex for youths under the age of 14
years. Then there is the fabrication of severe victimhood culminating in serious
mental ill-
Research has proven that homosexuality has a greater prevalence of pathology than
the general population. They indulge in suicidal risk-
It is considered that many of these characteristics have a prevalence about three
times to what is found in the general population, sometimes more. Further, cross-
Similarly, lesbians suffer more problems than their heterosexual counterparts, particularly in health issues ranging from suicidal ideation, physical abuse, rape/sexual attack and incestuous relationships.
It is worth noting that a Stonewall commissioned survey of 6,000 lesbian and bisexual respondents entitled Prescription for Change, 2008, observed that one in five lesbian and bisexual women have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year, compared to 0.4 per cent of the general population.
Young lesbian and bisexual women are ten times more likely to have self-
Lesbian and bisexual women under 20 are eight times more likely to have attempted to take their life than teenagers generally.
Lesbian and bisexual women are five times more likely to have taken drugs than women generally. Forty per cent drink three times a week compared to a quarter of women in general.
It is hardly remarkable en passant, but Stonewall’s commissioned survey’s predominantly highlight homosexual victimhood as a political tool to win over possible resistance. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender's suffer from the unrelenting oppression of heterosexism. That, they claim, is at the root of their suffering. This surely is a malignant narcissism.
This view, however, is seriously dented when research from the Netherlands is taken
into account. The Dutch are considered to be the most tolerant and homosexual-
• 405 percent homosexual women are more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder
• 241 percent homosexual women are more likely to have suffered mood disorders during their lifetime
• 209 percent homosexual women are more likely to suffer 2 or more mental disorders in their lifetime
• 727 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer bipolar disorders in their lifetime
• 718 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer obsessive-
• 632 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer agoraphobia in the last 12 moths
• 421 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer panic disorder
• 375 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer a simple phobia in the last 12 months
• 311 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer mood disorders in their lifetime
• 261 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer anxiety disorders in the last 12 months
• 270 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer 2 or more psychiatric disorders in the last 12 months
• 235 percent homosexual men are more likely to suffer major depression in their lifetime
The researchers summarised their findings and observed, “...the findings support
the assumption that people with same-
However, more to the point, according to prominent pro-
This knowledge is clearly understood by gays who are good at gagging oppositional gadfly’s.
Nevertheless, a quantitative link of pathology with homosexuality is well established. The alternative biological view is largely theoretical and undemonstrated despite the best efforts of gays and their apologists.
Yet, in spite of this we witness the expansion of European and British laws that
have facilitated the inevitable growth of harmful homosexual practices. We have become
foolish beyond measure in accelerating a culture that is intensely destructive. The
culture of homosexuality leads to its own literal dead-
It goes without saying that homosexuals should not suffer abuse, hate or violence. Besides, they endure enough already from the inherent consequences of simply being gay. But in its stubborn misguided pursuit to enhance gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, the Labour Government has conspired with a pathology that is the worst possible solution for both the individual person and society at large. Politicians have ignored the true calamity of homosexual behaviour and have instead endorsed the condition with a measure of approval, if not respectability. There is a distinct irrationality to this because homosexual permanence is confirmed whilst its psychopathological dysfunction is denied.
Blame for much of this lays directly at the door of Tony Blair. Long before the formal signing of the Human Rights Act in 2002 and prior to being swept into power with a landslide victory to form the new Labour Government of 1997, Blair made secret promises to Stonewall to radically reform the law regarding homosexual conduct. A previous unsuccessful attempt had been made to John Major when Prime Minister by Sir Ian McKellen who demanded reform of the age of consent, repeal of Section 28 and gay recruitment into the military.
Having agreed to radical changes and once out of office Blair converted to the Catholic
Church in 2007. In December 2008, Pope Benedict XVI condemned the destructive nature
of homosexuality which threatened our very existence. Undaunted, Blair, as the new
conceited kid on the block, again demonstrated his intellectual arrogance by rejecting
the Pope’s message suggesting the Catholic Church were out-
However, within days of his instillation as the new Catholic Archbishop of Westminster in May 2009, Archbishop Vincent Nichols directly rebuked Blair for his ‘extraordinary’ attempt to lecture the Pope on the subject of homosexuality and questioned his experience in Catholic life.
The source for reform of the homosexual laws has been attributed to a small cabal
of homosexual activists during the 1980’s. It comprised of Peter Mandelson, former
communist but now Baron Mandelson and former First Secretary of State, the long-
Peter Mandelson, otherwise known as Lord Sleaze, or the Prince of Darkness has been disgraced on two occasions and resigned from office during the Blair government. He is very coy about his homosexuality but agreed to be photographed with his Brazilian boyfriend, Reinaldo da Silva, 28, when it was approved by Prime Minister Tony Blair. At one time he was a parliamentary adviser to the homosexual lobby. He, together with Blair and Gordon Brown were the main players in rebranding the Labour Party as New Labour. It also seems plausible that Mandelson will have advised them on matters pertaining to homosexuality generally which will account for the fact that both have become committed and firm homosexual apologists.
Blair’s successor, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, son of a Church of Scotland minister
who was the source of his ‘moral compass’, is equally determined to facilitate the
destructive forces associated with homosexuality. In March 2009 Brown hosted a special
first-
Presumable this view must hold for those afflicted by objectum sexuality as in the
case of Swedish Eija-
When Brown suggests that you cannot legislate love, he misleads and does so mischievously.
Natural love, let alone gay love, is not above the law and it does not transcend
its ubiquitous constraining influence. Indeed, the law helps to shape and define
our sexual relations as well as facilitate its development. In short, it is integral
to the true expression of love. It informs our institutions and reflects our moral
order. Without it we would have anarchy and mankind would return to an atavistic
state of sexual licence and debauchery.
Contrary to popular opinion, the State must
sanction what goes on in the bedroom. History clearly shows that when laissez-
Brown’s statement is also contradictory because it was a Labour government that discriminated against homosexuals in denying them full church marriage rights that currently draws increasing resentment from the gay community. They view this as a form of sexual apartheid. The law also disallows paedophilia and other practices that preoccupy some gays.
Note that the phrase “love” is being used euphemistically to describe gay sex or
what researchers call “men who have sex with men” (MSM), or colloquially “buggery”,
or biblically “sodomy” or ambiguously “LGBT”. Some researchers also refer to same
sex attraction SSA and opposite sex attraction OSA. Whatever description is used
it is better understood as an intense variable addiction to anal/oral sex that is
more often than not harmful to those who practice it. It truly is a love that dare
not speak its name because to understand its nature is to draw distaste. This is
the freedom that Brown cravenly applauds.
Homosexual men and women are pleased with
the outcome of permissive legislation; however, they feel more bridges have to be
crossed, not least the ban of gay blood. They seek positive discrimination in recruitment
at work and want children to be formally taught about the superiority of gay life.
Free from ethical constraint they ultimately wish to emasculate religion as expressed
in the slogan “God is Dead”, for it is the primary source in defining the immorality
of their conduct.
In the long-
Evidence for this is not hard to find.
Writing
in a hard-
He acknowledges significant
gains in gay rights but laments they are now paying a terrible price in terms of
HIV/AIDS. According to the Health Protection Agency (HPA) an HIV case, the highest
in Europe and increasing, is costing between £113,000 and £210,000, but that is only
part of the problem. For instance, in 2003 it was estimated that the total cost of
caring for AIDS patients was a staggering £345 million and rising to £5 billion during
their lifetime. Others have estimated the individual cost at between £500.000 and
£1 million in treatment and lost productivity.
The latest evidence from the HPA in 2009 is that it cost over £700 million in treatment
costs for the recently diagnosed men with HIV in the year 2008. They currently estimate
the lifetime costs of treatment of someone with HIV as between £260,000 and £360,000
and that the prevention of just one infection would save over a quarter of a million
pounds.
HIV figures have doubled over recent years at a time when gay men’s sexual
health charities have forged closer links with government bodies seeking taxpayer’s
cash. Leigh thinks these charities are now compromised and ineffective because government
initiatives are lumbering, bureaucratic, performance management-
PEP’s costing
£600 a time which may prevent HIV, were initially intended for the health profession,
but after pressure from gay activists it is now given to individuals who feel they
have been at risk. Now seen as a ‘morning-
There are limitations here. PEP’s
ability to lower the body’s tolerance to AID’s drugs along with the side effects
including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, sever headaches and stomach cramps makes it,
in theory, suitable only as a one-
Leigh refers to a Sigma research
survey of gay men that found that 50 percent sought PEP after unprotected sex. Alarmingly,
a third already knew their partner was HIV-
He suggest that no matter how HIV/AIDS has been rebranded, it remains a terminal
condition with life-
The charge is made that as long as HIV charities continue to ‘victimise’ HIV-
Rather alarming he observes, ‘For many gay under-
He quotes gay Johann Harri of the Independent, who observes, ‘Lots of people are
making money out of normalising barebacking, whether through porn or clubs offering
‘raw’ nights. Crystal meth is also spreading on the gay party scene. It makes you
horny and lowers your sense of risk -
According to Leigh, misguided but well-
The last words he reserves for Michael Weinstein, president of California’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation who recounts, ‘Tens of millions are being spent to promote a lifestyle that drastically increases the chance of becoming infected with HIV. We fight for money to treat HIV but do virtually nothing to prevent it.’ Unfortunately, it’s a message largely lost on the homosexual community.
Such people are to be applauded for their strength of character and sheer candour.
Contrast the fact our brave young men are dying ducking bullets and bomb on foreign
battlefields abroad. At home; with the freedom to enjoy dehumanising, uninhibited
debauched meat-
The love that he assiduously supports is simply outrageous, and the more he does
so, the more excessive it will become since homosexuals appear in large-
In July 2009 and for the first time, David Cameron MP, conservative leader of the
Tory Party acknowledged major policy changes that will now support gay rights. He
paid tribute to the Labour government on gay rights, such as the equalisation of
the age of consent, lifting the gay military ban and introducing civil partnerships.
He also made an extraordinary historic apology on behalf of the Conservative Party
for introducing Section 28 that banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
Margaret Thatcher had instituted this to stop Left-
Section 28 was the answer to a torrent of revulsion when school libraries, especially in London, started stocking such children's books such as “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin”. This included photographs of two naked men in bed. In 1999, Tory MP Jill Knight declared, “Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as 5 and 6 were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids About Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done.” It was another book intended for primary school children. Another book, The Milkman’s on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse which it glorified, encouraging youngster to believe it was better than any other sexual way of life. Haringey Council had even made a video called How to become a lesbian in 35 minutes. It was intended to show this at a school for young mentally handicapped girls.
Equally disturbing, early in 2010 as he anxiously watched his popularity dip in the political opinion polls, David Cameron exceeded all previous public pronouncements about homosexuality by any politician when he said it was ‘logical and sensible’ to lift the current ban on gay men donating blood to the National Blood Service. Whilst it may have secured him additional votes in the polls it was, nevertheless, a truly astonishing statement in which both logic and sense had been corruptly tossed aside. He was in fact putting his own political ambitions above that of the health of the nation. So much so, that one wonders who on earth is advising him? He also thought that the Church of England must change to fully recognise gay equality, even though the Government subsequently quietly dropped from the Equality Bill the need for churches to employ homosexuals. However, if Cameron is seen as a political opportunist who is prepared to risk the nations health, then he is not alone.
Not to be outdone by his feverish grovelling to the pink lobby, a week later Nick Clegg for the LibDems similarly invited an interview with Johann Harri of the homosexual magazine ‘Attitude’ . He also promised legislation to compel faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risks to health. He said he would force faith schools to teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless’ and shockingly supported eliminating the ban on gay men giving blood.
Both Cameron and Clegg play a dangerous game and show themselves to be political opportunists prepared to place the National Blood Service at a distinct disadvantage in protecting its source of blood products. In doing so they have pushed aside a duty to protect society as a whole and instead further the political aim of a minority group of men who have sex with men who indulge in numerous risky and dangerous sexual practices and whose number has been identified as some 500,000 by the Health Protection Agency.
It remains an indisputable and established epidemiological fact that men who have
sex with men are most susceptible to HIV/AIDS and they feature significantly in contracting
a range of other sexually transmitted diseases, including Hepatitis A, B and C. Between
2002 and 2008, for example, there was an increase of 117 percent in gay men contracting
syphilis infections. Reliable research shows that if the ban was lifted there would
be a five-
It has already been demonstrated that homosexual practices involve addictive risk
taking on an extensive scale and the results of this should be properly confined
to those involved. We strenuously need to guard against the narrow, self-
The political justification for all this is ostensibly to eliminate discrimination. One must ask, therefore, why a continued discrimination against the prostitute and drug user remains? Since they cannot give blood, why are they ignored?
Our society is being marinated in lies -
Profound attacks on our moral and social norms intensify by a quintessentially nihilistic
and narcissistic opiate induced culture that defies what is natural. We face a sexual
identity free-
The Established Church continues to spiral downwards into spiritual degeneracy and
currently faces an historical schism that will hasten its ultimate fragmentation.
Held every ten years, the world-
The Church of Scotland show similar signs of a split following the decision in May 2009 to uphold a homosexual minister’s appointment. The General Assembly voted by 326 to 267 in support of Rev Scott Rennie, who was previously married and had a child, but now lives with his gay lover. More discussions are scheduled for the near future.
The menacing hand of homosexuality is evident at all levels of government that is
having a visible effect on public services. The Civil Service has been infiltrated
at all levels by queer theory. Many leading figures in politics, commerce and the
media are openly homosexual pushing to expand its influence. Prominent homosexuals
hold senior positions within Downing Street and Whitehall. Former top gay cop, Brian
Paddick has admitted that “...officers are petrified of putting a foot wrong dealing
with any gay related issue.” Police officers are now censured and disciplined for
expressing any religious view contrary to homosexuality. Indeed, the police are into
pink politics in a big way as are many leading commercial enterprises who push gay
rights. Our institutions irrationally agree with a falsehood in an attempt to free
homosexuality from the guilt-
The traditional institution of marriage is being inexorably cast aside and the vital
role of the father is being dissipated to the point where it is formally considered
irrelevant. More telling, perhaps, the legal right of lesbians to have children supersedes
that of any rights of an unborn child to a proper family. Children of gay families
uniquely involve three parents. Meanwhile, time-
Alarming media stories, sometimes written by homosexuals or gay apologists, of serious violence and intimidation towards gays are regularly exploited by gay activists. Views sympathetic to homosexuality thus masquerade as news. Indeed, gays are at the forefront in generating it by fraudulently claiming they are the unwarranted victims of severe homophobic hate and violence. This, they say, explains why homosexuals feel depressed or attempt suicide. But anyone serious about this issue has to ask, where is the scientific evidence? Other than that created by homosexuals who have good reason to exaggerate it, very little exists.
Attention has already been drawn to Stonewall’s much vaunted ‘research’ in 2008 of
alleged homophobic violence. After spending £27,000 of taxpayers money the worst
evidence they came up with was only 414 gays had experience of a so-
To properly reflect on the evidence here, one must acknowledge the disturbing reality that homosexuality is closely associated with violent and destructive behaviours. This is manifestly disturbing, but nobody wants to know.
Recall the modern origins of homosexuality in Germany. Observe how it expanded in the 1930’s and took deep root in the Nazi Party. Notice the discernable distinction between the Butches and Femmes and recoil at the sheer brutality of the former. Homosexuality is perceptively associated with one of histories most barbarous and savage movements in history. The holocaust and unimagined cruelty sets it apart. Yet, as the death ashes of Nazi homosexuality were blown to eternity, elements of it sought root and settled elsewhere. It resurfaced in North America, was revised and rejuvenated, eventually to reach out to the world.
Even here, it is noticeable, that homosexuality lay largely dormant and quiescent
until June 1969 when the six-
That, together with the veiled threat of violence and concerted intimidation against
the American Psychiatric Association culminated in the ultimate re-
The corrupting influence of the Frankfurt School soon found eager audiences throughout Western Europe. In the British Isles it was the radical activist Gay Liberation Front altruistically entwined with the militant terrorist Angry Brigade, comprising a handful of middle class discontents out to change the world, which after a campaign of agitation through bombing political targets, soon withered. Their philosophy would, however, live on and resurface in other directions, most notably the Irish Republican Army. Germany had the equivalence in the form of the notorious Marxist Baader Meinhoff gang and in Italy the Red Brigade.
In contrast, the GLF expanded in ways undreamed of by the early proponents to the
point it is now conventional, established and respected. Gay rights are now at the
centre of British political discourse to an extent it seems, that no law is determined
without the gay fiat. They have become the indispensable mainstream. But notice,
the pretence of anti-
Campaigners for homosexual rights, use vituperation, demonisation, intimidation, brow beating and coercion to repress anyone upholding moral value and the dignity of human virtue simply because they act to restrain unprincipled sexual promiscuity. It is right to acknowledge that individual homosexuals have featured powerless in the margins of society throughout history. However, history also teaches that a dominant culture of homosexuality has only flourished episodically during particular periods and under certain conditions. This should alert us to the impermanence of its nature and the fact that it is temporary follows from the consequences of it being unnatural, unhealthy and immoral. Thus, unbridled gay rights are a quixotic amoral recipe for a social catastrophe. Moreover, medical science tells us two important things about the status of homosexuality. First, the condition is not set in stone because it is fluid, and second, most gays eventually revert back to their heterosexual identity.
But most important of all, we are now condescending to the informal pimping of our
children in schools by allowing homosexuals to diddle with their little fragile minds.
Some of our children will become sexually disorientated or become gay prostitutes,
others will resort to crime and drug addiction. The incalculable results of this
experiment are likely to be harrowing beyond comprehension. It is as if we are anaesthetised
to this doom-
We are witnessing the frightful beginning of a new inquisition.
In a free, modern, democratic society you might judge this impossible.
Well, consider this! In June 2008, the Canadian Government’s Human Rights Commission, acting as a sodomy Star Chamber, formally ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality. He was also ordered to pay $5,000 in damages when no damages had occurred.
In the same year, this same commission made additional attempts to de-
Here at home, we also have examples where Christian value and expression are being inexorably publicly banned by a process of a thousand cuts. Each one stronger than the last. But it goes beyond the simple perspective of religion to now include attempts to sideline a serious academic treatise challenging a false shibboleth of homosexual propaganda. Consider again, the case of Paediatrician Joy Holloway who had been humiliated and barred from her position as a member of an Adoptions Panel with Newcastle City Health NHS Trust and then compiled a research paper demonstrating the real harm of gay adoptions.
Similarly, in 2009 Doctor Sheila Matthews faced the same dilemma when working for
the Adoption Panel in Northamptonshire. Working with parents and children, she was
a community paediatrician with 18 years service. She had been working with the panel
for 5 years and was a doctor of some 28 years experience. She made it formally known
that she objected to same-
This is the new ugly face of modern morality and ‘human rights' that is being cynically used to cripple civic, moral and religious discourse.
Creeping condemnation of Christian public comment is also chillingly evident closer to home. Powerful voices are urging the British Equality and Human Rights Commission; soon to be further strengthened; to act in a similar way to that of the Canadian HRC. Indeed, in December 2008 the Advertising Standards Agency banned a religious advert because it made biblical references to homosexuality which it considered offensive. Surprisingly, Jeff Dudgeon, a leading gay law reformer, condemned the prohibition.
We live in a state of frightening confusion. Homosexuals claim material is offensive when it does not endorse their pernicious and permissive sexual ethics. It never occurs to them, or their apologists (the useful idiots) that in the first instance their behaviour is inherently immoral and culturally unpleasant to the point of being naturally repulsive. Another reason why homosexuals continue to invert standards of sexual behaviour by stifling the truth.
It is worth repeating that people are generally loath to offend gays. However, most
well-
As has been noted elsewhere, homosexuality is a unique manifestation of hedonism. Instead of producing children, it preys on them. Instead of keeping to itself, it proselytises. Instead of promoting health and stability (as does marriage), it thrives on aggression, spreads disease and destroys it practitioners, emotionally and physically.
George Orwell was right! In times of universal deception, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
.
Copyright | Contact Us | Top | Next