Heterophobia rules -- OK?

Mention the words 'same sex mariage' and the ineluctable Stephen Fry can be relied on to lend his substantial weight to the argument. In the face of growing opposition to the cringe-inducing proposal, this charmless individual (he calls real men 'pussy-bashers', heterophobia being acceptable on TV) has launched a campaign video condemning 'screeching extremists'. It's a characteristically venomous rant denouncing just about everyone who disagrees with him, in particular, of course, the Christian Church.

Central to what passes for his argument is the claim that some animal species display 'gay tendencies' but only human beings exhibit homophobia (fear of homosexuals). How deluded can you get? There is absolutely no way we fear homosexuals. It is they who are heterophobic (fearing heterosexual relationships). Sure, certain species of animals, notably dogs and pigs, exhibit gay tendencies but only when they are deprived of opportunities to mate naturally. The difference between these animals and human beings is that the latter adopt this form of behaviour from choice.

They choose to reject natural procreative -- dare one say God-given -- sexuality in favour of a perverse and dangerously unhealthy habit. Fair enough, that's a matter for them. We won't go into detail on the escalating cost to the NHS of treating the consequences. We simply believe, in our quietly screeching Christian way, that marriage is an essentially dignified institution.

In any objective analysis, a lifestyle that is clearly inconsistent with human dignity cannot qualify for inclusion.

Blessed are the thick-skinned

One of the first things you learn as a journalist, after shorthand and the vital need to spell people's names correctly, is the importance of a thick skin. You can say goodbye to popularity. Bringing into the open what the rich and powerful prefer to remain hidden inevitably makes you deeply unpopular. Ask too many awkward questions and you are likely to face rudeness, harassment, threats and worse. The most common response, of course, is the haughty 'no comment' followed by shutting the door in your face or slamming down the telephone. The most effective is to ignore you completely.

During my long and undistinguished newspaper career, colleagues would compete with each other as to which of us had been rebuffed by the most famous personalities. Some boasted they'd been slighted by pop stars, others by arrogant politicians and oafish celebrities. The best I could manage were Kenny Dalglish, who would elbow you aside if asked for an interview, Graeme Souness who'd ignore you with a supercilious sneer, and Tommy Docherty, who would simply spit on the Old Trafford boardroom carpet before treading it in with his shoe.

On reaching my 80th year, when I thought nothing could hurt any more, my rhino-like hide has been finally punctured by, of all people, the Bishop of Shrewsbury. Last year I wrote to His Grace requesting guidance on a liturgical question. I am still waiting for a reply. However, it would be wrong to say the Curia office has remained silent. I recently received a letter from them asking me for money. Ouch!

For better or perverse?

Whatever you may think about same-sex marriage you have to acknowledge our gay friends' total mastery of the PR process. For 1.5 per cent of the population (Office for National Statistics latest figure) to manipulate the remaining 98.5 per cent, including the Prime Minister, into accepting so cringe-worthy a concept is no small achievement.

The BBC and the Gaydian -- who you might say are already married in terms of a mutual relativist/atheist agenda -- should share the credit, if that's the right word. Thanks to their ongoing propaganda, homosexuals have whipped up a climate of mass hysteria in which anyone opposing their brand of unholy matrimony is labelled homophobic, hateful and worthy of social ostracism.

A Freedom of Information request some time ago revealed that the BBC placed over 90 per cent of its recruitment advertising in the Gaydian, so it's unsurprising that its staff should be heavily loaded in favour of the homosexual crusade. Of course, the Beeb indignantly denies any bias. Reading from a familiar script, a spokesman recently said: "BBC News works to the highest standards of balance and impartiality across the whole of its output. It's absolutely not true to suggest we follow any agenda." But of course. How hateful of us to suggest otherwise.

With the travesty of 'gay marriage' about to be inflicted on the nation whether we like it or not, the story of the Geordie about to emigrate springs to mind. When asked why he was leaving, he replied that 200 years ago homosexuality was punishable by death. One hundred years ago you were sent to prison for it. Now it had been made legal he was getting out before it became compulsory.

 

 

Lessons in swearing

You should hear the swearing at Shafton Advanced Learning Centre, a mixed comprehensive school in Barnsley, Yorkshire...F-words, C-words, S-words - and that's just the teachers!

According to The Daily Telegraph, the school's 700 pupils were instructed to respond to a printed list of obscenities and expletives - the sort used by professional footballers, 'edgy' comedians and bilious TV drama producers. One parent who complained said the children, aged 11 to 14, were "going mad" shouting out foul language in their classrooms.

Another angry father who complained at the school office was shocked when the head teacher phoned him later to ask what the problem was (!). You have to wonder about this individual, who has not been named. Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of Ofsted, has described head teachers as 'often quite odd people'. You couldn't get any odder than this one.

Schools have a duty of care to ensure pupils' minds are enlightened rather than polluted by irresponsible teachers. The argument has been advanced that children are exposed to swearing as part of everyday life. That's hardly a reason for repeating it on the pretext of education. Young people come into daily contact with other forms of pollution - cigarette smoke for example. But schools don't give lessons in smoking.

Bad language is a crude substitute for an inadequate vocabulary. If children can learn enough good words they will have no need of bad ones.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day - June 15

Here's a flyer for my book, circulated for World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on June 15, 2012.

The emperor's new art

The Hayward Gallery in London is staging a ground-breaking exhibition of interest to lovers of abstract art. Entitled Invisible: Art about the Unseen 1957-2012, it features 50 'works' conspicuous by their absence. In other words, invisible. They include Andy Warhol's famous empty plinth, a blank piece of paper supposedly stared at repeatedly over five years by Tom Friedman, a canvas of invisible ink and something called a 'hidden labyrinth'.

Members of the public are charged £8 to 'view' these priceless masterpieces in what the gallery describes as an experience 'to set our imaginations alight' with 'plenty to see and experience'. While presumably keeping a straight face, the Hayward's director, Ralph Rugoff, helpfully explained: 'Art isn't about material objects, it's about setting our imaginations alight' - thus overturning a definition enjoying universal acceptance for several thousand years. 

My own imagination tells me that the moment gullible punters' backs are turned, staff at the gallery all fall about laughing. The following paragraph is my considered appraisal of the exhibition. It may appear a blank space to you but it is actually rich in hidden meaning. Use your imagination and some rather naughty and unprintable words may suggest themselves.








See what I mean!

Battle for the man in the street

As the battle for hearts and minds intensifies in the euthanasia debate, one signal sounds loud and clear above the noise of conflict:  our troops in the pro-life camp are losing. The pro-death battalions have captured the high immoral ground. Public opinion surveys consistently indicate  that around three-quarters of those polled favour assisted suicide, mercy killing, medical aid in dying or other euphemisms for euthanasia dreamed up by the enemy.

The masses are not getting the pro-life message. They have been persuaded through subtle brainwashing by an acquiescent media that a 'right to die' based on individual autonomy transcends the right to life - a self-evidently absurd proposition but one that has taken root in the public mind. Let's consider two practical problems arising from this misconception. The first concerns life insurance. To my knowledge, all insurance companies exclude suicide from their life cover. Assisted suicide is still suicide. Beneficiaries of a deceased's estate hoping to profit from his death would therefore be sadly disappointed.

You could possibly argue that the person who assisted the suicide was technically guilty of murder, thereby relieving the deceased of ultimate responsibility. But the obvious defence to this charge would be that the deceased asked his assistant to kill him. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument offers a splendid defence in a wide spectrum of murder cases, viz: "The victim asked me to kill him. I merely complied with his legal right to die by doing so." As the victim would no longer be around to deny making any such request, the likely outcome would be acquittal. Next case please.

These are valid arguments against popular notions of a right to die and assisted death but you are unlikely to encounter them in the media. The reason, it seems to me, is that the pro-life movement is not militant enough. What it needs is a PR campaign to rival that of the 'gay rights' fraternity - a tiny minority (1.5 per cent of the population according to latest statistics) that has exerted an influence on society out of all proportion to its size.

Similar determination is urgently needed by our own much larger minority group because the issue here is not just sexual orientation but a matter of life and death. A slogan is called for, a rallying cry to inspire a generation increasingly regarded as expendable. Keep Breathing, the title of my second novel, could strike the necessary chord.

My book is an attempt to promote the pro-life message to a largely hostile public through the medium of popular fiction, something that does not seem to have been tried before. You could call it a form of ideological evangelism...an attempt to engage the man in the street on an emotional rather than intellectual level. I am convinced that for the pro-life message to prevail, public attitudes must change. We may have lost the present PR battle but it is vital for the sake of future generations that we win the war.