15 April 2010

Freedom and liberty

A typically astute post by Dr Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple) in the City Journal on the subject of that homosexual couple complaining to the police because they were refused accommodation at a B&B run by evangelical Christians, and the absurd over-reaction by the British press to the Tories' Chris Grayling's comment that the law as it stands is tyrannical.

Homosexual freedom trumping religious freedom. I wonder how that will play in the Labour Party's Muslim pocket boroughs?

Daniels comments that 'the depressing, and perhaps sinister, aspect of the public commentary on the case is how largely it has ignored the question of freedom. For liberals, it seems, any trampling on freedom or individual conscience is now justified if it conduces to an end of which they approve. Thus liberalism turns into its opposite, illiberalism'.

Indeed - that's why we MUST stop describing these totalitarian turds as 'liberals'.


  1. The idealogical platform of the homosexual assault upon Anglicanism and liberal protestantism in general is largely based upon a pseudo-scientific finding that homosexuality is 'genetic' and that there is no appeal from our genes/jeans in this regard.

    There is no scientific basis to this or to any other deterministic argument that our sexuality is given us permanently by any influence whatever. This does not discourage the homosexual hawks who haunt the web with their ready accusations for anyone who claims the slightest agnosticism about the sources of their sexual preference.

    As a firm agnostic myself, I have no stake in either sort of moral blame-game but I have to stand by my notion that there is no proof either way about nature or nurture here. It appears from my long experience of human nature that there is plenty of evidence on all sides but what is conclusive still remains unknown.
    A lot of people have outgrown their 'gayness' and others have discovered it late in life.

    Not only that, but human nature being what it is, people do change; female homosexuality seems even more changeable ( not strange), and the idea that younger folk 'must be' gay if they show the slightest sympathy towards male sexual attention appears to me to greatly favour older chicken hawks' lack of conscience in this regard.

    Is theirs a 'liberal' attitude? Not by my reckoning. Sounds more self-serving to me.
    Gays in England as in America (whatever 'Gay' may mean)have adopted the popular Victim-Aggressor posture which most serves their public image as well as their private aims toward enlarging the pool of likely partners.

    This worked well for Blacks and Feminists so now one more well-worked PR attack upon the liberty of personal values has encroached upon our fading freedoms. The PC attitudes triumph over the idea of a truly democratic pluralism.
    Thank you, Gordon, and the old Labour gang.

  2. Homosexuals are heavy political contributors and immensely influential in the media. Hence the leaders of the political parties must fellate them. It's as simple as that.