Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Monday, 7 May 2012
Friday, 4 May 2012
Shady ex-coppers RedlineUK have 10 hours left to fess up
Well, last night the following communication was sent to the 'Safe'/RedlineUK group. The shady ex-coppers running the Redline ring have got 10 hours left to respond:
Dear Sir,
This is Mr. Richard Carvath. My email is richardcarvath@ymail.com I want you to email me with the full real name of Angel of the LBB. I also want you to email me with the full real name of every person involved in 'Safe' and RedlineUK who is a former police officer. I also want you to specify the full real name of the man with overall executive control of 'Safe'/RedlineUK to me via email - and I want direct contact details for him. I expect you to email me with all of this information within 24 hours. I am concerned that 'Safe'/RedlineUK is directly/indirectly involved in serious and organised criminal activity; I am concerned that you give no information on who and where you are; I am concerned that you are attempting to register as a charity and are already soliciting donations. I strongly advise you to email me promptly with all the information I request; if you do not give this information voluntarily (as any legit outfit would) then I will have little option other than to investigate you, report you to the Charity Commission and make a report of crime to Greater Manchester Police.
Redline's shady ex-coppers are strongly suspected of involvement in the running of a coordinated defamation campaign against me in cooperation with known gangsters such as LBB Angel and other serious and organised vice-traders. The Redline Ring members are also strongly suspected of direct participation in the dozens of sinister emails that have been sent to me, and in illegal covert surveillance activities against me and sinister phone calls to persons associated with me. And an ex senior police officer from the Redline Ring is even believed to have met a close relative of mine to offer his 'protection' services!
The time has come for the Redline Ring's shady ex-coppers to give their names and show their faces in public. None of these people are currently serving in law enforcement and yet they are inviting the general public to report crime directly to them rather than to Greater Manchester Police or Crimestoppers - despite the fact that they are clearly and directly linked to persons (the Sandy's Superstars gang) who are known criminals (as acknowledged by GMP). I don't tolerate dodgy ex-coppers who've turned to the dark side working with gangsters against me. If the Redline Ring won't voluntarily come forward now then further action against them will have to be actioned as a matter of urgency...
Dear Sir,
This is Mr. Richard Carvath. My email is richardcarvath@ymail.com I want you to email me with the full real name of Angel of the LBB. I also want you to email me with the full real name of every person involved in 'Safe' and RedlineUK who is a former police officer. I also want you to specify the full real name of the man with overall executive control of 'Safe'/RedlineUK to me via email - and I want direct contact details for him. I expect you to email me with all of this information within 24 hours. I am concerned that 'Safe'/RedlineUK is directly/indirectly involved in serious and organised criminal activity; I am concerned that you give no information on who and where you are; I am concerned that you are attempting to register as a charity and are already soliciting donations. I strongly advise you to email me promptly with all the information I request; if you do not give this information voluntarily (as any legit outfit would) then I will have little option other than to investigate you, report you to the Charity Commission and make a report of crime to Greater Manchester Police.
Redline's shady ex-coppers are strongly suspected of involvement in the running of a coordinated defamation campaign against me in cooperation with known gangsters such as LBB Angel and other serious and organised vice-traders. The Redline Ring members are also strongly suspected of direct participation in the dozens of sinister emails that have been sent to me, and in illegal covert surveillance activities against me and sinister phone calls to persons associated with me. And an ex senior police officer from the Redline Ring is even believed to have met a close relative of mine to offer his 'protection' services!
The time has come for the Redline Ring's shady ex-coppers to give their names and show their faces in public. None of these people are currently serving in law enforcement and yet they are inviting the general public to report crime directly to them rather than to Greater Manchester Police or Crimestoppers - despite the fact that they are clearly and directly linked to persons (the Sandy's Superstars gang) who are known criminals (as acknowledged by GMP). I don't tolerate dodgy ex-coppers who've turned to the dark side working with gangsters against me. If the Redline Ring won't voluntarily come forward now then further action against them will have to be actioned as a matter of urgency...
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
GMP and the Sandy's Superstars Brothels: EXCLUSIVE
It only took 18 months and 56 emails sent from me to GMP...
In the last week, in the 33rd email I've received from GMP to date (in regard of the Sandy's Superstars campaign), GMP has finally acknowledged that the Sandy's Superstars premises are in fact brothels
After 56 emails + 1 PDF attachment, a total word-count of 28,202 words, GMP has finally given me 1 useful word in return. I quote you, from the GMP email...
The GMP email states: "... Sandy's Superstars Brothels" There you have it, the 'magic word' - Brothels. All GMP has to do now is shut down the brothels and arrest and prosecute the various criminals involved and we will have a result.
Eighteen months after I first contacted GMP - and nine years after Northenden residents first asked GMP to enforce the law - the indications in the last three months are that GMP is belatedly making an effort on this case with the definite aim of enforcing the law.
The GMP/Sandy's Superstars Case has revealed much about GMP policy on the vice trade. Though law enforcement action is now looking much more likely in this particular case, the evidence of GMP's serious failings in regard to enforcing the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on known criminals across its patch is of sufficient concern to warrant Parliamentary scrutiny and censure. Furthermore, the national press-hounds are baying for blood...
In the last week, in the 33rd email I've received from GMP to date (in regard of the Sandy's Superstars campaign), GMP has finally acknowledged that the Sandy's Superstars premises are in fact brothels
After 56 emails + 1 PDF attachment, a total word-count of 28,202 words, GMP has finally given me 1 useful word in return. I quote you, from the GMP email...
The GMP email states: "... Sandy's Superstars Brothels" There you have it, the 'magic word' - Brothels. All GMP has to do now is shut down the brothels and arrest and prosecute the various criminals involved and we will have a result.
Eighteen months after I first contacted GMP - and nine years after Northenden residents first asked GMP to enforce the law - the indications in the last three months are that GMP is belatedly making an effort on this case with the definite aim of enforcing the law.
The GMP/Sandy's Superstars Case has revealed much about GMP policy on the vice trade. Though law enforcement action is now looking much more likely in this particular case, the evidence of GMP's serious failings in regard to enforcing the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on known criminals across its patch is of sufficient concern to warrant Parliamentary scrutiny and censure. Furthermore, the national press-hounds are baying for blood...
Thursday, 19 April 2012
c4m Coalition for Marriage Briefing
c4m Coalition for Marriage briefing paper The Coalition for Marriage briefing paper is well worth reading. Nearly 450,000 people have signed the Coalition for Marriage Petition since it was launched earlier this year, making this one campaign by far the largest and most popular grassroots movement to have arisen during the current term of Parliament... but will the Government pay any heed to the clearly stated will of the people?
Friday, 30 March 2012
All change
Hi everybody. My web presence is being turned upside down at the moment in preparation for a new season of activity. My apologies for dead links in older posts on this blog (as my main web archive is currently offline).
Saturday, 17 March 2012
EXCLUSIVE: C4M is not enough to save Marriage (or Husband and Wife): Lynne Featherstone, Trevor Phillips and Ben Summerskill in weekly meetings
In the face of the pending Government threat of marriage redefinition, I have to say that the defence of marriage thus far is going about as well as it possibly could. The C4M Coalition for Marriage petition already has virtually a quarter of a million signatures only a month after launch, and it cannot be overstated just how strong a signal this has already sent to the coalition Government. A myriad of national media social commentators, senior politicians, church leaders and major public figures from all walks of life have already spoken out against any attempt to redefine marriage over the last few weeks. Recent polling of the general public has repeatedly shown that a clear majority is opposed to the Government's stated intention to redefine marriage and, moreover, polling has demonstrated that a clear three-quarters of the public do not see the issue as a political priority at the present time of national economic crisis.
Beyond our borders, millions of people in many foreign nations are profoundly aghast at the imminent prospect of the 'Mother of Parliaments' descending into the unmitigated depravity and sheer lunacy of a legislative act to invent a new and utterly perverse concept in pseudo-marriage to be imposed upon the British people against their will and without their consent - and in absolute mockery of God. Foreigners look on as the once Great Britain which led the world just a hundred years ago continues to be led by its unrepresentative political elite even further along the path of national self-destruction from the present Broken Britain to the probable future Britain-Dead-And-Buried. Most British people do not read anything other than the British press, but if they did they'd see just how amazed the rest of the world is by the madness which currently prevails in Broken Britain.
The homepage of the Coalition for Marriage website puts across several key points, including:
(1) "Marriage is unique: Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."
(2) "Profound consequences: If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"
(3) "No need to redefine: Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."
I wholeheartedly endorse the first two points, and I agree with the primary assertion of the third point - ie 'no need to redefine' - though I do believe a vital principle is passed over in the third point - doubtless from the best of intentions, and motivated by a 'pragmatic' pursuit of the major limited objective of the petition - and I take the view that the abandonment of this core principle for the sake of political 'pragmatism' is actually the fly in the ointment and the Achilles Heel of the Coalition for Marriage campaign. As I will make mention of in just a moment, this pragmatism-over-principle tacit acceptance of the existence of civil partnerships is actually to accept the thin end of the wedge upon which the militant HP/'Equality' lobby's tactics are now established and which the likes of Chris Bryant MP and parliamentary pals are certainly about to use in parliamentary debate as their logical basis and justification for the redefinition of marriage.
Whichever way one looks at it, the Coalition for Marriage is absolutely in the right in regard of its primary stated objective - namely to maintain the current legal definition of marriage. On principle, the retention of the current definition of marriage is the only moral and sane thing to do. In the best interests of the wellbeing and prosperity of everybody in British society - and especially children - the retention of the current definition of marriage is the only way to go. And if the democratic will of the majority of the people is our concern, even on that consideration it is abundantly clear that there is overwhelming public opposition to any redefinition of marriage - not to mention the fact that the Government has no democratic mandate whatsoever to redefine marriage, since neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems gave any public manifesto commitment to redefine marriage at the 2010 General Election.
But though the defence of traditional marriage is common sense and the right thing to do whichever way one looks at it, and despite the current definition enjoying widespread popular support, my concern and the purpose of this blog-post is to alert people to the reality of the political situation we are currently faced with on this vital matter of defending marriage: the reality is that as things stand we are still on course for Parliament to redefine marriage. Morality, sound reason, common sense and the democratic will of the people have not prevailed in British politics for many years now. It is simply not good enough to rely on the hugely successful Coalition for Marriage petition to dissuade the Government from the madness of marriage redefinition. Even if the petition makes it to a million signatures, perversely it would still cut no ice with this Government.
We need to grasp that the underlying motives and the puppetmasters behind the redefinition of marriage are not and never have been interested in either the democratic will or the common good - and that's the very reason why even such a monumental petition will be ignored. We know that the current Government 'consultation' on marriage is openly a sham, as the Government has already predetermined that it definitely intends to redefine marriage: such brazen arrogance ought to tell us something about the nature of the tiny handful of people behind the push to redefine marriage for the millions: it ought to tell us that these HP social engineers are fanatical about their ideological agenda and utterly committed to their cause quite regardless of what anybody else thinks and regardless of the consequences: it ought to tell us that these people will not be influenced by sound reason or by a quarter of a million or even a million signatures on a petition.
As a political activist of many years, my considered opinion based on my experience is that politicians are rarely concerned about democratic will and only slightly more concerned about making policy and passing laws based upon best interests and evidence and sound reason, and they are almost never concerned about genuine morality except when it suits them. If you think political decision-making is based in reason or the best interests of the nation I must point out that you're sadly deluded: the truth is that the current Westminster political elite is unconcerned by either reason or the best interests of the people - hence the agenda to redefine marriage despite the disastrous consequences which will follow and despite the fact that the Government ought to be devoting its time and energy to dealing with the rather obvious important crises which afflict our nation.
I'll tell you what politics is really all about. Get this: politics is all about power. Politics is fundamentally about power and nothing else matters. The people behind the push to redefine marriage have political power and they are exercising that power to please themselves regardless of anyone else. These people could not care less about the hundreds of thousands opposing them: these people will continue with their attempt to redefine marriage because it's what they want to do and they have the power to do it. Such people cannot be reasoned with. And note well that the militant HP agenda to redefine marriage exemplifies the worst abuses of power - domination and destruction - every bit as much as these charactersitics typify the perverted nature of HP culture itself.
It is essential to understand that the primary motive behind redefining marriage is nothing whatsoever to do with 'equality' for the 1% HP minority; the primary motive is the destruction and outright abolition of marriage altogether. If marriage is redefined then in legal terms it will no longer exist. Destroy marriage and thus the marriage-based family and destroy the whole of society. Redefining marriage isn't about including HPs in something which by definition they have chosen to exclude themselves; redefining marriage is about spiteful and evil-minded HPs wanting to deny everybody else the blessing which they themselves have spurned. Redefining marriage is about HPs in rebellion against nature wanting to mock and destroy the hated normality which they can never possess for themselves (as long as they remain in rebellion against nature) in order to make them feel better about their perverted freak lifestyles. Since the 1% HP minority of the population can't marry they want to abolish the privilege for the 99% heterosexual majority.
We need to be clear that the invention and acceptance of civil partnerships was foundational in paving the way to redefining marriage. Indeed it can be credibly argued that the current battle we are fighting to save marriage has already been lost, and that it was lost eight years ago with the enactment of civil partnerships. Nobody with any political sense believed the Blair Government's promise that civil partnerships would never lead to perviage. It was always obvious that the introduction of civil partnerships was a stepping stone which would lead in time to a full frontal assault on marriage itself. From their beginning civil partnerships have always been portrayed by the media as akin to marriage. Though civil partnerships are not and never could be marriage (by definition and by nature), they are an effective parody of marriage because they confer all of the legal rights of marriage upon their HP participants. Civil partnerships were deliberately intended to introduce 'gay marriage' in all but name; now they want to take the name too.
Civil partnerships should never have been invented and they ought to be abolished because they enshrine in law the State's approval of and support for what is evil and destructive behaviour: this is my position - I am fundamentally opposed to the existence of civil partnerships - and so my opposition to the redefinition of marriage is uncompromised. But the Coalition for Marriage and the parliamentary advocates defending marriage - such as David Burrowes MP - are fatally compromised by their 'pragmatic' [as in point 3 above] argument that there is no need to redefine marriage because HPs already have civil partnerships available to them. Whether they like it or not, the simple fact is that logically by failing to oppose civil partnerships and by using their existence to justify their defence of marriage they are in effect endorsing civil partnerships. And what will be the consequence of this de facto endorsement of civil partnerships by those seeking to defend marriage? Well I'm afraid the truth is it makes the marriage lobby into the proverbial 'house divided' - undermining the integrity of its own position.
In parliamentary debate the HP lobby will get the likes of 'pro-marriage' David Burrowes to openly confess support for the existence of civil partnerships. David Burrowes will think he's being oh so clever and ever so pragmatic in expressing his support for civil partnerships so that he can argue that civil partnerships negate the 'need' to redefine marriage [as per point 3 above]. But oh so clever David Burrowes will then quickly come to appreciate - too late - how he shot himself in the foot by adopting this compromised position. Because civil partnerships are widely perceived as providing for 'gay marriage' in all but name - given that they carry the same legal rights as marriage and are represented as 'gay marriage' in the propaganda of the mainstream media - the likes of anti-marriage HP Chris Bryant will forcefully argue in parliamentary debate that since David Burrowes already endorses what is in effect [ie in popular misrepresentation] 'gay marriage' in all but name then it is rather silly and inconsistent of David Burrowes to refuse to surrender also the name. Chris Bryant will argue that civil partnerships are already 'gay marriage' in all but name and so taking on the name (by redefining marriage) is only a minor further step for the sake of consistency [and of course 'equality']; Chris Bryant will argue that since David Burrowes accepts the principle of 'gay marriage' he has no serious credibility in or reasonable justification for seeking to deny HP civil partners the 'logical' 'right' to be recognised for what they already 'are' - ie 'married'. Chris Bryant will argue that since David Burrowes accepts the principle of [what is perceived and portrayed as] 'gay marriage' then what possible objection could David Burrowes really have to giving up just one little word for the sake of a principle he already accepts? And what possible harm could it do, just one little word?
Barring a miracle, I'm afraid that as a political realist I know the battle to prevent the redefinition of marriage is probably lost already - no matter how obviously crazy the act will be and despite the enormous public opposition to it. The simple fact is that the people pushing for the redefinition of marriage have the political power (and the political tactics) to achieve their long cherished goal. Other than David Cameron, the parliamentary push for redefining marriage isn't really coming from the parliamentary Conservative Party at all. There is no real appetite for redefining marriage in the parliamentary Conservative Party (though most Tory MPs will vote as their Leader asks them to vote). It is rather the case that the push for the redefinition of marriage is coming primarily from the Coalition's junior partner the Liberal Democrats (and it suits David Cameron to let the Lib Dems have something he himself is in favour of anyway).
Equalities Minister and Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone meets regularly with Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill and EHRC boss Trevor Phillips. This axis of evil is at the very core of the push to redefine marriage. Furthermore, people should be aware of the full extent of what Featherstone, Summerskill and Phillips have been plotting in their recent meetings.
Featherstone, Summerskill and Phillips are not only conspiring to get Parliament to redefine the word 'Marriage.' Their plotting to redefine marriage also includes the plan to enact legislation which will completely erase the words 'Husband' and 'Wife' from all British statute law and ban these words from use by the public sector and in all official records and documents.
The plot to redefine marriage is really about the final abolition of marriage altogether, and I fear the plot has already succeeded. Politics is about power. Sound reason will not prevail amongst the majority of MPs. Even a million signatures will not dissuade the majority of MPs from the folly of voting for the redefinition of marriage. This Government is bloodyminded and hellbent on redefining marriage this year.
Politics is about power. As a political activist I know the only hope for safeguarding marriage lies in some serious nobbling of MPs - and especially Lib Dem MPs - behind closed doors. The petition won't work and neither will the grand speech of compromised David Burrowes; but what might well work is a major nobbling campaign. Once everybody has signed the petition, all that's left to do is for the many to pray and the few to nobble.
Beyond our borders, millions of people in many foreign nations are profoundly aghast at the imminent prospect of the 'Mother of Parliaments' descending into the unmitigated depravity and sheer lunacy of a legislative act to invent a new and utterly perverse concept in pseudo-marriage to be imposed upon the British people against their will and without their consent - and in absolute mockery of God. Foreigners look on as the once Great Britain which led the world just a hundred years ago continues to be led by its unrepresentative political elite even further along the path of national self-destruction from the present Broken Britain to the probable future Britain-Dead-And-Buried. Most British people do not read anything other than the British press, but if they did they'd see just how amazed the rest of the world is by the madness which currently prevails in Broken Britain.
The homepage of the Coalition for Marriage website puts across several key points, including:
(1) "Marriage is unique: Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."
(2) "Profound consequences: If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"
(3) "No need to redefine: Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."
I wholeheartedly endorse the first two points, and I agree with the primary assertion of the third point - ie 'no need to redefine' - though I do believe a vital principle is passed over in the third point - doubtless from the best of intentions, and motivated by a 'pragmatic' pursuit of the major limited objective of the petition - and I take the view that the abandonment of this core principle for the sake of political 'pragmatism' is actually the fly in the ointment and the Achilles Heel of the Coalition for Marriage campaign. As I will make mention of in just a moment, this pragmatism-over-principle tacit acceptance of the existence of civil partnerships is actually to accept the thin end of the wedge upon which the militant HP/'Equality' lobby's tactics are now established and which the likes of Chris Bryant MP and parliamentary pals are certainly about to use in parliamentary debate as their logical basis and justification for the redefinition of marriage.
Whichever way one looks at it, the Coalition for Marriage is absolutely in the right in regard of its primary stated objective - namely to maintain the current legal definition of marriage. On principle, the retention of the current definition of marriage is the only moral and sane thing to do. In the best interests of the wellbeing and prosperity of everybody in British society - and especially children - the retention of the current definition of marriage is the only way to go. And if the democratic will of the majority of the people is our concern, even on that consideration it is abundantly clear that there is overwhelming public opposition to any redefinition of marriage - not to mention the fact that the Government has no democratic mandate whatsoever to redefine marriage, since neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems gave any public manifesto commitment to redefine marriage at the 2010 General Election.
But though the defence of traditional marriage is common sense and the right thing to do whichever way one looks at it, and despite the current definition enjoying widespread popular support, my concern and the purpose of this blog-post is to alert people to the reality of the political situation we are currently faced with on this vital matter of defending marriage: the reality is that as things stand we are still on course for Parliament to redefine marriage. Morality, sound reason, common sense and the democratic will of the people have not prevailed in British politics for many years now. It is simply not good enough to rely on the hugely successful Coalition for Marriage petition to dissuade the Government from the madness of marriage redefinition. Even if the petition makes it to a million signatures, perversely it would still cut no ice with this Government.
We need to grasp that the underlying motives and the puppetmasters behind the redefinition of marriage are not and never have been interested in either the democratic will or the common good - and that's the very reason why even such a monumental petition will be ignored. We know that the current Government 'consultation' on marriage is openly a sham, as the Government has already predetermined that it definitely intends to redefine marriage: such brazen arrogance ought to tell us something about the nature of the tiny handful of people behind the push to redefine marriage for the millions: it ought to tell us that these HP social engineers are fanatical about their ideological agenda and utterly committed to their cause quite regardless of what anybody else thinks and regardless of the consequences: it ought to tell us that these people will not be influenced by sound reason or by a quarter of a million or even a million signatures on a petition.
As a political activist of many years, my considered opinion based on my experience is that politicians are rarely concerned about democratic will and only slightly more concerned about making policy and passing laws based upon best interests and evidence and sound reason, and they are almost never concerned about genuine morality except when it suits them. If you think political decision-making is based in reason or the best interests of the nation I must point out that you're sadly deluded: the truth is that the current Westminster political elite is unconcerned by either reason or the best interests of the people - hence the agenda to redefine marriage despite the disastrous consequences which will follow and despite the fact that the Government ought to be devoting its time and energy to dealing with the rather obvious important crises which afflict our nation.
I'll tell you what politics is really all about. Get this: politics is all about power. Politics is fundamentally about power and nothing else matters. The people behind the push to redefine marriage have political power and they are exercising that power to please themselves regardless of anyone else. These people could not care less about the hundreds of thousands opposing them: these people will continue with their attempt to redefine marriage because it's what they want to do and they have the power to do it. Such people cannot be reasoned with. And note well that the militant HP agenda to redefine marriage exemplifies the worst abuses of power - domination and destruction - every bit as much as these charactersitics typify the perverted nature of HP culture itself.
It is essential to understand that the primary motive behind redefining marriage is nothing whatsoever to do with 'equality' for the 1% HP minority; the primary motive is the destruction and outright abolition of marriage altogether. If marriage is redefined then in legal terms it will no longer exist. Destroy marriage and thus the marriage-based family and destroy the whole of society. Redefining marriage isn't about including HPs in something which by definition they have chosen to exclude themselves; redefining marriage is about spiteful and evil-minded HPs wanting to deny everybody else the blessing which they themselves have spurned. Redefining marriage is about HPs in rebellion against nature wanting to mock and destroy the hated normality which they can never possess for themselves (as long as they remain in rebellion against nature) in order to make them feel better about their perverted freak lifestyles. Since the 1% HP minority of the population can't marry they want to abolish the privilege for the 99% heterosexual majority.
We need to be clear that the invention and acceptance of civil partnerships was foundational in paving the way to redefining marriage. Indeed it can be credibly argued that the current battle we are fighting to save marriage has already been lost, and that it was lost eight years ago with the enactment of civil partnerships. Nobody with any political sense believed the Blair Government's promise that civil partnerships would never lead to perviage. It was always obvious that the introduction of civil partnerships was a stepping stone which would lead in time to a full frontal assault on marriage itself. From their beginning civil partnerships have always been portrayed by the media as akin to marriage. Though civil partnerships are not and never could be marriage (by definition and by nature), they are an effective parody of marriage because they confer all of the legal rights of marriage upon their HP participants. Civil partnerships were deliberately intended to introduce 'gay marriage' in all but name; now they want to take the name too.
Civil partnerships should never have been invented and they ought to be abolished because they enshrine in law the State's approval of and support for what is evil and destructive behaviour: this is my position - I am fundamentally opposed to the existence of civil partnerships - and so my opposition to the redefinition of marriage is uncompromised. But the Coalition for Marriage and the parliamentary advocates defending marriage - such as David Burrowes MP - are fatally compromised by their 'pragmatic' [as in point 3 above] argument that there is no need to redefine marriage because HPs already have civil partnerships available to them. Whether they like it or not, the simple fact is that logically by failing to oppose civil partnerships and by using their existence to justify their defence of marriage they are in effect endorsing civil partnerships. And what will be the consequence of this de facto endorsement of civil partnerships by those seeking to defend marriage? Well I'm afraid the truth is it makes the marriage lobby into the proverbial 'house divided' - undermining the integrity of its own position.
In parliamentary debate the HP lobby will get the likes of 'pro-marriage' David Burrowes to openly confess support for the existence of civil partnerships. David Burrowes will think he's being oh so clever and ever so pragmatic in expressing his support for civil partnerships so that he can argue that civil partnerships negate the 'need' to redefine marriage [as per point 3 above]. But oh so clever David Burrowes will then quickly come to appreciate - too late - how he shot himself in the foot by adopting this compromised position. Because civil partnerships are widely perceived as providing for 'gay marriage' in all but name - given that they carry the same legal rights as marriage and are represented as 'gay marriage' in the propaganda of the mainstream media - the likes of anti-marriage HP Chris Bryant will forcefully argue in parliamentary debate that since David Burrowes already endorses what is in effect [ie in popular misrepresentation] 'gay marriage' in all but name then it is rather silly and inconsistent of David Burrowes to refuse to surrender also the name. Chris Bryant will argue that civil partnerships are already 'gay marriage' in all but name and so taking on the name (by redefining marriage) is only a minor further step for the sake of consistency [and of course 'equality']; Chris Bryant will argue that since David Burrowes accepts the principle of 'gay marriage' he has no serious credibility in or reasonable justification for seeking to deny HP civil partners the 'logical' 'right' to be recognised for what they already 'are' - ie 'married'. Chris Bryant will argue that since David Burrowes accepts the principle of [what is perceived and portrayed as] 'gay marriage' then what possible objection could David Burrowes really have to giving up just one little word for the sake of a principle he already accepts? And what possible harm could it do, just one little word?
Barring a miracle, I'm afraid that as a political realist I know the battle to prevent the redefinition of marriage is probably lost already - no matter how obviously crazy the act will be and despite the enormous public opposition to it. The simple fact is that the people pushing for the redefinition of marriage have the political power (and the political tactics) to achieve their long cherished goal. Other than David Cameron, the parliamentary push for redefining marriage isn't really coming from the parliamentary Conservative Party at all. There is no real appetite for redefining marriage in the parliamentary Conservative Party (though most Tory MPs will vote as their Leader asks them to vote). It is rather the case that the push for the redefinition of marriage is coming primarily from the Coalition's junior partner the Liberal Democrats (and it suits David Cameron to let the Lib Dems have something he himself is in favour of anyway).
Equalities Minister and Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone meets regularly with Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill and EHRC boss Trevor Phillips. This axis of evil is at the very core of the push to redefine marriage. Furthermore, people should be aware of the full extent of what Featherstone, Summerskill and Phillips have been plotting in their recent meetings.
Featherstone, Summerskill and Phillips are not only conspiring to get Parliament to redefine the word 'Marriage.' Their plotting to redefine marriage also includes the plan to enact legislation which will completely erase the words 'Husband' and 'Wife' from all British statute law and ban these words from use by the public sector and in all official records and documents.
The plot to redefine marriage is really about the final abolition of marriage altogether, and I fear the plot has already succeeded. Politics is about power. Sound reason will not prevail amongst the majority of MPs. Even a million signatures will not dissuade the majority of MPs from the folly of voting for the redefinition of marriage. This Government is bloodyminded and hellbent on redefining marriage this year.
Politics is about power. As a political activist I know the only hope for safeguarding marriage lies in some serious nobbling of MPs - and especially Lib Dem MPs - behind closed doors. The petition won't work and neither will the grand speech of compromised David Burrowes; but what might well work is a major nobbling campaign. Once everybody has signed the petition, all that's left to do is for the many to pray and the few to nobble.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
