Replacing homosexuality with Melanie Phillips

Here’s a question ­shortly coming to an examination ­paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with Melanie Phillips

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with Melanie Phillips in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the Melanie Phillips agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why Melanie Phillips moves from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of Melanies in the population.

In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this Melanie Phillips is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by Melanie Phillips to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour.

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that Melanie Phillips normal. The fight over Proposition Moonbat, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote Melanie Phillips

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards Melanie Phillips has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away Melanie Phillips — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the Melanie Phillips merely for upholding ­Christian values. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with Melanie Phillips. Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying Melanie Phillips is a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the Melanie Phillips agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for Melanie Phillips-friendly hotels, Melanie Phillips adoption and Melanie Phillips mathematics, now comes, apparently, Melanie Phillips drug policy. Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new ­members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Melanie Phillips.

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in ­support of the rights of people to express their views against Melanie Phillips - although, by ­contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true.

Indeed, the obsession with Melanie Phillips has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, ­ Welsh speakers and Melanie Phillips.

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including Melanie Phillips.

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the Melanie Phillips agenda. But the seemingly all-­powerful Melanie Phillips rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning Melanie Phillips from being the victim of prejudice into Britain’s new Senator McCarthy.

Original.

Melanie McDonagh: Jan Moir is a model of liberalism

Indubitably, a whiff of self-confabulation wafted through the avenues of punditry this week. As the Social Attitudes Survey painted a picture of modern, wanton Britain clasped by the claws of the preening librelligentsia, the gays fiddled and the Guardian danced a merry jig to its folky squim.*

Even grumpy Mr. Humphreys found it chortleworthy that ever swelling numbers of our sons and daughters - or, more often than not, sons and sons - live in sin, while good Sir Kelvin MacKenzie, old knight of The Sun, squirmed, pinned and wriggling on The Today Show as answers were demanded of why his newspaper so derided the pooves in those glory days of fearless reporting and unfettered intolerance.

To some extent the findings of the survey and the trends it reflects must be welcomed. At least we must pretend to welcome them, and must feign enjoyment at the spectacle of the old newspaper man pilloried for his outmoded views. Indeed, I must sit here and write that I welcome the change and enjoy the thought of gay men doing what they do. You know, in the bedroom. That's fine with me, so long as they don't shove it down my throat, if you excuse the expression.

I suppose, technically, a world in which They do not lay sleepless at night fearful of beatings and bullying is better than one in which we are all allowed to point and laugh at them like we used to. But I belong to that small minority of writers who start their sentences with the word 'but'. I'm also one of those 27% of people who quite rightly believe that married couples produce healthier, more beautiful children than poverty stricken, drink soaked cohabitees, clutching their benefits in one hand and a half-smoked Mayfair in the other. I may not have evidence to strengthen my case but we all know deep down that it's the truth. And how do the gays figure in all this? Well, they just do.

But sadly, my so-called 'reactionary' views and distasteful opinions are fast becoming the new queer: pilloried, scorned, not entirely coherent but definitely fabulous. I worry that we've replaced good old fashioned hatred and intolerance with permissive acceptance - and where's the sense in that? 100 years ago would we not have laughed off the suggestion that soon the lawmakers of this country would see fit to outlaw the smoking of opium outside of strictly regulated Chinese smokeries and Indian smack-dens? Wouldn't you dismiss as absurd the possibility of banning fans of the poppy from enjoying their vice in public places, lest the grey teetolars get a waft of that delicious dusky scent?

And anyone who doesn't subscribe to the state prescribed view that homosexuals are not only similar but equal in every way to humans is sneered at and scowled upon by the same right-minded scarf-wearers.

Not so long ago, celebrated columnist and ayatollah of intolerance Jan 'Nothing natural' Moir was victimised by an horrific pack of screeching web devils simply for writing horrible, horrible words about dead gay man Stephen Gately. Is it now a crime to write ghastly, factually inaccurate venom at a time when homophobic violence is increasing and encourage morbid intrusion into the grieving privacy of the family of the recently deceased? Can somebody out there explain to me why intolerance of depravity and gayness is so terrible but valid criticism of poor journalism is fine?

Liberal? Tolerant? That's reserved for journalists, folks. We're allowed to be liberal with the truth and tolerant of inaccuracy day in, day out. Don't try it at home.

* What the FUCK did all that mean? - ed.

The tyranny of the gay agenda

Iain Duncan Smith and his band of super Tories at the Centre for Social Justice are to issue a report which will shape Conservative policy on the family. It is widely expected to put the God-given sanctity of marriage at the heart of family life, make divorce more difficult and promote marriage preparation classes and 'family relationship centres', as well as tax breaks for married couples.

Hooray!

The report comes not a minute too late, following countless years of social engineering designed by Labour to do nothing but obliterate traditional familial values of a mother, father and two children sitting round a stone fireplace telling ripping tales of Grandad's adventures in the Great War.

Four decades of allowing the liberal intelligentsia of both the right and the Left free reign to undo the seams of the nuclear family under the multicoloured banners of so-called 'freedom', 'equality' and 'queerity' have wreaked untold havoc upon Britain. Is it any coincidence that we find ourselves entrenched in the worst recession since the early twentieth century just as David Cameron, or General Pinkochet as he is known in some circles, apologises for Section 28?

High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge recently observed that family courts are groaning under the weight of cases involving damaged, miserable or disturbed children. In the glory days of yesteryear, when homosexuality was still punishable by a good spanking and a day in the stocks, family courts were of course full of smiley carefree youngsters, untroubled by the uncertainty of when daddy would return from Hampstead Heath or why mummy was wearing trousers and a string vest.

And yet, for years, anyone who drew attention to the fact that gays were ruining the Earth and upsetting Jesus was pilloried as a bigot who wanted to turn back the clock to some mythical golden age. 'Waiting for a real rain to come?', they would sneer at me as I'd snort coffee into my newspaper with rage at the licentiousness of a hotpant wearing pair of queens sashaying past, flaunting their selfish lifestyle choices for all to see.

But those queens have become a symbol for the erosion of family values against a backdrop of family breakdown.

The ConservaTories' admirable desire to restore the holy union of marriage to the rightful centre-piece of the British family is sadly undermined by their suspiciously flamboyant leader's recognition and, indeed, support for 'gay rights'.

A liberal society should be tolerant of gay people – just as it should tolerate the disabled, the obese, and spiders.

But, unrestrained, tolerance can go too far. Surely society would crumble if it were to allow raging homosexuals the same rights as non-perverts; imagine your horror if, for example, you discovered your young son’s favourite teacher was gay, or a lesbian was driving your taxi.

Cameron's apology last week for the Tories' brave attempts to stop lunatic lefty councils distributing gay propaganda in schools provoked widespread scorn - including the gays themselves, who saw it as political posturing to win the fabulous vote.

The truth about the 'gay rights' agenda is that it aims not just to promote acceptance, but actively encourages the idea that gay is preferable to straight; that 'different' is better than 'normal' and 'wrong' righter than 'right'.

Militant gays claim that 'lifestyle choice' means gay relationships should be treated identically to heterosexual ones.

But the core reason for family breakdown is precisely the view that marriage is merely a 'relationship' for people to choose or not from a menu of destructive alternative lifestyles.

It is not, and here Cameron's absurd fruit-baiting tolerance falls apart. If he were to truly believe in the peerless position of marriage as the best choice for loving families, he would legislate against the amoral 'relationship choices' vying for support against it. Heterosexual couples in a relationship for longer than two years need to be told to stop pussy footing around and tie the knot, while a stern message needs to be sent to the gays to just stop it altogether.

Their vicious selfishness, which manifests itself in the first degree by denying billions of perfectly viable sperm the right to become cared for children in a nuclear family, similarly denies thousands of quite decent women the right to a husband. Thus, homosexuality's assault on the family is two-fold.

Of course, I'm no intolerant, hate-filled, bile-mongering homophobe, but I sense much truth in the words of the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who has called upon homosexuals to 'repent and be changed'.

I'll leave you with this mind-puncturingly logical argument: since Christianity holds that sexual relations should be restricted to a man and a woman inside marriage, aren't those who promote homosexuality and alternative relationship choices upholding their own intolerant doctrine?

And you can't argue with a Bishop can you?

Bum bashers steal Bible basher's child

Monstrous gays have captured yet another small child as part of an ongoing campaign to homosexualise our nation's youth.

The ten year old choirboy was snatched by the brazen pooves in collusion with Brighton & Hove council, which has a shameful track record in supplying same sex couples with young children to feed on.

The boy's mother, a devout Catholic, is 'furious' that her son has been placed into the care of 'wrong 'uns', as she believes they will 'encourage him into a lifestyle against her religious beliefs'.

It is understood that the strictly Catholic lifestyle that she had encouraged him into wasn't all that successful itself - the child was taken into care after the woman suffered a mental breakdown and was deemed unable to provide a safe and loving environment. Adoption services were also concerned that her Catholic marriage had descended into abusive chaos that could threaten the child's emotional development and well being.

But the mother's devout Catholic lawyer has raised 'concerns' over the new arrangement, presumably because living with sinful gays who will go to hell for sodomy is a whole lot worse than with a mentally unstable mother who, by her own admission, cannot look after her children.

'I have to ask, would a local authority put a ten-year-old atheist child into a devoutly Catholic home? I think not. This local authority is clearly not taking account of this child’s cultural and religious identity, which it is obliged to do legally', the religious lawgiver said portentously.

The parish priest, shockingly, is also said to be deeply concerned.

Taking time out from exorcising daemons at a local male-only late night bar, he said: ‘This isn’t about a gay couple in a private home, this is about a gay couple running a hotel where they also live, where they cannot restrict who the child is going to meet. That’s my anxiety’. It is thought that queers running hotels are up to 700% more dangerous than those who don't provide accommodation services to the public.

A local bell-ringer added: 'It's absolutely disgusting that this loony liberal council is putting the needs of the child above the wishes of the sick mother. The boy should be given over to the care of the Catholic church, which has a fine track record in taking care of children.'

See also: Gays steal children from happy family
and: More 'fury' over gay adoption at Angry Mob

Gay adoption fascists call Daily Mail readers 'retards'

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering are 'Nazis' for encouraging gay people to adopt, The Daily Mail said yesterday.


The tasteless attack by Steve Doughty, who also hates foreign people, came after the BAAF branded The Mail and other gay parenting critics 'retarded homophobes', despite the mountain of evidence suggesting that gay parents are really bad and probably just paedophiles looking for easy targets.

In 2006, gay foster parents Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were jailed for paedophile offences against boys at their home in Pontefract, West Yorkshire.

And earlier this year a fierce controversy was manufactured by the tabloids when a Scottish couple said they were warned they would never see their two grandchildren again unless they dropped their opposition to them being adopted by a gay couple. Two gays subsequently stole their children.

The 'retarded homophobes' tirade was published in the BAAF's Pink Guide to Adoption for Lesbians and Gay Men, written by Nicola Hill - an ex writer for the left-wing, homosexual-loving, sandal-wearing, tea tree oil drinking Guardian newspaper.

But the remark angered journalists at The Mail, which campaigns tirelessly for politically correct language to be upheld at all times.

Some gay sympathisers suggested that The Mail's 'Nazi' slur was in fact worse than the original 'retard' insult, and that the newspaper was guilty of presenting an extraordinarily biased opinion on the gay parenting debate.

Author Patricia Morgan, who has published a study of gay adoption, said: 'It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use.'

Homosexuality costs Polish zoo £8 million

It is barely a month since two homosexual ducks in Sussex came under fire for the thoughtless poovery that left an entire species facing extinction.

Now the selfish lifestyle choices of one elephant have ended up costing a Polish zoo nearly £8million.

Despite having the largest enclosure in Europe built especially for him, Ninio the African bush elephant has expressed his ingratitude to kind-hearted keepers by preferring the company of young boy elephants, while behaving aggressively towards females. Zoo officials fear that the homosexual pachyderm will be incapable of doing proper hetero elephant stuff like lifting heavy logs or fathering children because of his weak effeminate trunk and sensitive skin.

Ninio - whose name means 'child' in Spanish - has already been removed from three other zoos in the past five years for harassing male elephants by repeatedly inviting them over for 'slumber parties' and exchanging his entire allowance of fruit and nuts for tusk-whitening products and family sized tubs of pink nail varnish.

Right-wing Polish councillor Michal Grzes is incandescent with rage at forking out for a 'broken' elephant. 'We didn't pay 37 million zlotys (£8 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there', he fumed. 'We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?'.

The intimidatingly named Law and Justice Party, to which Grzes belongs, has been repeatedly criticised for allowing senior members to publically express overtly homophobic views.

But the head of Poznan zoo where Ninio resides said the 10-year old beast might simply be confused as elephants only reach sexual maturity at 14, and that same sex displays of affection between the animals - such as kissing and trunk-intertwining - are common.

A local man said: 'I'm not homophobic, but I wish all these gay elephants would just keep it to themselves. You can't switch on the TV or open a paper these days without hearing about homosexual elephants. I've got nothing against queers - some of my wife's best friends have met them in that Warsaw - but they better stay away from my kids.'

Those 'Gays' Infiltrate Police Station

OUTRAGE erupted today as homosexuals invaded a police station in Limehouse and replaced the Union Jack flag that ordinarily flies proudly above the entrance with a rainbow flag, before painting the entire building pink and then dancing poofily around the Chief Superintendent's helmet.


In scenes frighteningly reminiscent of 1956 movie 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers', bobbies were left mystified as to the identity of the closet homosexuals within their ranks - it is well known that 'gays' stand out a mile in 'real man' jobs such as policing, fire fighting and steel working as they lack the required wrist strength to wield truncheons, hoses and girders with any degree of expertise.

A Scotland Yard spokesman suggested the incident was simply the work of an individual acting alone and completely unconnected to official police policy or any 'politically correct' agenda: 'It would appear someone, albeit with good intentions, decided to fly the rainbow flag over a police building in support of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender history month.'

But, in a shocking expose, homophobic Daily Mail journalist Stephen Wright implied otherwise by comparing the case to similarly disgraceful behaviour recorded 200 miles away last week, when another 'gay' pride flag was flown at a North Wales police station.

As if that wasn't evidence enough of an insidious nationwide politically correct plot to force ordinary taxpaying Britons to love the 'gays', an unnamed police officer - who may or may not exist - told Wright: 'I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw [the rainbow flag]. The police are playing politics again', while a Tory MP pointed out that hoisting a flag outside a station would prevent officers fighting crime: 'This is tokenism and posturing. People want to see their police force focus on fighting crime, not getting involved in political tokenism and gestures.'

He added: 'I'm not a homophobe, and some of my best friends are gay, but I do hate the gays quite a lot'.

Opinonion: Some Final Thoughts on Those Homosexuals

Those 'gays' have been given an easy ride for far too long. Britain has been all too accomodating to homosexuals since 1967 when poovery was legalised, and we have bent over backwards to allow their deviant ways ever since - letting them ride in the same sections of buses as straight people, dine in our restaurants and even allowing them to do the same kind of jobs that normal folk do.

Nowadays, we are forced by the liberal thought police stasi to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, and if we do not, then we are labelled 'homophobes'. Absurdly, we are expected not just to say, but to think, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to real married couples, even though the vast majority of evidence suggests that they are in fact less faithful, more likely to take drugs, and care less about traditional values like having a nice nuclear family. Disgracefully, we are compelled to agree with government dictat that homosexual couples are just as capable of bringing up children as the children's own grandparents, even though everyone knows that most homosexuals harbour dangerous 'tendancies' towards young boys.

No longer is the common, perfectly reasonable view that homosexuals are morally bankrupt, HIV-spreading, sub-human libertines acceptable. No longer are we allowed to voice our thoughts, that doubtless everyone shares, for fear of losing our jobs or being labelled intolerant. Only the truly fearless can stand up against the tyranny of the homosexual lobby; brave heroes like Peter Hitchens have unfortunately become few and far between as Orwell's dystopia creeps ever closer to becoming a reality. Don't worry though, for such selfless oracles as Hitchens have developed clever ways of deflecting the vile accusations hurled against him - men such as he fight the methods of the thought police with aptitude and aplomb.

You think I exaggerate the power and fury of these forces? The totalitarian rage on this subject is quite astonishing. The unelected militant representatives of the homosexual doctrine suppress all who oppose it, while seeking to ensure that the sticky tentacles of poovery encroach into every corner of our lives. We can't even call homosexuals 'homosexuals' any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say 'gay'. Which is exactly why I don't, apart from in inverted commas.

The 'gay' rights regime reached its zenith - or should it be nadir? - last week, as it was deemed perfectly acceptable, despite the outrage of many a balanced and progressive columnist, for two homosexuals to literally steal two young children from their mother and loving grandparents.

First, the mother of the children ends up as a drug abuser, like so many others in a country which permits the endless promotion of drug use by rock stars and refuses to punish the possession of narcotics, the only measure that would work. It's not her fault, of course, and thus she should not be punished for lifestyle choices chosen not by her but for her, by the state. Tragically, the father of one of the children died, probably in an heroic act of bravery, saving small animals from a fire, while the father of the second child ended up a drug addicted schizophrenic. Again, he cannot be blamed for this sad fate, and should not be held accountable for his actions, or punished by being banned by totalitarian government forces from seeing his beloved children.

Then, when the grandparents, who, having struggled to maintain their loving family unit by not just staying in contact with their daughter, but no doubt providing her money and accommodation to battler her state-induced addictions, sought to look after her children after they were cruelly and inexplicably snatched from her by the local liberal council, they are insultingly told that they are too old. Equally absurdly, it was deemed that their inconsequential illnesses - angina and diabetes - meant that, in the jargon of the social services Nazis, they would not be able to provide a 'sufficient level of care' to the innocent brother and sister.

The final staggering blow came when the grandparents were informed that the children are to be put into the care of a vicious, amoral homosexual couple. They are warned in the most terrifying terms that if they object to this arrangement they will never see their grandchildren again, like a Guantanamo Bay prison guard threatening a prisoner.

This is the action of a tyranny in operation, especially the use of children to blackmail their parents and grandparents. People who can do this can do anything. And when it is in the name of protecting the 'rights' of a depraved, unfortunately vocal minority who have enjoyed privelidge after privelidge for hundreds of years, it truly is a sign that the end is nigh.

All thanks to those fucking queerbags.

Gays Steal Children From Happy Family

Children as young as five are being snatched away from loving homes and handed out like sweets to homosexual monsters, it has emerged.

In what has been described as 'a totalitarian assault upon family life and human rights', two young children were given by left-wing Edinburgh city council to a pair of decadent gays just because their heroin addicted mother was deemed 'incapable' of caring for them by politically correct social workers.

In a 'grotesque development', the grandparents of the children, who cannot be named for legal raisins, were denied the right to adoption just because they were too old, infirm and financially unstable. Inexplicably, it was decided that the gays would provide the best home for the vulnerable brother and sister, despite the availability of a number of normal, non-bent couples in the area.

Shockingly, 'some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption' despite evidence that exposure to gayness makes children up to 100% more likely to grow up thinking that boys kissing each other is acceptable.

'Mad' Melanie Phillips pointed out in her meditation on the topic that: 'The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true...children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ - or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement'.

Experts agreed that the children would indeed be far better off in a family with a junkie mother and a suicidal schizophrenic father than with a couple of flowery pooves who doubtless only want the children to use as fashion items a bit like how Paris Hilton - a gay icon - has a little dog in her bag.

Homosexual role model Richard Littlejohn, a supporter of gay rights in so far as they should be allowed houses and jobs, laid blame for the 'appaling human horror story' at the feet of the 'sadistic, Stalinist might of the social services system' before comparing the situation with the under-reported case of Madeline McCann. 'Stolen children are at the heart of both [cases] he said, before plaintively asking: 'What kind of monsters could do something like this?' You couldn't make it up.