Sunday, 11 April 2010

Anarchy in the UK

On the Daily Referendum is the story of how the Cameroid is desperately seeking what he considers the 'pink vote'. He still has no interest in my smoke vote but then he might get fifty-sixth hand smoke if I put my X next to his candidate.

Right. What do I think of the Cameroid's latest vote-grabbing exercise? His idea is that anyone convicted of a homosexual-based offence should be pardoned.

On the whole, I agree. if the activity was consentual (note the spelling, MSM) then no real crime was committed. If two guys or two girls want to get it on, that harms nobody and it's nobody's business. I believe even Stewart, who has deep moral objections to such things, would not want to see these people jailed or villified for life or in any way attacked for their actions. He is not the Westboro Baptist Church.

But. And it's a big but.

However, the change in the law was not retrospective,

Retrospective lawmaking is a dangerous game to play. Labour have played with it to enormous extent and now, we cannot be sure that what is legal today will still be legal today if it is made illegal tomorrow. In effect, retrospective lawmaking means we have no law. It can change tomorrow and it applies today. If murder is made legal fifteen years from now, then all murderers currently in jail will get compensation. It probably won't happen but once you get into retrospective lawmaking, it becomes possible.

It should not be.

The problem here is not the past law. It is the current CRB system. A system under which I could be passed for working with children even though I despise them and have recipes, but a gay man could not be if he has a previous conviction, but would intend them no harm. Gay is not paedophile, nor is it 'seal the buggers in the wall and let them rot'. I am far more dangerous to the children than any gay man. I'd teach them to look after themselves and our government would really hate that.

So, Cameroid, fix the CRB system. Or junk it because it doesn't work anyway.

There is no need for special treatment for gay people. Leave them alone, they are doing fine without your constant hectoring. Drawing attention to them just makes them targets. I have no idea how many smoky-drinkers are gay and that is as it should be. It is not my business. Neither, Cameroid, is it yours. Leave. Us. All. Alone.

Cameroid, you have to dispense with retrospective lawmaking. You must stop it on day one.

Otherwise, why have laws at all?

21 comments:

almighty said...

he will demand the queen appologises to all the " queens" past and present next for our ill treatment of them for the last thousand years :) and we will have an oscar wilde day im sure, though for his gayness not his wittisisims ( sorry about the spelling)
just think one day a cameroid/gorgon spawn will be demanding appologies for the way they treated us damn dirty hetro/hard working/smoking/drinking/salt eating buggers... sadly i will have been long gone.

Captain Ranty said...

"Otherwise, why have laws at all?"

The question may now be moot. At least, if my latest discovery has any merit.

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2010/04/all-uk-legislation-passed-since-2000-is.html

This, if true, is incredible news.

Smoking ban-gone
CRB law-gone
Lisbon Treaty-gone

Along with several thousand other statutes enacted since 2000.

Dai Cameroid will have an interesting time announcing that almost all of ZaNuLabours efforts at absolute control are worthless.

A fascinating outcome. I hope it is all true. It will be like a fresh start for us all.

Oh, and the best bit is that we are out of the EU!

CR.

MikeF said...

"... if the activity was consentual (note the spelling, MSM) then no real crime was committed."

You got me onto an interesting sidetrack with this one:
http://community.livejournal.com/linguaphiles/3833040.html

Stewart Cowan said...

You know, Westboro Baptist Church are so out of tune with the Gospel that I wouldn't be surprised if they were a CIA front created to demonise Christians everywhere.

Some US States have info for the 'authorities' that suggests certain people are more likely to be terrorists. These can include home schoolers, patriots and Christians.

I mean, no real Christian would attend the funeral of someone killed in Iraq or Afghanistan with 'God hates fags' placards. Not one bona fide Christian would even think of doing it.

These are the people who I expect when they meet Christ, He will tell them to go away, "I never knew thee."

I disagree that homosexual behaviour is harmless. There are important reasons why it has been taboo in nearly every culture, religious or not. It's not 'discrimination' for discrimination's sake. Not enough time to go into it just now.

So what should the conscientious objector do in a country whose laws are no longer based on moral absolutes? Where fake charities like Stonewall go into schools under the pretext of 'homophobic bullying' to normalise their lifestyle to impressionable children? Where Christians go to court for not wanting to risk sodomy taking place on their premises?

What do we do? The Tories don't care about right and wrong now either. None of them are any good.

The irony is that once the gays have fulfilled their mission as Righteous pets and helped them suck the conscience and independent thought and power bases out of the nation, they will be thrown on the scrapheap like the rest of us. I reckon they will be even more despised. Maybe retrospective laws will be made, recriminalising homosexual acts back to 1969.

Anything is now possible where moral absolutes have been abandoned (that's one of the dangers!).

The conscience is worth a thousand sexual tendencies. It makes people stand up against power-hungry governments. No wonder they are trying to eradicate it!

Shaun Pilkington said...

What's wrong with a blanket pardon? That would not change the law, in fact it affirms that a crime was committed, but the person is forgiven, officially, by the State. Surely that's the way to go, rather than legislating away bits of history?

Fausty said...

Labour has created over 3000 new criminal offences since it came to power. All of it totalitarian in nature.

Retrospective legislation gives them three distinct opportunities:

1) Grab your cash;
2) Make you cower, because you never know whether you're breaking the law;
3) Their 'justice' can be dispensed without taking you to court.

Another pernicious development is Labour's penchant for levying ludicrously high fines (same in the US), which has the same affects as above.

indigomyth said...

Leg-Iron,

You are wrong about Stewart. He really does want to arrest people for engaging in mutually consenting homosexual activity in private. Indeed, he wants to punish anyone that disagrees with him that homosexuality is harmful. In fact, in his ideal world, you would be thrown in jail as well, for daring to voice the opinion that homosexuality should be permitted. Just read some of his blog posts regarding homosexuality and the "promotion" of homosexuality He really is a vile disgusting individual - just look at his support for Malawi imprisoning consenting adults for engaging in homosexual activity.

Stewart does not believe in free speech, or body autonomy.

Stewart, simple question - is leg-iron wrong when he says that you would not want to put homosexuals in prison?

Stewart Cowan said...

Indigomyth,

I was defending the right of the people of Malawi to make their own laws regarding homosexuality in the face of threats from the SNP.

Does it really matter what I want for this country anymore?

I don't know what a suitable deterrent would be for crimes against nature, but I would like us to have one.

I certainly wouldn't have Leggy thrown in jail. He can voice any opinion he likes as can you. Where I draw the line is having it promoted to children.

Maybe you will never understand where I'm coming from.

Rest assured that when I am the Prime Minister (British Heterosexual Party), Leg-iron will be free to express any opinion he wants. I might even make him Home Secretary.

indigomyth said...

Stewart,

//I was defending the right of the people of Malawi to make their own laws regarding homosexuality in the face of threats from the SNP.//

No you weren't you were saying that you agreed with the law against homosexuality, and have repeatedly stated that you wanted it brought back in this country. The people of Malawi have no more right to dictate the actions of consenting adults, than do you in this country. It is the problem with your collectivist, communitarian outlook, that you actually believe that the majority has the right to dictate what the individual does with their own body.

Do the people of Iran have the right to arrest Christians? After all, are they not allowed to make laws regarding religion, as they see fit? Or, is it just those restrictions you agree with (for no substantiated reason) that you think ought to be permitted?

//I don't know what a suitable deterrent would be for crimes against nature, but I would like us to have one.//

And therein you show your utter contempt for the freedom of the individual, and the right of the individual to destroy their bodies any way they wish. Again, you are a vile, disgusting individual. Some would say that inhaling poisonous smoke is unnatural - ought we to have a deterrent against that unhealthy pursuit?

//I certainly wouldn't have Leggy thrown in jail. He can voice any opinion he likes as can you. Where I draw the line is having it promoted to children.//

Really? So, in your ideal society, the Pink Paper would not be banned? What about Gay Times? Would I be able to write that homosexuality is perfectly fine and normal?

//Maybe you will never understand where I'm coming from.//

Perhaps that is because you have never, ever, ever explained it. I have scoured your odious blog seeking some form of rationale, some logical discourse, some consistent thought, but I have found nothing but vitriol, hatred and authoritarianism. You do not even link to any sites that explain your standpoints - you consistently assert things (like homosexuality is unnatural) without reference to any form of argument. You say it is a choice - where are your links to psychological agencies supporting this view? Where is the logic? Note, every single time I have engaged you in logical debate, I have won, I have demonstrated the error and inconsistency in your views - every single time. I smashed you down about you wanting to restrict speech, I smashed you down about wanting to control education, and still you persist in the use of your weasel words.

I honestly think you are more despicable then the Islamist's advocating Sharia law for all. At least they have the decency to not claim they are advocates of freedom - unlike your diseased and pathetic excuse for an ideology.

//Rest assured that when I am the Prime Minister (British Heterosexual Party), Leg-iron will be free to express any opinion he wants. I might even make him Home Secretary ideology.//

I presume your party would be one the one that controlled what people can and cannot to in their own homes? That specified the precise actions that adults can perform in their own homes?

I also notice you still have not answered my question, nor resolved Leg-Irons doubts: Would you throw consenting adult homosexuals into prison, for engaging in private homosexual activity, or for publicly stating that homosexuality was not evil? Would you put Ian Dale in prison? Stephen Fry? Alan Johnson?

*Would you put consenting adult homosexuals in prison for engaging in homosexual activity?*

I doubt Leg-Iron would want to be in your theoretical party. He is a libertarian - you are not. You are a nasty little authoritarian scumbag - the reason you get under my skin so much is because of your illogic, your abuse of words like "freedom" which you have no affection for.

Stewart Cowan said...

Indigomyth,

I am afraid you have left me with no alternative than to expel you from my fan club.

Now take deep breaths and try to understand that we both think differently. And that you could be wrong.

Leg-iron said...

Captain Ranty - the legality of their actions has never troubled this government before. Still I hope you're right because the humiliation it could cause would be immense.

Shaun - a pardon would indeed cover it. Although our leaders seem to have reached the page in 1984 that says 'He who controls the past controls the future...'

Antipholus Papps said...

@ Stewart:

Please could you explain how anything that has come to exist in our delightful little space-time continuum could possibly be construed as 'unnatural'?

I think the dichotomy you're reaching for is 'unassisted nature' vs. 'assisted nature' - New Labour's social engineering would fall into the latter category; two guys or gals* who want to caress each other intimately would fall into the former.

* obviously, like all right-thinking people, I believe that two girls getting it on is the most beautiful and natural thing in the world, while two guys getting it on is a crime against God.
;)

indigomyth said...

Stewart,

Once again, no answering of my quite reasonable questions? Afraid of the reaction, are you? Afraid to admit openly just what a nasty worm you are?

//Now take deep breaths and try to understand that we both think differently. And that you could be wrong.//

You mean like you do about people who are attracted to others of the same sex? Are you to be my role model of tolerance and liberality?

There can be no civil outcome between your position and mine. You seek a violent way to enforce your beliefs about homosexuality and sexual activity, through the use of the police and the state. All I want is for you to leave me alone, but you do not have the basic decency to do that, do you?

Stewart Cowan said...

Mr Papps,

If you believe we were created rather than miraculously evolved then clearly a man entering another's tradesman's entrance is unnatural and frankly indecent almost beyond compare.

If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, homosexual acts are still unnatural.

Lesbian relationships are unlikely to stand the test of time and they will likely be lonely old ladies without any family - all for the sake of acting out their sexual fantasies. Not worth it, is it?

Indigomyth,

I believe the majority has the right not to be offended by the aforementioned gross behaviour.

You might not want to live in a decent, ordered society, but most of us do.

indigomyth said...

Stewart Cowan,

//is unnatural and frankly indecent almost beyond compare.//

Worse than murder? Rape? Genocide? Theft?

//If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, homosexual acts are still unnatural.//

Really? I would have thought that the existence of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom would have been evidence enough that homosexual activity was natural. Unless you are using another definition of natural, other than nature itself. Do you not agree that infanticide and incest are natural actions? Perhaps you have never heard of the Banoboe chimp? One that frequently engages in regular homosexual activity. Is that also unnatural?

//Lesbian relationships are unlikely to stand the test of time and they will likely be lonely old ladies without any family - all for the sake of acting out their sexual fantasies. Not worth it, is it?//

Statistics, any evidence? Any research to back up your claims?

//I believe the majority has the right not to be offended by the aforementioned gross behaviour.//

In that case, you do not believe in the rights of the individual, and do in fact believe that the majority has the right to imprison Christians, should the majority believe that they are suitably despicable.

So, how do you logically defend your frequent assertions that you support the rights of individuality? You actually believe that people have the right not to be offended? You actually believe that?! God, you are as bad as Islamists!

So, what is your basis for believing that the majority has a right not to be offended? And, if you understand that the majority of people in Muslim countries find it offensive to deny Allah and Muhammed, how do you justify condemning them, when they have the right not to be offended by Christians?

So, can we now put you down on record as believing that the majority has the right not to be offended? Is that a belief you are willing to stand by?

//You might not want to live in a decent, ordered society, but most of us do.//

I would rather live in a free society, where people are considered the owners of their own bodies, rather than having to submit to the majority what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?

And, "an ordered society" - and you accuse Labour of social engineering! You want to organise society yourself. Pathetic

And you still haven't answered my question:

Do you think homosexuals should be put in prison?

Stewart Cowan said...

I/M,

"Worse than murder? Rape? Genocide? Theft?"

I never compare sins. I know a man who was in jail for many years for murder and who found Christ. He said that there's no point comparing your sin to his past sins and pretend that although you are a sinner, at least you're not as bad as him.

I'm sure we must have talked about the false argument of alleged homosexuality in animals already.

Does it make "infanticide and incest" okay in humans then? Proves my point that we are above the animals and shouldn't look to them as role models for our own behaviour.

Homosexual relationships are infamous for being shorter lived than heterosexual ones and homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.

Look for the evidence yourself if you don't believe me.

Christians are imprisoned in some countries. The sort of countries you really wouldn't want to live in, yet you want to antagonize Christians here. Don't you yet realise where this is leading?

I believe people are entitled to their opinion. That's a whole lot different to approving of lewd behaviour in public. We have a local character whose name appears in the paper now and again.

I think the last time he'd been caught masturbating on the Castle Green - the busiest part of town.

Sometimes the public do have the right to be offended. We obviously draw the line in a different place.

By 'ordered society' I'm not talking about social engineering, I'm talking about proper legal and civic institutions required to prevent us becoming barbarians. We also need to have a structured society to defend our country from enemies.

Is the destruction of society a price worth paying so that you can have a wee bit of temporary homosexual activity?

indigomyth said...

Stewart,

//I'm sure we must have talked about the false argument of alleged homosexuality in animals already.

Does it make "infanticide and incest" okay in humans then? Proves my point that we are above the animals and shouldn't look to them as role models for our own behaviour.//

We have not. However, it does prove my point that homosexuality is natural. Do you agree that infanticide and incest are natural? YES/NO.

Again, I have looked at your blog, and found no evidence to the contrary.

Also, is smoking "natural"? Is in the inhalation of poisonous chemicals into the body, a natural activity?

//Christians are imprisoned in some countries. The sort of countries you really wouldn't want to live in, yet you want to antagonize Christians here. Don't you yet realise where this is leading?//

Substitute:

Homosexuals are imprisoned in some countries. The sort of countries you really wouldn't want to live in, yet you want to antagonize homosexuals here. Don't you yet realise where this is leading?

Notice that every single country that has homosexuality illegal, are places you would not want to live - mostly fly infested hell holes, often ruled by cruel repressive regimes. Some people might just follow the pattern - instead, you notice that the USSR made homosexuality illegal, and you actually use that as an example of the justice of your position! God above, that still haunts me - that you look at one of the most repressive and hideous regimes that has ever existed, and you actually ADMIRE it, that you actually think it had the right idea! That actually gives me nightmares - you scare me more than terrorists - you are of the same time of person as made those awful countries - believing that they were doing the right thing, so over rode all individual rights. Most normal humans would look at the USSR, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, and would start to question the justice of making homosexuality illegal - not you. Not a doubt from you - you just see evidence of the justice of your position. It is shocking, and horrid, and has overtones of such an inhuman and diabolical nature that I can scarcely comprehend the sort of evil and hatred that must reside in your heart. How do you believe that you are a good person? How?

//I believe people are entitled to their opinion. That's a whole lot different to approving of lewd behaviour in public. //

But we have not been talking of public behaviour in public, have we? We have been talking about any homosexuals behaviour of any sort. Also, I do not really see how you can claim to be a defender of property rights, when you believe that homosexuals ought not to be able to act how they want as long as it is permitted according to the property owner.

So, if Leg-Iron said that he did not mind two women kissing in a passionate manner in public, would you advocate his arrest?

So, what you are saying is that the opinion that homosexuality is not evil, not disgusting, and ought not to be hidden, should be made illegal? Should be an arrestable offence? really? And that would be a "free" society?

indigomyth said...

Stewart,

//Sometimes the public do have the right to be offended. We obviously draw the line in a different place.//

I don't have a line. I don't think anyone has any right to not be offended. Simple. You understand that?

And, you have not answered my question about Iran - do you think a Muslim population, with a majority finding Christian faith disgusting and offensive, has the right to pass laws restricting its expression and practice? Surely that follows logically from your assertion that majority have the right not to be offended?

Further, you must admit that your views are rather controversial - even if the majority find homosexual activity unpalatable, and really doubt that the majority would want to make it illegal, and may even find voicing of your opinion really quite disgusting and offensive. Now, if 51% of people were offended by the articulation of your belief, do you think they have the right to make it illegal? After all, majority rules.

//We also need to have a structured society to defend our country from enemies.//

Why? Why do we need a structure to defend us from our enemies? The Taliban seem to be causing enough trouble for the US and UK, without a government and laws. And, why do you think that everyone should be compelled to defend this country - got to say, a nation that makes laws as you want, is not a country I would want to defend. I would sooner see anarchy than despotism that you suggest.

And, what about the enemies of freedom and liberty, like you? Are you not an equal threat to freedom. You want the state to be able to reach in to peoples lives and meddle - to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own body in their own house, and you want, you actually WANT, to grant the power of the state to imprison people for engaging in private sexual activity. And you are not an enemy of the freedom!? Really?

And, why do you believe that the State has the right to dictate personal activity, even to promote a "structured society"? Why do you think that the collective has rights above and beyond the individual?

//I'm talking about proper legal and civic institutions required to prevent us becoming barbarians. //

Oh, you mean the sort of disgusting barbarians that believe that they have the right to not be offended, that the "naturalness" of something means anything about whether it ought to be permitted, that people do not own their body, that the State can dictate what individuals can and cannot do with their body, based on what is good for the collective.

Face it, you are a communitarian and a collectivist - you don't give a shit about individual rights and liberties. You claim fraternity with Leg-Iron, but his beliefs are based on the individual owning their own body - I don't know what the hell yours are based on. Some strange theonomism.

//Is the destruction of society a price worth paying so that you can have a wee bit of temporary homosexual activity?//

Yep. Because "society" owns not a fig of my body? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I OWN MY BODY! IT IS MINE! You don't have a claim on it; not you, not your friends, not you family - NO ONE ELSE! So, when you start arguing that you have a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY body, when you start threatening to take away MY FREEDOM because it might at some point affect you, I get angry. In fact, I am liable to get very very violent.

Indeed, you yourself have admitted that homosexual activity does not affect you in the first instance - meaning that you want to arrest innocent individuals merely on the basis of what might happen in the future - what may be done by other people.

I notice that most of the other blogs you read, emphatically do not believe that homosexuality ought to be illegal. You could try learning from them.

And you still haven't answered my question, and satisfied Leg-Iron's curiosity:

DO YOU THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALS ENGAGING IN MUTUALLY CONSENTING HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD BE IMPRISONED?

indigomyth said...

Stewart,

Here is another question for you:

Name one country, on the entire planet, that currently has homosexuality illegal, where you would be happy to live, and where you could enjoy a quality of live anywhere near parity to that you enjoy here? If you are correct, and homosexuality is so corrosive and malign an influence, then there must be loads and loads of countries where you would rather live.

Stewart Cowan said...

I/M,

Sorry, I just don't have the time right now to read all that, never mind reply.

Maybe laters.

Antonious said...

So, Cameroid wants to present `Us, `I`, `Those`, `Them` Gays with a electoral time Tory pardon for previous...er, illegal indescresions...OK!...Fine! I AM Homosexual. I AM also a Smoker too, I have smoked since I was 18, I also had my first er, `indescretional` age 18 (ooops, THAT was 35 yrs ago, sex was such fun when 18 an` illegal. Oh well,)point is, I started smokin` too just when I realised I was Gay; so, can I now have my `smokin` indescretion` fine rescinded? I would hate to feel left out of bein` included in the new wave Tory gay pardoning `inclusivity ` hugging....Hm? Such Contemptible Silly

Hypocrites...Bah!!!

opinions powered by SendLove.to