Dare We Break The Illiberal Code Of The Liberal Left?

Ian R Thorpe 28 February, 2013

Life in a prison state - evocative image by Russian street artist Banksyski

A case being heard in the High Court in London today will decide if <a href="http://www.christianconcern.com/media/interview-with-mike-davidson">a Christian group that claims to help gays "overcome" their sexual inclination</a> has the right to advertise its services. Now in principle I would take the position that people's sexuality is their own business and religious groups ought to keep their noses out. In understanding I am not the arbiter of morality however I would also take the view that Christian groups have as much right as anyone to campaign for what they believe to be the greatest good of the greatest number. Not so long ago Stonewall, the gay rights group, was allowed to run advertisements bearing the slogan: Some people are gay. Get over it. on London buses. But when Core Issues Trust (CIT), a Christian group, decided to counter with a poster that read Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it! Mayor Boris Johnson, under pressure from 'human rights' activists vetoed their campaign. The contradiction here is obvious. While those on the left are quick to scream

about equal rights for minorities, like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm they want some of the animals, i.e. those whose causes are politically correct, to be more equal than others. Human Rights is a fine sounding cause but we must tread carefully when we get into the labyrinth of conflicting rights that protecting one group does not infringe the equal right of another. If it is OK for gay activist groups to promote gay interests then it has to be OK for those who think homosexual relationships are immoral and homosexuals need help to overcome their affliction to advertise their view. It does not matter what individuals 'feel' about the issue. Equality means everybody is treated in the same way. It is understandable that some gay people want to promote a positive image of their sexual preference and lifestyle but it is also understandable that some Christian groups want to promote their beliefs. You and I are entitled to our opinion but not to force our moral choices on others. If the High Court ruling in this case goes against CIT, and given the recent records of the courts for showing left wing bias on human rights issues it seems likely to, the judgement will be a setback for free speech and equal rights as well as religious freedom. As <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9895052/Free-speech-means-weshould-all-have-a-say.html">Philip Johnston wrote on the topic</a>, "Just as gays are entitled to extol their own sexual identity, so people who take another view, on whatever grounds, should be allowed to state their opinion, shouldnt they?" The problem we face is that people of a certain political inclination think it is perfectly acceptable to gag voices not supportive of their view because, in reality, "they just dont like gays, blacks and Muslims and are hiding their racism / homophobia / sectarianism behind a
Bigotry on parade - and they don't see the irony.

spurious religiosity. The left have never been slow to usurp to themselves the right

to think for others. In some cases it may be true that a religious stance is a front for plain and simple prejudice, but it is not the issue here: this is about free speech. The self righteousness and assumed moral superiority of the left, socialists, has earned them a bad reputation. As <a href="http://www.greenteethmm.com/schumpeters-warning.shtml">Schumpeter's Warning</a> advises us, Socialism always leads to fascism," and so our left leaning friends have hijacked the word "Liberal," although their aggressive, intolerant attitude along with a love of big government, regulation of everything including our thoughts and determination to shout down anybody who opposes them, their pejorative dismissals of anybody wanting to advance ideas that challenge the dogma of politically correct thinking and their absolute belief that theirs is the only 'correct' approach to the multi -faceted problems of modern society reveal them as the most intolerant political grouping since the heyday of fascism. This return to intolerance should worry is all, it is worrying some academics sufficiently for <a href="http://www.rawls.org/Leftists_on_conservatism.htm">research projects</a> to be set up into the illiberal mindset of people who are fanatically jealous of their status as liberals. So fanatical in their denunciations of opponents are the illiberal liberals, that throughout the developed world independent minded people, and not just those of faith, have become reluctant to express certain views publicly speaking for fear of making themselves the target of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=yp_l5ntikaU">witch hunt</a> by fanatical 'liberals'. OK, I linked to a scene from Monty Python and The Holy Grail just for mischief, but most people reading this will be aware of the treatment handed out to anyone expressing scepticism about the very dodgy scientific evidence used to prop up the global warming scare, those who question the safety of certain vaccines or people who dare to criticise the new messiah Barack Hussein Obama (well the only reason anyone would criticize his economic, social, foreign or justice policies is because they don't like his colour, right?) We all watch our words and our backs these days, diluting controversial opinions

with anodyne phrases, terrified of breaking the unwritten code dictated by <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/125794705/Our-New-Unhappy-Lords">Our New Unhappy Lords</a> and upheld by the useful idiots who act as guardians of the New World Order's illiberal goal of global government. The punishment is not just derision and verbal abuse; in some quarters expressing the wrong sentiment (<a href="http://www.greenteethmm.com/hate_crime_law.shtml">hate crime</a>) will result in a criminal record or a fine. One British journalist, Julie Burchill learned this to her cost when she wrote something that offended the transgender lobby and was sacked on the orders of the government's equalities minister. Commenting on protests by the snip and tuck brigade about the reluctance of mainstream society to accept them as 'real women' Julie advised they should cut it out. Burchill is a witty and acerbic writer and well able to look after herself and she explained that the lefties and Gay BLTs were demanding that the issue be put on a par with those that affect 'real women' likes the ineffectiveness of the police in rape cases. Being sacked for pissing off people close to the government used to happen regularly within my lifetime ... to writers living in the USSR. Any expression of subversive tendency (ie one that did not tally with the regime's own viewpoint) in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hitler's Third Reich or Castro's Cuba could end a hack's career forever. Or land her in Siberia. Officials in Britain, Europe and the USA cannot dispatch opponents in this way, yet. But if the court hearing about the Christian advertising campaign goes against free speech, we will soon be feel the cold winds of tyranny blowing in from Siberia and the steppes of eastern Asia.

free speech for some ................................but not for others.