These and more questions are addressed here! This non-religious, non-commercial and wholly independent website draws together a collation of serious resource material. Much of the evidence to substantiate these issues comes from the gay community itself. With that in mind, the aim is to provide a ready source of factual information on a range of important issues affecting and involving homosexuality. A number of interesting questions will be confronted in drawing upon serious authoritative research findings.
What are the consequences for the individual person as well as the wider community and why is it no longer a medical disorder? Certainly, medical science has never rigorously established that it is not, so what explains the current scientific assessment? Although a great deal has been documented about homosexuality, crucial efforts by the scientific community to establish its aetiology has been consistently rejected. Apart, that is, from flawed ‘research’ by homosexual practitioners/scholars, or their apologists, who clearly have an axe to grind. This despite the medically established fact that homosexuality involves life-threatening behaviour with an addictive component which has serious health implications.
The purpose here is not to scold but to inform and educate. But when necessary, criticism should rightly be responsible, reasonable and resolute. The aim is clarity not cloudy thinking – truth not truculent intolerance!
Myths and methods
In doing so we expose homosexual myths and methods by directly challenging their deceit and propaganda. It is also controversial simply for revealing the duplicity surrounding homosexual issues and intentions. What does history tell us and what are the facts about the condition of being gay? Has it been an historical mistake for mankind not to nurture, let alone tolerate homosexuality and are all the worlds’ major religions wrong to reject it?
If you observe homosexual activism carefully, you will find their agenda deliberately spotlights two pillars of contention. First, is that of equality, which is a function of politics!
This idea has only been pushed over the last fifty-years deceitfully aligning itself with the innate and immutable character of race. Thus, by associating homosexuality with the race issue it serves to emphasise the lie they were born that way. So, they argue, if this is the result of nature they cannot be held accountable for what they do? Of course, this is a manifest falsehood based upon propaganda and distortion which will be exposed later.
It should be observed that homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws. So, for example, race, colour, sex or national origin are historically protected against discrimination on the basis they are inborn, involuntary, innate and immutable. Strictly speaking homosexuality does not share these traits, despite the fact in recent years the condition has become decriminalised. Indeed, it is a remarkable testimony of persistence and resolution by gays that current laws protect and thus encourage aberrant and self-destructive behaviour.
But as we will discover, no amount of psychotherapy can change a person’s race, but it can successfully deal with sexual orientation. The gay response to this conundrum is to reject the efficacy of therapy. In doing so, they deny both fact and reality! A common feature of gay politics.
More remarkable; even though still regarded as a homosexually based pathological disorder; transsexuals who feel emotionally drawn to the opposite sex to that in which they were born, now have the legal sanction to lie about it and formally assume that sex. Should others disclose this fact, they breach the criminal law.
Indeed, the primacy of homosexuality within the criminal law is such that a hate murder of a gay is treated more harshly than a homosexual who murders for lust. Yet the latter is more frequent than the former. Equally, the law has thus less regard for those who murder for fun, malice or greed.
Revulsion pre-dates Christianity
The casual observer should ask why it is that history has denied this state of impartiality and opted instead for denunciation or even, at times, death? Evidence pre-dates the Judea-Christian tradition and can be traced to Ancient Samaria.
Indeed, Assyrian Laws c. 1450-1250 specifically outlawed men having sex with men. Even pagan Celtic Britain kept campers at bay! By 494 AD homosexuality was a capital offence under Emperor Valentinian and was further codified under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th Century. Moreover, by 900 it became a civil crime throughout Europe under Charlemagne.
In England, the Buggery Act of 1533, supported by Thomas Cromwell, was enacted by the British Parliament under the reign Henry VIII which stated ‘Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm, for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast...’ This law survived in various forms until 1967, although it was amended in 1861 to substitute life imprisonment for the penalties of death and forfeiture of property.
Between 1828 and 1836 eight men in Britain were hanged for sodomy; four for bestiality. The last execution for sodomy took place in 1836 .
It has been suggested that gay cruising grounds and brothels first appeared in mid-seventeenth century London. Samuel Pepys, for example, recorded in his diary in 1663 that, ‘Sir J Jemmes and Mr Batter both say that buggery is now almost grown as common among our gallants as in Italy.’
In 1690 the Society for the Reformation of Manners was formed in Tower Hamlets to act as moral guardians in suppressing bawdy houses and profanity. Networks were established in each ward of the city of London. The first homosexual they accused was one Captain Edward Rigby who was tried for sodomy but acquitted in 1698. However, a society member felt he had cheated justice and took measures which ultimately compromised Rigby for a second time. On conviction he was sentenced to stand in the pillories in Pall Mall, in Charing Cross and in Temple Bar for three hours each day. He was also fined £1,000 and given 12 months goal. Whereupon he escaped to France and entered the enemy’s service as ‘second captain’ of the French man-of-war Toulouse. It is believed he took with him the secrets of a homosexual court circle consisting of some dozen members, including King William.
Emboldened, the Society threatened to reveal lowly sodomite places of abode and other scandalous haunts on pain of reform, which is what happened. Several cases were brought to court for a ‘beast-like confederacy among themselves for exercising this unnatural offense.’ Although the Society caught 100 sodomites in 1707, it was eventually to boast in 1710 that ‘...our streets have been very much cleansed from the lewd night-walkers and most detestable sodomites.’
Nevertheless the Society had prosecuted some 94,322 people, public support declined and it was eventually disbanded in 1727.
Evidence of homosexual subcultures across Europe emerged around 1700. The patronilles de pederastie, or pederasty patrol of the Paris police identified the existence of a queer subculture in parks, streets and taverns to such an extent that by 1725 they had compiled a list of some 20,000 sodomites.
Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde (1845-1900), a gifted writer of considerable reputation is probably Britain’s best known homosexual. He was a person of rare talent which was cruelly affected by his bisexuality, homosexuality and pederasty. He had an insatiable desire for sexual encounters with working-class rent boys. This made him unhappy and he hoped that marriage would cure him. His downfall came, however, as a result of his relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas (Bosie), whose father, the Marquess of Queensberry - John Solto Douglas, was threatened by Wilde for a criminal libel because he had called him a sodomite.
The libel trial was a sensation and Wilde’s association with the Victorian underground of blackmailers, rent boys, cross dressers and gay brothels was made public. The prosecution collapsed near scenes of hysteria. Wilde was then arrested for acts of ‘gross indecency’ and later famously extolled the virtues of the ‘love that dare not speak its name.’ The jury were unable to reach a verdict and the trial ended.
In a final trial, Wilde was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years hard labour. When released he went into exile in Paris whereupon he took up with his former habits enjoying notorious and uninhibited debauchery with the ‘little boys on the Boulevard.’ Thus. reflecting the lust that dare not speak its name.
It was not until the Second World War that rapid and substantive changes came about in which homosexuals gained added freedoms.
The Grandfather of Gay Rights
The grandfather of the gay rights movement was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). He had been molested at the age of 14 by an older male tutor. In 1860 he devised a theory about a third sex of homosexuality in which he claimed the female were trapped in a male body. By the time he died, the homosexual movement had made great strides in Germany. In a letter to Karl Marx, Frederich Engels attested to their growing hidden strength.
When Ulrich died the homosexual movement split into two factions. Magnus Hirschfeld, another homosexual and a prominent Jewish physician followed Ulrichs theory and created the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897 and later in 1919, the Institute for Sex Research in Berlin. He shunned pederasty and was the first to coin the phrase ‘transvestite’ for cross-dressers. Early research indicated that about 2.2% of German men were gay. According to Hirschfeld, roughly 20,000 boys were prostituted into Germany’s flourishing gay population.
By 1919, the Berlin Commissioner for Police identified some 100,000 homosexual men in the city. The research institute became a powerful organisation because by 1933 it contained more than forty-thousand intimate records, confessions and biographical letters of prominent members of the Nazi party. Because of this, it was later seen as a potential threat to the top echelons of the Nazi Party whose personal secrets were formally documented.
Adolf Brand who, with others, organised The Community of the Special (CS) led the other faction. Brand and his click were vicious sadistic misogynists who despised anything feminine and were appalled at the ‘fairies’ theory of homosexuality. Instead, they promoted the Hellenic ideal of the ultramasculine male supremacist homoerotic warrior devoted to man/boy sexual relations. In brief, a homoerotic brotherhood.
From early on then, there was real tension between those who were seen as ‘Femmes’ and those who followed Brand’s notion of predatory pederast ‘Butches’. However, it was the ‘Butches’ who later went on to dominate the gay movement and the Nazi party itself. This conflict helps explain the subsequent contradictory Nazi view of homosexuality itself.
The CS grew in strength through the Wandervogel (Rovers of Wandering Youths), a sort of Boy Scouts movement. It was dominated by pederasts who used it to recruit young boys. They were indoctrinated into Greek paganism and the movement formed the spearhead for the Nazi Party itself. This led to numerous other organisations culminating in the Nazi Brownshirts. The CS created the ‘Seig Heil’ salute.
One of the first central figures for the Nazis was Ernst Roehm, an infamous pederast with an unquenchable lust for young boys. He had been highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted the overthrow of the Weimar government through assassinations and terrorism. Gerhard Rossbach, a sadist, murderer and homosexual, who had been involved in the Freikorps or Storm Troopers (SA) soon to become the Nazi Brownshirts had previously recruited him into homosexuality. Hitler became a protégé of Roehm and soon ascended to head the Nazi Party
Roehm viewed homosexuality as the basis for a new society and homosexuals were given many positions of power and influence within Nazi movement. Anyone who opposed the Nazis were beaten and Hitler believed this was best done by homosexuals.
By 1923, Roehm had recruited and trained some 2.5 million to 4.5 million Storm Troopers (SA) and Gestapo (SS), compared with about 1000,000 in the regular army. Once the SA was disbanded after the blood purge in 1934 most of the experienced homosexual leaders moved into powerful positions in the German military. The CS and SA were famous for their pederasitc activities.
In the 1920’s and 30’s homosexuality was known throughout the world as the German vice because of the debaucheries of the period. British homosexual Christopher Isherwood reminisced blissfully of the 1920’s Berlin boy brothels, ‘Berlin is for boys… The German Boy... Blond’ Berlin had become a coterie of Bohemian artists, sado-sexual transvestites, lesbians with homosexual nightclubs and baths, as well as the rampant control of Berlin by pornographers, organised crime and drug dealers. Nearly a million-and-half men and women were largely or completely homosexual and most were attracted by the Nazi principles and society
However, it should be noted that in spite of the fact that in 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bath-houses and groups promoting gay rights, its purpose was primarily another means to eliminate political opponents, both inside and outside the party. As laws were adapted they tended increasingly to target not only their enemies but also the ‘Femmes’. It was from this group of homosexuals that some were sent to work camps rather than the death or concentration camps. Homosexuality continued to be informally tolerated to a remarkable degree.
Hitler’s Gay Roots
Adolf Hitler had been a male prostitute in Vienna from 1907 to 1912 and then in Munich from 1912 to 1914. Indeed, the Viennese police records listed him as a homosexual. Although decorated for bravery during the First World War, it seems he was not promoted because of his homosexuality. Later he became a masochistic coprophile (sexually aroused by human excrement). His hero was Frederick the Great another homosexual. It seems likely he had a sexually perverted relationship with four women, including his own niece. They all attempted suicide; two were successful.
Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), is outspoken in its hatred of Jews, Marxists, Negroes, Chinese, Arabs,
Easter Europeans and women, He is entirely silent on the question of homosexuality . He venerated the archetypal super macho Aryan male, for whom women were seen to serve the role as breeders for the race of supermen. He was utterly contemptuous of the Judeo-Christian tradition. A contemporary of his, the radical sexologist Wilhelm Reich warned that the Nazi leadership was both ideologically and actually homosexual. He noted that leaders such as ‘Bluher, Roehm... Rosenberg represented Hitler’s fanaticism which was ‘...a male state organised on a homosexual basis.’
Hitler surrounded himself with homosexuals; in fact, his personal bodyguard were all gay, as were many of the leading Nazi’s of the time. His closest associates, Roehm and Rudolf Hess were homosexuals. Others in key positions included Bladur van Schirach as Hitler’s Youth Leader, Hans Frank his Minister of Justice, Willhelm Bruckner his adjutant, Walther Frank his Minister of Economy and, of course, his subsequent second-in-command Hermann Goering – a cross dresser who wore camp make-up.
Emile Maurice, one-time Hitler’s personal secretary was a homosexual, as well as the pornographer Julius Streicher who as a schoolteacher had been dismissed for molesting boys. SS Chief Heinrich Himmler was another known for his pederasitc proclivities, which was captured on film. Reinhard Heydrich, mastermind of the first pogrom, Kristallnacht and the death camps was homosexual. Even Joseph Goebbels was known for indulging in a degenerate homosexual orgy. Other scholars have identified a ‘homo-erotic’ relationship between Hitler and his architect Albert Speer.
Hitler declared he was most influenced by Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels and referred to him as the father of German National Socialism. A former Cistercian monk, Lanz had been excommunicated for homosexuality. He went on to establish an occult order called the Ordo Navi Templi (ONT). It merged occultism and violent anti-Semitism. Lanz chose Wotan, the god of storms that became the inspiration of the Storm Troopers.
The Nazi nationalist dream was based on a homo-erotic theosophical cult called The Thule Society founded in 1917 by Lanz and Guido von List a radical misogynist and sexual pervert. The occult roots of the Nazi Party run deep into German history. Leading occult figures responsible for this legacy were homosexuals who propagated the supremacy of the Aryan Master Race and their justification for the vicious annihilation of ‘inferior’ life.
However, it has also been suggested that the true inspiration for the fascist state comes from Plato, the male supremacist and apologist for pederasty. For example, the ‘Father of National Socialism’ is considered to be Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900). He was rabidly anti-Christian and a homosexual. He contributed to the development of existential philosophy declaring ‘God is dead’. He felt women were only for breeding and sexual slaves and that men were bred for war. His philosophy was grounded in Greek and Roman paganism. He became a hero of the masses and was canonised in the popular media by German intellectuals. However, he went insane at the age of 44 and eventually died of syphilis contracted from a gay brothel in Genoa, Italy.
Before moving on, however, it is necessary briefly to mention five other historical concerns in the development of the Nazi regime which have relevance to the question of homosexuality.
Captain Ernst Roehm and a trusted homosexual cadre of Storm Troopers staged the burning of the Reichstag. They managed to recruit a degenerate Dutch moron named Van der Lubbe to do the job. Left to his own devices he was subsequently arrested. The purpose was to blame the Communist as much as it was to instill fear in the German people.
Ernst Rhoem and his Storm Troopers were also responsible for the burning of books at Hischfeld’s Sex Research Institute. This spectacular event is often replayed in newsreel footage. It was the culmination of sustained harassment by the Nazi’s despite the fact they had derived great profit from Hirschfeld’s theories and his professional help. For the sake of public safety, the institute cancelled all meetings. This organisation served as the headquarters of the ‘effeminate branch of the German homosexual culture and was deeply resented by Nazi supremacist Butch gays.
Importantly, the attackers had lists of materials they were looking for and besides destroying some twelve thousand books and thirty-five thousand photographs, they carted away two truckloads of books and files. The event was an attempt to cover-up the truth about rampant sexual deviancy and homosexual perversions within the Nazi party that could damage Hitler and his inner circle.
The Roehm purge or Night of the Long Knives is another issue of contention. It was driven by political and not moral concerns. It was not as some think an attempt by Hitler to rid himself of an embarrassing homosexual. Hitler had known Roehm for fifteen years and was intimately familiar as a close friend with his sadistic behaviour. Roehm, after all, had been his mentor. Hitler was fearful that the Wehrmacht (German High Command) might be plotting a coup against him. The assassins were mostly homosexual perverts or sex maniacs of one type or another and were organised by Reinhard Heydrich, also a well-known homosexual nick-named the ‘Blonde Beast’. Apart from Hitler, everyone feared him. About a thousand men were brutally murdered throughout Germany. Thus, the majority of the fascist homosexuals in the army remained unscathed.
Hitler subsequently lied in suggesting it was an act of moral cleansing and only feigned disgust and outrage as a way of allaying public suspicions about sexual deviancy within his inner circle. The assassinations relieved Hitler of two problems. First, the fear of an attempted a coup and second it also placated the Italian fascist Benito Mussolini who particularly loathed ‘il visio tedesco’. The Italians had warned Hitler earlier when in Venice about the political unreliability and moral rectitude of Roehm, Heines and Karl Ernst in particular. Within six months of the purge The Malicious Practices Act came into force which outlawed any remark likely to prejudice the welfare of the Reich. It was punishable by death and was intended to stifle rumours of Hitler’s homosexuality. The German public were effectively and quickly gagged.
Heydrich also orchestrated the massacre dubbed Kristallnicht (Crystal Night) because the streets were covered in broken glass. Many Jews were murdered and 7,500 business throughout German were destroyed. Jewish synagogues. cemeteries, schools and homes were destroyed. Ninety-six Jews were killed and 30,000 arrested and sent to the death camps.
Although well planned in advance, Heydrich exploited the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, a Councillor attached to the German Embassy in Paris. This murder was used as the cover to attack the Jews. Rath was another homosexual known within Parisian gay circles as ‘the ambassadress’ and ‘Notre Dame de Paris’. Rath had taken up with a 17 year-old gay Polish Jew who eventually shot him for breaking a promise not to transport his parents to the concentration camps.
Self-confessed Germanophile, British Consul-General R.T. Smallbones explained the violent outbreak of sadistic cruelty on ‘...sexual perversion, and in particular, homosexuality’. He went on, ‘I am convinced that this explanation [widespread homosexual perversion] is the correct one.’
Finally there is the question of the persecution of German homosexuals. Although laws were gradually drawn up to suppress homosexuality generally, they were used sparingly and in many cases required the highest authority for prosecution. Thus, most homosexuals had to publicly re-offend several times before being jailed and these were usually confined to the Femmes group of homosexuals. No surprise, perhaps, that revisionist gay historians should misrepresent and link between homosexuality and the Third Reich? The call by leading Nazi’s for the ‘eradication of homosexuals’ was merely propaganda meant for public consumption.
The fact is, that very few homosexuals died in the concentration camps, but about 5,000 were sent to work camps were some did die. It should also be noted that the Nazi regime often labelled enemies of the state as homosexuals as a means of sending them to the death camps. It is also true that some homosexuals were arrested, but this was for political and not moral purposes. It is well documented that many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camps atrocities were themselves homosexual. Many were out-and-out extreme violent sadists.
It has been variously claimed that there were between 2 and 6 million homosexuals in Germany during the period of the rise of Nazi’s. Similarly, it is said that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexuals met their death, mostly in work camps, out of a total of some 100,000 who had been arrested. Of that group, some 50,000 were convicted and sentenced to regular prisons. However, it has to be stated that there is no known statistical evidence for the number of gays who died in the camps. Much of this, of course, undermines gay propaganda of massive persecution under Hitler’s regime.
Thus, millions of German homosexuals went relatively untouched throughout the twelve year period of the Third Reich. Most were regular Nazi soldiers, collaborators and even murderers.
The American gay movement
Evidence shows a clear association between the former Fascist homo-erotic movement and the American homosexual culture. For example, Allen Ginsberg, ‘beat poet’, homosexual/pederast gave evidence to the American Supreme Court in 1966. He was asked if there might in future be a party made up of homosexuals? He replied, ‘...this had already happened in a sense - or of sex perverts- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler.’
In fact the first gay-rights organisation in the USA was an American chapter of the German-based Society for Human Rights (SHR) formed in 1919. Many early prominent Nazi’s were members. The American SHR was formed in Chicago 1924 by Henry Gerber, who had previous close connections with the German gay movement. A year later, however, it collapsed when two leading members, including Gerber, were charged with sexually abusing a boy. The charges were, however, dismissed and Gerber went underground only to re-emerge in 1934 as a writer for a pro-homosexual magazine. He retained his ties to the German SHR, who published several of his articles. He died aged 80 in 1972, after he had seen the emergence of homo-fascism as a permanent theme in the gay movement.
The American Nazi Party was formed in 1959 by twice married George Lincoln Rothwell, a former Navy pilot. This group were riddled with homosexuals but questions remain about Rothwell’s sexuality, but another branch of the movement, the National Socialist White People’s Party, was openly gay and unique in restricting membership to homosexual Nazi’s. Rothwell was assassinated in 1967.
A decade later, Frank Collins headed a group of men in full Nazi regalia demanding a staged march through a Jewish quarter of Skokie, Chicago, home to many Holocaust survivors. Prevented at first, the march took place elsewhere and drew international condemnation. Collins was a convicted homosexual pederast, whose conviction in 1979 for indecent acts with two boys aged 10 and 14 led to a jail sentence of seven years.
Indeed, many in the American gay community are attracted to the glorification of Nazi imagery, styles, symbolism and icons. For instance, it has been estimated that most articles in the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, are replete with glorified Nazi dress and language, espousing contempt for ‘fems, fats’ and blacks. Nazi costume and fascist concepts are common. In fact, it has even been suggested that the American gay movement has adopted the terror tactics of the Nazi Brownshirts.
Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society
In 1948, following 18 years as an American Communist Party leader, Harry Hay organised the Mattachine Society. The aim was to promote homosexual interests. Hay was not a fascist, but a neo-pagan who practiced occult rituals in Aleister Crowley’s notorious anti-Christian group The Order of the Eastern Temple. Lesbians performed high priestess ceremonies. He supported the terror tactics of gay pressure groups but was never directly linked to them. He openly endorsed pederasty as a pivotal issue of the gay rights movement which explains why conventional gay groups shunned his company. He is acredited with being the American founder of the modern gay movement. He was another who had been sexually abused when young by an older homosexual.
About the same time Alfred Kinsey released his culture-shattering study Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male. It was tailor-made to support the homosexual pederast agenda for promiscuity and deviance. He declared that adult/child sex was harmless which was based on data gathered by paedophiles involving hundreds of masturbating experiments with children, some as young as two months old. His ‘study’ was to have massive consequences for the American way of life and it deeply permeated law, science, medicine, education and politics.
Current research, however, comprehensively repudiates Kinsey. He was not only a charlatan of the first order, he was also a sexual deviant. He was a compulsive/obsessive masochistic masturbator who compelled family and colleagues to indulge in sexual orgies involving homosexuals and lesbians. As for much of his sexual data on babies, this was obtained from Doctor Fritz von Balluseck who had performed sex experiments on holocaust children in the Nazi death camps.
Stonewall
In June 1969, a riot happened in one of the best known unlicensed Mafia bars in New York called Stonewall. This was a haven for militant homosexuals. The police attempted to raid it but were beaten back in a riot that eventually ended the following morning when the bar was a burned-out wreck. Gay activists said the violence was a success which was subsequently celebrated in annual Gay Pride Parades. The popular gay slogan of the time went straight to the core of the issue - ‘Two, four, six, eight - Smash the family, smash the state.’ The homosexual sub-culture quickly developed across America involving ‘gay bars’, ‘street queens’, drug addicts and boy prostitutes as they demanded the right to public deviancy.
The Mattachine Society sought ‘organised resistence’ but eventually control of the gay community fell to a still more radical group - The Gay Liberation Front. Herbert Marcuse was highly influential in leading this group. He was a long-time socialist and perhaps a homosexual who had learned this politics in pre-Nazi Germany. He had participated in the 1918 German revolution. For him, procreative sexuality was repugnant and repressive.
This group next turned their attention to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) when they held conventions in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago. Speakers were shouted down and the audience were terrorised and intimidated until eventually in 1973 the APA ‘voted’ that homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder.
One of the worst to employ Nazi violence was the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), founded by Larry Kramer with 300 activists in 1987. Within months they gained national notoriety for aggressive acts against the Catholic Church in New York, Washington, Los Angles and Puerto Rico. Religious services were disrupted with screaming obscenities and damage. Later, one repentant leading activist, Eric Pollard, admitted their tactics were based on Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. Shortly thereafter, ACT-UP spawned the more radical Queer Nation with its ‘in your face’ tactics that even antagonised the gay community. Labelled ‘Brownshirts’ or ‘lavender fascists' they adopted a highly militant rhetoric and openly threatened violence. A separate organisation, ‘Bigot Bashers’ specialised in threatening off petitioners. Interestingly, at the same time they hypocritically claimed they were victims of societal homophobia.
The inherent wrath of militant homosexuality continued until 1991 when a Bill before the National Assembly was defeated that would have extended minority status to gays. Thousand of homosexuals rioted in San Francisco clashing with police and setting fire to government buildings. Even a church pastor and his family endured a wave of terrorism in a campaign of hate. Church services were interrupted and a Swastika carved on the door. A sustained attempt to intimated one Christian in particular, led to screaming obscenities and personal threats against the children and finally the fire-bombing of the family home,
In recent years, however, especially during the Clinton administration, homosexuals have made huge political gains wielding enormous power in the media, academia and government.
The Wolfenden Committee
At home, Peter Wildeblood, diplomatic correspondent with the Daily Mail, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in 1954 for homosexual offences together with Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Major Michael Pitt-Rivers. The case became a cause célèbre. Wildeblood's subsequent testimony to the Wolfenden Committee; set up by the Government to look into the laws on prostitution and homosexuality; eventually led to major changes in the sex laws.
In 1967 the law dramatically changed to allow sex between two consenting men over 21 providing it was in private. The number of men found guilty of gross indecency in 1966 was 420, but by 1971 it had more than trebled and by 1989 had risen to 2,500. Gays described this time as the period of anti-gay witch-hunt by the police. On the other side of the coin, however, gays recklessly stretched the parameters of legislation in order to secure greater acceptance. Gay Brian Paddick, former Metropolitan police chief, disclosed special instructions had to be obtained from higher authority to mount surveillance operations in public toilets because to many prominent people were being caught..
By the 1980’s, there were over 20,000 convictions for buggery, gross indecency, soliciting and procuring. Clearly, gays were increasingly defiant of the law, were busy organising themselves into a more cohesive pressure group and despite initial reluctance by the Trade Unions and Labour party eventually managed to garner additional support from them.
The biggest change came with the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in January 2002. The gay lobby was now galvanised into action in order to secure further advantages from what was seen as repressive laws on homosexual conduct by way of litigation through the courts
All of this resulted in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that in one determined stroke did away with gay soliciting, buggery, gross indecency, group sex and assault with intent to commit buggery. Cruising is now legal but cottaging is not.
The substantive homosexual claim today is conditional on ultra-radical politics of more recent innovation - not race, sex, medicine or indeed history. These considerations in fact bedevil their case and where possible are avoided!
Contributing to this pressure has been a Labour Government actively pursuing gay rights within an eager European Union. Homosexual pressure is now ubiquitous, concentrated within the functions of state and increasingly taken up by trade unions and private monopolies. Workers are sacked for having legitimate reserved opinion against homosexuality and Christian organisations banned from banks. Religious opinion and history in democratic society is being squashed to silence by what is seen as a super hoax. Gays have achieved this by carefully fabricating a politicised victimhood.
There are early signs the judiciary is compromised. The established Church is emaciated by internal dispute and hypocritically allows civil partnerships for gay priests providing they don't have sex.
Shortly the educational system will seriously falter under the weight of a homosexual culture and our children will fall prey to gay propaganda. Kids will be taught that homosexuality is normal and healthy with the inevitable result more children will be enticed into it only to suffer its miserable gripping consequences characterised by mental turmoil, depression and suicidal ideation.
Political correctness
Political correctness is ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government agencies. Psychology, psychiatry and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda. We witness a cultural preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity and diversity. Psychology has surrendered its professionalism and science to this questionable phenomenon.
Thus political correctness harbours hostility, reflects narcissism, masks histrionics, functions as instant morality, wields power, serves as a distraction, involves intimidation and lacks alternatives. Political correctness results in intolerance and injustice as it inverts logic, truth and reality. Nonetheless, gays have exploited its advantages whenever possible. They have even documented their strategy for doing so, which is also revealed here.
In the meantime, political and intellectual opposition to the onslaught of the gay agenda is rapidly fading having been caught off cue. The Left is filled with emancipated glee; the Right transfixed like lost robotic rabbits caught in hostile homosexual hot lights. The police, meanwhile, contribute hugely to this modern moral panic of homophobia and resentment by fabricating falsehoods of gay victimhood.
Twisted facts
Feeding from all this, is mostly a sympathetic national and local media that circulates twisted gay opinion as certain fact.
Take for example, an Observer report by Mark Townsend in September 2004. Based on so-called evidence from the local gay lobby he claimed there were 8,000 homophobic attacks each year in Devon and Cornwall alone. An alarming figure by any account. But the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales only dealt with 317 cases that contained any homophobic element, resulting in a 71 percent conviction rate for the period April 2004 and March 2005. Currently, the South Wales Evening Post alarmingly reported that South Wales had one of the 'highest levels of gay hate crime in England and Wales', when the actual figure for the whole of Wales was a mere 14 prosecutions. So who is economical with the truth?
Moreover, homosexuality is steeped in a form of victimhood that has gained in political status. It has brought them considerable advantage including preferential treatment and the possibility of using police power to silence unwelcome critics and financial compensation. Thus, politicised victimhood undermines liberalism, weakens our democratic culture and subverts equality before the law, as well as police and judicial impartiality. In 2007, homosexual rights will be further protected when the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) is established. Every current indication from Government is that homosexual rights to impose itself on society will result in democratic and religious freedoms being trounced.
In early 2007 discussion between gay lobby groups and Tony McNulty of the Home Office took place with the view to creating new laws that will control public criticism of homosexuality in the media. The aim will be to render any criticism as harassment. Indicating he is open to further discussion the Minister said, "The new incitement laws will help inform other parts of hate crime, we will see how religious hatred incitement goes and this will inform our thinking in terms of verbal abuse in terms of homophobias, things are fairly new but I'm open to discussion."
London - Gay capital
We now learn that London is reputably the Gay Capital of Europe? If there is so much hate about, why is that? Indeed, gays increasingly claim each pink parade is a resounding success that suggests little or no evidence of homophobia. Gay websites proudly boasted of 600,000 people in attendance at the London European Gay Pride in 2006. More down to earth, the police said only 40,000 attended.
But there is more! A ‘VisitBritain’ website which is in 17 languages opens with the comments ‘Welcome to the United Queendom of Great Britain ...with our proud gay history, cutting-edge culture and fashion, flamboyant cities and pulsating nightlife, isn’t it time you came out ...to Britain?’ Funded by the Department of Culture, it extols Britain as home to one of the largest gay populations in Europe, with the same age of consent as heterosexuals at 16 and civil partnerships. It says ‘Awash with rainbow pride, Britain is a nation of excitement, history, talent and understanding. Several cities are identified as being gay-friendly which include London, Manchester, Newcastle, Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Michael Cashman, 55, Labour Euro-MP speaking on the eve on his gay wedding in March 2006 to Paul Cottingham, 41, former Butlins redcoat, remarked, ‘A dream of equality has become a reality that I never thought would happen in my lifetime. At last we can enjoy rights and responsibilities that have been so long denied, and for no good or just reason.’ Later he was to claim that, ‘Labour has virtually delivered on equality: from gays in the military, an equal age of consent, housing succession rights, civil partnership, hate crime legislation, same sex immigration, review of the sexual offences laws and abolition of discriminatory measures, non-discrimination in the work place, adoption and fostering rights and now proceeding to ban discrimination in the supply of goods and service’.
Gay police pessimism
Even the infant 15-year old British Gay Police Association are simply amazed at the rapid pace of change favouring anal intercourse. This is contrary to their heightened daily hue and cry of rampant homophobia, even against 'gay' police horses, in town and country, home and hearth. Be warned, its zero tolerance for slighting snuggling constabulary shires! They’re so brazen they want the police disciplined for using the phrase 'queer', which they freely use themselves. Police force to fraudulent farce, service to asinine subservience!
Unlike Cashman, however, this is how the homosexual police see it - ‘In recent years and months, the gay community has experienced an onslaught of vociferous, homophobically motivated campaigns from religious extremists, frantic in their desire to prevent gay people enjoying the same legal rights, freedoms and protections they take for granted. ‘ This has prompted them to place a very nasty advert in The Independent in June 2006. Have they gone too far? Headed ‘In the name of the father’ it showed a picture of the Holy Bible next to which was a large red-raw Rorschach type blood spatter. The message was grossly offensive and unsubstantiated in suggesting Christians are mostly responsible for violence against homosexuals. The advert implies they are violent and hateful thugs, the very antithesis of Christian teaching. Ofcom, the media watchdog, received a record number of complaints. Following this they condemned the advert.
Scotland Yard also investigated the issue for an alleged ‘faith crime’ following a public complaint.
This police association wants to stifle Muslim and Christian opinion within its own ranks fearing it could lead to ‘homophobia’. There is a major difference of opinion between them and the Christian Police Association. Already there are cases of officers who refuse to work with gay officers or who withdraw from groups discussing equality within police forces. They have now set up a 24-hour internal help line to monitor what they term as ‘faith-based homophobia’. Clearly they wish to stifle religious opinion because they view it as unfavourable to homosexuality.
More generally, however, the police are utterly taken in by homobabble and are becoming increasingly authoritarian when policing gay rights.
Oppressive police action
Acting under Home Office advice, the rot set in 2002 when Sergeant Geoffrey Clark of the Gloucester Police detained Robin Page, 61, a well-known author, broadcaster, conservationist and farmer for ‘inciting hatred’ following a protest speech at the Frampton County Fair.
After arguing that hunt supporters should be a protected minority, Page had said, ‘If you are black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.’ He was thrown into a police cell and accused of having committed a ‘hate crime’. The case went all the way to the Attorney General himself who ruled no crime had been committed. Yet, in spite of that, Page’s personal details are retained on police records for being involved in an alleged ‘hate incident.
Following a five-year campaign to clear his name of a hate crime he won damages of £2,000 against the Gloucestershire Police in 2008. Page remarked, ‘I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister, politically-correct ‘hate crime’ culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country. It is absolutely outrageous.’ He went on, ‘How can you be included on a homophobic incident record for using the word lesbian once in a speech? It is just incredible. Political correctness in the new McCarthyism.’
Similarly, in the same year we have the case of retired bank clerk Harry Hammond, 69, a 20-year veteran evangelical street preacher with aspergers syndrome. He was arrested for preaching in Bournemouth town centre in January 2002. Quoting from the Bible he preached about the sins of homosexuality and held a placard urging the end of immorality, homosexuality and lesbianism.
Saun Tapper, a gay activist, who summoned friends on his mobile phone, spotted him. A crowd of some 30 to 40 soon arrived who then pelted Hammond with mud and water. Wrestling him to the ground they pulled his placard away. He was subject to a number of assaults. A demonstrator was slightly injured.
Tapper called the police. He complained that he felt threatened and accused Hammond of inciting people to attack homosexuals, whereupon he was arrested. No police action was taken against any in the crowd for assault or public order. The Prosecutor was exceptionally anxious to pursue this case on the basis it was an important ‘human rights’ issue that a witness was persuaded to travel 9,000 miles from Australia to attend court
Hammond denied the charge of harassment brought under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, at Wimborne Magistrates' Court but was fined £300 with £395 costs. The placard was destroyed.
By the time his case appeared before the Court of Appeal early in 2004, Hammond had died. The Court upheld the conviction on the grounds that (1) There was no interference with Hammond’s human rights. (2) The placard was legally insulting. (3) The facts of the offence were complete for which there was no defence.
This Orwellian distortion means it is acceptable for the victim of a breach of the peace to be convicted while his attackers go free. Taking into account the Association of Chief Police Officer's own public policy on 'hate crime' it is possible to suggest that Hammond (a minority of one) was the victim of a hate crime by a concerted group of young people who had conspired to strike him into submission.
Hammond’s human rights of 'free expression' were thwarted as he was ungraciously physically beaten to the ground.
Since he was a regular preacher on the streets of Bournemouth, it is difficult not to conclude that gay activists had intentionally planned to silence him once-and-for-all. It is they who initiated a breach of the peace to get him gagged by the courts. Since religious morality is a major counter to homosexuality, gay activists will feel every need to silence and subdue it at every opportunity and almost by whatever means.
This means that gay activists who feel 'threatened' may legitimately disrupt future situations using physical violence?
In another case in November 2003, the Rt Rev Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester was investigated by the police for telling a local newspaper that, 'Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves... I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health.'
He had just finished an extensive study to compile the Church of England report 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality - A Guide to Debate.'
Subsequently, a religious gay group saw this as a threat and objected to the inference of mental illness. The police carried out a full criminal investigation for an offence they already knew did not exist.
Reflecting this unwarranted exuberance, politically correct Chief Constable Peter Fahy declared, 'We need to be very aware of the position of minorities in the County and make sure diversity is celebrated....’ In other words, the police can impetuously fête homosexuality. This is a good example of misguided ingratiation.
Studied opinion, scholastic effort, erudition, reasoned dialogue, theological discourse and freedom of expression are insensitively dismissed. And this for a lifestyle that the medical profession deem risky. Some people are obviously more equal than others before the law! Which leads one to conclude the police have been utterly hoodwinked by homobabble.
The gay rights movement, which currently has considerable muscle and influence with the British Government, is a highly organised pan-western movement which uses victim culture and doggy research to advance its interests, with the result that personal liberty and independence of thought and action are undermined.
However, if you live in Oxford don't ever call a police horse 'gay'!
Student Sam Brown of Balliol College Oxford, was arrested in May 2005 for causing harassment, alarm or distress after calling a police horse gay following a night out celebrating university exams. Ignoring a warning from two officers he repeated the gibe whereupon he was duly arrested after back-up police cars and six officers arrived at the scene.
He spent the night in the cells and was provisionally fined £80. Brown denied his comments were homophobic. 'As far as I know calling a horse a gay is not offensive. I don't think I've committed a crime - I wasn't talking about a human being. One of my friends I was with is homosexual and doesn't think I did anything wrong.'
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police confirmed the arrest and fine and also said that the 'homophobic comments' were not only offensive to the policeman and his horse but any members of the general public in the area.' The British Constabulary's' worldwide reputation for fair play and common sense is rapidly changing from a police force into a police farce.
Mr Brown, an English Literature graduate, refused to pay the fine so the police took the case to court.
But at Oxford Magistrates' Court 8 months later it emerged the Crown Prosecution Service had chosen to discontinue the case. Prosecutor Cariad Eveson-Webb said: "The police issued a summons but the CPS have decided quite properly that they do not wish to proceed. Thames Valley Police, however, continued to defend their decision to take the case to court.
That apart, there’s a seriously sinister side developing within the British police today. Take the case of Lynette Burrows, author on children’s rights, family campaigner and broadcaster. In December 2005, she took part in a debate on Radio Five Live on the new Civil Partnership Act. She said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Following a public complaint, the police pounced, or should that be ponced, on her? Scotland Yard insisted on an investigation into homophobic remarks as a ‘priority crime’ to reassure the community. The boy’s in blue are gradually plodding into a darker side of social control which aims to curtail free speech.
Was the BBC outraged that one of its contributors had been intimidated in this sinister fashion? Hardly! Instead it distanced itself with indecent haste describing Burrow’s opinion as ‘challenging and unpleasant’.
Similarly, just a week later, elderly Joe Roberts, 73, and his wife Helen, 68, both devout Christians, politely objected to the promotion of gay rights by their local council. A view that would be shared by millions of people. When Roberts was told that the promotion of homosexuality was part of the Council’s diversity policy, Mr. Roberts asked if Christianity could be promoted in the same way. He was refused on the grounds it would offend gays and lesbians.
Subsequently, Wyre Borough Council reported them to the police for ‘…the implications of homophobic behaviour.’ The couple were interrogated for 80 minutes by two Lancashire police officers who warned them they were ‘…treading on eggshells.’ They felt their right to free speech and religious freedom was being threatened. This is how totalitarian states start off. .
The Robert’s family threatened legal proceedings which resulted in a hurried and humiliating capitulation by both the police and council. A full apology was formally issued and £50,000 paid in damages and legal fees. It was they who were treading on eggshells instead as they now confessed to an improper use of power. Indeed, the Robert’s family were invited by the police to draw up new appropriate guidelines.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, when head of the Muslim Council of Britain was investigated by the police for saying homosexuality is ‘harmful’ and for criticising the same-sex civil partnership idea on BBC radio. Sacranie is a hypocrite. He feels free to speak bluntly about gays yet wants religious hate laws to prevent public criticism of Islam which is itself full of a visceral hate for Jews and ‘kafir’ - non-Muslims. An article in The Times (April 2006) revealed, for example, that Muslim students training to be imams at a British college are being taught fundamentalist doctrines which describe non-Muslims as pigs, dogs and filth. Apparently, this is being subsidised by the British taxpayer.
Meantime, the some police forces continue pursuing a foolish policy of pressure and intimidation, because in all these cases, they would have known from the very outset that no serious crime was involved as they sheepishly suggested to the press.
Police Commissioner pulls back
Currently, however, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has decided the police has got too much egg on its face and withdrawn the politically correct instructions to investigate politically incorrect opinions. But not before they were heavily criticised by the Daily Mail for radically amending the British Constitution without public and political discourse so that free speech and thought are restrained. The Association of Chief Police Officer’s will now have to review their idiotic policy on ‘secondary victimisation’ because the real victim is universal democratic free speech.
Business as usual for others
However, before that can be fully accomplished the North Wales Police; in tandem with the local Crown Prosecutor; have stepped into the breech and brought the force into disrepute. They arrested, charged and bailed John Atkinson, 46, a former detective officer with 22 years of distinguished service, with a public order offence. What was his crime? Chatting with a group of 6 police officers in a police van in Wrexham town centre late one night he asked about Superintendent Michele Williams, who is openly homosexual and heavily involved in the forces diversity programme. He mischievously referred to her as a ‘diversity dyke’.
The six police officers drove off but five minutes later came back, running towards him and ordering him to put his hands in the air. ‘I honestly thought it was a joke and they were winding me up,’ he said. He was then arrested, handcuffed, bundled in the police van, forced to strip naked and left in a cell with just a blanket, denied access to a toilet and later charged with ‘threatening and abusive behaviour.’ A subsequent front page headline in the Daily Post claimed he was ‘Treated like a dog’. This was a serious understatement for he was treated worst than a dog!
Last year, North Wales Police Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, came under heavy fire when he referred to gays as ‘queers’ in a discussion about public toilets. He quickly apologised but the Gay Police Association wanted him charged. The Police Authority quite properly refused.
Atkinson was to claim at his trial he had no idea one of the officers; Sarah Fellows; was gay. The police protested to the court they were shocked by his ‘dyke’ remark but when asked about the chief constable’s earlier reference to queers they ineptly distanced themselves from the issue. It did not, however, stop Fellows from claiming she was ‘extremely shocked and insulted’. The magistrate’s threw the case out and dismissed the charge. Mr Atkinson felt the whole episode was pure farce and lamentably commented, ‘Four miles from here, an old lady was beaten to death two years ago. It was an undetected murder. Three years ago, a postman was beaten to death in the next town - undetected.’
This case is exceptional, not only for being the second of its kind but also for the chilling consequences to freedom of speech. Genuine strong opinion is to be trashed by an oppressive interpretation of the law. What kind of a society have we become when it is perfectly legitimate to ridicule religion, but watch out if you disparage the homosexual lobby in the slightest manner?
Homosexuality and paedophilia
However, now comes news that the police in Brighton have charged Councillor Peter Willows, 75, with a public order offence for allegedly equating homosexuality with paedophilia. If convicted he faced either 6 months in jail or a maximum fine of £2,000. Willows, a retired engineer and welder had served on Brighton and Hove City Council for 12 years.
When the case was heard Willows denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress but was convicted and handed a conditional discharge.
Summing up Miss Ray-Crosby said: "Nobody on the defence team and certainly not Mr Willows wants to accept it's right to be offensive about gay people."
She added: "It is frankly heartbreaking that a man like him, at 75, ends up in the magistrates' court because of a stupid remark that he bitterly regrets. His good name is something he will never be able to recover. He ends his political career in disgrace."
Willows was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 court costs but when he said he could not pay straight away, his friend Councillor Geoff Wells offered to pay and unusually other supporters offered to chip in. But Jay Nemes and Johnny Core, two gay men who handed in £40 towards Willows's court costs, did not agree with the verdict.
Mr Nemes said: "Freedom of speech in England ended on December 12, 2006. "We have reached a stage where someone who makes an unfortunate comment and then apologises for it gets the full weight of the law brought down upon them
Pauline Quinton, the presiding magistrate, said: "We do not consider your remarks were borne from a hostility to people who are gay."
Similarly, TalkSport radio show presenter, Mike Mendoza found himself being reprimanded twice by the media regulator, Ofcom, for comments about homosexuality in May 2007. His bosses suspended him for a week for inferring a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. According to Ofcom, Mendoza quickly apologised for his ‘...offensive remarks’. The regulator said, ‘...we nevertheless are very concerned that the presenter chose to make such a remark. To connect homosexuality with paedophilia is highly offensive.’ Ofcom may consider it disgusting, but they need to understand more clearly that Mendoza’s view is supported by a considerable volume of research.
What are the implications of these sorry case? Despite the incontrovertible fact that there is a volume of serious academic evidence clearly equating homosexuality with paedophilia it is now wrong to say so. Some of that evidence is highlighted on this website. The big question mark now is - for how much longer?
Firefighter’s Fury
Then there’s the case of ten Glasgow firefighters were summarily punished by way of compulsive ‘diversity training; one was even demoted losing thousands of pound in pay and pension rights; for refusing to participate in a gay pride event. They were instructed to attend in uniform and hand out fire safety leaflets. Some objected on the grounds of conscience while others claimed they were embarrassed.
The firemen, from Cowcaddens fire station in Glasgow, had also become aware of a ‘kiss-a-fireman’ competition being run by a local gay bar and expected to be harassed. Instead of attending the march the firemen handed out fire safety leaflets to members of the public on a nearby street.
Scottish National Party member, Fergus Ewing thought it ‘unbelievable’.
Brian Herbert, the demoted watch manager has since been reinstated to his post and the other eight firemen remain under a ‘final warning’ from their employer although they are still considering further action.
A former pop mogul turned politician has promised to back an appeal from nine fire-fighters disciplined. George Hargreaves, who launched gay icons such as Sinitta, is donating £50,000 to an appeal, vowing to take the case all the way to the House of Lords.
Mr Hargreaves, a founding member of the Scottish Christian party and candidate for elections in May, told the Sunday Mail: “If there is anything less than a total exoneration then Strathclyde can look forward to going all the way to the House of Lords." He said the officers deserve better after arguing that it was against their “moral conscience” to attend the gay pride event.
Next is the arrest and charge under the now much-abused Public Order Act of ‘threatening behaviour’’ against budding evangelist, Stephen Green, Director of the Christian Voice organisation. After two hours, Inspector Alexander Chadd of the South Wales Police arrested Green at the Cardiff Madri Gras who was handing out religious tracts containing information on what the Bible says about homosexuality. Green was bunged up in the cells for four hours.
A month later, and much to the dismay of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges. Have the police acted unlawfully? David Francis, the Deputy Chief Constable defensibly claimed the decision of CPS to withdraw the charge rested on the fact the evidence was insufficient and they had not criticised the police. This is potential misleading since the CPS reject charges where (1) the evidence is insufficient or, (2) it is not in the public interest to do so. They hardly ever mention anything about the activity of the police since this could have other legal implications elsewhere. This is particularly apt because Green now intends suing the police.
Ten-year-old homophobe
The police claim they are unable to carry out their duties to the full because of shortages of manpower and resources. So it is useful to ask them how four police officers can be allotted to the job of investigating another so-called homophobic crime allegedly committed by a ten-year-old boy in March 2007? The Cheshire police said they considered it a very serious offence. Primary schoolboy, George Rawlinson, was terrified he would be arrested for sending an email to another boy calling him a ‘gay boy’. Inspector Nick Bailey said, We were obliged to record the matter as a crime and we took a proper, and maybe an old fashioned, view.’ Clearly, the police have lost sight of their historical function.
However, we should not be entirely surprised because politically correct Chief Constable Peter Fahy of the Cheshire Constabulary is on record in declaring the need to celebrate diversity. This was in relation to a previous alleged homophobic hate crime committed by the Rt Rev Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester in November 2003. He had suggested that homosexuals can reorientate themselves through psychiatric health following an extensive Church of England study on human sexuality. The Bishop was seriously warned about his future behaviour.
Kinky cops
In contrast, Birmingham’s Sunday Mercury reported in August 2007 that ‘Kinky cops pose in uniform to net gay lovers.’ Reporter Adam Aspinall exposed three Midland policemen who were posing in full uniform using X-rated messages seeking lovers on a controversial internet site. One was even photographed sat in his police patrol car. The reporter notes, ‘Yet their bosses have turned a blind eye to the seedy postings, and say they are not bringing the service into disrepute.’ The cops are from the West Midlands and Northamptonshire Police. Emphasising the celebration of diversity, police chiefs are happy to turn a blind eye when it comes to their own.
Avon Fire Service
However, if kinky cops can get away with it, not so our firemen. “Firemen demoted and fined for shinning torch on gay foursome in the bushes,” ran the Daily Mail headline early in October 2007 Firemen of Avon Fire Service’s Blue Watch at Avonmouth shone their torches on four men having illegal sex in a public park. Subsequently, one homosexual complained of homophobia to the the Terrence Higgins Trust who altered Avon's fire chiefs.
An internal investigation ensued and four firefighters were suspended for three months on full pay.. Later, they faced charges of bringing the service into disrepute and misuse of equipment. Two men were fined £1,000 , another was demoted and the fourth received a stern written warning. All were ordered to attend an equality course. They were then posted to other stations and banned from discussing the incident.
In what is clearly an effort to counter any suggestion that the homosexual complainant had been treated with kid gloves, Avon Chief Fire Officer Kevin Roberts said the investigation would have had the same outcome if the complainant had been heterosexual. In other words, no differentiation of investigation or outcome could be implied. Rather curious, however, is the idea that the Avon Fire Service is to give the money raised from the fines to gay rights charities. It is not difficult to think that an atmosphere of fear now permeates the Avon Fire Service and this is in part explained by the fact that local union boss John Drake was unable to comment if the four accused officers are to appeal. This is clear evidence that the Trades Union Movement, in embracing the gay agenda, has exposed their heterosexual membership to largely hitherto real and unimagined potential jeopardy.
Within a week, Avon Fire and Rescue Services held a major ground-breaking, first of its kind for the fire service, conference in Bristol about the rights of homosexuals within the service. Each delegate paid £135 for the privilege. It is believed the four convicted firemen had to attend.
Subsequent to this, Fire Chief Kevin Roberts disclosed to BBC Radio Bristol that he had received 300 abusive emails and accused the media of homophobia. One even a death threat. A member of the Fire Authority is demanding to know what is going on and a Extraordinary Meeting of the Fire Authority has been arranged.
Unlawful police intentions
It is worth reflecting for a moment and ask upon what basis are the police performing? Indeed, there is a good case to suggest they are behaving unlawfully because real laws are promulgated by Parliament and not the collective desire of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The police pursuit of hate crime by way of a ‘hate incident’ and ‘hate crime repeat victimization’ is not enshrined in any real law, but has been made up by them. It clearly amounts to a form of police harassment because they go beyond the law. They need urgently to revisit their 104-page booklet ‘Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service’ and revise it substantially in order to bring subsequent police action into line to the law of the land.
There is little or no evidence that laws that limit free speech work to meet their stated goal - reducing bigotry and increasing tolerance. Indeed, there is the view it will achieve the opposite effect. Setting up certain groups as beyond criticism is bound to increase resentment among those not similarly treated. The creation of protected classes sharpens intergroup tensions and leads to competition for victim status. Indeed, attempts to suppress a natural revulsion for a particular lifestyle may in fact stimulate more resentment. This is especially so when homosexual men and women casually use the very terms they complain about. This is hypocritical because they want others banned from using language they have adopted.
A quick visit to Peter Tatchell’s website, for example, reveals it is replete with references to buggers, faggots, queers and dykes. So when is he going to be arrested, charged and bailed by the PC police?
This latest police action is the thin end of the wedge. How long is it before someone using the name Dick is prosecuted for using the shortened name for Richard? What about calling someone with red hair ‘ginger’, or somebody with a big nose ‘Concorde? What about fatty or skinny? You may think this is exaggerated but already the Lord Chief Justice has endorsed the report of the Judicial Studies Board on equality advice. Phrases like he, she, postman, chairman, asylum seeker, man and wife, immigrant, mixed race, West Indian or Asian are out. Indeed registrar offices throughout the country are eliminating references to traditional marriage on the instructions of the Women’s Equality Unit at the DTI for fear of offending homosexuals. Now comes news that the Lord Chancellor has banned the use of the term ‘homosexual’ from all official documents on the grounds it ‘....may be considered offensive.’
Gay euphemisms
The Metropolitan Police Diversity Handbook bans its officers and civilian staff from using the phrase homosexual because it ‘criminalises’ them, yet hypocritically acknowledges that gays may refer to themselves using the exact phrase. The handbook can be criticised for several serious errors. It argues that children brought up by homosexual parents are not disadvantaged and that gay men are not more likely than heterosexual men to be HIV positive. Scotland Yard has created a category of hate crime, termed ‘transphobic crime’ for anyone who does not treat transvestites and transsexuals with respect and dignity. Little surprise that lesbian Linda Bellos, who jointly chairs the advisory group, is thrilled describing the document as ‘invaluable’. Rather odd, though, that formal police policy is guided by doggy homosexual findings.
The gay lobby are driving a coach and horse through many of our institutions. For example, take the 52 page booklet Good LGBT Practice in the NHS produced for the NHS staff in Scotland with the assistance of Stonewall. The aim is clearly to normalize homosexuality and to prevent the use of ‘homophobic’ language denoted in phrases like ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘mother’, and ‘father’. What starts off as an attempt to regulate speech for fear of institutional retribution could ostensibly lead to measures to eradicate prejudice against minorities is thus actually a law to discriminate against the majority and to criminalise mainstream values.
Removing discrimination against homosexuals was something welcomed by anyone with any sense. But the laws are being exploited by mischievous pressure groups, aided by politically-correct officialdom. That master opportunist, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is introducing curbs on free speech about religion and homosexuality which will cause endless conflict. But trouble is being caused in all kinds of ways.
A magistrate who asked – quite correctly – to be excused from sitting in a case involving gay adoption, about which he had strong religious views, has been forced to resign.
Even worse is the case of a foster carer who has been hounded out. Since 2001, he has looked after 28 youngsters with great success. But he was then instructed by the local social services department to sign a contract to implement the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make it illegal to discriminate against someone on grounds of their sexual orientation.
He would have been happy to do so until he was told that it required him to actively promote homosexuality. He would have been compelled to discuss same-sex relationships with the youngsters, even those of an age when they were unlikely to be sexually active. If any of the foster children expressed curiosity, he would be obliged to take them to gay association meetings. The foster carer and his wife are both Christian ministers in their 60s and regarded this as a step too far. Social services promptly told them they must either sign or be struck off the register of foster parents. That has now happened.
The county council, in Somerset, has more than 70 children awaiting placement with foster parents.They will now have to wait longer. Another triumph for political correctness.
The perils of buggery
Early research found around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scats", the eating of faeces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where faeces have been deposited.
But modern science unequivocally warns of the health perils of buggery as an unsanitary and pathological act, of either a hetero or homosexual kind. Under the best of clinical conditions the rectum is a hostile area subject to fissure, tearing and the transmission of highly contagious diseases. It is not designed for the intromission of penises, fists, forearms or rimming, but the expulsion of disease-ridden excrement. On these central considerations, medical opinion is very decided! Indeed, sexual diseases arising from anal intercourse are well-document, but now recent research from the UCLA AIDS research centre demonstrates that anal cytology predicts anal precancer In HIV-positive gay men. Their findings show that HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.
The structure and function of the male and female human reproductive systems are fully complementary. Anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis. It is lined with squamous epithelium and is surrounded by a muscular tube intended for penile intromission. The rectum, on the other hand, is lined with a delicate mucosal surface and a single layer of columnar epithelium intenuea primarily for the reabsorption of water and electrolytes. The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum.
The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function. Thus insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation of the anus before insertion of a large object can result in tissue laceration. The internal and external anal sphincters are elastic rings of muscle which generally remain tightly constricted except during defecation. The anal sphincters are also intended for material to pass through them in a direction that leads out of the body. When an attempt is made to insert something in the reverse direction, the muscles of the sphincter constrict.
From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) .
In addition to infections and trauma, tumours are a definitive risk for homosexual men. Homosexual behaviour in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.
Gay men at greatest risk
Dr Valerie Delpech , of the Health Protection Agency's HIV department said: ‘Sex between men remains the group in the UK at highest risk of acquiring HIV with evidence that transmission is continuing at a substantial rate. The rise in the number of new diagnoses reported is likely to be due to more HIV testing among MSM and ongoing transmission of HIV.’
And because of a foolish exercise in political correctness, thousands of innocent citizens fell foul of a contaminated national blood supply by the Canadian Red Cross and suffered an undreamt nightmare of HIV and hepatitis. Otherwise, western medicine has withstood repeated advances from gays to accept their blood. Statistically, homosexuals have a higher incidence of blood-borne diseases and the existence of a 'window period of infections' that may be incubating at the time of the donation. Clear testimony that the life choice is unnatural and unhealthy. They also have a difficulty getting routine insurance.
A lawsuit is being made against a Chinese construction farm and its hospital. Reportedly the first of its kind. Nineteen people contracted HIV after a hospital used blood sold by a couple who later died of AIDS. The claim is for 30m yaun (£2m) compensation. In another case a man donated blood to the central blood bank in the city of Dehui, Northeast China's Jilin Province, 15 times from January 2003 to June 2004, his HIV infection was not detected and the blood was given to 25 people. Before the local health authority started investigating the incident six blood recipients died, and could not be conclusively established that they were infected. If the six died of AIDS the total number of people infected would be 27. Experts are certain that 18 people were infected of whom three have died. In addition, the man passed on the virus to two sex partners, one of whom in turn passed it on to her husband, making for a total of 27 victims.
Intimidation of Blood Service
In the UK meantime, our blood stocks are being put at risk by the intimidation of militant gay rights students who are fighting the donation ban on homosexuals. It’s part of a global protest by gay activists. One homosexual in Australia is suing the blood service for ‘injury to his feelings’ and 100 gays in South Africa gave blood concealing their lifestyle until afterwards.
University students here have torn down advertisements appealing for blood, demonstrated outside clinics and in at least one university banned the blood service altogether. At a recent meeting of the National Union of Students, homosexual activist Kat Louis threatened getting tough on the ‘blantantly homophobic’ blood service. Donor bans are enforced in the University of Leeds, and ‘gay blood is good’ demonstrations have taken place in Nottingham, Salford, Aberystwyth, Lancaster and Bangor. Awareness campaigns are taking place in others. A week later angry demonstrating homosexuals were protesting at the Robert Gordon University of Aberdeen.
At the University of Warwick nurses complained protestors were intimidating donors and wanted them removed. These gay activists argue that anyone practicing ‘safe sex’ should be able to donate. But of course, evidence shows many homosexuals do not practice safe sex. Some deliberately shun it. A 2007 survey by Sigma confirmed previous gay surveys which shows that nearly half of all gay men do not have an HIV test, even some with as many as 30 partners a year.
Similar campaigns occurred across Scotland when the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service came under fire from homosexual student activists. Scott Cuthbertson, the NUS Scotland LGBT spokesperson, feared the ban ‘...perpetuates the myth that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease”.
Some MP’s, Scottish MP’s and gay campaigners like Peter Tatchell think the ban implies homosexuals are promiscuous. Science and surveys, however, demonstrably reveal gays are pre-eminently promiscuous which results in the established fact they are disproportionately susceptible to HIV/AIDS.
Notwithstanding the fact the Scottish campaign collapsed, it did not prevent another homosexual activist from seeking to petition the Scottish Parliament one year later. Rob McDowall branded the current blood transfusion policy as homophobic.
The Scottish blood transfusion service, ScotBlood, refused to change the rules in the strict interest of public health. Dr. Brian McClelland, director at ScotBlood commented, ‘Figures would indicate a man who has had sex with a man is seven times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual.’ He continued, ‘ Abolishing the rule for gay men would increase the risk of an HIV-infected donation entering the blood supply by about five times, and changing the rule to allow gay men to donate one year after they last had sex with a man would increase the risk by 60 per cent.’
It is a disturbing fact that homosexuals are in denial about the harmful effects that could result from what they propose. They have no real or compelling interest in giving blood but rather seek to ameliorate the negative impact to their image in having their blood refused. This is what irks them and this is what they seek to rectify
The homosexual lobby group within the Liberal Democratic party joined the ranks of those calling for a relaxation of the rules on blood donation by gays at their conference in Llandudno in February 2008. Executive member Jen Yokney said the present ban confuses sexual orientation with sexual behaviour.
Doctor Frank Boulton, consultant for the National Blood Service observes, ‘Our primary concern is to ensure that the blood we provide for patients is as safe as possible. …Independent medical evidence suggests that if we were to begin accepting men who have had sex with other men as donors, the incidence of HIV in the blood supply would increase.’ Boulton has the support of the Terrence Higgins Trust. So, for the time being at least, blood donations are refused from homosexual men, heterosexuals who indulge in dangerous practices, anyone recently having acupuncture or anyone lately a resident of another country where HIV is rife.
This is what the American Food and Drug Administration have to say about blood from gays.
