DUE TO MY BEING CENSORED BY REDDIT, I HAVE ALSO HAD TO POST THIS HERE, ON THE OLD BLOG. Please leave comments here on Real Street.

Richard Carvath is standing as an independent candidate for Salford and Eccles in the upcoming general election, and he has upset a few people by sharing his views on homosexuality. On Monday, he wrote a blog entry called, “Tories select homosexual pervert for Salford and Eccles.”

Woof! No messing. He continues,

The Conservative Party has just selected homosexual Matthew Sephton as their candidate for Salford and Eccles.

As a rival [and pro-heterosexual!] candidate I welcome Matthew to the contest for Salford and Eccles.

Matthew’s own blog is heavy with pro homosexual pervert content: see here, here and here….

I very much doubt that the vast majority of the Salford and Eccles electorate will want to be represented by a prominent homosexual activist – and one who neither lives nor works in the constituency.

The following day, he received a letter from the local constabulary,

“Richard Carvath

We have received a complaint today regarding concerns over the content of your blog article dated Monday 7th December 2009.

A reader of your article has made a complaint that the content is offensive and feels strongly enough to report this matter to the police. He wishes for you to be advised over the potential alarm and distress caused by your article. Whilst not taking this at face value and understanding the meaning of language and how it can be misinterpreted, it could be argued that the context of the comments made could be construed to be borderline criminal.

At this stage I feel it would be advisable for you to remove this from your blog thereby preventing misinterpretation.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. …

Regards

PC2401 Jacky Thompson.”

So, the police are now ‘advising’ people to take down blog posts if someone doesn’t like them. Thankfully, Mr. Carvath told them a few home truths.

“Dear PC Thompson,

Thank you for your email.

There is nothing criminal about my blog article and so I have no intention of removing it for the foreseeable future.

Well exactly, but in a dictatorship, truth gets censored.

Homosexuality is a perversion: that is both moral truth and medical fact. Therefore it is quite reasonable for me to refer to a person in whom the perversion of homosexuality is manifest as a homosexual pervert. Let me make it clear that I do not use the term ‘homosexual pervert’ as a pejorative term – derogation is not my motive in using the term; I use the term simply to convey the true nature of what homosexuality is because I believe that the truth matters.

He explains a very important distinction here, and one which seems to escape many people.

I’m aware that you are employed by an organisation [GMP] which is politically in favour of homosexual perversion. I’m aware that GMP celebrates its association with the militant perverts’ organisation Stonewall. I’m aware of the secular humanist socio-political orthodoxy of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ which GMP panders to.

Can’t argue with any of that.

My advice to you is to stop being a social engineer trying to suppress free speech and get on with genuine police work.

Hear, hear!

It is not a crime to criticise homosexuality and nor is it a crime to refer to a public gay political activist as a homosexual pervert.

Even if it were a crime I’m a British evangelical Christian so nothing and nobody is going to tell me what I can and can’t say in my own country. As a Christian I speak and act out of love – not hate – so my motive for referring to homosexuality as a perversion is love.

My advice to you is to get on with dealing with real crime like robbery, rape and murder and stop trying to suppress free speech.

Never has there been clearer proof of the vital importance of the Waddington free speech safeguard!

Absolutely.

Most of the replies left on his blog seem to be from angry heterosexuals. Perhaps Mr Carvath’s strength and honesty of language has made folks’ brains go into meltdown. I left this comment myself,

These comments from heterosexuals go to show how well they have been trained by the media.

How has this been achieved? Read the blueprint from the USA.

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.”

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression.”

Homosexuals don’t want their lifestyle criticised. Fair enough, I suppose. None of us likes being disagreed with, especially while we are entrenched in sin, but nobody is infallible and beyond criticism. Furthermore, everyone has the right to call a spade a spade. Just like the messages left on Mr Carvath’s blog and the Pink News website, where personal criticism of him and his faith are rife.

But then, over the past few years we have come to expect some people to believe they are more equal than others.

Someone called Jeff Duncan even reported Mr Carvath to the police again via a police website and urged others to follow, saying,

Hiss [sic] vile homophobic hate remarks have STILL not been removed.

What these people should realise, and be very thankful for, is that we live in a society that does tolerate differences of opinion. Those who claimed to be persecuted are now the persecutors. They have become that strong and prideful tribe.

YES!

Take A Walk Down Real Street

I am in the process of starting a new blog. Once I work out how to incorporate WordPress into my own domain I will post the link here and you can continue to read my thoughts on New Labour and what Gordon Brown’s vision of a ‘New World Order’ will actually entail for us proles.

I may also post items about my many other interests and try to lighten up a bit, although I make to promises.

If anyone can offer advice on how to add WordPress to my site and allow me to add my own advertising banners (for my own websites), then please get in touch.

This is my first post for a couple of weeks; there have been some teething problems with my new business venture, but that’s to be expected.

I am considering starting a new blog so I can write on any subject that interests me on the day. I am getting a bit fed up concentrating on New Labour. It is pretty tedious and a bit depressing. The other mainstream parties need exposing too, especially on the run up to elections.

I also want to comment on other things like the pond life who murdered two soldiers in N. Ireland. They call themselves the ‘Real IRA’. They are like many people these days – a tiny band who think they know better than and speak for everyone else. Fortunately, most people know how to use words to try and convince. It is also much more effective. What to do but send in the big boys and make an example of these totally selfish parasites?

Perhaps a Creationist like me shouldn’t refer to fellow human beings as ‘pond life’, and they are fellow human beings, like it or not.

I’ve filed this under ‘Heroes and Cowards’. Guess which category you skulk among, ‘dissidents’?

Hat tip to Tom Harris for pointing out Bryan Gould’s article, I disown this government, in the Guardian’s Comment is Free.

I remember Mr Gould, former Labour MP and member of the shadow cabinet, as a seemingly decent sort of bloke – far too decent for New Labour, as it transpires.

He returned to his native New Zealand in the mid-Nineties to work in a university, but disowns his former Party with these words.

The floor is all yours, Mr Gould…

Those, like me (and almost everyone I know in the Labour party), who have been critical over the years of New Labour and its record in government, might have expected that the passage of time would bring with it a kinder judgment. And in my case, in particular, it might have been thought that – 12,000 miles away in New Zealand – distance would lend enchantment.

How, then, to explain that the more we take the long view of the Blair and now the Brown government, the sharper seem the contours of its failures and betrayals? How is it that the features of its landscape that grow – as our perspective lengthens – in shocking, anger-making prominence are those shameful episodes at home and abroad which cumulatively are a complete denial of what a Labour government (or any British government) should have been about?

There have been of course many good and decent day-by-day achievements of this government. Across the whole range of political issues, I do not say that Britain did not do better under Labour than it would have done under most alternatives. But these achievements have been molehills, judged against the towering peaks scaled by New Labour in its rejection not only of Labour, but of any decent and civilised values.

The first – and for that reason perhaps most unexpected – contravention of civilised norms was the Iraq war. The damning judgment of that doomed enterprise has been repeatedly rehearsed, but to read the charge sheet again is still a shocking experience. A British prime minister, claiming the right to moral leadership and an almost religious duty to confront evil, sucked up to a soon-to-be discredited US president and helped to launch an invasion of a distant country – an invasion based upon a lie, and one that flew in the face of international law, undermined the United Nations, alienated the whole of the Muslim world, seemed to validate the claims of terrorists and those who recruited them, destroyed the country that was invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, took many young soldiers to their unnecessary deaths, and rightly reduced Britain’s standing in the world.

The New Labour government still refuses to acknowledge that any of this was wrong. It will not even countenance an independent inquiry into how such a fatal mistake was made.

It may seem improbable that the scale of the Iraq calamity could be matched in any other area of government. Yet, as the reasons for and scale of the global recession become clear, it is also increasingly apparent that another global (as well as British) disaster can be laid – substantially, if only partly – at the door of the New Labour government.

It was, after all, that government which enthusiastically endorsed the virtues of the “free” market, which turned its back on the need for regulation, which celebrated the excesses of the City, which proclaimed that it was “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich”. The government that should have protected the interests of ordinary people was dazzled by the super-rich; unsuspecting Labour supporters found themselves thrown on the tender mercies of a marketplace that was cleared of any limits that might have restricted the rich and powerful. There have been no more enthusiastic cheerleaders for the culture of greed and excess than New Labour ministers.

On the central issue of politics – the willingness of government to use its democratic legitimacy to intervene in the market in order to restrain its excesses – the New Labour government ensured that the dice lay where they fell and applauded as they did. It was Tony Blair who, standing shoulder to shoulder with Rupert Murdoch, proclaimed that the future lay with the “globalisers” and that those who wanted to reclaim some control over their lives were “isolationists, nationalists and nativists”. It was Gordon Brown who removed the major economic decisions from democratic control and handed them over to unaccountable bankers.

That betrayal of those who looked to a Labour government to help them has seen a rapid widening of inequality and a sharp intensification of social disintegration. It is the jobs, homes and lives of ordinary people that have borne the brunt. The country is a weaker and poorer place as a result.

But even that failure pales by comparison with the latest revelations about the abandonment by New Labour of any pretence to civilised standards. We now know that this government connived with the Bush administration to hold people illegally, to kidnap them in secret, and to torture them while in custody – all in the name of a war against the forces of darkness. The perpetrators of these outrages seem to believe that they can be washed clean by simply declaring their superior morality.

Nothing more clearly distinguishes those beyond the pale than their willingness to use the secret, illegal and cowardly infliction of pain to terrify, cow and bend to their will helpless people being held without charge or trial or legal redress. It beggars belief that any British government could, in a supposed democracy, do so, and not even bother to respond to its critics. It is simply incredible that a Labour government claiming to represent the values of the Labour movement could believe in these circumstances that it has any right to remain in office.

For me, this is too much. I am sick to the stomach. I disown this so-called Labour government. I protest.

A big thank you to Paddy Connaughton from Bolton who emailed me recently:

Hello Stewart,

The reason i’m writing this is the fact i have just stumbled upon your website. Thank God someone is out there telling the truth about this government and the state of our country. I have read some of your articles and have found that my wife and i agree with all of them.

After 22 years of working hard in the building industry, paying my taxes and trying to be a good citizen, I was made redundant in 2007, found two more jobs only to be laid off due to this economic depression. For all the talk by Gordon about public works and getting us back into work, i find nothing is being done. I now believe the government just don’t care about mine or anybody else’s situation.

I am beginning to think this is all a plan by the new fascist state of New Labour to keep the majority of manual workers on minimum wages. For too long these people have hacked into every aspect of our lives and eroded our freedoms of expression in order to control us. So thanks Stewart for having the guts to openly stand up to them, even with the threat of the the Police spying on you. I just wish the people of England could show a bit more of a backbone and publicly show their contempt for this government by openly defying them as the brave French and Icelandic people so often have.

Keep the faith, Paddy

Thank you for those kind words. I have to say though, that it doesn’t take much guts to stand against a government that has shown itself to be so completely reprobate. In my case, Labour’s failure to honour their manifesto promise to hold a referendum on Europe, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It is now a matter of standing up for our country and our freedom or losing everything to the whore that sits in Brussels.

The way the government has betrayed the young people, especially, makes me sick. No, the time came when I realised I had nothing left to lose by speaking out and I wished I had started years ago, but better late than never. Hopefully.

I will keep the faith. There is no fear in love and there is no strength like God’s.

Feel free to email me with your own views. I only publish names after gaining the permission of the writer.

I am grateful to a reader for emailing me about this poster. He says this is a really great leaflet to get round the houses in labour estates – also looks good for fly posting and notice boards or just left lying about where it will be picked up.

WANTED – More posters that advertise the truth about our scandalous, traitorous, seedy little band of terrorists that call themselves our Government!

Warning: the distressing photo at the bottom of this article might open your eyes to the reality of abortion.

It is unsurprising that all Labour seem to be capable of in terms of political debate is to slag off anyone who disagrees with them.

It’s very easy these days. For example, if you think that foster children would be better off living in a normal family environment than with cohabitees (of any gender combination), then you can be labelled a homophobe. No discussion. Game over.

If you think that deporting people who came here illegally, preach hatred in order to stir up others to violence against us and cost us a fortune to keep, both when they are free (on benefits) and when in prison, then you are racist (even if the person is of the same ‘race’ as you).

Anyway, yesterday I designed this poster for a Labour supporter called “Andrew F” after his request on Tom Harris MP’s blog for a sign he could put up to promote Labour’s “progressive policies”.

After seeing my artwork, he said this on Tom’s blog:

Stewart – Well yes, the two million abortions is progressive actually. Allowing women control over what goes on inside their uterus is a liberal value. Thank you!

Can you see what he is doing? He is using soundbites, clichés and New Labourspeak – “progressive,” “allowing women control,” “liberal value”. He is not using his brain to make up his own mind – it has clearly been made up for him and so he feels comfortable to scoff at such an idea that human life is sacred.

I replied on Tom’s blog with a few comments, but he didn’t approve them. I don’t know why, but here they are:

Andrew F – you have the government you deserve.

The first family planning clinic was opened by Marie Stopes – a Nazi sympathiser and eugenicist who sent Hitler some of her poems and was otherwise also quite mentally unhinged.

First they came for the unborn, then they carried out fatal experiments on the military, then they came for the geriatrics and one day they will come for you, Andrew.

Learn about training the public to accept eugenics. The Government/UN/big corporation-backed environmental movement has blinded you into thinking ’save the planet’ means it would be better if people DIED.

An unborn human being should not have the death sentenced imposed because the mother thinks she has a right not to have to be ‘inconvenienced’ by the fruit of her moral decisions.

And what about the father’s rights? We never hear about these, do we? No, because you, Andrew, like most people, have been breast-fed Feminism all your life. A particularly nasty tipple – ostensibly from the paps of women, but in fact from the evil brains of Nazi eugenicist types who hate humanity and all we are capable of achieving.

I suggest you read my comments above about the definition of “progressive”.

Andrew F left his most disturbing comment till last. After thanking him for helping me understand what a Labour supporter thinks ‘progressive’ means and hoping God has mercy on his soul for his attitude towards humanity, he replied:

Suffice to say that any God who thinks women should be forced to carry a life-threatening parasite for three quarters of a year can take his mercy and shove it where his sun doesn’t shine.

I don’t know how old this person is, but I suspect he is a fairly recent graduate of the British ‘education’ system, where he has been conditioned to be a mindless drone, where scoffing and mocking are cool and civility and debate are ‘passé’ .

Andrew F is a symptom of a truly sick society. One that is dying; perhaps almost dead. A country that is so far gone that it is ripe for a takeover by enemies, foreign or domestic.

To describe this poor unwanted child (below), aborted at 22 weeks, as a life-threatening parasite is shocking indeed. Anyone who thinks similarly should escape the clichés and newspeak that override their own cognitive functions and see the truth that God’s creation is not to be so mistreated and mocked.

It makes me wonder if the schools and media have even managed to suck the conscience out from the feeble among us.

Do you remember the group of MPs trying to force a change of law in Northern Ireland where abortion is still illegal? Despite opposition from all religions and all political parties in the province, Labour MP, Diane Abbott, and a small band of cohorts decided to make it their business to overrule the current law and ignore the wishes of most of the people.

Thankfully they failed, but abortion and its promotion are immensely important to New Labour, which is the reason some of them want very young primary school children to be brainwashed into believing that abortion is a good thing.

I cannot look at this picture for more than a second or two before the tears start welling up. I thank the Almighty God that I still have humanity and normal feelings.

Following a request from a Labour supporter for “something to get fired up about” for a sign, I designed this:

National Review
By Bat Yeor
February 16, 2009

Does defending Western values constitute “inciting hatred”?

Britain has just witnessed the spectacle of a duly elected parliamentarian from another EU country, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, being denied entry to the country because he constituted “a threat to public policy.” Wilders, after being detained briefly at Heathrow, was sent back to Holland — where he has further legal troubles. Three weeks earlier, a Dutch appeals court had ordered prosecutors to begin criminal proceedings against Wilders for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and “insulting Muslim worshippers” through his public statements and his 2008 film, Fitna. The order to proceed with the criminal prosecution resulted from pressure put on European states and on the UN Human Rights Council by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC’s aim is to punish and suppress any alleged Islamophobia, around the world but particularly in Europe, and it has been a leader in creating the conditions that made the U.K.’s Wilders ban possible.

The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah — the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body.

The OIC is a unique organization — one that has no equivalent in the world. It unites the religious, economic, military, and political strength of 56 states. By contrast, the European Union represents half as many states and is a secular body only, and the Vatican — which speaks for the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics — is devoid of any political power. Many Muslims in the West resist the OIC’s tutelage and oppose its efforts to supplant Western law with sharia. But the OIC’s resources are formidable.

The organization has numerous subsidiary institutions collaborating at the highest levels with international organizations in order to implement its political objectives worldwide. Its main working bodies are the Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), which seeks to impose on the West the Islamic perception of history and civilization; the Observatory of Islamophobia, which puts pressure on Western governments and international bodies to adopt laws punishing “Islamophobia” and blasphemy; and the newly created Islamic International Court of Justice. As stated in its 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the OIC is strictly tied to the principles of the Koran, the Sunnah, and the sharia. In a word, the OIC seeks to become the reincarnation of the Caliphate.

The OIC regularly reiterates its commitments to protecting the political, historical, religious, and human rights of Muslims in non-OIC states, especially Muslims who form the majority in specific regions of non-Muslim countries — such as the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, and western Thrace in Greece — as well as Muslims in places like the Balkans, the Caucasus, Myanmar, India, and China. The OIC supports Hamas and the Palestinians in their struggle to destroy Israel, as well as the Muslim fight for “legitimate self-determination” in “Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.” It has condemned the “continual Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan,” and it expresses its full solidarity with “the just cause of the Muslim Turkish people of Cyprus” and with Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, whom many hold responsible for encouraging the massacres in Darfur. The seat of the OIC is in Jeddah, but the organization regards that location as temporary: Its headquarters will be transferred to al-Kods (Islamized Jerusalem) when that city has been “liberated” from Israeli control.

In its efforts to defend the “true image” of Islam and combat its defamation, the organization has requested the UN and the Western countries to punish “Islamophobia” and blasphemy. Among the manifestations of Islamophobia, in the OIC’s view, are European opposition to illegal immigration, anti-terrorist measures, criticism of multiculturalism, and indeed any efforts to defend Western cultural and national identities. The OIC has massive funding from oil sources, which it lavishly spends on the Western media and academia and in countless “dialogues.” It influences Western policy, laws, and even textbooks through pressures brought by Muslim immigrants and by the Western nations’ own leftist parties. Hence, we have seen Kristallnacht-like incitements of hate and murder against European Jews and Israel conducted with impunity in the cities of Europe — where respect for human rights is supposed to be one of the highest values.

Geert Wilders is the latest victim of this enormous world machinery. His crime is maintaining that Europe’s civilization is rooted in the values of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and the Enlightenment — and not in Mecca, Baghdad, Andalusia, and al-Kods. He fights for Europe’s independence from the Caliphate and for its endangered freedoms. He had received serious death threats even before Fitna was released.

Many Muslims in the West support him, but Geert Wilders’s principal weapons are his courage and his willingness to resist even his own government, which is slowly submitting to the OIC’s pressures. Wilders’s enemies pretend that he is an insignificant personality who makes “provocative” statements only in search of fame. In fact, if his motivation were self-interest, he could do far better by courting the OIC’s favors — as so many Europeans are doing, consciously or unconsciously — rather than risking his freedom and indeed his life.

— Bat Yeor is the author of studies on the conditions of Jews and Christians in the context of the jihad ideology and the sharia law. Recent books include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, both from Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

From National Review