Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Did Tatchell write the script?

Reports are circulating that homosexual rights campaigner and co-ordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign, Peter Tatchell, actually wrote the Prime Minister's speech for him.

The Rainbow flag has replaced the "Union" Jack

So here, for the sake of comparison is the speech made by Tatchell in October 2012 and beneath it, Prime Minister Cameron's statement on the issue:-


London, UK – 13 October 2011

Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign, writes:

"For many months, the Equal Love campaign has been lobbying the Conservative party and government, and Tory MPs and activists, urging them to support the legalisation of same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships.
We’ve recently won the government’s commitment to marriage equality, but not to heterosexual civil partnerships. Never mind. We’ll keep fighting for the rights of straight couples until they get equality too.
Below is an article I wrote for Progressive Conscience, a liberal Conservative journal, which was published shortly after the government announced its commitment to marriage equality but before David Cameron’s speech to the recent Conservative party conference.
As you can see, to win over Conservatives we pitched our arguments to appeal to their Conservative values.
We were delighted that David Cameron backed marriage equality in his keynote party conference address.
Indeed, we were surprised, and flattered, that the Prime Minister’s speech echoed very closely the wording of our Equal Love briefings: Gay marriage is a Conservative value.
We said:
“Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole. If marriage is a Conservative value, then same-sex marriage is consistent with this value. Far from undermining marriage, gay marriage strengthens it. Conservatives believe in marriage. They should therefore support same-sex marriage precisely because they are Conservatives.”

Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone is who supporting the Equal Love campaign in the UK, especially the eight couples who have taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Together, with your help, we will win. Marriage equality is an unstoppable global trend.
Best wishes, Peter Tatchell, Coordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign" 

And David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party  (but not for much longer)


"But for me, leadership on families also means speaking out on marriage. Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.
But we're also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn't matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we're consulting on legalising gay marriage.
And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative".

*Photo: Archbishop Cranmer blog

17 comments:

  1. Well it could be said that Tatchell is Australia's way of reciprocating convict settlement .We are now sending all our dregs-well one anyway sorry- back to England .
    i hope that UK voters punish both parties and that Conservatives get rid of Cameron .God Bless you all

    ReplyDelete
  2. The softening up process began a long time ago, when individual feelings were promoted as being superior to the rationality of collective society. The problem with feelings is that all too soon they become purely sentimental: the Diana effect, the flowers placed at spots where people have died by people they never knew, the zoom camera lenses capturing a weeping policewoman (preferably blonde and good-looking), members of the emergency services talking endlessly of their psychological trauma.
    The tabloidisation of emotion has been a gift for the ruthless to exploit for their own agenda. You have to hand it to the gay lobby. They have known exactly what buttons to push, the optimum one being "lurve".
    If you look at Tatchell's website, you will see that not only was a rainbow flag rally organised outside Parliament last night, but a committee room was booked for the key voting time of 6.0-8.0pm. That sort of planning takes cool and intelligent calculation. Where were the faith leaders? Trying not to be seen as inflammatory.
    It won't stop there, of course. Gay "marriage" is just another step forward in the softening-up process. I think we can all guess what the next campaign will be. And it will use all the emotional buttons that have delivered so well. Cameron and his ilk are merely the useful idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I cannot help wondering if Cameron is a closet gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alternatively, there could be something in his background (Prep schools and public school- the kinds of places where that sort of thing has been known) with which militant gays could blackmail him.

      Delete
  4. Well said, everyone. In the U.S. our Diana-worship is a matter of strapping toy bears to metal fences and laying cellophane-wrapped flowers on concrete. When militant secularism bullies Christian and Jewish forms of mourning out of existence, the benumbed survivors can only cobble together do-it-ur-self observances that would disgrace a Hallmark card.

    In my youth I bought into the leave-people-alone thing, and I still think this should obtain in misadventures that occur as the result of adolescent confusion and the machinations of evil adults against them, but I had no idea of the organized evil lurking in the shadows. One does not imagine that even Oscar Wilde, himself much conflicted, would have anticipated this institutional error with its attendant persecution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think one look at Mr Tatchell says everything that needs to be said: he is withering away, as his hollow cheeks and sunken eyes show, the visible effects of his sexual perversion. It is a metaphor for the whole poof movement. They are quite literally dying off, which, of course, is the reason they are so frantic to get new adherents into their destructive lifestyle.

    God will have the last laugh, as always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be interesting to know what medical expertise you bring to this discussion. I, too, have been struck by his appearance and wondered if there was any connection with homosexuality.I attribute being well-covered myself to the love of a good woman.

      Delete
    2. I have hollow cheeks and sunken eyes. I am not now, or have ever been, a homosexualist

      Delete
  6. Richard please start to have some overview of the comments that are being published on your blog they really are starting to become offensive e.g comments that imply Mr Tatchells physical appearance is somehow related to his sexual persuasion. I personally find comments of this nature distasteful and feel that they have no place what so ever on a Catholic blog site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richard,

    Tatchell wriote a published letter to THE GUARDIAN in 1997 which argued for sexual intercourse with children as young as 9 years old, claiming not at all was "unwanted" or "harmful."

    If Cameron is employing a (pro)paedophile speech writer then the world needs to know.

    Of course the church would be stronger on this matter if it had not let so many homosexuals into the seminaries and tried to cover up their crimes re. the clerical abuse scandals (post V2 and all that).

    More power to your... erm... keyboard! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Introibo:
    From taste, I'd agree with you.
    In any individual case, a raddled appearance may mean anything.
    But one of the elephants in the room is that homosexual" activity" is of itself physically unhealthy,neglidgibly so in comparison to homosexual promiscuity. Heterosexual promiscuity( again our design is for faithful marriage, as regards health) is pushing the limits of western medicine to contain, Homosexual goes far beyond
    (One should expect it given that it's NOT what we're built for,.)
    Of course Ill health can come about many ways - Protestant American keep exact statistics - they would! of how 2nd and third world missionary work typically knocks about ten years off life expectantancy and so forth.
    Associating certain behaviour and lifestyles with stastical consequences is that politically incorrect thing, reality.
    The point here is that pointing this particular inherent unhealthiness out , or precautions like stopping MWHSWM giving blood ,is shouted down as bigoted hate speech, by homosexualist lobbies,often where the local law can move in,, and/or (blood giving) discriminatory action .
    I have no encyclopediac knowledge of Mr Thatchel's acts and statements nor of the lobby group he leads - if he ever has been responsible for such denials, then pointing to the man's unhealthy looks as a case in point on the public square would have that degree of justification.Tactically dangerous, since he might have a genetic condition he was born with, live as he might. Has he made himself "fair game " as they say, on this point?
    How wrong is it also to point out how how unhappy and intolerant some faces can be? Individually, often judgemental and uncharitable, but surely on aggregate there is something to be learned from such? Individually even there's amaybe :Cassius has a lean and hungry look. I would hope not to judge a young man in a hoodie in winter - but Id steer as clear as possible on the offchance. Dare one say even that much?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Mike thank you for a considered response. The point that I was trying to make was that intemperate language used to describe another human being should have no place here. Reasoned discussion can so easily be impaired by the use of offensive vocabulary e.g "poof movement" after all the Church instructs us to hate the sin but love the sinner. I cannot help but think that anyone who holds a same sex attraction and who is struggling to live a chaste life would be deeply offended by some of the comments here from fellow Catholics

      Delete
  9. I am Catholic but I think this blog and it's comments are turning into a gay and Muslim hate site. Why don't you talk about all the 'wonderful' things that Catholics do - rather than seeking to find the 'evil' in what others are doing!

    Blessings,
    Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no such thing as a "gay" person. And Catholicism is not just about promoting good but fighting evil.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mary, hate does not enter into my thought processes. I only seek to put my personal views down in this form as I believe that many Catholics are unaware of some of the dangers looming up on us. Now that homosexual "marriage" is upon us, our priests and teachers (especially) face the possibility of jail. The dangers of a faith where revenge, violence and the humiliation of women is commonplace prompts me to speak out against the excesses of Islam. I think it was GKC who said that, if you don't condemn you condone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lese majeste to second a blogger on his own blog,
      but seconded

      Delete