More gay rights madness
Dear Rob Davies,
As a spokesman for Canterbury council, I’m sure you were delighted with the ruling of Local Government Ombudsman last week. After a complaint from local gay rights activists that sparked a two-month investigation costing thousands of pounds, the council were told that it is ’sufficiently gay’ as it does enough to promote homosexual culture. While I am very glad that you did not find yourself in any great trouble over this, I find it deeply disturbing that the situation arose in the first place.
As part of the investigation, the council had to prove its inclusiveness by giving details of “touring plays and musicals, for example, which would be of interest to the LGBT community”. It also had to show that it had “put forward suggestions for small events that it might help fund, as well as proposals for other events such as exhibitions”. The Local Government Ombudsman – who asked for the city’s council to provide evidence of how it supported the gay community – said it was satisfied the pink pound was being catered for. In response to this, you said: “Obviously we’re delighted with the outcome of the investigation. We feel we do a great deal for the gay community in Canterbury and we have always tried to support various gay events and promotions. But at the same time it is not the duty of any council to set up a gay bar – that’s not what councils do.” The two-month investigation began at the end of April after a letter was sent from two representatives of Pride in Canterbury. Chairman Andrew Brettell lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman claiming his initial letter to the council in November fell on deaf ears. Mr Brettell, in his 60s, said last month: “We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city. The impression I get is that the council just doesn’t want to know. I get the feeling it is precious because Canterbury has a cathedral and history. I think they think the gay community will turn it into Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Needless to say, I think the Ombudsman made a very rational decision. But, wait a minute, why is the local council under any obligation to support the gay community? Since when is it appropriate to use taxpayers’ money to set up exhibitions and events that are solely aimed at homosexuals? What about me? What do I get instead? You’re absolutely right that it is not the job of a council to set up gay bars, but why should the council be spending money on promoting anything that knowingly and deliberately excludes a huge proportion of the population? What would happen if a council set up events, concerts and exhibitions just for blokes and totally excluded the interests of women? What would happen if a council put on plays and musicals that were only aimed at white people? They would be metaphorical blood on the streets. I’ve often heard the argument that local government should support things like gay pride marches and ‘multicultural’ events because they help local businesses and attract people to the area, but if this was actually the case then there is still no reason for the council to spend a penny of our taxes on it because it should be the responsibility of local businesses to organise the event seeing as they gain so much from it. After a quick Google search, I learned that Boris Johnson has been criticised for withdrawing funding for Soho Pride as well as dropping Ken Livingstone’s support for the LGBT museum in London and the capital’s hosting of the ‘Gay Games’, but he is absolutely right to do so – it is not the business of government, either local or national, to fund such activities. This is why I also support his cut in funding for Jewish festivals, Black History Month and refugee festivals that exclude huge swathes of the population at considerable expense to the taxpayer.
The situation that your council, and indeed many other councils, found yourself in comes down to one simple issue: there is a big, big, big difference between what taxpayers could pay for and what taxpayers should pay for. Labour have used taxpayers’ money to push their own agenda in a disgusting manner, including the superficial and poorly evidenced ‘equality’ campaign led by Harriet Harman, but it goes much deeper than this. Indeed, councils and businesses are now under the constant shadow of legal action unless they actively ‘promote’ minority groups. Discrimination against the gay community or any other minority group should never ever be tolerated, but then again neither should handing over my taxes for them to listen to their favourite musical.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Best bit about this whole story was that the council apparently wrote to the local Pride goons saying, in effect, ‘Well, what are some examples of ‘touring plays and musicals which would be of interest to the LGBT community’, then..?’
And they didn’t respond. But carried on complaining about it!
I’ve spoken out here against homophobia before but this is ridiculous.
Why? Well when you ‘celebrate’ (I’ll eschew ‘promote’ for the moment as that’s a different argument) one single section of society – be it blacks, gays, women, muslims, whatever – soon in the interests of equality you have to celebrate them all with equivalent events. What’s wrong with that?
Well, nothing on the face of it. Unless, for example, you are interested in social cohesion because if you are then you look back and see that we’re spending money to promote an atomisation of our society where we may all be equal and ‘British’ but live parallel, separate lives. Which is not cohesive and instead fosters attitudes of difference and resentments based on it.
Surely it would be better to celebrate the country or the weather or something which all people are together in and make sure that members of different sub-groups or minorities are included in that. So rather than list of great Black Britons or Gay Britons, just have a list of great Brits, some of whom (shock, horror) will be black or gay!
Or have I woken up odd today?
Excellent letter LFAT. Very succinct.
I could rant and rant about this, but i’ll leave it saying i’m sick of having to pay for this type of crap, where minority groups ‘rights’ are rammed down my throat while being funded out of my wallet.
I feel like a second class citizen.
“So rather than list of great Black Britons or Gay Britons, just have a list of great Brits, some of whom (shock, horror) will be black or gay!”
Isn’t that what we used to have, before the progressives got in on the act?
Very good letter LFAT. I am sick to death of hearing about councils/other public bodies spending taxpayers’ money on certain groups. If a private business wants to promote some ‘minority’ group then that is up to them. I believe it is the same with the police. Why should there be a Black Police Officers Association for instance?
If ‘minority’ groups really want to integrate fully and be accepted by the majority, then they should not expect public funding for their own agendas.
So long as minority groups have access to the same services offering as other groups (eg police presence for parades) on the same terms, I don’t really care whether it is a LGBT march or a Morris dancer event
Seems to me that too many people believe they have a “right” to “public” money without appreciating that this is extracted from the taxpayer for a reason and is not just some unlimited resource
Julia, I’m not in any way surprised.
Shaun, social cohesion is indeed central to this discussion. For all the talk of ‘equality’, taxpayer-funded gay pride marches don’t really seem appropriate.
FLS, I know what you mean, honestly.
TSO, this is precisely my point. I have no right or grounds to complain about a privately funded, privately organised gay pride march or any other festival.
Charles, I agree that the source of this funding doesn’t dawn on a lot of people. That said, I doubt that a ‘white heterosexual’ parade would even be allowed, let alone funded.
TSO, this kind of nonsense has infected the police as well.
A friend who works in one of the largest forces outside of the Met (narrows it down to 2) told me that he knows of officers who are claiming to be gay, as they know it will increase their chances of promotion.
Interestingly, he wished to get the Police Association he was involved with officially recognised. It was refused until he pointed out (and threatened to take it further) that the LGBT, Black and Muslim equivalents were all recognised offically.
Good article in one of the papers recently by a retired senior officer from this force entitled ‘How diversity is destroying my force’. Shocking reading.
Discrimination is alive and well in the Police Service, but you might well be surprised at who is being discriminated against.
I am confused how did this cost thousands of pounds.Someone wrote complaint someone checked someone wrote report everything OK.There was nobody new employed to do this it gave work to some staff already employed.
FLS, sadly it’s all too real. Positive discrimination and other progressive weapons are causing far more harm than good.
William, good question. I suspect that someone from the council had to pay for the Ombudsman’s costs?….
Ever since I studied Civil Liberties as part of my law degree, I have noted that ‘positive’ discrimination is just discrimination – by definition those discriminating think its positive; the BNP doesn’t bar black members because it thinks its bad to discriminate…
The PC term is now ‘positive action’ which is a much better way of hiding what is clearly discrimination – that is the reward of one group because of their value to you at the expense of those you value less. Arguments about this were once commonplace even with the liberal left and it used to be said that this was just an interim step to redress the balance in short term moves – until clever wags started asking for ’short’ to be quantified…
Ha, I can believe that. Put the policy in place under the guise that it won’t be required for ‘very long’, then hope everyone forgets about it. As mentioned by FLS, the pervasive nature of discrimination – increasingly against white middle class males like myself – should not be underestimated.
I find myself ending up where I started from: arbitrary discrimination, based on skin colour, where your parents are from or what flavour Sky Fairy you believe in is wrong. No matter how many good-sounding prefixes, like ‘positive’, you give it.
EDIT: and as for the phrases ‘not very long’ or indeed ‘temporary’ I draw your attention to the fact that Income Tax was introduced as a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars. Some 194 later, I’m starting to think that it might well be here to stay…
My feelings on the subject are, like myself, simple… “Your sexuality, ethnicity, colour etc does not make you special”.
Pogo – that’s exactly my position: your race, colour or creed does not make you special so we won’t treat you any worse for it. Nor any better. You get the same shitty treatment we give All OUR citizens.
Precisely, Shaun. We all get the same shitty government with the same shitty services in the same shitty country. It’s only fair.
Exactly right LFAT- when people start saying that group X needs better treatment because of reason Y, I personally feel that its simply because of a wider failing in service Z. If X needs more places to go (mosque/theatre/youthgroup/sportsclib) then surely that is a failing in Z (delivery) and not Y (need). But I’ve clearly done too much maths/programming for out masters so they just hijack X and Y and make up a XZ to fix their needs rather than a Z which helps all equally in ways we approve of (committees, cups of tea and democracy).