Quick! Charge this man with a “hate crime!”
Peter Hitchens: We show tolerance to ‘gays’ and get tyranny in return
If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy. I really don’t want to know what other people do in their bedrooms. But these days they really, really want us all to know. And, more important, they insist that we approve. No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind.
We are forced to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to heterosexual married couples. Most emphatically, we are compelled to agree that homosexual couples are just as good at bringing up children as the children’s own grandparents. Better, in fact.
…
We cringe to the new Thought Police, like the subjects of some insane, sex-obsessed Stalinist state, compelled to wave our little rainbow flags as the ‘Gay Pride’ parade passes by.
Hitchens provides details on the case that led him to write the column. A couple in Edinburgh fought for custody of their grandchildren when their daughter refused to kick her drug habit. So, does the court in the UK place the children with immediate family…or strangers?
First, their daughter ends up as a drug abuser, like so many others in a country which permits the endless promotion of drug use by rock stars and refuses to punish the possession of narcotics, the only measure that would work.
Then, when they seek to look after her children, they are first insultingly informed that they are too old, and that their minor illnesses disqualify them from the task. Heaven help any employer who dared ‘discriminate’ in this fashion.
But the new Thought Police are oddly exempt from their own rules.
Next, the grandparents are informed that the children are to be put into the care of a homosexual couple. And – this is the crucial moment – they are warned in the most terrifying terms that if they object to this arrangement they will never see their grandchildren again.
Leave aside the rest of it. It is this demand, that they mouth approval of the new regime like the defendants at some show trial, which is the bit that ought to make your flesh creep.
This is the action of a tyranny in operation, especially the use of children to blackmail their parents and grandparents. People who can do this can do anything.Isn’t it amazing to reflect that this campaign began in the name of tolerance?
Amazing, yes. Surprising, no.
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on February 2, 2009 4:40 pm
» Filed Under Child Exploitation, Fascism, Homosexual Agenda, Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism/PC, News, Parenting, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Totalitarianism, liberalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
10 Responses to “Quick! Charge this man with a “hate crime!””
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Well we write another day about the travesty that is occurring in America and around the world and we know that that trash thinking will make it to these American shores soon enough
So what do we do?
we write
and get beaten down
like the africans being dragged to ships or the jews being put on trains
PC is about hate and the police state. The gay agenda real face has been no secret to anyone for years. Their behavior in California is something most noraml people wouldn’t tolerate unless you belonged to the KKK or communist party.
The UK has long ago given the keys of the nuthouse to the loons. The only question is whether the US will descend so far.
This is definitely a case of gays getting, not equal rights, but special rights.
A couple of quick questions and an observation.
1. Thomas…could you provide me with a copy of the gay agenda..I hear it talked about a lot, but have yet to see a copy. Thanks.
2. Ceecee..since you are “definite” that this is special rights for a gay couple, could you explain what “rights” they are getting over and above those that would be afforded to a heterosexual couple…what do they get, that a straight couple don’t…look forward to your answer.
3. My observation is that if you read all the press coverage on both sides of this issue, and not just the biased right wing rantings of Mr Hitchens, then you would know that there are several significant issues with the grandparents looking after these children. Such as they both have medical conditions which are only going to get worse over the next couple of years…diabetes and heart disease, which affects there ability to care for he children in the long term. The grandaparents already have a number of teenage children who they struggle to care for due to economic circumstances. The authorities have taken a view that in the best interests of the child they should be adopted. That is the first and paramount consideration and decision…the welfare of the children. The second issue, which has “shocked” some people is that the adoptive couple are both men. Had they been a straight couple…I wonder if this story would have even made the news. I suspect not…and that is the real “agenda”
Steve,
The story is that the State threatened these people with the loss of visitation if the OBJECTED to the adoption of their flesh and blood. That is tyranny, that is the brute force of State power clamping a muzzle on its citizens. Freedom of conscience and speech are more important then sexual license, gay marriage, or any of the other things that your gang mistakes for true freedom.
So Steve, should the State conduct periodic reviews of the health and economic circumstances of everyone raising children? Then based upon those findings, should children be reassigned adoptive parents if there are “health concerns” or “economic issues”? This seems to be what you are suggesting.
Are gays and pregnant women the only people who have the right to privacy, freedom of association, and conscience?
It would be ‘amazing’ and ’surprising’ if it were true, but not surprisingly there’s more to this story than meets the eye. I am a foster carer in Scotland.
The grandparents in question actually gave up their adoption fight almost three years ago. They were considered unsuitable to adopt these children because he is 59 and suffers from coronary heart disease (having already had one major heart attack in the past), and she is a diabetic. The simple fact is that in Scotland this couple would never be approved to adopt two small children. There is also of course the fact that at least one of their children (they have 7) turned into a heroin addict. How did that happen?
As I said, the children have been in foster care for almost three years, and neither the grandparents or the mother (who is a heroin addict) have seen the children since last August. Prior to that, contact was held once a month. The grandparents only made a fuss about the children being adopted outside the family when they discovered that the children might be going to a gay couple.
The so-called ‘threat’ that they might never see the children again is also not what it seems. In Scotland it is possible to have a post adoption agreement giving the birth family some limited ongoing contact. However (and this is the crucial bit), the adopting couple will not be expected to provide ongoing contact if they are likely to be subjected to prejudice or the adoption is likely to be undermined in some way. THIS is what the social workers meant when they advised the grandparents not to raise objections on the grounds of the adopting couple’s sexuality.
Oh, I just wander how many GLBT couples it will take to adopt the new California octuplets and their siblings. Aging grandparents too weak/poor to raise grandchildren. Think about Nadya Suleman- she certainly is not in a position to provide a good care for her babies. And all these unfortunate people loosing jobs and houses- how are they going to provide to their children? Take them away and put them with progressive, influential, cultured, loooving gay, lesbian, and especially transgender community activists. Let the State decide what is the best for your children. I’ve heard they are already working on a minimum income requirements to raise a child…
Elector of Saxony – Which “gang” do I belong to ? I am interested to understamd what you meant by that comment.
I was merely pointing out that the commenatators prior to my post were operating on a very limited and biased view of the facts…please see the comment by Robert which has perhaps provided the perspective I was trying to bring to the issue.
As to conducting periodic health checks on parents raising children, you and I both know that you are mounting a silly and spurious argument. In this case the possibility of considering the health issues and their long term impact on the children prioir to placement was possible. Therefore that opportunity was taken to assess the suitability of placing these children with their grandparents i.e. was it in the best interests of the child.
I would expect any prospective adoptive or foster couple to have various checks done, including health and financial checks conducted prior to being considered suitable…this includes the grandparents. Just because they are close realtives does not automatically mean they are the best people to adopt.
And as I said in my earlier post, which is echoed by Robert, would there have been this much fuss if the adoptive couple were straight ? I think not….it’s only hit the headlines when the family found out about who the adoptive couple were going to be.
Nora – On a minor point in response to your sarcastic comments – I would prefer the state to intervene to save a childs life, than stick to the dogma that a child should always be left with it’s natural parents even when they are clearly incapable of properly caring for them.
Keeping them with the parents is clearly best, even if they need to be offered support, be it financial or emotional, but when they are still incapable of caring for a child even with that support, then state has a responsibility and duty to intervene.
If that means taking the children and placing them with ANY suitable couple regardless of colour, sexual orientation or religious beliefs etc (with obvious considerations re age and health) either temporarily or permenantly, then sadly it sometimes needs to happen.
Again I reiterate…this is, and should be nothing to do with sexual orientation..it’s about what professionals, employed by the state to make such determinations, say is in the best interests of the child. They are legislatively bound by the Childrens Act 1989 to act in the best interests of the child, and the childs interests are considered “paramount” above all others including those of the parent(s) and grandparent(s).
The social workers claimed the grandparents were “too old”, the grandmother is 46, the grandfather is 54. The wife of former PM Tony Blair gave birth to her last child at age 44, yet no one said she was too old. They claimed they were too sick. Diabetes is very common, and easily manageable, and people do not have their children or grandchildren taken away because of that. The grandfather has angina, also easily treated with medication. Those children were stolen by social services, because they felt that a less affluent family couldn’t afford protection under the law. The grandparents are wonderful people, and raised more than one child. The one daughter being an addict is no fault of theirs. Their other adult children are not addicts, but good and decent human beings.
The threats made to these grandparents, by social workers is a violation of their rights.