Finally managed to find a copy of this crap which was so offensive even The Daily Mail
deleted it from their website.
I present it here in its full glory.
Enjoy!
Homosexuality IS A Departure From The Norm - We must beware of our civilisation being battered by the PC brigade
By Alexander Boot.
Boris Johnson is a long-standing
champion of sexual tolerance – at least that’s what he seems to expect
from his poor wife.
This time he has shifted his innermost
convictions into the public arena by banning from London buses a
Christian campaign aimed at reforming homosexuals.
‘London is one of the most tolerant
cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance,’ he said. I agree.
London is so tolerant it could be
twinned with Sodom – or alternatively with our neighbourhood French
villages called Orgy and Anus (I’m not joking, they are both next door
to us).
True to his word, the good mayor found
nothing wrong with the blatant propaganda of homosexuality launched
earlier by Stonewall, the charity devoted to promoting homosexual
agendas, such as same-sex marriage.
The thrust of their campaign was the
probably correct message that homosexuality is innate and therefore
irreversible.
In response, Christian groups created a
campaign typified by the ad saying ‘Some people are gay. Get over it.’
That’s where Mr Johnson drew the line on his tolerance.
‘It is clearly offensive,’ he
thundered, ‘to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone
recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven
around London on our buses.'
Since only about one percent of us are
that way inclined, homosexuality is obviously a departure from the norm.
Surely, 99 percent are in a better position than one percent to judge
what is normal?
The constructive campaign from
Christian groups telling gays that they have the choice to 'get over'
their homosexuality.
And, indulging in a bit of reductio ad
absurdum, reversing that proportion would spell the end of the human
race, which is clearly undesirable. So the dictionary definition applies
in its entirety.
It may well be true that a propensity
for homosexual, which is to say aberrant, behaviour is innate.
And it’s indisputable that people ought
not to be reproached, much less punished, for the way they are born.
They can, however, be legitimately asked not to act on their aberrant
tendencies.
And it’s indisputable that people ought
not to be reproached, much less punished, for the way they are born.
They can, however, be legitimately asked not to act on their aberrant
tendencies.
A kleptomaniac only becomes
reproachable when he actually steals. A man who’s violent by nature is
on safe grounds until he commits a violent act. We aren’t responsible
for where we begin in life. But we are responsible for where we finish.
Boris Johnson was said to have
intervened himself as chair of TfL when he became aware of the
controversial campaign, which mimicked a previous Stonewall initiative.
The campaign that offended the Mayor
enunciates the traditional Christian attitude to homosexuality. Rather
than regarding homosexuality as a disease from which one could be cured,
Christianity regards it as a sin from which one should abstain. It’s
only in this sense that a homosexual can ‘get over it’.
Abstaing from sex for moral reasons
is tantamount to heroism, and most people can’t be expected to be
heroes. That’s why I don’t think homosexuality should be banned, or
homosexuals in any way abused.
The campaign that offended the Mayor
enunciates the traditional Christian attitude to homosexuality. Rather
than regarding homosexuality as a disease from which one could be cured,
Christianity regards it as a sin from which one should abstain. It’s
only in this sense that a homosexual can ‘get over it’.
Abstaining from sex for moral reasons
is tantamount to heroism, and most people can’t be expected to be
heroes. That’s why I don’t think homosexuality should be banned, or
homosexuals in any way abused,
But
Christianity would be remiss in its
mission if it didn’t call on them to adhere to the absolute moral
standards stipulated by the founding religion of our civilisation.
And all of us, Christians or otherwise,
ought to be wary of the systematic campaign to destroy everything our
civilisation stands for.
It’s not only our religion but also our
constitution, our aesthetic sense, our education and our general
morality that are being smashed by the battering ram of PC modernity.
That propaganda of homosexuality can be
used in this capacity is beyond question. Witness the fact that the
first European country that liberalised homosexuality was Soviet Russia
between 1917 and 1934 – neither the time nor the place known for an
all-consuming love of Western civilisation
In parallel,
the Bolsheviks, who were
almost as tolerant as Mayor Johnson, abolished marriage, and Lenin’s
mistress Inessa Armand likened sex to drinking a glass of water.
The Bolsheviks were aware of the
destructive potential of sexual licentiousness in all its forms, and
they were out to destroy.
Boris Johnson doesn’t want to destroy.
He just wants to be re-elected – as a Conservative (!) candidate.
To establish his conservative
credentials, he is flaunting his moral relativism, what he calls
intolerance of intolerance.
In doing so he denies the right of free
speech to a constructive campaign asking homosexuals to reform and
suggesting it’s possible – while affording this freedom to a campaign
that’s utterly deterministic and destructive, in effect if not in
intent.
I’m willing to accept for the sake of
argument (and only for its sake) that, rather than simply indulging in
full-time electioneering, Mr Johnson really does disagree with the
sentiment expressed in the ‘Get over it’ campaign.
But that’s no reason to ban it. For
freedom of speech to mean anything at all, it ought to cover the freedom
to say things we don’t like. After all, allowing only those statements
that please us involves no hardship at all.
Judging by his
action, Boris Johnson is
rather vague on our constitutional liberties, Western moral and
intellectual tradition, and the boundaries of his remit as a politician.
His response to what the ads actually
say also betokens a need for a remedial reading class. An ideal future
candidate for Prime Minister, I dare say.
What a cunt.
I don't approve of banning things, but hijacking a public space for money just to say you hate people is not "free speech".
Not sure what to do about this, some people are saying go to the Press Complaints Commission, but they only takes complaints from people who have been personally abused in a story.
Still, worth kicking up a fuss.
I've been writing Fagburn for two years now and I can't think of a worse piece.
You think the Mail would have learnt their lesson after the Stephen Gately/Jan Moir episode and that you can't get away with hateful homophobic crap like this in the 21st Century, but sadly no.
Posts
