One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. The demonstrations against the Pope's visit to Britain are to feature Peter Tatchell, who, by lowering the age of consent to 14, would legalise practically all of the acts that have brought scandal on the Church.
Except when Catholic priests engage in them, sexual acts between men and teenage boys are glorified by the Political and Media Classes, who vilify anyone who objects. Tatchell's treatment as a National Treasure illustrates this. As does the political role of Harriet Harman of the Equalities Bill, formerly legal advisor to the Paedophile Information Exchange and to Paedophile Action for Liberation, as reported in The Daily Telegraph last March. What does a story have to do to make the front page?
Perhaps the Holy Father expected the Tories to take the cue, and pipe up that they would repeal the Equalities Bill and other anti-Catholic, anti-Christian legislation. But I doubt it. Their votes, on this and on eighty-five per cent of the Government's programme, speak for themselves. So his point is made precisely by their, and the Lib Dems', failure to say a word: do not vote for any of them, but make alternative arrangements instead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope you've got good libel lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI hardly think that they are going to be necessary.
ReplyDeleteHarman didn't sue the Telegraph. Weren't you a source for this story?
ReplyDeleteHow could she have done?
ReplyDeleteAnd if one of the Seventies sectarian Leftists who are New Labour (including Cameron courtiers these days) ever had to explain those days in court, then the dominoes really would start to fall...
Regular churchgoers almost always still vote and Catholics mostly vote Labour. What would happen to Labour if they stopped?
ReplyDeleteThe first women imams, by order of the Prophet Harriet, peace be upon her.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, with any luck, we are about to find out.
ReplyDeleteRK, apparently there are already some in China, by order of the government there, on which ours is clearly now modelling itself.
They still wouldn't be legal. Read ss 16 to 21 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Even for children above the age of consent, sexual abuse of a position of trust is a crime.
ReplyDeleteNot if Tatchell had his way. Or Harman, come to that.
ReplyDeleteTatchell opposed that clause, Will.
ReplyDelete"I hardly think that they are going to be necessary."
ReplyDeleteYou mean nobody would bother with someone as insignificant as you? How can you be sure?
I know that these statements are entirely factual, and perfectly simple to prove. As do they.
ReplyDeleteI remember all of this in the 70s. I have spent nearly 40 years wondering when it was going to catch up with certain people. Not the Catholic Church, which was officially always against it. I mean the people under whose influence certain trendy Vatican II bishops and seminary teachers went astray, leading their underlings with them. Not just them, either. The damage has been incalulable.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. An entire civilisation dragged back to the pederasty (among so many other things, such as infanticide) from which Christianity rescued it.
ReplyDelete"What does a story have to do to make the front page?"
ReplyDeleteBe true, for a start. How are your libel lawyers. You may want to hire Neil Clark for his legal expertise (snigger)
I'll stick with Stephen Sizer, thank you. Or Martin Beckford, author of this Telegraph story. Or his editor.
ReplyDelete