Anyone gaily married or civilly partnered when I come to power will be lashed 100 times

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185893/Tory-MP-Nick-Boles-puts-private-Hebrew-lessons-expenses.html

Thoughtcrime, Hate Crime and Equality before the Law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8316646.stm

Why has gay bashing risen by 20% in London, ie in the Tower Hamlets - a predominantly Muslim area? Is it because the Muslims (whose Koran informs them that homosexual acts are sinful) are beating up gays more than any other group?

Is it anything to do with the increasingly militancy of homosexuals and how they are perceived to be a sort of gay mafia taking over the country and given special privileges, and the "gayer than Labour" message the Tories are trying to give?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/10/nick-boles-tory-ppc-foisted-on-grantham.html

When two groups protected by PC legislation are in conflict with each other, who wins?

Hate Crime (ie assaulting or killing someone because you hate them) attracts a higher penalty than if you did not particularly hate them.

Why on earth would you attack or kill someone if you did not hate them?

So, attacking a homosexual, disabled person or someone on religious or racial grounds, would attract a higher penalty than if you attacked a member of the BNP, would it?

How does this square with the principle of equality before the law?

It's official then, is it, that here in the UK there is no equality before the law?

There is a very simple Libertarian solution to this: repeal all hate crime, which is but thoughtcrime. If you punish properly those who kill and attack others, then there would be no problem, would it?

It is just possible that our legislators have got their knickers in a twist and have had their knickers in a twist for a very long time.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

It is telling, is it not, that it is only on this ridiculous and unnecessary piece of legislation that MPs are indulged by being allowed to vote with their consciences?

Are there not enough people around that we need to artificially create humans to further desecrate the environment with their consumption, aspirations and carbon footprints?

Why is it, though, that our government is perpetually bent on sponsoring folly?

Is it that important that gays and lesbians be given the option of having a child (probably at taxpayers' expense) that will probably be having problems with its self-identity when it grows up, particularly when that couple have split up? (It is of course well-known that homosexual relationships are more unstable than marriage, even in these days of easy divorce.)




Below is an imagined conversation between an Irresponsible Lesbian Mother and her laboratory-created Half- Human Half-Animal "Son":

Little Boy: Mother, who was my father?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: You don't have one, dear. I had you created with my ex-girlfriend who has now gone off with another woman when she discovered that motherhood was not to her liking. We felt it was a lifestyle choice at the time, a bit like having a new kitchen or buying a pet together.

Little Boy: Am I a Freak of Nature, mum?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: I'm afraid so, darling.

Little Boy: Does this mean that if I grow up to be a psychotic serial murderer, because of my inability to come to terms with my biological origins, people will understand and empathise?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: That is perfectly possible, dear boy, if the fund of compassion has not been completely exhausted and Western civilisation still exists in any recognisable form.




If those who cannot reproduce normally feel a little left out, why is it the state's (and by extension the taxpayer's) role to look after these people?

If most women who put career before motherhood are too dim or career-focused not to realise that they are compromising their fertility and their marriage prospects by leaving it too late, then the obvious solution would be a change of behaviour, such as marrying younger, and getting an alpha male such as Tony Blair to propose to you because he likes the way you clean toilets without having to be asked (as related by Cherie Blair in her book Speaking for Myself), choosing men with incomes capable of supporting a housewife, rather than aiding and abetting these women in continuing in their fertility-challenged lifestyles.

What is worse is that quite a few of these women, suddenly becoming aware of their error in their mid-30s, intentionally get themselves pregnant by men to whom they have temporary sexual access but who are not husband-material. They then turn up on the doorsteps of their parents (if still together), who are expected to be grateful at the prospect of becoming the grandparents of an illegitimate grandchild.

This fact is proudly announced to neighbours, friends and family, who are expected to congratulate them.

The crime is complete when we do, because we do not wish to give offence.

As for the creation of "saviour siblings", my Darwinian instincts tell me that if you have a child that is not fit for life, then it is better to just have another one that is, rather than have another one to save the one that is unfit for life. If the unfit one continues, your limited resources of time and energy will be taken up in keeping alive a life that is unviable, sickly and unproductive, when your energies would be more profitably directed to supporting a child that is healthy and normal, and expecting the taxpayer to sponsor this humanitarian indulgence.

This is just what I mean when I talk about this cancer of compassion which has spread to every organ of national life.

Why, I ask again, is it the role of government (and by extension the taxpayer) to sponsor such folly?

Now, an Euthanasia Bill for the self-righteous, interfering, wasteful and dim, who think that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is a productive use of Parliamentary time, would have my enthusiastic support ...