Welcome to Nutcase FM, on 298 millitwats on the Raving Lunatic band

If you’re gay you’re “living in a state of active sin”, and that’s why a volunteer with a Christian radio station has been fired.

Pink News has the story.

This guy knew there would be issues at Refresh Radio in Manchester when he decided to come out, he says, but he wanted to be honest.

The Christians concerned are evangelicals. Many of this brand of Christian are, of course, total nutcases and seem to spend half their religious lives obsessing about what other people do between the sheets.

Apparently, Pink News has repeatedly emailed and phoned for a response from these lunatics, but, predictably, they have not responded.

When tolerance gets a bad name

I ain’t against gay people. I’m just against it being promoted to kids . . . I know people that’s gay. My wife’s got friends that are gay. I got family that’s gay. Cousins and shit. He cool as fuck. He cool as a motherfucker. He’s my homie. I just mean that on some of these TV shows, they got dudes kissing. And kids are watching that shit.

We can’t have kids growing up with that . . . but let’s keep it behind the scenes. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with it if that’s what two dudes wanna do. Cool. But that’s not bring that out into the world, where the kids can see that. We don’t want all the kids doing that. ‘Cause that ain’t how we was originally put here to do. Like I said, I ain’t got no problem with the gays.

These words of wisdom come from a rap “artist” called Warren G (pictured).

A blogger calling him/herself Black Tsunami over at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters (featured on our sidebar) has blogged this.

Need I dust off the old argument? No. Didn’t think so. It’s obvious that this “dude” is just a bloody ignorant and homophobic as the Pope. People who like to think of themselves as liberal have for years trotted out the old I-have-nothing-against-gays-but-wouldn’t-want-my-son/daughter-to-turn-out-to-be-one argument.

Black Tsunami goes on:

Well speaking for myself and so many LGBTs of color he has insulted (and many of them lead households that include children), I want to school Mr. G. on a few things.

With all due respect to Warren G, maybe he should stop obsessing over what he thinks is gay sexual behavior and start focusing on heterosexual sexual behavior. Since he has a problem with two men kissing, I would sincerely hope that he has an equal problem with songs and videos that objectify women as sex objects, that teaches black children to be underachievers, and that romanticize the selling of drugs.

Or have I just described the contents of his last albums?

Just to be clear about things – homosexuality is not a “lifestyle.” Putting on a skin tight dress or wearing your pants down past your ass, drinking and hitting on each other in a club, and then having wild sex that leads to illegitimate births is a lifestyle.

Why don’t folks like Warren G. ever criticize that?

You see this is the problem that LGBTs of color face in the black community. This open hypocrisy that we are supposed to say nothing about.

I am so sick and tired of members of black community will screw each other till the cows come home without the courtesy of a wedding ring and then have the absolute nerve to pass judgment on LGBTs of color just because we want a little affection from each other.

I am so sick and tired of black pastors who will say nothing about the depressing rate of black men in prison and black girls with babies but will break each other’s neck to get camera time in order to dehumanize LGBTs of color.

In addition to this excellent argument, Warren G obviously can’t see the flaw in his words: if kids can see heterosexuals kissing and cuddling in TV programmes and on the street, and he has nothing against homosexuality, then why can’t kids be allowed to see two girls or two guys showing similar affection?

Nah. People like this “dude” give tolerance a bad name.

Bigotry and Brüno

Sacha Baron Cohen’s film Brüno, which is about a gay fashion journalist, has been banned in predominantly Muslim Malaysia for its gay sex scenes and depiction of gay life.



The movie’s already been banned in Ukraine for the same reason.

A spokeswoman for Malaysia’s film censorship board has told the Press Association, “It’s banned because the story is based on gay life [. . .] There are a lot of sex scenes. It’s contrary to our brainless, primitive bigotry.”

Sorry, those last three words should read “culture”. A mere typographical error on my part.

The evil of Ratzo's “living and relevant force”

So the Catholic Church is just a “creative minority”, Pope Ratzo admits.

The homophobic old bigot was speaking to reporters on the plane taking him to the Czech Republic, and said that creative minorities “determine the future”.

“The Catholic Church must understand itself as a creative minority with a legacy of values which are not a thing of the past, but which are a very living and relevant force that must be realised, rendered present in the public debate,” said the Devil’s spawn.

A very “living and relevant force” that doesn’t think condoms should be distributed as a way of preventing, to some extent, the spread of AIDS? That “living and relevant force”?

Or is it the “living and relevant force” that won’t allow birth control by those among whom, through fear, it wields its evil influence, even though kids can’t be provided for in some societies, and, anyway, every new birth is a further drain on the Earth’s resources?

Perhaps it is the “living and relevant force” that won’t allow abortion – on pain of excommunication – even if women are vulnerable, likely to die, be unable to look after the child or children.

Then there’s the “living and relevant force” that opposes the rights of same-sex partners, and even causes some young people to commit suicide because they can’t bear being gay after being told by Ratzo and his despicable cohort that it’s evil.

This “living and relevant force” continues to insist on sectarian schools, of course, thus ensuring that young people feel alienated from their fellow human beings, not to mention the “living and relevant force” that has tried to cover up the actions of pervy priests who’ve abused young people.

Yes, Benny, old chap, a really useful “living and relevant force”, that!

The wrongs of rites

The human-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage! has entered the fray over loopy Christians who feel they can “exorcise” people’s sexuality out of them.

He speaks out in an article in the Brighton magazine Gscene (which also, incidentally, carries a fetching picture of the Pink Triangle Trust’s own George Broadhead, alongside his forthright views on a leading bigoted Muslim oaf who has declared from on high that homosexuality is not acceptable).

On “exorcisms”, Tatchell says in the Gscene article (mysteriously in both quote marks and italics!):

“The exorcism rituals involve the casting out of alleged demons and witches that supposedly possess a gay person’s soul and turn them away from heterosexuality.

“There are claims that gay teenagers and young adults are being subjected to exorcisms at the insistence of their parents and pastors, in an attempt to rid them of same-sex attraction.

“The exorcisms can include traumatic emotional scenes where the victims are surrounded by a group of church elders who scream at them to drive out the evil spirits and who sometimes shake their bodies.

“When this is done to youngsters under 18, it is a form of child abuse and the police should intervene to stop it.

“There needs to be a thorough police investigation of all the churches that are doing these exorcisms.”
__________
Related links:
Casting out demons
PTT condemns exorcisms
Exorcism storm
Rite and wrong

PTT news release on Muslim homophobe

Since our post about the Muslim homophobic bigot Ali Abdussalam Trekki, the Pink Triangle Trust issued a press release over the weekend, quoting its secretary, George Broadhead. Here it is.

NEWS RELEASE 26 September, 2009


Muslims’ primitive religious taboos trump human rights

Humanists have reacted angrily to the homophobic public pronouncements of Mr Ali Abdussalam Trekki, the President of the UN General Assembly. These have been condemned by the UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) and the International Humanist & Ethical Union (IHEU) which has special consultative status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), general consultative status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg).

The PTT’s secretary George Broadhead, commented: “The President’s pronouncements are despicable, but are hardly surprising given the intrinsic homophobia of the religion he adheres to. However, like other members of the General Assembly, he is surely duty-bound to represent the principles and the aims of the United Nations, according to the Charter adopted on June 26, 1945, with its respect for human rights and fundamental freedom for all human beings. Instead he has implicitly endorsed the barbaric treatment of thousands of gay people throughout the world, particularly in Islamic theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia. He should be asked to resign immediately or be removed from office.”

The IHEU’s long-serving representative at the UN, Geneva, Roy Brown, commented: “Of course, Mr Ali Abdussalam Trekki is entirely right in saying, as a Muslim, that homosexuality ‘is not acceptable by our religion, our tradition’. What is deeply worrying is his clear but unspoken belief that Muslims’ primitive religious taboos should therefore trump human rights – a view that, sadly, is becoming increasingly common among Muslim delegations throughout the United Nations system.”

__________
Related links:
More on antigay Muslim bigot
Cruelty, as only Islam knows how
How Islam “respects women”
Islamists net their victims

More on antigay Muslim bigot

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) “is deeply worried and outraged by UN Assembly new president Ali Abdussalam Treki’s failure to consider the protection of the life and safety of lesbians, gay men, trans, intersex and bisexual people all over the world a matter of human rights”, the organisation says in a news release.

You can see the background here, because, as you might expect, this blog’s owner, the Pink Triangle Trust, has been rather exercised, too, about this bigot.

The ILGA news release goes on:

In an interview prior to his first address to the UN Assembly in his new role, Mr Treki declared himself to be not in favour at all with reference to the Statement in favour of the decriminalisation of homosexuality signed by 66 Countries and read by the Argentinian representative last December at the General Assembly in New York.

Furthermore, Mr Treki said that the matter referred to by the Statement, i.e. decriminalisation, was not acceptable in the majority of the world and that there are some countries that allow that (sic), thinking it is a kind of democracy.

Considering that the Statement called for the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality, one cannot but conclude that the new President of the UN Assembly is... in favour of criminalising lesbians and gay men, bisexual, trans and intersex people. The worrying and serious implications of this attitude, coming from the new head of an institution which is supposed to regard human rights all human rights as the most sacred value, cannot be overstated.

We appeal to the representatives of the States which signed the Statement against criminalisation of homosexuality, but also voted for the election of Mr Treki in his new position, to demand an explanation to the UN Assembly President for his words and react consequently.

__________
Related links:
Cruelty, as only Islam knows how
How Islam “respects women”
Islamists net their victims

When Christians get nasty

“If you have followed what Religious Right leaders have been saying about gay people for, oh, the past 30 years, you’d be stunned to learn that Religious Right leaders say the key to resisting the ‘homosexual extremist movement’ is to stop being so nice and polite when it comes to the gays.”

So writes Peter, of America’s Right Wing Watch.

Yup. Christians can be nasty. As usual, it’s what other people do between the sheets that gets them going, which of course brings into question their own sexual hang-ups, quirks and kinks, because, believe it or not, there is a brand of religionist who doesn’t give a monkey’s about people’s sexuality and just gets on with being religious.

According to these loons, though, “Christ wasn’t about being nice”. Not that they’d know, but, while the Jesus of the stories could be a bit of a madam at times, he could also be quite a nice guy here and there.

How would these nutjobs know what Jesus thought? And who gives a stuff, apart from said nutjobs?

Anyway, Peter’s article (do go and read it), continues:

About 100 activists at the How to Take Back America conference attended the workshop on “How to Counter the Homosexual Extremist Movement.” Workshop speakers Matt Barber and Brian Camenker urged people to be loud rabble-rousers when opposing the teaching of tolerance or sex ed in public [i.e. state] schools. They said not to worry about being nice or polite or liked, but to push God’s anti-gay agenda forcefully. “Christ wasn’t about being nice,” said Barber. Camenker bragged about having once sent two congregations to scream outside a targeted legislator’s home.

The workshop was largely a parade of horror stories about gay activists using the schools to recruit children and undermine the values taught by conservative Christian parent an exhortation for people to tell the “truth” about “homosexual extremists.”

Barber employed Nazi imagery, with gay propaganda “goose-stepping along” and “trampling” anyone who disagrees. He also strung together the most adjectives I’ve yet heard applied all at once to President Obama, declaring that “this president is a secular humanist, a radical socialist moral relativist.”

Barber sounds like a really nice guy.

Not.

Homosexuality not acceptable to Muslims – says Muslim

The President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Libyan Ali Abdussalam Treki, thinks homosexuality isn’t acceptable for most of the world.

At least that’s what he said when opening an assembly session.

Some journalists asked him what he thought of the “Declaration for the Universal Decriminalisation of Homosexuality”. Not much, it seems.

This homophobic bigot’s reply was, “It is a very thorny argument. As a Muslim, I do not agree with it. I believe it is not acceptable for most of the world, and it is totally unacceptable for our tradition and religion.”

And what’s your religion got to do with human rights, you pompous oaf? It’s about as far from human rights as any religion can get.

I was chatting about this to my Pink Triangle colleague George Broadhead, who’s also secretary of the Pink Triangle Trust, who told me, “This is outrageous, but the personal views he expressed are hardly surprising given the intrinsic homophobia of the religion he adheres to [see links below].

“However, like other members of the General Assembly, he is duty-bound to represent the principles and the aims of the United Nations, according to the Charter adopted on 26 June 1945 with its respect for human rights and fundamental freedom for all human beings. Instead he has implicitly endorsed the barbaric treatment of thousands of gay people throughout the world. He should be asked to resign or removed from office.”

You’re too kind, George. Perhaps stringing him up by his thumbs would be more appropriate. Not a great assault on his human rights, relatively speaking.

UPDATE: George has, since this post was written, received this comment from Roy Brown, the International Humanist and Ethical Union’s main representative at the UN:

Of course, Mr Ali Abdussalam Trekki is entirely right in saying, as a Muslim, that homosexuality “is not acceptable by our religion, our tradition”. What is deeply worrying is his clear but unspoken belief that Muslims’ primitive religious taboos should therefore trump human rights – a view that, sadly, is becoming increasingly common among Muslim delegations throughout the United Nations system.

__________
Related links:
Cruelty, as only Islam knows how
How Islam “respects women”
Islamists net their victims

Catholics welcome Pope, everyone pays

Catholics in Scotland are cock-a-hoop over the fact that an evil old ex-Nazi is visiting the country as part of his UK tour next year.

Well, they would be, wouldn’t they? The thing is, they – and by that I mean they alone – won’t have to pay for his security and other costs associated with such occasions as he’s paraded through the streets and preaches to the masses. They will pay something, yes, but so will every other taxpayer, whether they want to feast their eyes on this bigot or not. And most won’t, of course.

If I want to go and see a rock concert, say, or an opera, I expect to pay, and then to go to the venue, not have the object of my musical taste paraded through the streets for me, with security provided at enormous cost (and why the need for so much security for Ratzo if people don’t want to kill the sodding homophobe?).

So let the Catholics of Scotland – and the rest of the UK – bugger off to Italy. Keep the Pope there. Let the Deluded Herd go to him instead of vice versa. That would kill two birds with one stone: the damnable, evil old tosser wouldn’t be littering our streets with his presence, and only those who get a spiritual hard-on by contemplating his well-fed face will need to pay.
__________
Related link: POPE – People Opposing Papal Edicts

God and the climate

There was an interesting letter in the Scotsman newspaper yesterday about God and the climate.

A while ago we were pondering on how the Pope was blaming atheists for marginalising God, therefore putting themselves at odds with nature.

It’s one thing to say mankind is at odds with the environment, and we can see the consequences of our raping of the planet – whether global warming is one of them or not, and that’s a hot topic (pun intended) – but to say it’s because we’re marginalising something for which there’s no proof anyway is pushing it a bit.

Anyway, in response to something that had obviously passed before (perhaps someone commenting on this very thing, who knows?), a writer in Dumfries called Flood has this to say:

Given its apocalyptic potential, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the various religions got in on the climate change act (Letters, 22 September).

When God, in His infinite wisdom, created the Earth, why did He put all that coal, oil and natural gas under the ground? Was it just for decoration? Did He not intend the subjects of His creation to make use of it? Could Christian Aid explain what exactly is sinful about putting a lump of coal on the fire to keep warm in winter?

And why, when He set up the global climatic system, did God make it so sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas levels that an additional whiff of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere brings the whole planetary biosphere crashing about our ears? It strikes me that this God is either all-knowing or all-loving, but not both.

Flood is an appropriate name given that the Flood (usually with a capital F) was the last purported climatic catastrophe (yeah, somewhere between the Tigris and the Euphrates, not the entire Earth, as Genesis would have us believe, and there were no animals going into a boat two by two).

But what’s this sceptic doing with all the capital H’s on his pronouns? I find this odd, because on many atheist and sceptic websites and blogs I still see this nonsense: He this and Him that. Even the KJ Bible doesn’t do that, nor the Book of Common Prayer.

Just something left over from something or other, I guess.

So much for Liberty!

Liberty has expelled the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) as an affiliate organisation. Allan Horsfall, CHE’s Life President – and, together with Ray Gosling, a tireless campaigner for Gay Monitor – explains:

CHE, the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, has been expelled from affiliation to Liberty, the broad human-rights organisation that CHE has been an affiliate of for 40 years.

The reason for the chucking CHE out is that CHE proposed a motion for the Liberty AGM that they should consider some Statute of Limitation (time-wise) in trials of historic sexual abuse. Such limitations are common on the Continent and North America but, in this country, no, no, no.

If you look at Gay Monitor, you will see that we’ve attended many recent trials. Sometimes good men go to prison. But sometimes a judge will say, “Stop it – this is nonsense,” as in the case of David Jones the footballer, now manager of Cardiff City. Sometimes, a jury will quickly acquit – see on Gay Monitor “Case Not Guilty”, where on 12 charges the jury found unanimously not guilty on all charges in 12 minutes flat! But sometimes it doesn’t go like that and good men go to prison. These cases cost a vast amount of public money to stage. Some way needs to be found to limit this as in most states of the USA and many countries of the EU. This was the proposition for debate put by CHE that resulted in Liberty throwing out CHE.

So much for Liberty!

If I was still a member of Liberty, I’d resign in protest. Unfortunately, I allowed my membership to lapse some time ago because I was deeply troubled by the organisation.

POPE – People Opposing Papal Edicts

The Pope is due to visit Britain next year, and, in my capacity as secretary of the Pink Triangle Trust, I’ve issued the following news release calling for protests. It’s already begun to appear in online LGBT outlets.

Gay Humanists call for strong protest when Pope visits UK

The gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) has called for a strong protest to be made when Pope Benedict XVI visits the UK early next year.

The PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “This pope has shown himself to be paranoid about homosexuality. His opposition to LGBT rights knows no bounds. In his Christmas message last year he declared that saving humanity from homosexual behaviour was as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. This must be the most outrageous and bizarre claim yet made by someone who has already got a well-deserved reputation as one of the most viciously homophobic world leaders on a par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

“The Vatican reinforced its anti-gay reputation by strongly opposing a UN declaration calling for an end to discrimination against gays and the Pope’s Christmas message provided clear evidence of an obsession about homosexuality which is tantamount to paranoia.

“It is imperative that the strongest possible protest be made when he visits the UK next year,” continued Mr Broadhead. “This is not without precedent. During the last papal visit to the UK by John Paul II in 1982, a protest called POPE (People Opposing Papal Edicts) was instigated by the Gay Humanist Group of which I was a founder member.

“It had the support of other gay and secular organisations, including the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and the National Secular Society. On the occasion of the next papal visit, we must pull out all the stops to demonstrate our opposition.”

Also of interest: my article “The paranoid Pope” in a recent Gay & Lesbian Humanist magazine, where we discuss Pope Benedict’s condemnation of gays; and our “Out of print” article (taken from an earlier print edition of the magazine), “Enter the Enforcer”, by Matthew Thompson.

Cruelty, as only Islam knows how

Islam, Aceh style, means you can get a hundred lashes for being gay and you can be stoned to death for adultery.

This is deemed the correct punishment by the Religion of Peace™, it seems.

Amnesty International is calling for the new bylaw to be scrapped. It’s a “local Islamic Criminal Code [that] was passed by the Aceh Provincial House of Representatives on Monday”, says the Christian think tank Ekklesia in the above-linked article, which continues:

“The new criminal bylaw flies in the face of international human rights law as well as provisions of the Indonesian constitution,” commented Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director.

He added: “Stoning to death is particularly cruel and constitutes torture, which is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances in international law.”

Indonesia’s central government has indicated that the law may contravene Indonesia’s existing human rights protections under the country’s constitution. [. . .]

Some of these provisions, particularly punishment by caning, are not new in Aceh and already violate international human rights standards on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Campaigners, says Ekklesia, are urging Aceh’s newly elected legislature, due to take office in October, to repeal the law as matter of urgent priority.

More cross words

A Christian nurse from Exeter, UK, who’s been facing disciplinary action for insisting on wearing a necklace with a cross on it, has, under duress, accepted an offer of redeployment and has instructed lawyers to file an action at the Employment Tribunal for discrimination.

We covered the story yesterday, concluding that ornamental jewellery is OK provided it doesn’t get in the way of health and safety.

I went as far as to say that’s OK even if it’s religious, since only the coldest-hearted of us find no comfort in any object, for whatever reason.

But health-and-safety rules are there for all, and they were behind the ruling of the health trust that employs Shirley Chaplin in Exeter.

And that should go for the Muslim staff members who, according to Chaplin, are allowed to wear scarves because they perceive this garment as part of their religion.

Catholic wants kids not to have loving families

Nice to see that Scotland has at last got its finger out over same-sex adoption. England and Wales did it four years ago. Scotland has just caught up.

But the move has its critics among the Deluded Herd, as you can imagine.

Same-sex couples are now to be given the right to adopt children as a couple, as opposed to how it has been up to now: that one partner can be the official adoptive parent, while the other has no legal status in relation to the child or children.

Given that Scotland has the same civil partnerships as England and Wales, what has the legislature been waiting for?

The move has its critics, of course. No prizes for guessing who in particular. Scotland’s Herald newspaper, linked to above, goes on:

However, the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 legislation has been criticised by the Catholic Church.

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Church in Scotland, said yesterday that the Catholic Church had opposed the reform because it was not in the best interests of children.

“Children need security and stability and civil partnerships and same[-]sex relationships are profoundly unstable,” he said.

“This change is unlikely to have an effect on the shortage of adoptive parents because there are very few same[-]sex couples interested in adoption.

“It would have been better if the Government had launched a campaign to encourage heterosexual married couples to consider adopting.”

What does this prat mean by “very few”? That perhaps couples have been put off by the restrictions hitherto, because they haven’t been able to adopt as couples? Well, there were 80 adoptions in England and Wales last year. That’s at least 80 kids – possibly more – taken out of care homes and given to potentially loving couples.

And a spokesperson for the British Association for Adoption and Fostering is quoted as saying, “The Act has increased the number of potential parents ready to provide a new home for a child who cannot grow up with their own family.”

So stuff that up your cassock, Mr God Botherer.

Fast, food and folly

Another example – as if it were needed – of how touchy-feely do-gooders want to bow to the strange beliefs (and at taxpayers’ expense) of deluded people comes to us in Britain’s Telegraph.

It describes how Home Office staff were told not to eat in front of Muslims during Ramadan, which ends this week. During this so-called “holy” month, Muslims believe, for whatever reason, that they are forbidden to eat or drink between sunrise and sunset.

The Home Office has spent our money on a five-page document that “tells civil servants that eating lunch near a colleague who is fasting can make them feel hungry”.

In a story that, willy-nilly and with no logic or even a nod to the rules of punctuation, mixes single and double quotation marks (my hobbyhorse – don’t argue!), the Telegraph says the document was produced by something called the Home Office Islamic Network, which also is paid for out of taxpayers’ money.

But the odd thing is that the Muslim Public Affairs Committee says this is a load of cobblers. “It is designed to create more hatred in the hearts of non-Muslims,” it says. “We don’t care how much non-Muslims eat in front of us.

“It’s never been an issue and never will be and we have never asked for any special treatment or sensitivity from non-Muslims whilst fasting.”

There you have it, straight from the horse’s unfed mouth.

How do these woolly minded do-gooders think Muslims cope when they’re walking the streets and passing the many food shops – especially those that cook food on the premises? Do they have to hold their breath so as not to sniff the aromas?

The point of fasting is to make a sacrifice, isn’t it? One assumes Muslims don’t want it to be easy. What would be the point?

Cross words over religious gewgaws

A Christian nurse who wears her religion not on her sleeve but around her neck has been meeting bosses today to discover whether she’ll be forced out of her job for doing so.

It’s another of those cases that see people wanting to wear some gewgaw but it’s against the dress code of where they work or go to school.

Now let me put my cards on the table. I have nothing against bits of jewellery, and, if they represent something that means something to the wearer, so be it. I don’t like organised religion, but I’m not going to kick up a stink if someone wishes to wear a piece of jewellery that just happens to reflect that belief.

When it gets in the way of, say, health and safety (perhaps a hospital patient might, in a moment of panic, grab the neck chain and injure the nurse wearing it, for instance) it’s a different matter.

But Christians and others who are told to take off whatever is likely to cause a problem always reach for the freedom-of-religion argument. You can’t tell me to do that: you’re discriminating against me on religious grounds.

Bollocks! We live in such a politically correct country here in the UK that it’s doubtful a boss would tell someone to take something off just because it’s religious.

However, in the case of Shirley Chaplin, the woman whose story we’re featuring here (the Telegraph link, again, is here), she claims other members of staff have been allowed to wear necklaces.

If that is true, and they’re doing the same job as she is, then it’s wrong. If they’re doing a different job, then maybe different rules apply.

As with so many of these stories, we learn only through selective journalism, and the truth of the matter will come out only in a court or hearing, where witnesses can be examined by experienced questioners. But, again, we’re at the mercy of journos when these tribunals are reported.

There’s one telling quote in the Telegraph story that ought to be exercising secularists, though: a spokesman for the health trust concerned “said Mrs Chaplin herself had also admitted [that] wearing a cross was not a requirement of her faith”.

This suggests that the trust would allow the wearing of just about anything if it were “a requirement of her faith”. Does that mean that, if the cross were such a requirement, that would trump health and safety?

In stories such as this, we’re often told, “Oh, but they let Muslims wear scarves.” Unfortunately, that often seems to be the case, because we’re just so damned scared of offending Muzzies’ sensibilities and risking being called racist, when, of course, Islam is not a race.

The rules should be simple: you dress according to the code appropriate to your working environment, with no exceptions; and, if your “faith” dictates you should cover your hair or your arms for hygiene reasons, you cover up or clear out.

As for a dress code that doesn’t affect health and safety, such as the post linked to above (the link, again, is here), which concerned a Sikh girl who wanted to wear a bangle at school, well that’s something for another argument. You may or may not agree with school uniforms, or petty restrictions on what jewellery kids should wear.

But, if there is a dress code, then it should be for all pupils, with no exceptions for those of a deluded frame of mind.

Lithuania’s Section 28

I see the European Parliament has adopted a resolution criticising legislation in Lithuania that, from March 2010, will ban the discussion of homosexuality in schools and any reference to homosexuality in public information that can be viewed by children.

This is so reminiscent of Section 28.

Non-Brits will be interested to know what that is, although it’s been referred to as just that for so long that they probably have a good idea.

It was a section of the Local Government Act of 1988, and it effectively banned the so-called “promotion” of homosexuality within local-authority institutions.

No one, as far as I know, was ever prosecuted under it, but it caused a lot of self-censorship. It was a nasty, vicious piece of legislation that was invented by the Tories. No surprise there. They’ve changed their tune a bit now, although one suspects it’s as much for political expediency as for a genuine wish to see equality.

People seem to think that something they don’t like – in this case the natural phenomenon of same-sex attraction – can somehow be stamped out if we just don’t talk about it.

It’s going to take some brave campaigners in Lithuania to prove them wrong.

Demos and counterdemos

There’s this band of people about to march through your city. You don’t like what they stand for, and you don’t care much for free speech.

While there are some who also don’t like what they stand for, they’re happy to let the march go because that’s what freedom of expression is about and, anyway, there will be marches opposed to those views in the future. Everyone gets a chance.

But you’re one of those people who are determined, by hook or by crook, to ensure that the march does not go ahead. How do you do it? Well, you threaten to hold a counterdemonstration, that’s what.

Suddenly, the police say, “Hey, there could be violence here.” And they ban the first march, which might have gone ahead without trouble if there had been no threat from other elements.

This is happening in Scotland.

I don’t know in detail just what sort of ethnic and political makeup the English Defence League – which seems to be about to form a Scottish arm – holds. Certainly, its choice of name doesn’t exactly endear it to those of a suspicious frame of mind. It has too much of the National Front about it, somehow, or at least the British National Party.

But, name apart, it claims it’s against Islamic extremism, not Muslims themselves.

Yet, according to the story linked to above, which appeared in yesterday’s Scotsman, some of its members have been seen making Nazi salutes and the organisation has links with gangs of football hooligans. The story provides no proof, so, from that alone, we don’t know.

The paper says, “A spokesman for Glasgow City Council yesterday said ‘any application [for a street march] would be considered’. However, senior officials at the authority, which has the power to ban marches on police safety advice, would be keen to block any demonstration that is deemed likely to lead to violence.”

The story adds, “Some city leaders fear that the EDF could spark counter-demonstrations from Glasgow’s still highly mobilised left groups and from city Islamists.”

And that would be, we assume, what would spark the violence, not the march itself.