Friday, 14 March 2008

Stonewall and the British National Party

In your face advertising from Stonewall

Recently, Stonewall, the homosexual pressure group has been running a campaign to promote a positive message about homosexuals in our communities. This campaign was linked to a change in the law that they were supporting to to make an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that would make it an offence to link homosexuality to paedophilia.

I will reiterate my personal stance on homosexuality later in this article. But first the amendment to the law and the debate in the House of Lords.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Thomas of Gresford told the House:
"We are concerned about the suggestion very frequently made by the British National Party and others that homosexuality and paedophilia are directly connected and that a person who is homosexual has a propensity to be a paedophile.
Now I am not sure whether or not the BNP has ever stated that, but what hacked me off about the Stonewall campaign was the full in the face statement of their adverts. Pictured top.

Neither am I pleased that apart from the 600 billboards carrying their message, they distributed posters, stickers and postcards to 5,000 schools. Young children should be left alone to develop at a natural pace. So in response to Stonewall, I asked Norman D Landings of Abex to design the following poster. Thank you NDL.

Back in your face advertising from The Home of The Green Arrow

Get used to it. Now back to the Amendment to the Law. It was ruled unnecessary and quite rightly dropped on the grounds that the current provisions of the hate(thought) crimes laws are sufficient.
Earl Ferrers described the amendment as, 'rather alarming'. He said, 'I find it frightening because you will end up with people being too frightened to say anything. To accept the amendment would be a retrograde step.'
I urge you to read the above link that points to research carried out by Pierre J. Trembley.

Now as for my personal stance, it is this. I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I do not care what their sexuality is and have no problems with working with or socialising with homosexuals. I have no problem with them being members of the British National Party. The BNP policy is Don't ask and Don't tell. A sensible policy.

I do however have a problem with homosexuals serving in the armed forces (an article for the future) and have a major problem with groups like Stonewall promoting it in schools as if it is something to be proud of. I do have a problem with the "age of consent" being 16. I have a problem with young boys being buggered by predatory homosexuals but that is the law at the moment and should be changed via the democratic process.

But how stupid are people who clap a "celebrity" for being gay and rolling on the floor laughing at terms like "fisting" and "rimming"? Do they even know what they mean?

Something to be proud of is being a part of a Family that is made up of a Mother, Father and Children. Perhaps we should have Parades and fly flags from City Halls in Support of Families, which at the end of the day are the future.

Some time ago I wrote an article with many sources of reference on homosexuality. You can go read it here. It is not for those with weak stomaches. The article is not an attack on tangerines, it just a pointer to information that is in the public domain, although I am sure there are those who would prefer it not to be.


Anonymous said...

I dont have any problem with homosexuals either GA. What they do in their own homes with consenting adults is fine by me. I know a few gays and they are the type that I call ok.
They are the way they are, they dont scream the house down to get attention, they keep themselves to themselves, they can be quite fun too, every one gets on fine.

I do wonder though if homosexuality is natures way of saying that the gay male or female has nothing to contibute to the human gene pool therefore they are attracted to type. Just an thought.

Many gay people through the centuries have contributed to society in many ways, via art, music, science, etc and Im sure we would be the poorer, as humans, if it weren't for their contribution.

On the other hand there are some gays Ive met who were the most disgusting people I ever set eyes on and it sends a shiver down my back thinking about them as I write.

You are right GA, dont ask, dont tell is the best way, and dont allow promotion or indoctrination in our schools.

Nature knows best, "man" does not. And it's hight time "man" realised this.

Let's be adult about homosexuality, most folks are straight, so yes, get over it.


Anonymous said...

Why do they need to connect the BNP with anti homosexuality?..could it be because they were behind the fight for the firemens rights to remain impartial to attending their marches?. It had nothing to do with the BNP being homophobic (oops another pc dirty Labour word flogged to death similar to that other chestnut racism), more the BNP were campaigning for a persons individual right to make up their own mind instead of being coerced into promoting a certain lifestyle. In fact common sense would indicate that in the near future, when islam does finally take over, that the BNP will be the only party to be protecting homosexuals from the stone throwing. If I were a homosexual, I certainly wouldnt be voting Labour, or any of the other parties, as they have capitulated to islamic demands time and again, and who is to say that the next demand wont be connected to the way they view the decadent west's immorality?. I would imagine there are more than a few homosexuals who vote BNP, those that have an eye on the future.

Anonymous said...

Two CONSENTING ADULTS in privacy should do as they wish, no problem, this should not be criminalised.

BUT it should never be passed off as the norm as sexual activity first and foremost is the act of procreation and perpetuity of the human race, vital to the continuity of a nation and impossible between to male/female participents.

xoggoth said...

The disproportionate abuse of boys by male paedophiles is a matter of statistics but I suspect it is mainly to do with opportunity - society puts men in sole charge of boys but never allows them to be in sole charge of girls.

Perhaps, considering the male nature, it would be sensible to always ensure there is a female presence.

Sarah D said...

I have great respect for the Green Arrow and I really admire the significant contribution he makes to our common cause. However, as a regular contributor to this blog and forum, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not share The Green Arrow's views in relation to homosexuality

I have posted a comment to the Forum expressing my views (and stating my position) on this thread here is a link

Kinderling said...

Homosexuality and NARTH.
National Association for the Reasearch and therapy of Homosexuality.
Get over it!

Anonymous said...

Well Sarah, in a civilised democracy that is what we do, politely agree to disagree, which is why we fight to keep the way of life that we have. Of course when Mr Mo comes a 'knocking, I doubt if he will be so inderstanding.

Ed said...

I'm homosexual and would like to say how much I agree with your post. I don't see why someone should want see their country changed beyond all recognition and ruined simply because of their sexual preference. It is not as though homosexuality makes you immune to increased crime, the shortage of housing, depressed wages etc. The Islamisation of Britain is of course a special threat to homosexuals. The Islamists keep fairly quiet in public about homosexuality, to preserve their alliance with the left. However as soon as they have any power they'll start their stoning and other barbaric practices. Iran has been hanging teenage boys for supposed homosexuality.

As for 16, I believe it is too young - I'm thinking of myself at 16. I know teenagers mature at different rates but raising the age of consent wouldn't result in 16 year old boys being thrown in prison for fooling around with each other but it would protect them from predatory older men. The repulsive Tatchell on the other hand is campaigning for it to be lowered to 14!

I'm mainly talking about male homosexuality - men and women, boys and girls are different and have different sexual characterists and behaviours: males tend to be more sexually impulsive than females and more promiscuous given the opportunity. I believe that this exposes young males with a homosexual tendency to more dangers and therefore it is appropriate to protect them more. Yet in the left's fantasy world there is no difference between men and women, boys or girls.

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is genetic or has a large genetic component. There is evidence to suggest that the sisters of homosexual males tend to have more children and this would explain how it could be genetic but not die out - genes that cause homosexuality in males could cause increased fertility in females (as for female homosexuality, less seems known about it, but it could be the reverse). Therefore I don't believe that homosexuality can be promoted as such to people with no disposition. I was never taught about homosexuality at school and never knew any homosexuals while growing up.

Still, I don't think it is appropriate for Stonewall to be operating in schools. This is all part of the left's efforts to prematurely sexualise children resulting in 12 year old girls dressed like hookers and made vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Children should be left to be children and allowed to develop at their own pace.

The Green Arrow said...


That was a very good thoughtful post. I personally have never met a single homophobic BNP member.

We tend to be live and let live but there should be certain standards when it comes to young people who as you rightly point out are unsure of their sexuality at an earlier age.