London’s Muslim Mayor Rejects Brexit Vote At Gay Pride Event

London Mayor Sadiq Khan told the crowd of thousands that Europeans in London are “our friends, our families and our neighbors.”

Khan says “I recognize the huge contribution you make to our city, you are welcome here. I make you this promise as your mayor. That won’t change.”

One of the Gay BLT revellers said of the atmosphere: “There’s this feeling of not knowing where you belong – and that’s to do with Brexit, not to do with being gay.” (The fact that he’s a smug, pretentious CUPID STUNT is everything to do with to do with being gay of course.)

Sadiq Kahn did not say whether he supported calls for a second referendum on British membership of the European Union, although many of the gays, lesbians, can’t make their minds ups and trannies made it clear they did.

Voters in London overwhelmingly supported staying in the EU, but a majority outside the capital voted to leave. However in the London Mayoral election only 25.8% of Londoners voted for Khan, while 37.6% of UK voted for Brexit. I don’t hear any clamour from the left (Gay BLT or otherwise) to re-run the London mayoral election.


Electoral Fraud Scandal In Peterborough By – election Being Covered Up?
Thanks to Politicalite’s groundbreaking exclusive coverage of the crooked Peterborough By-Election so far, the Daily Mail have picked up on our story and have revealed a fresh incident of alleged electoral fraud being investigated by the Police …

Extreme Right Wing Black Supremacist MP Calls On UK Parliament To Overturn Brexit Vote

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

The Separation Of Bathroom & State

When the US city of Charlotte, North Carolina passed a local law which became known as ‘the bathroom ordinance’ which gave ment the right to use women’s public toilets, sports facilitity changing rooms and so on, in effect a spineless caving in to the hate politics of the Gay BLT lobby, the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own.

In late February 2016, the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed the “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a clause that prohibited businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by biological gender. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)

Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the ‘religious’ freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using public bathroom and shower facilities. Most sane people would I think, contend that the issue of religious freedom is irrelevant, providing separate facilities is a matter of common decency.

Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business. I attacted a lot of hate mail when blogging on a case of a bakery in Ireland that refused to supply a celebration cake bearing a message supporting same sex marriage was charged under hate crime laws. My offence was to point out that why a gay couple could demand they business serve them and be backed by law, my wife and I could ask the bakery to make a cake saying “best wishes to Dave and Debbie, thanks for giving us a grandchild,” and the business would have every right to refuse simply because they did not like the look of us. Freedom always has to be a two way street.

In the face of public outrage from the herterosexual majority who were quite happy with the status quo, the state of North Carolina’s responded by imposing a law at state level that ruled all toilets (or rest rooms as the somewhat prissy American left refer to them) and changing facilities did not have to be politically correct and non discriminatory. This prompted the Gay BLT lobby (yes, I know that is offensive, if the politically correct clowns claim the right to ffend me, then in the name of equal rights and diversity, I claim the right to offend them,) and their supporters the progressives to take up arms against sanity and demonstrate once more that when they screech about equal rights, what they really mean is very unequal rights or privileged status for favoured minorities.

In fact the North Carolina law did not discriminate agains transgender freaks or men who, usually for highly unsavoury reasons, want to ‘identify’ as women in order to use women’s toilets and changing rooms, what it did restore freedom and property rights to business owners while respecting the rights of people, mostly women, to share facilities only with people of their own gender and to guarantee those rights across the state. In fact it should surprise me that the feminists and ‘progressives’ who have screeched about womens rights for fifty years are now prepared to brush aside womens’ rights because the cause of chicks-with-dicks rights is more fashionable.

I say it should surprise me because I have been exposed to the double standards, hypocrisy, authoritarianism and sheer selfishness of US ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ that nothing they do or say could surprise me now unless they all succumbed to a plague of common sense and decency.

Now as a man I am not particularly worried about who I share public toilet facilities with, but I do understand why women do not want to share with us lads as we curse, fart, scratch our bollocks and exchange crude remarks. And I understand why males who are going through the lengthy gender ‘reassignment’ program would feel unsafe in a mens’ facility. But if such people are sensible and do not make a big deal of the fact that they have dangly bits or make typically male comments (e.g. “nice tits love, show us your knickers”) to women then there is no problem.

However, under the Charlotte law gender specific facilities would be illegal, people would be forced to share. And that is not acceptable, what’s more there is nothing liberal or progressive about imposing the moral values of a minority on the majority.
The law in North Carolina that ‘progressives’ (i.e. fascists) are angry about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. In a “myths vs facts” explanatory statement put out by the governor of North Carolina this was made quite clear:

Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with …
Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. …The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

In other words, where the US Constiution codifies the separation of church and state, the state of North Carolina has now gone a step further and codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.
The only places in North Carolina where bathrooms, showers, etc., must conform with biological sex is in government owned facilities — courtrooms, city halls, schools, etc., where this separation is not possible. So yes, in North Carolina prurient 14 year old old boys, as defined by certain biological features, may not use the girls’ locker room and showers after gym class at the local public middle school. In private middle schools, governors are free to do what they want. If not accepting this is unjust discrimination makes me a bigot, then so be it. Under the Charlotte arrangement the aforementioned prurient 14 year old boys can use facilities according to how they self identify. If you cannot see what is wrong with that arrangement then you know nothing of: a) fairness and b) 14 year old boys.

Leftists all over the USA and some on Europe are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of pop stars, show biz luvvies and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.


Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

Protesters Insist Christian Schools Must HIRE A Gay Teacher

Over at our other site, The Daily Stirrer, we have been covering the story of a gay cake. Obviously the cake itself is not gay, but the purpose it was ordered for (to be served at an event organised by a gay-activist mayor in support of same sex marriage). The message it was required to bear, “Support Gay Marriage”, added to the fact that the bakery that refused the order as it forced them to support a political they strongly disagree with, was know to be run by evangelical Christians suggests the shop was singled out as a deliberate provocation.

I don’t think I’m the only person who, while bearing homosexuals no ill will, is sick of the gay rights lobby trying to politicize their sexuality. In fact I know I’m not, a homosexual I’ve known as a good friend for many years, and who prefers to be referred to as queer rather than gay, is very worried that a major backlash will drive people like himself back into the closet.

And stories like this one which I picked up today suggest he could be right. It is, is it not, typical of the self righteous, hypocritical left that having won their case, they carry on with increasingly outrageous demands and fascistic bullying tactics until they lose it again.

Now Protesters Insist That Christian Schools Must HIRE A Gay Teacher

Source: The Des Moins Register
Students and alumni of a Catholic high school in Iowa held a rally on Wednesday afternoon to protest a decision by school officials not to hire a gay teacher.

The rally at Dowling Catholic High School in West Des Moines involved a walkout and a demonstration at which a handful of students and alumni spoke, reports The Des Moines Register.

The gay teacher who did not get hired had worked as a substitute at Dowling Catholic High — a school of some 1,430 souls.

In the process of vetting the teaching candidate for a full-time teaching job, school officials learned that he has a boyfriend and is engaged to be married.

“In holding this walkout, our goal is to let our community, administration and diocese know that the decisions of our diocesan and school leaders are not a direct reflection of what the students at Dowling Catholic believe,” Dowling student Grace Mumm said, according to the Register.

“This is not just about someone getting rejected, this is about love. We cannot let this issue slide without voicing that love,” Mumm also declared.

The speakers at the Wednesday afternoon rally discussed how broadminded they believe themselves to be. Many of the participants identified themselves as gay or lesbian.


He once said:

“It is now very common to hear people say “I am rather offended by that.”
As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more than a whine. “I find that offensive,” it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
“I am offended by that.” Well so fucking what.”

Who is he.Stephen fucking Fry that’s who.

Now he makes television programs whining about how nasty we are to homofuckingsexuals.

Well so fucking what. I’ve never been nasty to a homosexual (and I’m not being so now, I’m being nasty to a pompous egotistical arse) but I take the view that if Africans want to act like savages in their own country or American evangelical Christians want to preach bigoted bollocks in their own churches, it’s none of my business.

My rights are no more important than theirs and neither are Stephen Fry’s.


A friend of mine from Triond, syine1, posted an impassioned plea for an end to bigotry titled “I’m sick of bigoted generalistations“.

The web does of course bring out he worst in us. I have been told I am a bigot simply for questioning somebody’s firmly held convictions. When I pointed out what bigot meant he told me if he said I’m a bigot then I’m a bigot.

When I told him he was a solipsists he was very pissed off, even more so when he found out what it meant.

One of the problems stine referred to is in the US a lot of people at both ends of the spectrum do not understand democracy. At one site we both post on quite recently
there was a yelling match going on about same sex marriage. A state had voted to make same sex marriage illegal once more after gay activists tried to extend the law to force Christian churces to perform weddings for same sex couple.

The ‘liberals’ were quite happy for Muslims to be exempted but not Roman Catholics.
The nastiest argument in the thread centred on a notion that in a democracy the will of the majority is not paramount and when a popular vote makes the ‘wrong decision’ the government must step in and ‘do what is right’.
I have seen many examples of similar warped logic from the religious right too.
In a democracy the majority is always right as there are no absolutes of right or wrong. We in Europe, and among most people in the USA too, agree to abide by the will of the majority even if we as individuals do not agree. That is the price of personal liberty.

(My personal view on that is civil partnerships are in the domain of state. As for religious ceremonies, the decision should be left to the church involved with the understanding that if a church says no, it is within it’s rights and there can be no legal action. It is both intolerat and undemoctatic to place more importance on the feelings of the gay community than on those of churchgoers. Some churces are of cousrse happy to formalise same sex relationships)

Bigotry breeds bigotry. As British Prime Minister William Gladstone said in the 19th century when parliament was calling for a genocidal war on Afghan tribes that resisted British rule, “Gentlemen, I can assure you that in the eyes of God the life of an Afghan herdsman is as important as any of yours.”
I’m not in any way religious but I could not put the case any better than that.

Solipsism for beginners
Bigoted Britain
So you think you’re an anarchist
Denmark’s Burqa Ban

California Gay Marriage ruling kills democracy

An appeal court ruling in favour of Gay Rights Groups and Single Sex Marriage points the way to yet another constitutional crisis in U.S.A.

Oh well, Obama sems to enjoy creating one every week.

When an appeal court Judge who also happens to be a gay activist overturned a democratically approved law banning same sex marriage in the U.S. State of California it was hailed as a victory for gay rights and a defeat for religious prejudice. That may be so, but it is also a defeat for democracy, justice and sanity. Since when did the demands of minority ‘rights’ campaigners trump the will of the majority expressed through the ballot box?

read allCalifornia Gay Mariage Law

You Scumbag, You Maggot, You Cheap, Lousy Meat Product

Radio One’s decision to bleep the f word out of perennial Christmas hit Fairytale of New York, was stupid and incomprehensible. The subsequent decision to unbleep it in response to public opinion was patronising and added insult to injury. The Political Correctness police at the BBC have decided us proles can have our bit of Christmas fun so long as we all promise to be very very good once the holiday is over, after all the song uses the word in a very non – homophobic way.
Even more annoying than the intervention of the Political Correctness Police was the subsequent intervention of the self appointed homophobia tsar Peter Tatchell. The arch-screamer Tatchell, a man who mission has set back the cause of gay acceptance by 30 years, launched into his usual self-pitying whine, claiming it is wrong and offensive to use the word faggot ever because it is insulting to gay men.
What, even when ordering a meal of meatballs and peas in the Midlands or South? (we call them Savoury Ducks in the north, surely an offence under the trade descriptions act.) Even when cutting timber into logs for the fire? Even when referring to an unattractive middle aged woman, although it is rarely used in that sense these days.
The whinging shirt-lifter seems so determined to find something to whine about he overlooks the fact faggot as slang for pouf, queer, queen etc. is an Americanism and rarely used in this country. So what
the truculent turd-burglar whinging about? We have plenty of derogatory words and phrases for gay men without needing to import any from the U.S. of A.
Now just in case any literally-minded types look in and think of accusing me of being homophobic, I’m not. They gay community make a huge contribution to our national life and their presence should be not merely tolerated but celebrated. But as with any group whose lifestyle varies from the norm, occasionally people will say something that may be interpreted as offensive but is merely thoughtless. Like when somebody makes a crack about short people in my presence.
I could run round complaining but instead choose to be grown up about it. Even if they did mean me, they probably did not mean to offend. And if they did mean to offend am I not winning by not being offended?
When I was younger and had darker hair I was often thought to be “a bit paki” (only in London though.) When that was reported in an old post somebody told me it was my duty to be offended.
I had one Indian Great Grandmother and a mixed race Grandma. So what? I’m more British than most of those low life, pikey bastards who called me a paki and so I chose to be grown up about it.
Choosing to be grown up is something self pitying whingers like Peter Tatchell should try. If he gets upset just because in a pop song the word faggot is thrown as an insult by a fictional woman at her fictional husband he ought to be glad he does not live in a nation where not insults but stones are thrown at gay men.
This blog would never support calls to stone Peter Tatchell for being gay. His dodgy dress sense, now that’s a different matter.

The Belfast Bed and Breakfast Bible Society.

This is yesterday’s post really.
Sunday is a good day for posts relating to religion and spirituality. Its also a good day for having a day off sometimes, so here is a Sunday post a day late.
The main religious story of the week was of course the Northern Ireland B & B proprietor run by a member of the D.U.P. (Defend Ulster from Poufs) party. If you did not catch the story, a storm in a teacup has blown up over a lesbian couple being turned away from the B & B because the owner is a “Christian” and did not want that kin of thing going on in the house. (sorry, we’re in Northern Ireland, I mean “hoyse.” i.e. Oy do nort warnt thot koynd of thing goying orn in the hoyse.”)
My first reaction on hearing tyhe news item on radio was “oh well, that’s fair enough, people have a right to decide who they will or will not allow into their home.” But it goes a bit deeper than that.
There seems to be a double standard in operation among the Paisley pattern duvet covers. What are a gay or lesbian couple likely to get up to that a mixed gender couple could not be doing?
Now my understanding of this area may be a little vague so let’s work though it.
Say a man and woman turn up and ask for a room or roym. Now the proprietor can ask are you married?
And the couple can truthfully say “yes we are,” without actually mentioning that its no to each other. On the scale of Biblical abominations I think adultery scores just as highly as homosexuality, probably higher.
And then what could this married but not to each other couple get up to that might offend against Presbyterian principles? A bit of crack smoking, anal sex, erotic asphyxiation, S&M.
The next question must be is it fair to assume that if a same sex couple take a room “that sort of thing” is going on hammer and tongs for the duration of the stay? What if they just like to sit in hotel rooms and read Agatha Christie novels. And what is a same sex couple? What if two guys working on a contract want a twin room to keep expenses down?
I would not like to stay in a hotel where the owner takes a prurient interest in what is happening in my room, even if I was alone.
Is it smart for someone with such a rigid (oops, pardon!) attitude to open a B&B. People get up to all sorts in hotels in fact the classier the hotel the weirder the clientele. Staff are trained to be blind deaf and dumb where guests antics are concerned.
Perhaps if the proprietor involved in the incident indicated it was a Christian B&B it might be enough of a hint. But to advertise “no same sex couples” would be acceptable, as bad in fact as advertising (as B&Bs in London still did in the early sixties when I first went there alone) “No Blacks or Irish.”
Mixing business with pleasure is dangerous, mixing business with moral prejudice is a minefield.