Not the Ducks! – India.com and Cancer Quackery »« Hijab 4 a Day

Charles Moore – Equality is Mad, Bad and Very Dangerous

Charles Moore simply doesn’t GET equality. His latest post on the Telegraph is simply blind to the very concept of what equality means or what women can and cannot do.

A lot of the problems we have with equality affect men too. However we have to remember that society is DOMINATED by men. The stuff that negatively affects men is perpetrated by men in general. YES there are a women who rape and yes there are women who beat and torment men but for the most part the abusers are men.

And the men who are “raped” or “beaten” or “tormented” are generally mocked NOT by women but by other men.

Last week, I appeared on the panel of the BBC’s Any Questions? in Guildford. We were asked whether we thought women should be allowed to take part in full front-line combat roles in the Armed Services. I said I didn’t think that it would be an advance in human civilisation if women abandoned their traditional association with peace and started killing people as men do.

No Mr. Moore, it’s not an advance in human civilisation if ANY gender disregards peace and starts killing people. It doesn’t matter what gender it is, war is the breakdown of diplomacy and peace. War only brings suffering. War may happen because of “good” reasons and may have “good” benefits but the price of those benefits is human life. civilisation and prosperity. In war the only real profiteers are the ravens.

If we remember this important dictim we would be less “american” about warfare. Oh I remember the way Iraq was treated when we went down there. The flag waving may not have been on an American scale but we were mocking “Frenchie” for being pacifists while we went to liberate Iraq.

The stupidest thing we have said since “In Berlin By Christmas”. We looked like a right bunch of fucking morons. We lost our sons and a few of our daughters. We killed a fuck tonne of people and made the world a little less safer. We fucked up Afghanistan where we could have done some real change by diverting forces away to fight an enemy while knowing fully well that the Taliban were not destroyed.

We were fools. We bought into stupid intelligence and we payed a horrible price for it.

IF women wish to join the army to do a job then we should not prevent them from doing a job provided they have the skills. It’s that simple. If that job involves killing people then why worry about the fate of civilisation? We already are utilising our state sponsored killers to kill people. That’s a bigger threat to civilisation than the genitals of the person carrying the rifle.

This did not please the questioner, an intelligent student from the politics department of Surrey University, or her supporters sitting with her. They thought that the only question was the ability of the woman – if she was fit to fight, fight she should, and no one should stop her.

Oh women! Don’t you know it’s not civilised for you to soil your pretty little hands in the blood and guts of humans! Think of the civilisation! Don’t you worry your pretty little heads, we will take care of all the nasty surgery for you…

Afterwards, I reflected on the oddity of the situation. It did not seem that the student and her colleagues were particularly interested in military matters in themselves. They also did not seem the sort of people who, in other circumstances, would be at all keen on people killing people. I could imagine them protesting against militarism. Yet here they were, pushing for a woman’s right to kill.

Why? Because of Equality, of course. It gets you into strange situations.

I don’t like religion but I would still fight for women to be priests despite it not bringing anything to civilisation, It really is that simple. You may not be a fan of warfare but you can still support the right for women to do the same job as men.

They are arguing for a woman’s right to do a job, the job happens to be killing people in the name of the state.

I put a capital e on Equality because, more than we recognise, it has become the public doctrine of our time. If you believe in big-E Equality, you are not merely saying, as most would, that people should try to make life fairer for all. You are making Equality the all-conquering principle of social organisation and human life. It is like a religion but, unlike actual religions in the West today, it is backed by the full force of law. Since 2009, when Labour’s Equality Act consolidated all previous bits of legislation, there have been seven strands of Equality, the creed’s equivalent of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. They are: race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, gender reassignment and religion/belief itself. In this seven, the last is the odd one out: I’ll come back to it. Through these seven channels, the grace of Equality must be poured.

Yes because heaven forbid we actually treat people equally.

This was an attempt to create a fair society which didn’t discriminate against people.

When David Cameron set out on his quest for gay marriage (and exactly when he did is a matter of some interest, since he denied any plans for gay marriage three days before the last general election), he probably saw this as a simple matter of being nicer to homosexuals and making the Tories seem less unpleasant. But now that the Government has moved to actual law, and will debate the Bill in Parliament on Tuesday, he is well and truly trapped by Equality.

Oh what a dastardly trap!

Mate this is a trap like a cardboard box wedged up by a stick with bait in the form of a pastry is a trap for an adult human. It’s laughably terrible, blindingly obvious and clearly stupid.

It is NOT a trap. It’s just that the world isn’t harmed by letting GLBT sign a register that gives them tax benefits for living together.

In recent months, officials drafting the Bill have struggled to fulfil Equality’s aim of making same-sex marriage identical to marriage as the world has known it for most of human history. They have come across an insuperable barrier. It reminds me of the moment when, in trendy Islington in the 1980s, I was summoned by the health authority for a cervical smear. Some things just cannot be done.

For most of Human History marriage has not been about love but about politics and acceptability. The arranged marriage is how things have always been done.

This “love” malarky is bullshit. I hereby demand a denounciation of this new fangled love malarky! See! First we accepted men marrying women for love! Now we have to accept men marrying men for love! You monsters opened Pandora’s Box!

The drafters have belatedly realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery. These will not, therefore, be grounds for gay divorce. If your gay husband offers you no nookie, or if he avails himself of large amounts of nookie elsewhere (or both), he gives you no legal cause to divorce him.

I don’t think Charles Moore is aware but the simple solution to this problem is to legalise No Fault Divorce. Honestly we waste millions of pounds dealing with stupid divorce cases that could be settled by just signing a piece of paper and letting both sides get on with their bloody lives.

This is not an argument against gay marriage, this is an argument for streamlining our stupid laws. (It’s not hard to get a divorce in the UK, it just requires a song and a dance and wastes money).

So what they have ended up offering, strangely enough, is a law of marriage with no sexual element whatever. This has never happened before (although there have been plenty of sexless marriages). There is nothing in Mr Cameron’s new law to say that same-sex marriages must be between homosexuals. If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going. Incestuous marriage remains forbidden, but I don’t see why, in Mr Cameron’s vision of same-sex marriage, a mother could not marry her daughter or a sister her sister or a father his son. No sexual act is expected of them and even if – distressing thought – it did take place, it could have no genetic consequences. Why should such pairs not just agree that they fancy the married couple’s exemption from inheritance tax, and hurry down the aisle? How long before a same-sex, keep-it-in-the-family couple tries to make a fight of it, and wins a case against the British Government at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

There are asexual people who get married too and just don’t have sex. There is nothing stupid about two people who do not like sex not having sex together. You can’t stamp your feet and peer through windows shouting “MATE YOU BASTARDS”.

Yes, you can marry your straight male friend to get tax benefits, travel deals and insurance discounts. That’s perfectly acceptable.

Because there is such a thing as “marrying for benefits” among straight people. The entire fucking stereotype of Indian and Pakistani marriages often is tinged with marrying for benefit.

The act of incest is barred due to it’s abusive nature and it’s production of genetic disorder.

And as I said… this malarky could be solved if we stopped people marrying for love and just decided who they married much like the Moonies (not the Mooninites!). Has it not been said? “Love! Love will tear us apart! Again!”.

And slippery slope stupidity is stupid and you should feel stupid for using it.

This is the real point about Equality. Because it is now considered both a sacred and a legal principle, it is heaven on earth for lawyers, if for no one else. Just as the Jewish Beth Din, or rabbinical court, has endless work precisely interpreting exactly how the Torah applies to real life, so our own courts are starting to do the same with their Torah, Equality.

Except the Beth Din doesn’t help people live their lives, it helps people live their lives the way the Beth Din thinks people should live their lives. This is just suggesting that perhaps we should let people enjoy lives as equals. It is only heaven on earth for lawyers because idiots like yourself insist on marrying your best friend to get tax benefits.

This in turn means that Mr Cameron’s promises, however sincere, that religious objections to same-sex marriage will be protected by the Bill cannot be fulfilled. Although religion is one of the seven “strands” of Equality, it is only one, no more important in Equality’s great scheme of things than gender reassignment. And so, although, under the new law, an Anglican priest remains free to marry only people of the opposite sex, if he is also chaplain of a hospital, the hospital will probably be entitled to dismiss him because his “homophobic” views about marriage break their “public sector equality duty” which the Equality Act lays down. On similar principles, a church might not be allowed to hire a public hall because of its views on marriage and a Christian, Jewish or Muslim teacher could be dismissed for refusing to teach that marriage was what Equality said it was.

Except Chaplains of Hospitals generally don’t have to marry people. I don’t know about you but when I think of places I would like to get married, HOSPITAL is seldom the place. A hospital chaplain is there to bring closure to the religious dying. He MAY be called on to perform weddings but frankly if he is going to waggle his “morality” over the wishes of the sick and the dying then he is a dick who doesn’t deserve to be working in a hospital in the first place.

And yes. We should dismiss homophobes and transphobes in the same way that we dismiss racists, sexists and bigots. If your views are bigotted then why the fuck should we hire you to spread your bigotry.

It’s simple. You may be a racist, you may be a sexist, you may be a homophobe or you may be a transphobe. But you are hired to do a JOB. And if you cannot do your job because your conscience is telling you that you must be a tosser to people of different ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation then you really should not be doing that job. It’s really that simple.

One is that it undermines freedom. It specialises in attacking ways of living which people have developed for themselves, often using the law and even the police to do so.

It doesn’t undermine freedom.

If you wish to be a bigot you can be a bigot. No one is stopping you.

However what we are stopping is you screaming your bigotry using public institutions and discriminating against people. There is nothing stopping you from going onto a website and screaming about how you think the Scots are all batter eating skirt fiends. You however cannot go out around in public as part of your job being a bigot to the Scots.

The freedom to not be subject to bigotry supersedes the freedom to be a bigot.

The second is that it undermines institutions. The bulwarks of a free society are not atomised individuals, but businesses, families, schools, clubs, churches, charities, sports teams – the Big Society we seem recently to have stopped hearing about. Equality is the government’s instrument for nationalising them.

It does not undermine institutions. It just stops them from being dicks to employees. It does nothing to harm schools, clubs, churches, charities and sports teams.

It just lets gays get married.

The third is that Equality makes everyone (except lawyers and other activists) very unhappy. No one knows where she or he (you see!) stands, what law he might inadvertently be breaking, what “inappropriate” remark he might have made. And those who invoke Equality to advance their collective cause, far from being pleased by what they have won, are in a semi-permanent state of rage about any remaining imperfection. They are trained to identify grievance, so naturally they are aggrieved.

Thank fuck no one thought like you when we had to deal with racism.

It’s then time to learn, to change and IMPROVE yourself to not be a biggot. It’s very very simple, most people are not dicks. Most people are willing to not be dicks to people.

And really? Suggesting “You Just Identify Grievance” is like suggesting we all shut up when we are biased against. We wouldn’t achieve anything that way. The ultimate irony is that Charles here is the one identifying grievances. The people who have a problem with Gay marriage are the ones whose grievances are usually scare mongering and often are simply a fantasy of what would occur.

Comments

  1. vaiyt says

    “You all are just finding things to be offended by! Now sit down while I write a dozen paragraphs about how I am offended by the very idea of gay people getting to marry the people they love!”

  2. Rodney Nelson says

    This did not please the questioner, an intelligent student from the politics department of Surrey University, or her supporters sitting with her. They thought that the only question was the ability of the woman – if she was fit to fight, fight she should, and no one should stop her.

    Shorter Moore: “Don’t worry your pretty little head about whether or not women should fight. I don’t care about this specific question and so you shouldn’t either.”

  3. Charles Whitcombe says

    Thing is though…he’s right. What you need to do is have a think about it. You’ll come around to sensible thinking when you’ve come out from your state of victimhood.

  4. says

    I can only hope you are being sarcastic. My second biggest hope is that you are a troll.

    Otherwise the alternative is that you genuinely believe what you just wrote.

  5. glodson says

    And slippery slope stupidity is stupid and you should feel stupid for using it.

    I both love and hate you for lines like this. I love to read them, but I hate that I have clean the coffee off my computer after I read it.

    It’s then time to learn, to change and IMPROVE yourself to not be a biggot.

    This hits on something I’ve noticed. Some people that argue against equality must think that those of us who support equality have some magic power to eliminate all prejudices. Which isn’t true, it is just that most of us try to be somewhat honest with ourselves and examine our prejudices in an effort to stop. No one is free of racist thoughts and attitudes. We all have crappy stereotypes running through our heads concerning different genders and sexualities. Just some of us know not to act on these, or hold these up as reality.

  6. redclaire says

    As an aside, if you were in a same-sex marriage in the UK you could in fact divorce your husband if he was off having sex with lots of other people without your consent. You’d just do it under the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, which is also what you could do to dissolve a civil partnership now.

    This weird thing whereby the UK government doesn’t consider anything but p-in-v intercourse to be sex also means that if you are in an different-sex marriage*, and your spouse is having sex with people of the same sex, you can’t divorce them for adultery either. The simplest thing to do would be to get rid of the legal definition of adultery altogether and just put the whole lot under “unreasonable behaviour”. This has been suggested much to the horror of the Christian Institute ‘Government wants to get rid of adultery oh noes!!’

    Divorce/dissolution laws in the UK are a faff. If you don’t want to level a catalogue of misbehaviour at your ex- which you might not in a simple case of relationship breakdown, or if you’re keen to maintain a civil relationship with them-you have to wait 2 years of separation with their consent, and five years without it! Which seems a heck of a long time to me. Although I’m sure in some other countries it is a lot worse.

    *yeah that’s an odd phrase, I didn’t like any of the alternatives though.

  7. Ysanne says

    If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going.

    Or, for that matter, before gay marriage he could have married a female acquaintance of any orientation for the same purposes, and reaped all these huge rewards. Except he didn’t, because it’s not such a big deal, and getting out of this agreement is a pita even when both parties want it.

  8. bradleybetts says

    The drafters have belatedly realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery.

    Please tell me this dickwad made this up? Are you seriously telling me that our Government doesn’t consider homosexual sex to be sex on the grounds that it doesn’t result in pregnancy? And I started this morning so proud of them :(

  9. bradleybetts says

    @Charles WHitcombe #4

    Thing is though…he’s right. What you need to do is have a think about it.

    I thought about and no, he’s not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>