I
PREDICT that within the next three decades, paedophilia will be made legal
after the age of 10. It is a shocking prospect but one which fits neatly into
the liberal paradigm. To today's liberals this suggestion will be shocking (
that is of course, if any of them read it). But such a 'liberal' embrace of
such a poisonous subject actually occurred during the 1970s, when a group known
as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), sought affiliation with the
National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) later to become Liberty - and had
it granted. At the time, the legal advisor to the NCCL was none other than
Harriet Harman, and the NCCL's director was Patricia Hewitt the one time
minister in a Labour government.
At the time (1978) when PIE was
affiliated to the NCCL, the organisation argued in favour of incest and that all sexually explicit
photographs of children should be made legal, unless the subject had suffered
harm - and this was agreed to as a good liberal compromise.
Of course, neither Harriet or
Patricia has had to account for their behaviour today; but in 1976 the NCCL in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision
Committee, asserted that “childhood
sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable
damage…". Is not progressive
politics wonderful?
No doubt the
NCCL believed themselves to be ahead of the progressive liberal times and would
be vindicated by history, as all progressive types believe themselves to be. No
doubt the torch of paedophilia will be carried in coming decades by future
liberals.
For the liberal progressive triumph
continues following the legalising of gay marriage and adoption… so then what
other conservative dragons need to be slayed? Well future liberals will see children in a
different light. Paedophiles will, like the Gay community, deserve a place in the great emporium of liberal
tolerance.
Children will be exposed to sexual
abuse. Their parent's will have no right to plead on their children's behalf as
long as the sexual abuse was 'willingly engaged in' by either their son or daughter. What a pit of moral
despair we would have invited upon ourselves if the likes of Patricia Hewitt
and Harriet Harman had been allowed to continue their paedophile brief on
behalf of PIE.
* * * *
NEXT
WEEK the Government's Trident Review is due to be published. At the moment we
have four Vanguard Class submarines carrying Trident ballistic missiles. This
arrangement allows for a permanent presence at sea, and any reduction from four
to two, or even three, would leave the seas empty of a UK nuclear deterrence
for periods.
I support the present arrangement,
for without a permanent presence at sea any future enemy would have an easy
target with no fear of a response: like beached whales our remaining two or three submarines would be easy targets
to be picked off , as they would be tethered to a dock.
So, if we are to have an
effective nuclear deterrent, it has to
be effective or else it will be another
case of further billions of taxpayer's money washed down the drain. I would
sooner see us with no deterrent, than one that falls short of any true meaning
of the description.
There is however another aspect to having
a nuclear deterrence, other than its capabilities. Would our modern generation
of politicians ever be prepared to launch a counter attack on an enemy knowing
that it would result in the deaths of millions of human beings? I think not.
I cannot imagine Cameron, Miliband,
Clegg, or for that matter, any crop of future prime ministers even
contemplating unleashing the ultimate
deterrent. They will say they would, but they will never be believed by their
own people, let alone an enemy. If for instance, our armed forces fighting in
Afghanistan have to take cognisance of civilian casualties before they open
fire (whether from land or the skies) on the enemy; and if a sniper has to ask
permission of a senior officer before he is allowed to kill the enemy[1];
then what spirit is there among our politicians for unleashing Armageddon?
Our military has been effectively neutered on the battlefield by
politicians frightened of their reputations and the result of the next
election. As a class, our modern politicians would never contemplate using a
nuclear option under any circumstance. Since the Second World War, there has
been only two prime ministers who would have launched our nuclear deterrent if
it had proved to be necessary; Churchill and Thatcher (remember the outcry in
the UK when she ordered the sinking of the General Belgrano?).
If today's politicians and future
politicians cannot be relied upon to push the final button; then why should we
pour billions into the next generation of nuclear deterrence. It would be
better, in these days of so-called 'austerity' to go naked into the world and
keep our hospitals open.
* * * *
THERE IS
ANOTHER REPORT that has caught my eye…a secret report no less. The sponsor of
the report is the Unite union and its author is Steve Hart. Hart is a name
familiar to those of us one time Labour voters now in the early 60s. For Steve
Hart is the son of the late Judith Hart the Left-wing cabinet minister who was
prominent in the Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s.
Her son Steve has, in his report,
attacked Ed Miliband's Labour Party. But my interest was occasioned by his
reference to Ukip in his 'secret' report. I, like many thousands of one time
Labour voters in my age range, have turned to Ukip in latter life as many
others should do. We are not racists or xenophobes, as Mr Hart likes to consider
us because of our concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the European
Union.
This is part of what Steve wrote
about Ukip; "The UKIP vote represents a
dangerous, populist Right-wing vote which is swayed by anti-immigrant and
anti-European rhetoric – and nostalgia for a comfortable world that never
really existed," he latter continues, "These are all the hallmarks of pre-fascist movements – which is
not to say that UKIP is fascist, because it isn’t, but to point to the dangers
of ignoring them and the issues or attempting to chase them.’
First of all Mr Hart has suckled at his mother's Left-wing
breast and sees any form of nationalism as 'pre-fascist', such is the Left-wing
orthodoxy. He also sees any criticism of
the swamping of migrants into our indigenous culture as racist. He then
offers the formula, European scepticism plus anti-migration equals
"pre-fascism". Despite the fact that the latter part of the equation
has resulted in pressures on our NHS that may lead to its eventual decline.
People like Hart
are idealists who tend to ignore reality or insult those pragmatic minds that
try to warn against such a folly. As a first time Ukip voter, I am not trying
to recover a past that I believed to be rose tinted. As far as the charge of
xenophobia is concerned, yes, I believe in the nation state; and what is wrong
with such a belief? Whereas our political elite are fully prepared to destroy
it and make us a mere county council[2] within the Greater Europe
(and if this is not pre fascist, then what is?).
As far as
migration is concerned; Ukip, like most Tory and Labour voters, are concerned
about their numbers, and how those numbers will affect the life chances,
whether in education, the NHS, or housing, of the indigenous white population.
Hart chooses to ignore such an impact, believing that it is a conspiracy of the
Right.
As a former aide
to Ken Livingstone, Mr Hart's report is a tendentious piece that serves its
purpose regarding the author's own prejudices. He is not (academically
speaking), a neutral observer engaged upon dispassionate research. He is a
Left-wing ambassador clinging to his mother's apron strings and seeking to
fulfil her dream of universal socialist love.
No comments:
Post a Comment