Nasty people beware! Mrs May intends to ban you!

In October 2002 Theresa May, then Chairman of the Conservative Party, famously said of her party: “There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party.”
This of course raised an obvious question: Who are “some people” ?
The answer of course is obvious and well known: A generalised answer can be; “Guardian readers” and those such as Polly Toynbee.
Since that time we have seen how Mrs May and Mr Cameron have sought to appeal to these folks. A splendid example of the statutory provision to allow persons of the same gender to contract a civil marriage. Other examples are Tory Central Office obsession with finding so called “minority candidates” for winnable seats. The definition of “minority candidates” being persons having one or preferably more than one of the following characteristics:
– female
– being a member of an “ethnic minority” (any other ethnicity than “white”)
– having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual.
– being described as “trans-gender”
– possessing a faith other than Christian
Persons who could be described as transvestite and those who have not been privately educated or are not “Oxbridge” graduates are to be preferred.
This can be abbreviated to; “White heterosexual males need not apply – especially old Etonians!”
That of course rules out such as David Cameron!
A political analysis of course shows that Mrs May’s policy is self defeating as it serves only to alienate her core voters whilst at the same time failing to attract those such as Polly Toynbee to vote Tory!
These prejudices – for that is what they are – held by Mrs May are important and instructive in the light of her statement (see the above videos) at the Tory Conference yesterday.
Mrs May talks of “incitement to hatred” but such is already an offence. In her speech she clearly states, “falls short” of that which can be prosecuted.
The worrying thing about these developments is that the Labour Party will be just as authoritarian as the Tories.
Of course, British Gazette readers will know that the Tories and Labour lie. What Mrs May has not said – but intends to do – is to clamp down on those promulgating views she and her politically correct coterie do not like. Mrs May has of course a certain Mr Anjem Choudary in her sights. But in order to appear even handed she will clearly target Mr Tim Ablitt, Chairman of the English Defence League (EDL) since October 2013.
Another thing that British Gazette readers will know is that the authorities will not immediately use all of their newly acquired powers. It was in 2007 when shopkeeper Moira Pickering was told by police to remove Golliwogs from her window display – because they were offensive. She was warned that she risked breaching race hate laws if she failed to take them down. The laws had been in force for some time before that.
Mrs Pickering’s experience was not unique and should these new powers be put on the statute book British Gazette readers can be sure that many more than Messrs. Ablitt & Choudary will find their “collars being felt” by the local constabulary!
Of course, the source of Mrs May’s problem is the diverse Britain that she and her colleagues have spend so long creating. In our article of 29th September (Michaelmas):
http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2014/09/29/conscientious-objection-legislation/
we suggested the correct way to deal with such as Mr Choudray. It can be summed up in the old phrase; “Give him enough rope and he will hang himself…” NB: We do not mean this literally!
Essentially the way to protect freedom is to allow people to embrace it. It is of course MOST IMPORTANT to realise and accept that the price of YOUR freedom of speech is the freedom of speech of those you most despise.
In her biography on Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the phrase: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it….” (which is often wrongly attributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs.
Beatrice Hall’s phrase is of course a most dramatic representation of what we mean.
In our Michaelmas article we cited examples of Muslim employers demanding (as a condition of employment) adherence to their interpretation of Muslin dress codes – niqabs and burqas for female staff. These garments are an anathema to militant feminists.
This freedom (of a Muslim employer) however means that not only can a Muslim employer insist that his employees are Muslims, it means a Christian employer can insist that his employees are Christians. Whilst such practises are pointless for the great majority of businesses, it could be argued in such as religious bookshops and organisations such discrimination is essential or at least highly desirable.
Now let us return to the question of Mrs May and her desire to ban deeply objectionable [to her] behaviour and statements – for that is what it boils down to. What of course is deeply objectionable to one person is perfectly acceptable to another. Let us cite some examples:
Let us consider Mr Choudray for a moment. Let us imagine that Mr Choudray had a meeting with some colleagues in Brighton and this meeting was on the same day as the Brighton Annual Pride Event took place. Seeing this spectacle would more than likely infuriate Mr Choudray as it is diametrically opposed to his beliefs. Of course, Mr Choudray can be assured that his beliefs equally infuriate those he would see parading before him! And there Dear Reader, you have it!
Mr Choudray of course is not alone. There would be many devout Christians – and Orthodox Jews – who would wish to quote Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Were such persons to seek to hold up placards during such an event, they would doubtless be apprehended by the police.
What those taking part in the Brighton Annual Pride Event and those who object vociferously to what they see as a promotion of sodomy should realise is that in a free society, those objectors [to the Pride Event] have as much right to quote Leviticus 18:22 at them as they have to take part in their parade.
To those Pride marchers who would shout “You’re wrong” [or other statements] at such objectors the British Gazette has this advice: You will one day find out for yourself whether or not Leviticus 18:22 is correct. Unless of course you plan on becoming immortal.
What of course is clear is that Mrs May (and presumably Ms Cooper aka Mrs Balls) will pursue those according to their own prejudices: which will mean that those objecting to Gay Pride marches will be taken to task but not the marchers themselves.