The Sixteenth Pluviôse of David Cameron

In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon Karl Marx said that everything in history occurs twice, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.  The Eighteenth Brumaire is a reference to the date on the French revolutionary calendar when Napoleon Bonaparte – the tragic hero – seized power in 1799 in a coup d'état.  Louis Napoleon is the nephew, a grotesque mediocrity, who had his own Eighteenth Brumaire in 1851, subsequently creating the comic opera Second Empire.

It’s not often that I agree with anything that Karl Marx said or wrote, but here I think he has a point – tragic greatness is succeeded inevitability by laughable mediocrity.  In the history of British Toryism, for instance, we have Sir Robert Peel, the man who shaped the modern Conservative Party and then almost destroyed it by later supporting the repeal of the Corn Laws, thereby undermining the economic power of the landed gentry.  In this instance Peel put Country above Party.  It was for him an issue of necessity and of principle, an issue that destroyed him personally, an issue that divided the Party irrevocably. 

Peel is the tragic greatness.  Now at last we have the farce; we have David Cameron, the present leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister under a Coalition government.  He, too, has fought on an issue of principle; he, too, has laid down the lines of battle; he, too, has presided over a new split in the Party.  And what is his great issue of principle; what is his Corn Law moment?  Was it the level of public debt, was it unemployment, was it the danger of another wave of mass migration from Eastern Europe; was it over our ancient constitutional liberties?  No, his Corn Law moment is...same sex marriage.  This is Cameron’s gay moment in history.

Parliament voted on this rainbow flagship policy on Tuesday 5 February (Sixteen Pluviôse!), with a healthy majority in favour.  Unfortunately for Cameron, who did not even have the courage to attend the debate, 134 Tory MPs voted against with 35 abstentions.  Even some members of the cabinet and the government’s own top lawyer voted against.  Only 126 voted in favour.  The measure was carried with the overwhelming support of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.  Is this the beginning of the end for the Cameroons, I have to ask?  Toryism, in any meaningful sense, is already dead.

I’ve been re-reading George Orwell.  My, what fun he would have had with modern politics, the lies, the absurdity, the dissimulation and the hypocrisy.  I look at David Cameron, I look at Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister, and I look at Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour opposition, and what do I see?  I’m not sure.  A terrible sameness, that much is clear, as if they had all been cast from a single mould.  Wait; I know exactly what I’m reminded of, the concluding words of Animal Farm – “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”  I cannot say which is which. 

Social conservatism died last week.  No, it did not; it’s alive in the country at large, but in Parliament it lacks representatives among the leadership of the three main parties, a point made by Charles Moore writing in the latest issue of the Spectator.  It’s a momentous disenfranchisement, as he puts it.

He makes some other points, things I’m wholly in agreement with.  Personally I could not care less if a fat nancy boys (oops; sorry; it’s the Orwell influence) like Elton John go through some parody of Christian marriage or not.  I’m wholly indifferent, just as I would be if dogs decided on nuptials; it’s no business of mine.  Besides, I suspect that there is a comedy goldmine here.  Oh, the joys to come, like gay divorce and gay custody battles. 

But, surely, the onward march of equality is not to be halted?  By what right, Moore asks, do we oppose polygamy?  After all, Muslims believe that a man has a right to take up to four wives.  Why does our present law disrespect their traditions?  Pure prejudice, clearly.  And there is more.  For, you see, Moore has logic and history and progress on his side;

The same-sexers express old-fashioned disgust at their opponents’ suggestion that their arguments could justify incest, but I do not see why. The gay marriage case is that marriage is good if people love one another very much. Why, by their argument, should this not apply to siblings who feel that way about each other or parents and their (adult) children? Are they saying that certain sex acts are disgusting? If so, on what grounds? Besides, gay incestuous marriages could not possibly pose any genetic risk, since they can produce no offspring. What taboo from the dark ages is holding the reformers back?

Good questions, Charles, you soft old leftie; what is holding the pig politicians back?  Surely not the fear of an adverse reaction by the public, who, as we all know, are fully behind the progressive agenda.  Oh, don’t take my word for it; the Economist has spoken here, and we all know how perspicacious and prescient the Economist is.  The opponents of gay marriage, you see, are a lot of old fogies (Zimmer-framing the issue, 9 February).  The grey vote may be the stronghold of bigots but look to the young, fully behind progress and equality;

To win in 2015 the Tories must target younger voters, who are disproportionately present in marginal seats.  Whisper it softly, but in setting himself against many of his MPs, Mr. Cameron – the party’s greatest electoral asset – may have improved their prospects of re-election.

An interesting viewpoint, don’t you agree?  Hey, but why whisper it softly?  David Cameron, the party’s great electoral asset, Mr. Bullingdon Club himself, will ride back into government, possibly with a decent majority, on the back of a lot of metropolitan fads.  Yes. England has turned into Islington! 

I’m quite prepared to admit that most people in my age group will give the soft soap response when asked for their opinion on equality.  It’s only fair, innit?  But what is clearly beyond the wit of the arses on the Economist is that when people vote, if they vote at all, and when voting is not simply a reflex, they do so because there are matters of deep personal concern to them.  Just imagine all the proles approaching the ballot box in 2015, in a fey and gay mood.  It’s just so, so difficult to control my natural cynicism.  How many divisions does the Pope have?, Stalin asked in dismissive scorn.  How many votes are there in gay marriage?  Oh, don’t look to me for an answer.  Ask David Cameron. 

George Orwell (him again!) wrote of Jonathan Swift, the great eighteenth century satirist, that he was “one of those people who are driven to a perverse Toryism by the follies of the progressive party of the moment.”  I was driven to perverse Toryism at an early age, the influence of my much loved grandfather, a county gentleman of the old caste.  But since Toryism in its Cameron mutation has become part of the progressive folly of the moment I can’t be sure what the future holds for me politically. 

I welcomed the Coalition government in 2010, not the best of all possible worlds, but the best we could get; at least the ministry was headed by a Conservative.  I was wrong; it’s headed by a worthless idiot, a mediocrity of the first degree, one whose personal politics are based on nothing but condescension, faddishness and guilt.  He even makes Louis Napoleon look good, which really is quite an achievement. 

So far as his wretched government is concerned I call to mind the words of Oliver Cromwell in dismissing the Long Parliament in 1653;

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go! 

You see, now I’m in agreement with Karl Marx and Oliver Cromwell.  The world has been turned upside down!  Alas, this is what Cameron has driven me to.  

Disagreement is Gay

There are only two things wrong with Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party – everything it says and everything it does.  In the past I never really paid that much attention to it, a sort of political version of Buridan’s Ass, a refuge for people who have neither the wit nor character to decide between the left and the right, forever locked in a mushy middle.  If I thought of them at all it was as the original purveyors of the European ‘ideal’, sufficient reason to dismiss them with condescension and contempt.

But now they are in government, a devil’s bargain sealed between David Cameron and Nick ‘the schoolboy’ Clegg.  Actually to refer to our benighted coalition government as a ‘devil’s bargain’ makes it sound far too exciting.  No, it’s the gay government, the Brokeback Coalition, as David Davis once referred to this particular civil partnership, after Brokeback Mountain, the movie about two cowboys who have a homosexual flirtation. 

A homosexual flirtation really describes part of our political culture at the moment, the pink tone being set by the Limp Dumbs, with gay marriage as one of their most cherished objectives.  As I wrote previously, it’s not an issue I can get worked up over, though I do consider it to be born of the worst kind of patronising gesture politics.  What I can get worked up over is the loud-mouthed, ugly and vociferous constituency that gay marriage has conjured into existence, people I would be glad to see back in the closet, the cottage, the tea room or wherever other habitat these types prefer. 

The gay lobby has a right to air its view but seemingly nobody else has, certainly if they express any disquiet at all over homosexual marriage.  A lot of Christians have because they consider it to be morally wrong, a caricature of genuine marriage as conceived for generations past.  The opponents include Dr John Sentamu, the black Archbishop of York. The colour of his skin is relevant because when he dared express his disapproval recently he received a number of racially abusive emails. 

Abuse as a mood of discourse; it’s rather the fashion in the internet age.  I stopped reading the comments section that newspapers allow to follow from articles because of the sheer malevolent stupidity of a great many people, people who simply drip venom.  I dare say the gay cowards who attacked Sentamu did so behind a cloak of anonymity, something else the internet allows for.  That’s right; read the Pink News and the Red Guardian at one turn; go online to call a man a Black Bastard at the next. 

The flash mob rose up again recently.  Yes, there they were, brandishing pitchforks and torches.  This time their outrage was directed against Rhys and Esther Curnow, a couple who have become the public face of the Coalition for Marriage campaign.  Committed Christians, they were recently seen in Downing Street, handing in a petition opposing same sex marriage to the Prime Minister.

Cue the hate.  Their Facebook details were circulated by, among others, one Kevin Peel, a Labour councillor in Manchester.  After receiving more than a hundred direct messages they were obliged to change their security settings.  Councillor Peel, when questioned on the issue, said that they should be prepared to hear the ‘opposite view’ from people who do not agree with them. 

Would you like to hear the ‘opposite view’?  Well, the ‘opposite view’ is that they should rot in hell; that they deserve nothing but sadness; that they should turn out to be infertile and die of cancer, which would be an occasion for celebration.  There were obscene sexual references and a suggestion that the recently married couple should be subject to “compulsory sterilisation.”  Now there’s an idea, clearly coming from the gay Nazi fraction.  Heil, sweetie! 

Poor Rhys and Esther are “shocked and saddened” at the reaction, though I cannot help but think them strikingly naïve, just innocents abroad.  More experienced hands would have been ready for the fallout, ready for the vile mob.  Still, I have to admire them.  Speaking recently Rhys said;

We’re at a loss to understand how people could be so vicious. All we did was hand in a petition at Downing Street. Surely there’s room for people to disagree without resorting this kind of hatred and abuse.  By all means let’s have a debate – especially as the public haven’t had the chance to vote on this issue.  But the bullies are trying to shut down the debate. We’re shaken and upset, but we won’t let them get us down

The thing is these morons do not want a debate; they want silent consensus…or else.  Debate and disagreement is – what’s the best way of putting it?  - , yes, I know: it’s just so gay.  

Christianity and Hate Crime

Six leading bishops together with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, had a letter published in The Sunday Telegraph, saying that Christians are being treated with disrespect, subject to new forms of discrimination that do not affect other faiths. “In a number of cases”, they continue, “Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld.”

I would go further: there are parts of this disunited kingdom where certain aspects of Christian belief are actively under attack, along with the right of free speech itself. In Scotland I read of the case on one Shawn Holes, a born again Baptist, who was arrested in Glasgow earlier this month, held in a police cell overnight, charged and subsequently fined £1000 after pleading guilty at a court appearance. What was his crime? Mr Holes believes that homosexuality is a sin. Because of some remarks he made on the subject at an open air meeting he was charged with “uttering homophobic remarks.”

Mr Holes, an American preacher from Lake Placid, in Glasgow with some colleagues, part of a Baptist group travelling around the country, when asked by a member of his audience for his views on gays replied that “Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of God- and so are all other sinners- and they are going to a place called Hell.” His remarks were immediately reported to nearby police offices, who promptly arrested for saying that “homos are going to Hell”, to use their particular form of words.

His prosecution follows hard upon the passing of a law in the Scottish parliament allowing for the prosecution of those guilty of ‘hate crimes’ against homosexuals. In England a similar homophobic hatred law was qualified by the Waddington Clause, an amendment tabled by Lord Waddington that protects religious liberty by a free speech shield, an amendment passed, incidentally, in the face of government opposition. Scotland allows for no such liberty, no such freedom of conscience. So, in theory, Scottish Catholics, who happen to share the Baptist belief that homosexuality is sin, could face a similar prosecution to that of the unfortunate preacher if they dared, for example, to quote Leviticus 18:22 - Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. Have I committed a hate crime even in writing these words?

I don’t happen to agree with sentiments behind Leviticus, just as I do not happen to like fire and brimstone style of preaching, but one rather expects that sort of thing from Baptists. What I do agree with is the importance of free speech and the right to hold a conviction, no matter if it conflicts with contemporary notions of political correctness and equality. For many Christians homosexuality is morally wrong, contrary to the teachings- as they interpret them - of the Bible.

The Wicker Man, the original version starring Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward, is one of my all-time favourite movies, a delightful extravaganza set among a pagan community living on an isolated Scottish island. Woodward, playing Neil Howie, a police sergeant and devoted Christian, is sent to the island supposedly to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. Shocked by open displays of pagan licentiousness he is determined to report his findings to the authorities, telling Lee, playing Lord Summerisle, the head of the community, “Sir, may I remind you that you are the subject of a Christian country.” Hmmm, I wonder if a modern Howie might find himself charged with hate crime. :-))