Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The principle of “anti discrimination” – in practice.

Are you a Christian?

If so you will not be allowed to foster children in Britain – as the courts hold Christianity to be “homophobic” in that it holds homosexual acts to be wrong and Christians (at least if they actually believe in Christainity) will not promote such a “lifestyle” to children. And, of course, the courts are quite correct in their statements – if not in their conclusions.

Indeed one wonders how the British state can leave even their own children to Christians – surely if it is wrong for them to pass on their “homophobia” to foster children, it is also………

Although I rather doubt that the British state would persecute Muslims in this way – for example persecute Muslim owners of a guesthouse for not offering a homosexual couple a joint room.

“I do not care – I am not a Christain”.

Very well, are you are women?

In which case you can no longer get cheaper car insurance in Britain (or elsewhere in the European Union) because the “European Court of Justice” has ruled that the basic principle of insurance (actuarial calculations) “discriminates” – and, of course, IT DOES (that is the point of it).

Are you a man?

In which case you will no longer be able to get cheaper insurance for your old age – even though you do not live as long (on average) as a women.

The courts have ruled that this is “discrimination” also – and, of course, they are CORRECT to declare that it is discrimination.

There is a choice of PRINCIPLES.

Either one has freedom – the right to CHOOSE, to DISCRIMINATE (for that is what “choosing” is – it is an “act of discrimination” ) – or one has “anti discrimination”.

One can have both – one must CHOOSE between freedom and antidiscrimination.

Sadly many people try and have things both ways – they want “anti discrimination” but “not the Politically Correct madness”. But the “Polititically Correct madness” is exactly what “anti discrimination” is (and has been ever since it was invented, as a political agitprop tactic, by the Frankfurt School of Marxism way back in the 1920s), as the practical examples above show.

I repeat – you must CHOOSE.

Which is more important to you – freedom or anti discrimination?

You can not have both.


  1. NickM says:

    Christianity is fundamentally homophobic. It just is. Or at least that is often the case. You know why I know this? I happened upon a Christian fundamentalist website in favour of anal sex for married heterosexuals. They pointed out (and fair play to them) there is no Biblical injunction against buggery as such. Personally I don’t give a toss, But I do like buggery. Call it a hobby. It is a lot more fun than golf.

  2. JuliaM says:

    But is it played with tiny dimpled balls?

  3. Lynne says:

    I object to being discriminated against for not driving like a crazy cunt.

  4. Ian B says:

    It is if you think that anyone with a moral objection to something is suffering from a “phobia”.

  5. Antisthenes says:

    “You can not have both.”

    Yes you can. You can choose whether you want to use a facility or a service that discriminates or one that does not. De-legislate equality laws in favour of laws that favour equality of opportunity.

  6. dfwmtx says:

    The Muslims can call you “infidel” all they please, call for sharia and the death of blasphemers of Moohamhead, but if you say you love Hitler in France you get six months and a huge fine, or if you give the old Roman salute in front of the Reichstag you get arrested faster than some guy who’s been fucking his daughter in the basement for 17 years.

    Of course if you’re going to be a Bible literalist, nothing prevents you from having your gay sex. You just have to go about it differently. The Biblical injunction is that you shouldn’t lay with a man as one does with a woman. Thus, you need to switch your positions and do it standing up, seated, against a wall maybe, in a swing if you’ve got a good support in your ceiling, etc, but no gay sex missionary style. The Bible forbids it. Kinda like how Muslims can drink vodka or mead, since it’s not the fermentation of wheat or grape prohibited by the founder of the Rocks in a Box religion.

  7. I got all kinds of phobias. I hate spiders, for instance.

  8. Paul Marks says:

    Very good Antisthenes – that is what I believe, so it is what I should have typed (but failed do to so).

    Although I would say “equality before the law” (my way of writing equal justice) not “equality of opportunity”.

    People always have different chances in life. We can knock down the artificial walls (the regulations) – but there is never an equal chance.

    For some parents neglect their children and some do not.

    That does not mean that a person who is neglected (and so on) can not make it – but it is harder.

  9. stedmancinques says:

    ‘One law for the lion and the ox is oppression’- William Blake

    Mgr Andrew Summerskill, General Secretary of the (Roman Catholic) Bishops Conference of England and Wales characterising the European Equality directive as ‘an instrument of oppression’, said in 2009;

    “The directive fails to explain how conflicting rights could be reconciled, leading to fears that the EU will subordinate the rights of some groups, especially Christians, to the rights of others.
    If the directive is unable to provide a means of balancing those competing rights there is a risk that practical implementation may effectively turn the directive into an instrument of oppression.”

    You can’t say we weren’t warned.

  10. Ian F4 says:

    Although I rather doubt that the British state would persecute Muslims in this way

    A moot point, the standard western method of adoption is forbidden in Islam.

  11. RAB says:

    Dr David Starkey is playing an absolute blinder on this question (and all the others) on Question Time at this very moment. I advise those who can to watch it back on iPlayer later.

  12. Furor Teutonicus says:

    XX Very well, are you are women?

    In which case you can no longer get cheaper car insurance in Britain (or elsewhere in the European Union) because the “European Court of Justice” has ruled that the basic principle of insurance (actuarial calculations) “discriminates” XX

    I would be happier to go along with the “dscrimination” theory if every gym within a resonable traveling distance of my house was not “women only”. (The FIVE “Jopp womens fitness centers” within about a kilometer spring immediately to mind.)

    How the fuck can they get away with that?

  13. Ben says:

    Your opportunity to say that what would make you happy is for the Government to butt out:

    My response was:
    Question: What things in life matter most to you?


    Freedom, even over and above democracy.

    Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Conscience

    Democracy is important in as much as it is the best guarantor of freedom.

    However when they clash, Freedom is much more important.

    None of the other things in the list ought to be any concern of the Government. The “Happiness Agenda” is an intrusion on freedom and should be stopped immediately.

    Once the Government undertakes to make us happy, there is no part of our lives which will be free from the do-gooding prod-noses.

    Is there more to National Well-being than happiness? What else matters?


    Freedom is the most important thing.

    With Freedom, people will be able to sort the rest out for themselves.

    With Freedom, people will be able to subscribe to charities which aim to help with any and all of the listed items.

    With Freedom, people will be able to reject the help of charities, if they do not find it helpful, in a way they cannot reject the “help” of the State.

  14. NickM says:

    The whole “phobia” thing is fascinating. It’s built entirely built on some very odd “psychology”. Basically the assumption that anyone who doesn’t like some group or other is afraid of them. What is staggering is the presumption that every such prejudice or hatred or whatever springs from essentially the same mechanism. Thus ignoring all social dynamics, history, culture or anything else. I am not sure what the first such “phobia” was but my money is “homophobia” and my bet as to how it came to exist can be found in the twisted world of sexology and the wild assumption that everyone who beats a gayer is a gayer deep down. It has a pleasing symmetry as a theory. It’s probably drivel but it feels right so whatever.

  15. Rob says:

    The whole “phobia” thing is just a device of the Left to brand anyone who disagrees with tbem as mentally ill, thus attacking them personally while also invalidating their argument.

  16. NickM says:

    I think it is much deeper than that. It is an attempt to explain extremely complicated human behaviour patterns in pictures easier than an IKEA shelving unit erection instructions. It is an epistemological flaw, not a political one. It is that basic. That is why it is liked. It is so easy to grasp yet seems profound. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple”. He was right but lots disagree. Perhaps at some level the meme started about homophobia as a political act but it carried on simply because it was simple, neat and satisfying. It made “sense”.Except that the Universe is under no obligation to make “sense” to either the bearded sociology professor or to the bloke down the pub. Those two ultimate gobshites and purveyors of gross simplification. In the physical sciences over the last 30 years a similar thing has happened. The rise of Chaos Theory and it’s attempts to explain complexity through simple schemes. Sometimes it works and sometimes complexity exists for complex reasons. The Chaoticians take the later as an affront.

  17. Bod says:

    I guess that one advantage of labelling any heterodox viewpoint as a ‘phobia’ is that if it ever acquires sufficient social dominance, some evil cunt in a government office somewhere can write a white paper on how society discriminates against these poor (sick) people, which necessitates establishing some quango so these poor ‘sick’ people bribe can be bribed with taxpayer money and ‘sympathetic’ legal protections locking the poor fuckers in as part of their political machine.

  18. NickM says:

    No Bod,
    I stand by what I said. Almost every single assault on liberty is de-facto an assault on rationalism – on reality. Orwell got it right with 2+2=5. It is that simple. These people believe that reality is what they think it ought to be. They are Cnut’s courtiers or Empedocles who thought he was a god and leapt into Etna to prove it. The are Hitler in 1945 moving phantom divisions. Let me spell it out in your word, “heterodox”. The average political wonk won’t know what you mean. They will think you mean something to do with heterosexuality and conclude you’re a homophobe. They are that Humptyish about language.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: