Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Who's the (Sugar) Daddy?

I was unhappy - but not surprised - to see photos of the British Embassy in Paris sporting a rainbow flag this past weekend to celebrate that city's homosexual "pride" event. British Ambassador to France, Peter Ricketts said

Who on earth authorised these clowns to fly a flag representing a minute fraction of the population in place of the Union flag? The embassy is there to represent all of Britain, not a minority group (albeit a vociferous one).

The Foreign Office has form on this matter: in 2008 they flew rainbow "pride" flags over various embassies, sparking protests and diplomatic rows that resulted in the FO sending a memo to all embassies requesting that they only fly national flags because "...flying other flags opens up too many potentially difficult and divisive questions...we should continue to restrict flag-flying... to national flags, as currently set out in guidance".

Either this guidance has changed, or a wilful blind-eye is being turned to the display and caution about "difficult and divisive" issues has been thrown to the wind.

It's interesting timing as well, with David Cameron intent on forcing through same-sex marriage legislation in the UK while France is racked with protests against the Loi Taubira which legalised same sex marriage. Cameron has been so keen to force through same sex marriage that I strongly suspect that he knew about or even suggested the rainbow flag on the British Embassy in Paris:  in these days when gay-friendliness seems to be the currency of cool among first-world leaders, perhaps Cameron wants to be seen lending (im)oral support to the ghastly Francois Hollande.

...but compared to the gay-friendliest leader of all, Cameron and Hollande are mere wallflowers. Newsweek current cover proclaims Obama the  "First Gay President" but the picture takes things a step further: a halo suggests a sainthood. This is nothing if not perverse.

In May The New Yorker cover depicted a "gay pride"-styled White House in anticipation of the DOMA debates:

...and this week, after the repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act, a frankly creepy image of children's characters "Bert and Ernie" from Sesame Street cuddled up in front of the TV. The implication is clear: they're homosexual. This is particularly nasty as it points us towards a future where no close non-sexual friendship will be believed to be chaste. Bert and Ernie, Noddy and Big Ears - they're all at it so you'd might as well break it to the kids now...

Savvy social commentator (and atheist), Spiked's Brendan O'Neill warns that "[a]nyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent should find the sweeping consensus on gay marriage terrifying...I have been doing or writing about political stuff for 20 years, since I was 18 years old, during which time I have got behind some pretty unpopular campaigns and kicked against some stifling consensuses. But I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking."

But why this rush - this state-sanctioned headlong rush -  to embrace all things homosexual? Why are leaders of first world countries falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the militant homosexual lobby and the media following suit?

I'm old enough to remember when any one of the things mentioned above would have caused such a high degree of scandal as to be unthinkable. And that time wasn't very long ago. 

Follow the money. Cherchez la femme. Both good sleuthing tips when looking for motivation. But in this case "suivez l'homme" might be more apt; and not just any old man but a debauched Father of Lies, the ultimate "sugar daddy". 

 Cameron, Obama, Hollande:  here (on the right) is your master, whether you realise it or not.

St Wolfgang and the Devil (c.1483) by Michael Pacher

St Wolfgang of Regensburg: Ora pro nobis!

1 comment: