Can We Have our Civilisation Back? Reflections on what the ‘inclusive’ SNP conference of 2016 Teaches Us

 

 

Can we have our civilisation back

Imagine the scene. You are a delegate at a packed SNP conference – with thousands of others. On a high because the SNP is still riding high in the polls and on target to become the Scottish government again.   The SNP youth come forward with a motion that the SNP should support the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE). One delegate, teenager Gaela Hanlon declares

“I have seen first hand 13 year olds who have been bullied to the point where they hate themselves so much they want to kill themselves. It happens all the time. How long will we turn a blind eye to this? How many kids have to die?”

She receives a standing ovation. But you feel a little unease amidst all the euphoria.
Given that TIE wants to prevent such bullying, and the motion states that the purpose is to “Promote a safe, equal and accepting environment for all of Scotland’s young people” – who could possibly be against such a warm, compassionate, inclusive proposal, except the most heartless, bigoted fluidophobe?     That of course is the atmosphere in which delegates found themselves at this weekend’s SNP conference/rally. It would have been a brave person who committed political suicide by daring to challenge the motion.

So what’s the problem?

First of all the motion itself is meaningless. It merely expresses a series of platitudes that are almost impossible to disagree with and yet commits the Scottish government to no particular course of action. This allows the SNP to engage in ‘virtue signalling’ (‘look how wonderful we are, we care’ – my phone for example was filled with tweets from SNP MSPs and officials who were virtue signalling ad nauseum!), whilst preventing any meaningful or intelligent discussion and allowing the TIE people to claim it as a great victory.   The conference decision is meaningless, but the on-going TIE campaign is not.

So what’s wrong with it?

The aim of TIE is not ‘inclusive’ education. It is exclusive indoctrination.   TIE do not want there to be a wide variety of opinions and views on the nature of sex and sexuality, they want there to be only one position – theirs. And they want to exclude anyone who dares to disagree.   Their main aim is to ensure that the LGBTI+ agenda is forced upon every school, every teacher and every pupil in Scotland. There must be no opt out.   It is not about respect for particular individuals as human beings, but government enforced state indoctrination about one particular theory of human sexuality.
They have a very simplistic way of putting across their case. And like all simplistic doctrines it is very dangerous – especially when it is combined with emotion, lies and political cowardice. This is about bullying. If you don’t agree with this, you are supporting bullying. It is emotive and irrational, but effective.   TIE are not concerned about those who are bullied or discriminated against because of their faith, class or race. I have come across many forms of bullying in schools, including Christian pupils who have been bullied as ‘Bible Bashers’ and whose faith has been openly mocked in class by teachers.   But are the SNP or indeed any other politicians demanding that ‘ a safe, warm and accepting environment’ be provided for such pupils? Or that all pupils and teachers should be taught from a Christian perspective? Can we be allowed to re-educate pupils and teachers into what Christianity really is? By the way let me point out (and it is a sign of how irrational the times have become that I even need to do this), I am totally against any kind of bullying and I believe that people who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria need help not mockery.

But there is another problem. Gaela Hanlon identifies as gender fluid.   She said

It wasn’t easy for me to get up here to speak today, not just because I get nervous just speaking in front of my English class. But I struggled to fill out the speaker sheet. A speaker sheet has two boxes to be ticked, labelled male and female. This one had me stumped. See, I’m gender fluid. In simple terms this means I can not tell you that I am 100% male or 100% female, so to tick either of these boxes felt like a lie to me.”

Now you have to stop and think about that for a moment. Here is a teenage girl who says that she is not 100% female and not 100% male and so could not identify as either. According to one report of the speech she went on to say that her school allows her to use either male or female toilets (presumably depending on how she feels any particular day).   You see the equation that is being made here, and that was, at least outwardly, accepted by her/his fellow delegates?  If you don’t accept what I am saying then you are responsible for bullying, depression and suicide.

She went even further:

“If you’re against this motion then I have to ask would you be willing to put a gun to a child’s head, would you push me from a bridge. Because by refusing to do anything about the bullying in our schools, this is what we’re doing. So I plead with conference to pass this.”

So because I don’t accept the concept and philosophy behind ‘Queer’ theory and gender fluidity I am willing to put a gun to a child’s head?   Really? In the metaphorical sense who is putting the emotional gun to the head? Accept what I am saying or you are a child killer who would be willing to shoot me or push me off a bridge? Is this really how the SNP does politics nowadays?

Thus in a classic form of doublespeak, the threat of bullying is being used to bully delegates to accept this non-sense. And non-sense it is. In so many ways. For example Nicola Sturgeon’s policy on gender equality and quotas will be completely destroyed – after all if I find that my current gender’s quota is already full, then as a ‘gender fluid’ person, I can just switch to the one that is not yet full! And who would dare discriminate against me? If as a man I suddenly announce that I am gender-fluid and apply to join an all woman short-list, how dare anyone bully me by refusing to let me? Is it any wonder that many in the feminist movement are looking with horror at the potential implications of this new doctrine?

On an even more serious note has anyone ever considered that encouraging confused teenagers to become ‘gender fluid’ is far more likely to lead to more confusion, depression and suicide?  

Dress
Image from The Spectator article linked below

 

Giving in to this emotive bullying is a form of cowardice and irresponsibility that will lead to an enormous cost being paid by future generations.  Yes – we have a responsibility to help the confused Gaela’s of this world, but we also have a responsibility to the thousands of children who will be harmed by teaching them the completely false ‘fact’ that they can choose their own gender.   The reason that according to some studies, 70-80% of transgender people attempt suicide or self-harm is not just because of bullying or lack of acceptance. What if being transgender itself is a cause for many? Why would our politicians and education system encourage something that is so harmful? http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-dangerous-and-wrong-to-tell-all-children-theyre-gender-fluid/

But who will, or can stand up to this?

I remember at the University of Edinburgh over 30 years ago, being faced with a similar situation. I was heavily involved in student politics, was elected to the student council and was on my way, so I thought, to becoming senior president and a career in politics. At one particular general meeting I was on the platform, having just spoken against nuclear weapons, when a motion came up asking to appoint a further two homosexuals to the student welfare committee (in those days LG was the only issue – BTIQA etc. were not considered!). I waited for someone to object because people knew it was ridiculous (I was on the welfare committee and a majority of that committee were already gay) but nobody said a word. In an act of political suicide I felt that I had to object because I could not let it go through in my name. It was political suicide because although more than 100 people in the hall voted with me, I knew that I would be attacked and abused for the rest of my, soon to be short-lived, political career. And so I was. The editor of the student newspaper came to me at the end and congratulated me on two ‘brilliant’ speeches. He then told me that he thought 80% of the students in Edinburgh would agree with my position, but he was sorry because he was going to have to attack me in the next edition of the newspaper, because it would be more than his job was worth not to do so. Even over 30 years ago there was a bullying agenda that resulted in emotive name-calling and accusations of homophobia as well as being responsible for every evil under the sun!

Thirty years on it has got a lot worse.   Large party rallies are not places for rational discussion – and youth wings of populist nationalist parties are not noted for being bastions of tolerance, freethinking and free speech! Indeed there is a chilling aspect to all of this. Who do you think will end up being bullied if they don’t buy into the notion that you can just choose your own gender, in much the same way as you choose your own career?   What do you think will happen to the politician, journalist or teacher who dares to challenge this emotional bullying?  There is a reason that the teachers who send me e-mails about this issue ask to remain anonymous.   They are faced with increasing chaos in the classroom as confused teenagers, inspired by social and mainstream media, decide that they want to be ‘gender-fluid’. The whole school has to be re-orientated to acknowledge, accept and cope with this as normal – even though they don’t believe it, and even though they can see the potential harm it is going to do to other children.   They are forced to treat such disturbed teenagers as heroes, when in reality they really need psychological help. But any teacher dares to say this and the hate-mob will quickly ruin their careers.   So they just keep their heads down.

Another example of the type of chilling newspeak that is being used came from Rhiannon Spear, SNP candidate for Glasgow and convener of SNP Youth.

Without inclusive education we are creating a vacuum that will be filled with misinformation. We need to empower young people. That is why I am 100% behind the TIE campaign in calling for more progressive and inclusive education.”

For some reason that reminded me of Chairman Mao’s little Red Guards – where hordes of young people went round ‘empowering’ their fellow citizens in ‘progressive and inclusive education’.   Anyone who dares to challenge the zeitgeist of the commissars of the New Liberal Elite will be accused of ‘misinformation’ and doubtless sent to re-education centres. Make no mistake that is precisely what TIE are proposing, except in that ‘nice’ middle class way so beloved of those who know The Truth.  All teachers are to be re-educated. All pupils are to be re-educated. And anyone – whether politician or pupil – who dares to disagree, question or think for themselves, will find themselves facing social media outrage, calls for banning/sacking and in extreme cases, a wee ‘naming and shaming’ column or two in The National or The Herald warning the compliant population of the dangers of those who dare to differ.

As a supporter of the SNP I find this ‘Brave New World’ of the new nationalism profoundly disturbing. But it is not just the SNP; the Liberals, have also swallowed the Kool-Aid! In a sign that being a Christian in politics does not prevent you from doing stupid and immoral things, the Liberal Leader Tim Farron has, “drawn up a motion that will be taken to the party’s spring conference in York next month designed to broaden its representation in Parliament. Local parties will be allowed to vote on whether they want to impose shortlists solely made up of candidates who are women, disabled, LGBT+, or black, Asian and minority ethnic (Bame).”  (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-could-become-first-party-to-introduce-minority-only-shortlists-at-next-election-a6858146.html)

Seriously? The Lib-Dems are going to have shortlists that are racially based? Would such a move even be legal? Could they decide that in certain areas they would have whites only lists? Or men only? What about Muslim only? Or Christian only?   Where does this madness end?

Doubtless in order to prove their impeccable social and liberal credentials the Labour and Conservative parties will follow suit.

We are inclined in this country to see the rise of the ridiculous Donald Trump as a sign of the insanity of the US; perhaps we need to take the beam out of our own eye first?   Is there any politician anywhere who will stand up for rationality, tolerance and sanity? Or are they just going to leave us all to the mercy of the mob, the opinion polls, the corporations and the right/left wing extremists that will follow as they destroy what remains of Western civilisation?   Can we have our civilisation back?

Please.

Lord, in the midst of wrath, remember mercy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


16 thoughts on “Can We Have our Civilisation Back? Reflections on what the ‘inclusive’ SNP conference of 2016 Teaches Us

  1. Excellent article.The march towards absurdistan continues.The only positive I can see is that this whole gender fluidity,sexuality,queer theory ideology is bound to end up eating itself. The internal contradictions are plain for all to see. A future generation will look at this nonsense peddled by our elites and wonder how could people fall for it. (answer: co-ercion and manipulation.)Tragically it will do immense damage to our young people to be lied to in this manner. God save us from this lunacy.

    1. Absurdistan! Like it. I imagine it isn’t capitalised so as not to trigger anyone with an aggressive letter, or promote one letter ahead of others. Or is it prejudice against vowels?

  2. Thank you for what is an excellent article indeed. Surely in such a culture we will see more and more persecution of any who speak for biblical truth. One can almost feel the hatred and anger directed against any who would dare dissent. Neil speaks of contradictions which are plain to see yet they are being missed by so many.

  3. To state the obvious, teenagers are not adults. Granting that the trend of contemporary hyper-individualism is towards granting maximum autonomy to each person, except in matters of conscience or the use of private property, still it seems wilfully foolish and actually cruel to grant the same levels of ‘freedom’ to teenagers who still require guidance as are granted to mature adults.

  4. Yes, newspeak indeed leading to groupthink and groupspeak keeping people in fear of being ostrcised for anything outside of that.

    Transgender does seem to be the epitome of that doesn’t it with the number of suicides or being suicidal. Groupthink probably being that the reason that there is suicidal tendencies with folks with gender dysmorphia is of discrimination and of not helping someone to transition.

    Yours truly was accused of saying something harmful to someone who publicly disclosed themselves as transgender and suicidal on facebook as that either being a cry for help or narcissism. And this from someone who is a Christian that I like! Are transgenders immune from such a challenge with groupspeak? Is anyone who offers such a challenge deserving of being demonised and ostrcised?

    What if the reason for someone being suicidal has nothing to do with a transgender issue and they end up transitioning, finding that they are still suicidal and regretting the surgery?

    Yikes!!

  5. More tail wagging the dog policies. There was a time such things were diagnosed as mental illness. Now the “experts” are saying that “homophobia” and “transphobia” are mental illnesses!

  6. I think we have to take our civilisation back rather than ask for it. No wonder so many teenagers are suffering from stress, self-harming, depression and the rest. They are plunged into a cauldron of confusion from the get go.

    I’m so thoroughly fed up with the nonsense kids are being fed, the nonsense women are being fed, and the nonsense men are being fed. The only conclusion you can possibly draw is that someone or something has a vested interested in sending society completely insane.

    This is a bit like “how do we build a pro-life Scotland” – maybe we should have plays, literature, booklets, media, that unashamedly set out what we believe and indeed the science involved. Because we do have the benefit that not only do we feel these things, science rather backs them up.

    I’m also completely through with people who have been churchgoers all their days, laughing awkwardly then sticking their head back under their wing when they hear about things like this, as if it might go away if it ignored long enough. Or that it is an American problem, or isolated, or “anecdotal”. I don’t know what spirit that is, and I don’t know what planet they’re on.

    And breathe…!

  7. I wonder if TIE is anything like the Australian “safe schools” initiative which was ostensibly about anti-bullying. In footage from a launch event in 2014, which has just been brought to light, a coordinator declares:

    “Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s