McCarthyism is alive and well and living in Britain.
I found this out last night as I watched Channel 4 News and a debate about immigration consisting of Chris Grayling for the Tory Party, Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats and Phil Woolas for Labour.
Th debate was dull with none of the parties offering any solutions to the problem, but as it ended, Jon Snow - the news presenter - turned to Chris Grayling (who was the only one in the studio) and began asking him questions about his comments regarding B&B owners turning away gays.
He then finished with a series of rapid fire questions - I don't recall the exact wording or sequence, but they were along the lines of .....
"How did you vote on civil partnerships?"
"How did you vote on Section 28?"
How did you vote on gay adoption?"
This amounted to nothing less than a McCarthy style witch hunt - but one being conducted by an unelected clique. Grayling's voting in the House of Commons is a matter of record - Snow could have found out the questions to all of these with a little research - but that wasn't the point.
The point was to ram home the message that opposition to the pink agenda will not be tolerated - that those who dare oppose it will be ruthlessly hunted down, vilified and, if possible, punished.
Personally, I've been indifferent about gay rights up until this point - it doesn't effect me so I don't much care about it either way - but this has revealed something sinister. It has revealed the fact that elected members of parliament are no longer allowed to hold opinions that do not match those of the liberal elite who really run this country.
I believe that people have the right to approve of homosexuality, but equally believe that others have just as much right to disapprove of it. The most important thing is that those opinions are freely and honestly held - not demanded or forced.
I also believe that news presenters are not there to push their own opinions down the throat of the watching public. Snow is entitled to his own views, of course, but he is not entitled to use a news programme to push those views or promote his own personal agenda.
He should be sacked. If he isn't then we will know that McCarthyism is not just alive and well in this country - it is an active policy of the media.
9 comments:
I agree with you, it seems that one is no longer allowed to have opinions of one's own if one is a politician.
Incidentally I have two gay friends; they are strongly opposed to all the gay rights activists - their view is that each time there is some publicity about "gay-rights" being infringed, like the recent furore over B&B, it makes life worse for them as it simply "puts peoples backs up".
They just want to live and let live, and wouldn't dream of forcing their way into somewhere they weren't wanted. They understand my personal views on homosexuality and are happy to remain friends because we tolerate each other's position.
Ditto with the gay friends who hate the activists. Every movement attracts it's fair share of attention seeking loudmouths who do the 'cause' more harm than good...
I'd echo English pensioner and JuliaM. I've no hostility towards gays but the overzealous gay rights lobby is a total pain in the arse.
Stan, an off topic point but have you read the blog of Winston Smith 33? It's on the longlist for the Orwell Prize and I reckon it would be right up your street.
Second what Richard Matthews says re the Winston Smith blog. Piece about it in the "Fail" today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266099/Dispatches-hell-Throttled-spat-abused--The-online-diary-social-worker-paints-devastating-picture-utterly-amoral-teenagers-running-wild.html
Stan, just wanted to say your blog is absolutely excellent of late.
The same thing happened to Grayling last week on the BBC Stan, I watched it. Interviewer ended the discussion and then he started interrogating Grayling on this B&B thing. What it shows is a televisual media infested with Left-wing thought police. We want MP's to think for themselves (I for one would like to see the end of the three-line whip). We are slowly becoming a fascist state, folk should to wake up and smell the gun oil.
Steve
EP and Julia - I'll have to take your word on gay friends. The few I knew in my youth died before reaching middle age and the only gay person I know now is fairly outspoken (and HIV positive).
Richard - I've checked out Winston Smith's blog before - it's good. However, I place no store in the Orwell Prize. Anything that lists Iain Dale or a Guardian correspondent's "blog" as an example of what blogging is about isn't serious about blogging. For me, blogging is about the great unheard having their say - not mouthpieces for mainstream political parties or left wing newspapers. Those people already control the media and have plenty of outlets for their drivel - God knows we get enough of it on TV and in the standard press.
staybryte - "excellent of late"? You mean it wasn't before? LOL
Steve - to be fair, I have no problem with Grayling being asked about his comments on the B&B affair. He made a statement that conflicted with his voting in parliament and he ought to be held to account for that discrepancy. What I object to is the way he was questioned on things that bore no relation to those comments and was simply nothing more than a McCarthy style witch hunt - the "are you now or have you ever been opposed to gay rights" innuendo was disgraceful and should play no part in British political life at all let alone be acceptable as part of mainstream news programming! Jon Snow has long been given to allowing his personal bias and beliefs influence his broadcasting of news - something which is against the law (impartiality) I believe. As such he has proven again and again that he has no right to remain in that job.
To be honest I'd never heard of the Orwell Prize before stumbling across an article about Winston's blog in the Daily Mail (a stimulating read - I never miss a copy!)
An amusing side note: I have a cousin who is gay and he lives next door to none other than Jon Snow. Maybe I should have a word!
What troubles me about the gay lobby is that it still exists.
I know not whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate quality.
Either way, it is how some people live their lives and it is important to them that they should not be prevented from achieving the best they can in life because of the choice/innate quality that guides their bedroom activities.
All the law can do is provide that they should not be discriminated against on the ground of their sexual preference. Generally speaking this means it should not affect their employment prospects although it arises in some other fields too.
That law is in place.
So, why is there still a lobby? It seems to me it can only do harm to the very people it seeks to protect from harm.
If there are so many gay people who dislike the "gay lobby", how do we get them heard in the media?
Post a Comment