Blacks and homosexuals. All the same to Melanie Phillips?

Posted on 24/01/2011


Using a quick find and replace on Word, you can establish just how bigoted Melanie Phillips’ most recent diatribe against gay rights really is. Had her article read as the doctored version does below – replacing gay and homosexual for a ‘black’ equivalent – would the Daily Mail sack her?

Probably not.

Yes, blacks have often been the victims of prejudice. But they now risk becoming the new McCarthyites

Last updated at 12:32 AM on 24th January 2011

Here’s a question ­shortly coming to an examination ­paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with being black?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with black references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the black rights agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why blacks move from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of blacks in the population.

In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where blacks take a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this black curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the black rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal behaviour.

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­being black was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote being black.

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards a small minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two blacks who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the black inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with black couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions for blacks.

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying being black was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the black agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for black-friendly hotels, black adoption and black mathematics, now comes, apparently, black drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new ­members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of ­abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem.

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that ­treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very ­welcome news.

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack.

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing ­Christian values in society and which campaigns against black rights.

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on being black were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down.

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on being black got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the ­council is black.

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its ­members were black. He would be out on his ear within the hour.

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack. Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug ­liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction.

He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true.

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on being black or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life.

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for ­common sense and morality on the ­Advisory Council.

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships.

It must be said that many black people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others.

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the black rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in ­support of the rights of people to express their views against being black — although, by ­contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all.

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, ­homosexuals and Welsh speakers.

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals.

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda. But the seemingly all-­powerful black rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning black people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites.

Read the real version: