The Ugly PC Assault on Our Children

Each day another horror headline. The latest outrage concerns two Scottish grandchildren snatched away from their own grandparents and forcibly given over to two homosexual men instead. Bloody-minded bureaucrats thought homosexuals were better for the kids than their own grandparents, who they deemed to be too old.

This is barbarism, PC madness, and the ugly face of the homosexual activism. The gaystapo are becoming unstoppable, and the Western world is going down the tubes fast. The way things are going the thought police will soon wander from house to house, snatching children away from their parents and forcing them to be raised by militant homosexuals, all in the name of tolerance and PC.

Indeed, kids are already being snatched away in various circumstances, including from parents who have the nerve to home school their own children. We are without doubt entering a new dark ages. As Christianity has been marginalised and increasingly made illegal, the forces of darkness are having a field day, and the first casualties are our children.

Of course homosexuals cannot procreate, they can only recruit. So they appreciate the way they can so easily get access to our children. And our governments are letting them get away with this. In fact, they are aiding and abetting them in this activity.

Consider something that just arrived in my inbox, seconds ago: “MADRID, January 29, 2009 ( – After three days of debate, the Spanish Supreme Court has declared that parents do not have the right to opt out of a national civics program that includes indoctrination in homosexualist ideology and other offensive elements. The program, ‘Education for Citizenship,’ teaches children to make a ‘critical evaluation of the social and sexual division of labor and racist, xenophobic, sexist, and homophobic social prejudices’ and instructs teachers to ‘revise the student’s attitude towards homosexuality.’ It was formulated by Spain’s Socialist Worker’s Party, which has held power since 2004.”

Such examples are popping up every day. The militant homosexual activists are targeting our children, and they are winning all around the world. And as always, there are two parties to blame for all this. One is the militant activists and social engineers supported by leftist governments around the world. But the other party includes those who should know better: parents, Christians and others who may worry about all this, but for some reason refuse to get involved, refuse to speak out, and refuse to dirty their hands in these most important of battles.

One is reminded of the words of German pastor and Holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller: “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Fortunately there are a few voices of sanity left in this decadent and amoral world, and a few people willing to take a stand. English commentator Melanie Phillips expresses her outrage at this latest example of child abuse. She is worth quoting at length. She begins with these words:

“When homosexuality was legalised back in 1967 did anyone dream that some four decades on a British grandmother and grandfather wanting to adopt their own grandchildren would be refused permission and the children adopted instead by two gay men? The case in Edinburgh reported today, where precisely this grotesque development has occurred, illustrates the sickening way in which what started out as a decent attempt to be tolerant towards a minority lifestyle has turned into a totalitarian assault upon family life and human rights.”

She continues, “There are so many layers to this gross and terrifying abuse of power that one hardly knows where to start. The reason why adoption is so successful at raising healthy, well-adjusted children is that it replicates as far as possible the biological mother and father whose presence in the family is so crucial to the well-being of their children.”

“The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true. While some children emerge relatively unscathed from irregular households, children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ – or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement. Where that does not happen, the child’s deepest sense of his or her identity as a human being is at some level damaged.”

Of course the social science data on all this is overwhelmingly clear. The best interests of children occur when they are raised by their own biological mother and father, or in a household as close to this as possible. This documentation is voluminous and overwhelming.

But our bureaucrats and social engineers don’t give a rip about the evidence, or the welfare of our children. They are into only one thing: promoting the agendas of the radical minority activist groups. These folk have declared war on our children.

“The powers invested in social workers to interfere in family life are extensive and draconian, and are granted only because of the acknowledged need to safeguard the interests of children against abusive family situations. But in this case, it is Edinburgh social services department that has grossly abused its position of trust by intentionally placing these most vulnerable children in a position of disadvantage and maybe even harm for nothing other than ideological reasons. Worse still, they have threatened and intimidated the children’s grandparents – for daring to object to a course of action for their own grandchildren which they think with good reason would be detrimental to them.”

“It is beyond pathetic to read the grandfather trying to protest that he is not ‘homophobic’ – all for having the temerity to say that his own grandchildren need a mother and father figure in their lives. For that he is branded a bigot. Indeed, where ‘gay rights’ are concerned the old joke that what was once forbidden becomes in due course mandatory has now come all too true in post-morality Britain. Despite the fact that gay adoption is opposed by most people – polls suggest that some 90 per cent are opposed in Scotland – the law that enabled it was rammed through Parliament with the help, to their eternal shame, of the politically correct Cameroons. Ever since, it has been promoted assiduously by left-wing councils – some of which forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption.”

“The underlying agenda behind gay adoption, as it is behind the whole gay rights movement, is nothing to do with protecting the rights of gay people. Were it really so, there would be no objection. No-one should be discriminated against simply on the grounds of his or her sexuality. That does not mean, however, that gay lifestyles must be regarded as of equal value to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children. To say that anyone who makes such a distinction is prejudiced is to turn reality on its head.”

“But that is indeed the whole point of the gay rights movement – to destroy the very notion of heterosexual norms of sexual behaviour and the definition of the family so that gay lifestyles can present themselves as ‘normal’. This in turn is part of the broader onslaught upon the Judeo-Christian principles upon which British society and western civilisation are based, which has been mounted now for decades by ideologues of the left and which has progressively eviscerated family life on the altar of individual ‘lifestyle choice’.”

Phillips concludes, “The result is a world turned on its head in which what is harmful is said to be good and what is good is said to be harmful; tolerance has turned into gross intolerance; and upholding human rights has turned into an onslaught upon human rights. The hapless Scottish grandparents are but the latest victims of a brutal totalitarian dogma, which anyone with an ounce of real liberal principle should denounce for the attack on justice, humanity and common-sense that it undoubtedly is.”

This latest attack by the gaystapo shows the real depths of the PC cesspool. And it demonstrates the very real war we are in. It is a war that is fundamental and pervasive. And the real prize being fought over is our children and our grandchildren.

[1437 words]

16 Replies to “The Ugly PC Assault on Our Children”

  1. I have sent an email to Scotland about this very lamentable case of 2 young children with willing Grandparents who wish to care for them in a loving family environment, being given instead to two homosexual men. Just more evidence of political correctness (and worse) infiltrating our culture.

    Dawn McGregor

  2. Now we know why Britain is just that and not Great Britain, and our lovely tolerant PC groupies want to follow in their steps.
    One wonders if the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse are not already saddling up.
    Wayne Pelling

  3. So much for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    “Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, … Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
    Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, …

    Article 8
    1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.”

    John Nelson

  4. One would hope that news of this outrage in Edinburgh inspires a mass public rally against the (ir)responsible authorities. The rally should be lead by the churches, that is unless they have completely abandoned their responsibilities.

    The grandmother in this case is only 46 and yet was considered too old to adopt! The elder of the two children is 5, therefore it would be quite possible to find natural families where a 46 year old mother had a 5 year old child. Obviously the “too old” reason was just an excuse to refuse adoption.

    Ewan McDonald.

  5. Many Christians were asleep (and still remain so) to this threat when the first major battle was lost, when the present christianophobic government brought out the Sexual Orientation Regulations in 2007. These were heralded by the labour ministers, Meg Munn and Alan Johnson, in which they proudly boasted :

    “The Government’s vision is for a fair society founded on equal opportunities for all, respect for the dignity and worth of each person and mutual respect between communities. Significant progress has been made over the past forty years –since the first anti-discrimination legislation was introduced – towards achieving such a society in which everybody can achieve their full potential, unfettered by prejudice or discrimination. Anti-discrimination legislation has played a crucial role in driving this progress and setting the benchmark for acceptable behaviour in many areas of our everyday lives. We have just celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the Sex (Gender) Discrimination Act and will celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the first Race Relations legislation later this year. It is unlikely that British society would be as diverse and successful as it is today without these landmark pieces of legislation.
    More recently, we have made significant strides towards achieving equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Since 1997, we have equalised the age of consent, repealed section 28 and outlawed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace. And just three months ago, we witnessed the first civil partnerships taking place across the United Kingdom.”

    So the handing over these vulnerable children to homosexual predators and parasites is how the British government celebrates a fair society founded on equal opportunities for all. This is the mark of a society where significant strides towards achieving equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people have been made. Too right. Pity about the children.

    Let also not forget that in forefront of these “successes” “achievements” and “progress” is the Lord High Chancellor, Jack Straw, the man of straw, the man who will be instrumental in the next few weeks in taking away our right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought with the incitement to homophobic hatred bill, that those who are even awake to the threat have become resigned to as a fait accompli

    For sheer hypocrisy and double speak it does not come better than this, for this is what he found it politically expedient to say back in 1998,4 November, on the Today Programme, when Home Secretary:

    “I’m not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies. Children, in my judgement, and I think it’s the judgement of almost everyone. including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There’s no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not.”

    Ladies and gentlemen it is time to unlock the armoury cupboard. Civil war is just around he corner. In the words of Oliver Cromwell, who thankfully still stands outside the House of Commons (only just) “Trust in God and keep your powder dry”

    David Skinner, UK

  6. John Nelson,

    Your quote from the UNCRC reads very plausibly, but as I read I couldn’t help ticking off the “weasel words” which faithful Christian battlers of the 1980s warned about.
    – “the human person” – personhood is redefining gender
    – “the family” – we now have ‘blended’ families of 57 varieties
    – “an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding” that atmosphere can apparently be provided by even ‘gay’ people but notice it doesn’t say ‘stable environment’
    – “family relations” – now defined to include all sorts
    – “as recognized by law” hence the massive effort to re-write our laws to include all the old deviances
    – “without unlawful interference” ah, yes, but lawful interference is another matter entirely

    There are quite a few more areas with such weasel words but even in this short piece there is quite enough!

    John Angelico

  7. John Angelico

    I fully agree with your assessment and am no supporter of human rights as defined by the humanistic UN.

    Nevertheless I thought it interesting to note that the family is recognized by the UN as the fundamental group of society and one would have thought that in the absence of the parents, willing grandparents would be considered the next best option. How naive of me.

    John Nelson

  8. Welcome to the new Stolen Generation.

    By the time we reach the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, there’ll be nothing left to celebrate.

    Michael Watts

  9. I could not even read through the article, I felt sick to my stomach to hear this. The attack on family is blatant and vicious and it will only get worse. How long will we sit by and watch families, the building blocks of society, get torn down? What, exactly, will it take to make us rise out of passivity to people of action, people who stand up for their beliefs, people who love God beyond their own reputation, enough to be slandered for not being apart of the ‘new tolerant’?
    Bill, thank you for your dedication to making us aware of these things. As someone who likes to stay informed, I truly appreciate all that you do. I’m consistently challenged to do more than just read the news, but to act.
    Michelle Guillemaud

  10. Re: The NSW proposal, notice the dates for the submission process? Once again they sneak it through while most people are away on holidays;

    Referred: 2 Dec 2008
    » Call for submissions: 3 Dec 2008
    » Submissions close: 13 Feb 2009

    Glen Grady

  11. At the heart of the matter, Bill, is that our claims to be living in “democracies” are false. True, real democracy only exists when and where the people decide the rules by which they wish to live. In only one country on this planet does that happen: Switzerland. It’s constitution has embedded in it the rule that it can only be amended by referendums. All legislation is “approved” on a provisional basis for 6 months, during which time 50,000 electors can demand that it be put to a referendum. In addition, 100,000 electors can propose new legislation and this is also put to a referendum. The constituion requires all proposals to sign foreign treaty commitments to be decided by the people in referendums.

    And yes, the results of all referendums are binding.

    Look at all the weird “legislation” “passed” by “parliaments” in the so-called “democracies”. All those “laws” are profoundly illegitimate as they have never received the democratic approbation of the people in referendums. In fact, if those “laws” had been subject to the rigourous test of a referendum in a true democracy, they would not even have been proposed.

    Unless and until we rise up and demand constitutions that entrench true, real democracy, we are destined to be ruled by tiny minorities with axes to grind who know just how to get their hands on the levers of power.

    Dominic Baron, New Zealand

  12. This is the most disgusting thing I’ve heard yet coming from the homosexual/liberal agenda. I just can’t believe it.
    Victoria Demona

  13. As a Christian, I do not support homosexuality or gay marriage. I believe the ideal environment for children to be raised, is with their married, heterosexual, biological, Christian parents. Anything other than this is less than ideal.

    However, there is no need for Christians to treat homosexuals with such contempt, as per this article. When it comes to them raising children, I agree that it’s not the ideal environment. Yet, we allow youth, single people, and non-Christians to raise children without asking any questions.

    I think it’s time we start loving homosexuals rather than condemning them. And, we need to entrust our children into God’s hands. Moses was abandoned in the Nile river, and raised by Egyptians for 40 years. Joseph’s brothers hated him and sold him. Isaac’s dad was going to sacrifice him! These were less than “ideal” circumstances for these children, but God looked after them nevertheless.

    Just because you don’t support a certain behavior, doesn’t mean that you can’t tolerate it. Which is better? To be intolerant, in order to stand up for your beliefs; or to tolerate it, showing love and acceptance, in the hope of winning them to Christ.

    Jackie Stuart

  14. Thanks Jackie

    But you force us into a false – and unbiblical – distinction here: love and tolerance versus taking a stand against evil behaviour. Sorry, but the Bible makes it clear that we can and must do both simultaneously. Scripture says we are to love that which is good and hate that which is evil. Jesus said if a person does anything to cause a child to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea. That has nothing to do with tolerance and acceptance.

    While we are indeed to love all people, the Bible never tells us to accept, love, tolerate or endorse that which is evil. We are never commanded to tolerate or love sinful behaviours and lifestyles or destructive beliefs and ideologies. Indeed, we are told to pull down strongholds that war against God’s truth.

    Also, you seem to have an unbiblical portrait of biblical love. Love never means embracing sin, but confronting and challenging sinful behaviour, with the aim of setting sinners free of their destructive and harmful behaviours. Biblical love has nothing to do with sentimental tolerance. Indeed, we will never win a homosexual – or anyone else – to Christ, if we first do not point out that Jesus came to save sinners, and that we must turn from our sinful ways if we want to receive the forgiveness Jesus offers.

    You also confuse our private dealings with sinners with public dealings. You may want to love and witness to, say, a paedophile. Fine. But the state, which is set up by God, has an obligation of justice to not only speak out against and condemn that behaviour, but also to punish it. I can love individual homosexuals, while also publically championing God’s design for the family. There is nothing incompatible about that.

    With all due respect, you have simply bought into the spirit of the age, with its wishy-washy notions of tolerance which says we should accept all behaviours, lifestyles and activities. That is something the Bible nowhere tells us to do.

    Also, I take it you are not a parent. Your third paragraph was especially misconceived – and foolish, to be honest. Sure, God is able to help kids in any adverse situation make it through. But since when does that mean we should happily sit by and allow – even encourage – such adverse situations?

    If a gang of paedophiles want to snatch my kids away and abuse them horribly, sure, God is able to help them and see them through it. But I would be betraying the trust of my own children if I did not do everything in my power to prevent this state of affairs from taking place.

    You admit that children are best raised in heterosexual two-parent families. Yet then you turn around and criticise those who support this position. I can well love a homosexual, but I have no duty at all to love and tolerate that which is plainly evil, and not in the best interests of children, If you think grandparents should love and tolerate the actions that resulted in their own grandchildren being snatched away from them, and given to such an unhelpful upbringing, then you seem to know little about biblical love or parental love. You simply have adopted the secular and unbiblical notions of tolerance. There is nothing particularly Christian about that.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *