Some people are evidently more equal than others. Homosexual activists have long complained about discrimination and a lack of equal rights. But when push comes to shove, it seems that homosexuals are more than happy to agitate for inequality and discrimination.
Indeed, on a regular basis we hear of homosexuals demanding special privileges that the rest of the community are not supposed to enjoy. Around the Western world governments and the forces of political correctness are insisting that we must grant all sorts of special rights to homosexuals, lest we be seen as discriminatory and intolerant.
Any hint of special privileges for the rest of the community are under attack however. For example, men-only clubs are being told they must admit women. Yet when it comes to homosexuals, it seems Western law is heading in the exact opposite direction. Our ruling elites and trendy lefty bureaucrats want to give homosexuals the right to discriminate, and treat people unequally.
There are plenty of examples of this. The most recent made headlines today. It involves a lesbian company which has demanded – and won – the right to exclude males. Here is how the story is being reported: “A party company specialising in dances for lesbians and bisexual women has won the legal right to ban men. Pinkalicious was given the green light to stop men because they might pester women for sex. Director Julie MacKenzie hailed the VCAT decision a landmark, saying it made Pinkalicious the only women-only party in Australia.”
Not everyone was pleased with the ruling: “But Men’s Rights Agency director Sue Price slammed the ruling. She said it contradicted Attorney-General Rob Hulls’ move to open up elite men’s venues, including the Melbourne and Athenaeum clubs, to women. In May, Mr Hulls slammed private men’s clubs as ‘a throwback to a bygone era’ and said he wanted them to lose their exemption to anti-discrimination laws.”
It appears that Mr Hulls is all in favour of certain types of discrimination, and that his concern about “a bygone era” only extends to heterosexuals, and probably only white male heterosexuals. So much for equality and a fair go for all.
Of course there have been plenty of other examples of this pro-homosexual discrimination. For example in Victoria the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has had a history of pushing the homosexual agenda, in allowing homosexuals special rights over the rest of the community. In 2003 it allowed an exemption for a gay hotel to have men-only dance parties. It also ruled that similar men-only parties could be held throughout the state.
In 2006 VCAT also allowed another exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act by allowing homosexuals at three university campuses to have their own space. They will be able to refuse students who don’t identify as homosexual.
And in 2007, VCAT once more ruled in favour of pro-homosexual discrimination. It allowed a Melbourne pub yet another exemption from the EOA, allowing the pub to refuse entry to heterosexuals.
Many other cases could be cited. For example, in Cairns there is a gay-only resort. Interestingly, however, it has been forced to allow straights to come in as well, because of low returns from the gay travel market.
Moreover, if there is in fact discrimination against homosexuals taking place, it is not just the heterosexual community that is doing the discrimination. Homosexuals seem to have a pretty good track record of discriminating against each other. For example, organisers of a lesbian festival in Victoria sought to exclude not only male homosexuals, but transsexuals as well. The organisers wanted to ban everyone except female-born lesbians. They even managed to persuade the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to grant the organisers exemption from state equal opportunity laws.
While this blatant example of discrimination went largely unnoticed in the mainstream community, there was a huge uproar amongst the homosexual community. Various sides took to the debate, in numerous heated and acrimonious exchanges, as recorded in the gay press. The infighting lasted for several weeks until VCAT reversed its decision, saying that such a ban was illegal after all. In the end “Lesfest” was cancelled because organisers did not want to accept the VCAT decision.
During this kerfuffle, one homosexual writer penned an interesting article in the homosexual press. He spoke of rampant discrimination within the gay community, and said that the “bickering and infighting that I have witnessed within the GLBTIQ community in the last 12 months is atrocious”. He continued, “the gay and lesbian community continues to discriminate, ignore or even ostracise bisexual, transgender, transexual or intersex people. . . . I can cite many examples where the gay and lesbian community has done the above either accidentally or deliberately. It still does.”
So much for poor persecuted homosexuals being denied equal rights by heterosexuals. Not only are our ruling elites bending over backwards in granting special rights to homosexuals, but homosexuals seem to be pretty good at discriminating amongst themselves as well.
Indeed, all this rhetoric about inequality and discrimination has simply been a smokescreen, designed to get our eyes off of the real agenda: the complete normalisation and acceptance of homosexuality, whether we like it or not. Indeed, this is nothing but coerced acceptance.
In truth, the homosexual lobby has been very successful in reframing the issues here. As an example, an interesting article appeared in the gay press some years ago which outlined a strategy by which homosexuals could best implement their goals. It included the following elements: desensitisation; portraying gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers; giving the protectors a just cause; and making the victimisers look bad.
Here are some quotes from the article: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so the straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but instead make anti-discrimination as its theme. . . . In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be down-played, and the issue of gay rights reduced as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”
The authors of the above article expanded their strategy into a full-length book, and amplified this theme: “Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. . . . Thus our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. Fundamental freedoms, constitutional rights, due process and equal protection of laws, basic features of fairness and decency toward all of humanity – these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.”
This strategy of the homosexual community to shift attention away from homosexual behaviour and instead to focus on vague notions of civil rights, discrimination, and the like has been an ingenious and successful ploy. As Australian homosexual activist Dennis Altman put it, “The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.”
They certainly have been successful alright. Not only are they getting their agenda very nicely implemented, but they have even managed to convince gullible and witless governments that they should even have special privileges – including the right to discriminate and enjoy unequal treatment.