CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

The New Untouchables

Mar 30, 2013

In an age of oppressive political correctness and a militant social engineering crusade, it seems homosexuals can do no wrong. They have become the new untouchables who are forever above fault, and must be treated as sacrosanct. And if any charge is levelled against them, it of course must be untrue, and simply the fruit of homophobia.

Such is the stranglehold the pink mafia and its supporters in the media and elsewhere have, that no one dares to say anything critical about this movement – even if it happens to be true. Any claim brought against them will be considered to be “hate speech” and harshly dealt with.

The bullying and intimidation from the homosexual militants has been so intense that most people are terrified to say anything remotely negative about them. And if real wrongs are being committed by them, the powers that be will likely not believe such charges.

We have a perfect illustration of all this coming out of the UK just recently. A boy was being abused by his homosexual “parents” but no one believed him, simply because they were homosexual. The whole ugly story is worth recording, so I offer it here:

“A boy sexually abused by his adoptive father and his gay partner was labelled an ‘unruly child’ by social workers who ignored his complaints for years, a damning report has revealed. They sent Andy Cannon, now 23, back to the couple’s home despite his protests of abuse, praising the gay man who adopted him as a ‘very caring parent’.

“The report accuses Wakefield social services, in Yorkshire, of ‘folly and gross misjudgment’. Mr Cannon, who was wrongly diagnosed with mental disorders and prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, believes he would have been listened to sooner if his adoptive father wasn’t gay. The case ended last year, after half a decade of legal wrangling, when a court ordered a £25,000 compensation payment to Mr Cannon.

“Mr Cannon, who now has two children with girlfriend Redeana Hammill, was adopted by David Cannon in 1997. He and his mother, Elaine Moss, repeatedly complained to social workers about the abuse. In 2004, he was returned to Cannon’s care nine days after running away and making a complaint about him. Cannon, 54, and his 31-year-old partner John Scarfe were each jailed for 30 months in May 2006 for inciting sexual activity with a child.

“Mr Cannon said: ‘I believe if my adoptive dad was in a heterosexual relationship then my complaints would have been listened to earlier. ‘It seems the council didn’t want to be seen as victimising gay people – they would rather look politically correct and let them get away with it to avoid any repercussions. The council should have been there to prevent this from happening but they would rather just sweep it under the carpet.’ The report, conducted for Dewsbury County Court by a child welfare specialist, detailed how Cannon was allowed to adopt the boy, despite his mother accusing him of abuse at the time.

“A social worker failed to report the allegations to a family court and instead called Cannon ‘a very caring parent who considered his children’s needs’. Mr Cannon, who has waived his right to anonymity, said: ‘When I told social workers they didn’t believe me. When I got home from school, if my dad was wound up by something I would pay for it with a beating. Then later on he would sexually abuse me.

“‘I never really had nightmares because I completely switched off from it all – although I get nightmares now. I let it happen and thought that one of two things would happen. Either I’d manage to get away or they’d kill me.’ Wakefield council has apologised to Mr Cannon. A spokesman said: ‘We are working with Andy to make sure that in making this apology we deal with all the concerns he has raised’.”

Wow, what a tragic story. But the real tragedy is, this is likely not an isolated incident. So fearful are most folks today of saying anything which might be seen as negative or critical about the homosexual lifestyle, that they will allow horrific scenarios like this to go unchecked or unreported.

The ugly face of PC censorship and homosexual intimidation has resulted in the mass of citizens in the West almost as afraid to say anything as they are in North Korea. We are allowing terrible abuses and injustices to take place because of fear of being politically incorrect and offending the homosexual lobby. This ought not to be my friends.

Another example of all this was recently discussed by Black American commentator Stacy Swimp. He writes: “Michigan Republican National Committeeman, Dave Agema, has been under relentless and vicious attack from advocates of same sex marriage, solely on the basis of having reposted an article which proposes a number of health risks and social consequences the writer claims are associated with same-sex relationships.

“The article, ‘Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals’ by Frank Joseph, M.D., suggests that there are a number of negative consequences to the lifestyle of homosexuality. The author of the article also addresses what he calls ‘The Homosexual Agenda’, among other things.

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinions of the article, it is clear that the author poses some compelling points that are worthy of civil debates. Dave Agema simply offered the article for such a debate to occur. Nevertheless, in an attempt to suppress Agema’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech, even some so called Republicans have publicly come out against him, calling for his resignation, accusing him of being a ‘bigot’, ‘hateful’, etc.

“Allegedly. the Libertarian Party of Michigan has also called for Agema’s resignation, accusing him of actions that are ‘unacceptable, sickening and reprehensible.’ All this, simply for posting a study on a facebook page? Since when is it somehow a hate agenda to have a discussion about the potential risks of human choices or lifestyles?

“If I were to post a study on the risks of alcoholism, would that mean I am intolerant and hateful? What about if I posted an opinion about the risks of having children ‘out of wedlock’? Would that constitute being reprehensible? Have we finally arrived to a place in society where some special interest groups can ‘take aim’ at anyone they choose to in society, while they remain a ‘protected class’, with no one being able to so much as question anything they say or do?

“In what way does ‘intolerance’ relate to any American offering his or her perspectives on a specific topic? Most important, how is Dave Agema guilty of hatred and intolerance, simply for reposting the conclusions of a medical professional that are seemingly supported by empirical evidence?

“The fact is that no one has been able to specifically highlight comments directly from Dave Agema that personally attack or demean those who self identify as homosexual or lesbian. It seems to me that the lesbians and homosexuals see themselves as ‘untouchables’ (meaning, exempt from criticism), who no one can call into moral question, lest they are subject to name calling, public and professional harassment, and relentless ridicule.”

Yes they certainly have become sacrosanct untouchables who can do no wrong. And they certainly do not give a rip about truth or empirical evidence. A friend just told me of how he was debating a homosexual who demanded evidence and references. My friend spent two hours providing just that, only to be told by his opponent that he was not interested in “cold, hard facts”!

When you are a politically protected species, you do not need truth or facts. You just go ahead and do whatever you want, because you are untouchable. That is exactly how a sadistic dictator like Kim Jong-Un goes about his business. We expect such tyrannical behaviour in places like North Korea, but not here in the supposed free West.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300779/My-adoptive-dad-abused-years-social-workers-ignored-complaints-hes-gay.html
stacyswimp.net/2013/03/29/are-homosexuals-untouchables/

[1317 words]

7 Responses to The New Untouchables

  • There are several untouchable groups whose agenda and actions no one is allowed to disapprove or disagree: Gay, Black, Muslim or Obama.

    In fact, PC really means Punitive Conformity to a standard that is illogical, irrational, inconsistent, unsupported by fact and reality, but protected by all the power of the Alinsky tactics and the media machine. ‘Agree with us or else’ is their mantra. No discussion, no debate, if you dissent, you are a bigot and hater.

    Sibyl Smith

  • Yes quite right Sibyl

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Amen, Amen to that Sibyl.
    Leigh Stebbins

  • I can’t quiet imagine being Andy, what a disgrace. To be given drugs to calm you down when if fact your being abused.

    I’m thinking my boss tells me about a new service style we are going to adapt to the machinery i work on. Yes he says, the implementation has been proven. But i state, I’m not interested in your facts. What sort of clueless twit would I look like?
    Daniel Kempton

  • In 1988, when I was still involved with the Labor party, I was at a function for Electorate Officers of which I was one. I was pregnant with my first child, having been deserted by my child’s father, since he considered it a crime to bring a child ‘into this crazy, unstable world’.

    An openly gay man, actually the Co-ordinator of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition, at the time, took issue when I made a comment about being ‘straight and that in my mind, that was to be ‘normal’

    His reaction was to question WHY I thought that heterosexual behaviour was ‘normal’. I pointed out that as a result of heterosexual behaviour in a sanctioned relationship, I was shortly to be blessed with the birth of a child, and that because of people who thought like I did (and still do!), the human race would go on.

    He said that, like ALL arrogant ‘straights’, I was falling back on sematics – and that THAT was no argument!

    There was no ‘John-Furnish’ pseudo ‘marriage’ then. In fact the concept of ‘same-sex ‘marriage’ hadn’t found a public voice. Nor had the (I believe morally corrupt) ‘rent-a-womb idea of anonymous surrogacy for homosexual couples been publicly espoused. But IVF was in full swing – couples paying incredible amounts of money trying to defy nature and produce a baby by any means. Who could have imagined, then, what seemed like a public service then, could have been hi-jacked to promulgate such an avenue for institutional child abuse of the types in existence today?

    I deny to the ends of the earth that I am any form of a bigot. Because I am a Biblical Christian, I know that God strictly forbids ‘the use of one man by another man in the way that he would use a woman’. Nothing is said about Lesbians, but I imagine the same would apply.

    It is abominably sad that in today’s world, ones sexual proclivities should come first in the list of ones’ needs in the view of the majority of human beings, and that as a result no really great things are being done.

    In Mazlov’s Hierarchy of Needs, the need for sex IS down on the bottom rung, alongside food, water and shelter, but all these needs appear on the BOTTOM rung or lowest level of human enterprise – the Highest Level is a personal interaction with one’s Creator, or the Sacred and Divine.

    We, in this modern world have managed to neatly juxtapose these needs, and obliterate the need for a Godhead, and look at the trouble and strife we have managed to create as a result!

    A WONDERFUL plea for reason, Bill! I for one would HAPPILY go to prison, or even suffer death, defending God’s Commandments, and pointing out where they have been thrown ruthlessly aside!

    Your sister in Christ

    Kenya Lowther

  • I’d like to obtain and keep this evidence and references on file for personal reference. Is it available online?

    Ross McPhee

  • Perhaps, if/when people are accusing us of hate speech, we can reply with a “don’t you mean truth speech?”
    Peter Magee

Leave a Reply