The Islamization of Europe > Orbán Blames Migrants for Rise in Antisemitism, Homophobia, and Violence against Women

 

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán Blames Immigration

For Rise In Antisemitism and Violence Against Women

Oct 12, 2024 2:00 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, is determined to preserve his country, Hungary, from what he sees as the threat of immigration — he really means Muslim migration — to demographically overwhelm the indigenous Hungarians. And he worries as well about the rest of Europe, where confused or pusillanimous elites haven’t dared to recognize what the Muslim immigration that they did nothing to stop, and in some cases did much to encourage, has done to the peoples whose interests they claim to protect.

At a recent meeting of the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, Orbán addressed the baleful effects of this out-of-control immigration. More about his speech can be found here:

Orbán blames immigration for rise in antisemitism, homophobia in EU speech

Jerusalem Post, October 10, 2024:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently addressed the European Parliament, where he controversially attributed a rise in homophobia, violence against women, and antisemitism to the arrival of immigrants in the European Union.

“The EU asylum system does not work. Immigration leads to more violence against women, homophobia, and antisemitism,” Orban stated, as quoted by Levante.

Orban emphasized that without a new model for handling asylum applications from third countries, “no one can protect Europeans from illegal immigration,” according to Faro de Vigo. He called for stronger support for countries with external EU borders, urging the Union to “protect” them and process all asylum applications in centers outside the EU. He dismissed other proposed solutions as mere “illusions.”

His speech provoked a heated reaction within the chamber. A group of Eurodeputies from the Left bloc responded by singing the antifascist anthem “Bella Ciao,” famously used by Italian partisans during World War II. The singing continued until European Parliament President Roberta Metsola intervened. “This is not Eurovision nor La Casa de Papel,” Metsola remarked, calling on the members to “respect the dignity of this chamber,” as reported by El Universal.

The spontaneous protest underscored deep divisions within the European Parliament over Orban’s stance on immigration and related social issues. Before Orban’s arrival, leaders of socialist, liberal, green, and leftist groups staged a protest at the entrance to the chamber, holding LGTBIQ+ placards in protest against the Hungarian government’s alleged misuse of European funds, as covered by El Periódico.

Orban’s government has faced significant criticism for passing laws that curtail the rights of homosexual and transgender individuals in Hungary, according to Levante. His remarks linking immigration to homophobia, violence against women, and antisemitism were met with boos from progressive members of the chamber, though his allies’ applause largely drowned out the dissenting voices….

His claim was met not with reasoned argument, but with the boos from the left-wing delegates from all over Europe. They didn’t want to hear Orbán’s words, and didn’t want others to hear them either, not because they were false, but because they were true. For what have Muslims done in Europe? Homosexuality is forbidden — haram — in Islam. Homosexuals have been hung on cranes in Iranian cities. They have been killed for their sexual behavior in Yemen, in Gaza, in Saudi Arabia, and under the ISIS regime that bestrid Iraq and Syria. Muslims bring this hatred with them in their mental baggage, undeclared, when they move to Europe.

Similarly, violence against women is encouraged in Islam. A Muslim husband may “beat” his wife (Quran 4:34) if he merely suspects her of disobedience. Muslim young men treat Western women as “asking for it” because of their dress, which does not hide their bodies, and Muslims interpret that failure to even be veiled — much less to be niqabbed — as an expression of wantonness. And in any case, Muslims have a right to take their pleasure with the Infidels’ women, for Muslims are the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims “the most vile of created beings.” Muslims now make up the majority of rapists in European cities.

Finally, Muslims in Europe continue to accept the Islamic view of the Jews as the “strongest in hatred” of Muslims, to believe that Jews may even have been responsible for poisoning Muhammad, and to hate Jews as well for reclaiming the Land of Israel which, because it was once possessed by Muslims, must forever belong to them. These antisemitic attitudes have been expressed not just in public opinion polls, but in the many attacks by Muslims on synagogues, Jewish schools, and individual Jews in European cities. It is no longer “right-wing” neo-Nazis who are the main threat to Jewish safety, but Muslim immigrants determined to harm the Jews whom they regard as hereditary enemies, that enmity dating back 1400 years to the very beginning of Islam.

Orbán argues that the processing of those claiming asylum should not take place in Europe itself, but in processing centers in the Middle East and Africa. That would make it more difficult for such would-be immigrants, if their asylum claims are rejected, to slip away from those centers and to remain in the country illegally.

The only answer to Orbán’s speech from the leftist members of the EU Parliament was to sing a famous anti-fascist song — “Bella Ciao” — instead of offering a refutation of his claims. But it is these leftists who are the true fascists of this age, for they want to ignore the will of those they claim to represent, and to inflict on their own populations the fanatics of Islam — economic migrants claiming refugee status — who are, in their violence, antisemitism, and implacable hatred of non-Muslims, the inheritors of fascism.

Orbán rejects the immigration quotas that the EU attempts to impose on his country. He has recognized that Muslim migrants bring with them a culture of hatred for homosexuals, violence against women, and antisemitism. He is determined to warn his fellow members in the EU of the need to put a stop to Muslim immigration. His claims are unanswerable. But today’s fascists in Europe consist both of the Muslim immigrants and of those leftist Europeans who defend the Muslims’ “right” to settle deep inside Europe, turning the lands of Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam.

================================================================================================

Burqas, Mosques, ‘Gay Propaganda’ All Banned in Hungarian Village

Mayor thinks he has a strategy for

all of Hungary to follow

    The mayor of the Hungarian border village of Asotthalom, Laszlo Toroczkai. ©Laszlo Balogh / 
    Reuters

The far-right mayor of a southern Hungarian village has banned the open expression of Islam, including the building of mosques and wearing of veils and headscarves, as well as the promotion of same-sex marriages.

In a post on Facebook, Laszlo Toroczkai, mayor of Asotthalom, a village near the Serbian border, (population about 4,000), outlined the proposals adopted by his council after a session on Wednesday.

All board members voted for the new rules, with only two abstentions. How many board members can there be in a village of 4,000?

“Instead of looking for a scapegoat, I offer an immediate solution, a defense against the forced mass resettlement [of migrants] by Brussels,” Toroczkai wrote in his post.

“Today the Asotthalom village council adopted my proposal – which is an action package – to defend our community and traditions from any plan for the outside resettlement [of migrants]. All that needs to be done is for the rest of Hungary’s municipalities to adopt our preventative action package, and with that we will have defended our homeland.” 

    Asotthalom, Hungary

The measures that Toroczkai put in place include a ban on the construction of mosques and any other place of worship which undermines the Catholic Church, a ban on the muezzin’s traditional call to prayer, and a ban on all face coverings such as the hijab, niqab and burqa, as well as the burkini.

Additionally, the ordinance also bans any kind of “public propaganda” which shows the institution of marriage being in any way other than “between a man and woman. This includes any public activity, performance, demonstrations, billboard, leaflet, or audio advertisement.”

These measures, Toroczkai says, will protect Hungary from the “two pagans”: migration from the south, and “extreme liberalism” from the West.

Toroczkai belongs to the far-right Jobbik party, whose stated aim is protecting “Hungarian values and interests.” But the party has also been accused of racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.

"I want to be an example to other pioneering local authorities on how to protect themselves from external resettlement or any other subversive intentions," he said at the council meeting, as reported by delmagyar.hu.

Toroczkai is also the leader of the Sixty-Four Countries Youth Movement, a nationalist group seeking to reclaim lands that have historically belonged to Hungary. He is also known for his harsh anti-migrant rhetoric, including an action-movie like video showing big, burly men giving chase to illegal immigrants on motorcycles, helicopters and even on horseback.

Hungary is one of the European countries least welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers. In a referendum held in October, 98.3 percent of Hungarian voters rejected mandatory EU asylum seeker quotas in a referendum proposed by PM Viktor Orban. However, the referendum failed to reach the required 50 percent turnout, partly due to a boycott by the opposition. Orban himself has made a number of remarks on the subject, including suggesting that all refugees who came illegally be deported onto camps on an island or off the coast of Africa.

I have some sympathy for what Toroczkai is trying to do, although I shiver from the thought of associating myself with the racism of Jobbik. Nevertheless, he, and Orban are correct to defend Hungary against the Islamic invasion that will destroy much of the rest of Europe by the middle of this century, and the rest of it by the end of the century.

Hungary has no official religion although more than half of all Hungarians are Christian with the majority of them being Catholic. It seems like Toroczkai would want Catholicism as the official religion which is not acceptable as there are large numbers of Protestants. Other religions make up less than 1% of the population each, and barely exceed 1% in total. I suspect, Toroczkai and Orban would both like to keep it that way.

    Asotthalom, Hungary

Indian State Minister Slammed over Plans to ‘Normalise’ Gays

New Delhi: A state minister from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party sparked outrage on Tuesday over his plans to make homosexuals “normal”, one day after UN chief Ban Ki-moon accused India of fostering intolerance with its gay sex ban.

Ramesh Tawadkar, from Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), announced plans to open up centres to treat gays and lesbians in the coastal resort state of Goa.

“We will make them normal. We will have centres for them, like Alcoholics Anonymous centres,” Tawadkar told reporters on Monday, adding that the Goa government would “train them and give them medicines too”.

Ramesh Tawadkar

Tawadkar, Goa’s sports and youth affairs minister, made the comments after releasing the state’s policy on youth issues which listed lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT) as a stigmatised group that needed attention.

 Tawadkar’s comments drew widespread criticism and ridicule from gay rights groups who branded them offensive, while hostile remarks were posted on Twitter and other social media.

UN Secretary-General Ban said laws against gay and lesbian relationships breed intolerance, although he did not refer specifically to India’s colonial-era ban on gay sex.

Speaking on a visit to the capital New Delhi on Monday night, Ban said he “staunchly opposed the criminalisation of homosexuality”.

“I am proud to stand for the equality of all people — including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender,” Ban said in an address to a gathering that included India’s Nobel Peace Prize winner Kailash Satyarthi.

“I speak out because laws criminalising consensual, adult same-sex relationships violate basic rights to privacy and to freedom from discrimination. Even if they are not enforced, these laws breed intolerance.”

Goa is one of India's smallest state but easily its richest.
Goa was the site of the first European settlement in India
There are still signs of its Portuguese heritage visible

India’s Supreme Court reimposed a ban on gay sex in late 2013, ruling that responsibility for changing the 1861 law rested with lawmakers and not judges.

Gay sex had been effectively legalised in 2009 when the Delhi High Court ruled that banning “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” was a violation of fundamental rights.

Anjali Gopalan, founder of Naz Foundation, which first launched a case to decriminalise homosexual sex, called minister Tawadkar an “incompetent nincompoop”. Oh no! Not that! How will he ever recover?

“We should not respond to this kind of stupidity. If anyone needs treatment, it’s people like him ... he should realise he sounds like a complete fool,” Gopalan said.

Funny, 25 or 30 years ago he would have been called a genius.

Russia's Highest Court Backs Ban on ‘Gay Propaganda to Minors’

Gay rights activists wave flags from a car during a protest outside the Mayor's office in Moscow

The Constitutional Court of Russia has acknowledged the ban of homosexual propaganda among the under age as lawful and dismissed a complaint by well-known LGBT activists.

The ruling was made in response to a complaint lodged by activists Nikolay Alekseev, Yaroslav Evtushenko and Dmitry Isakov. They tried to dispute the law section of Russia’s administrative code that describes how the law defines “propaganda of non-conventional sexual relationships to minors.”

The activists claimed this law section undermines their constitutional right of freedom of speech and discriminates against them. The law prohibits the dissemination of information about non-traditional sexual relationships that could spark interest from young people under the age of 18.

The Constitutional Court said that the law was aimed at “saving a child from the information impact, which could push him to nonconventional sexual relationships, which in their turn prevent from building a family, as it is traditionally understood in Russia.”

The court also ruled that the ban on propagandizing non-conventional sexual relationships is not a ban or censure of homosexuality itself. “They don’t require an automatic ban of promotion of any information concerning unconventional sexual relations,” the court’s statement said.

Gay rights activists are detained by police during a protest in Moscow 

Previously the complainants had been found guilty of disseminating propaganda of unconventional sexual relations to minors. Each was fined 4,000 rubles ($100).

Alekseev and Evtushenko were held to account in December 2013 for taking part in a picket in front of a children’s library in a northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk. The poster read “There is no gay propaganda.” In Kazan in January, Isakov held a similar poster in a one-person protest.

The court said it has dismissed Alekseev’s arguments that “his actions were not propaganda, but were aimed at spreading objective information, which cannot inflict harm to health, moral or spiritual development of minors.” Alekseev’s claim was “contradicted by the materials in the case,” the court said. Similar statements were made regarding Evtushenko’s and Isakov’s cases.

Constitutional Court judge Nikolay Bondar told Rossiyskaya Gazeta: “Minors must not be involved in corresponding events, such as rallies or discussions, and the information promoted must not be aimed at them.” He added: “The practices of some European countries, which are connected with the deformation of traditional values of family and marriage, can’t be an example for us.”

The law on “gay propaganda to minors” came into force on June 30, 2013. Fines for breaking the law are 4-5,000 rubles ($100-130) for private citizens and 40-50,000 rubles ($1,000-1,300) for civil servants. Propaganda via the media or the Internet by legal entities raises the fine to 1 million rubles ($26,000).

Constitutional Court Strikes Down Uganda's Controversial Anti-gay Law

Uganda's Constitutional Court has annulled tough anti-gay legislation signed into law in February.

It ruled that the bill was passed by MPs in December without the requisite quorum and was therefore illegal.

Homosexual acts were already illegal, but the new law allowed for life imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality" and banned the "promotion of homosexuality".

Several donors have cut aid to Uganda since the law was adopted.

Uganda is a deeply conservative society where many people oppose gay rights and the sentence for homosexual acts has always been life imprisonment.

Earlier drafts of the anti-homosexuality act made it a crime not to report gay people - which would have made it impossible to live as openly gay - but this clause was removed.

However the legislation that was passed in parliament was "null and void", the presiding judge at the Constitutional Court said, as not enough lawmakers had been present to vote on the bill.

The law, which was signed by President Yoweri Museveni in February, toughened up existing laws.

Lesbians were covered for the first time and those found living in a same-sex marriage could have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

The challenge to the law was brought by 10 petitioners, including academics, journalists, both ruling and opposition MPs, human rights activists and rights groups.

"The retrogressive anti-homosexuality act of Uganda has been struck down by the constitutional court - it's now dead as a door nail," the AFP news agency quotes prominent journalist Andrew Mwenda, one of the petitioners, as saying.

Ugandan human rights activists stand at the packed
Constitutional Court in Kampala , Uganda - 30 July 2014

Kosiya Kasibayo, a lawyer for the state, said a decision had not been made on whether to appeal against the ruling in the Supreme Court, the Associate Press news agency reports.

The BBC's Catherine Byaruhanga in the capital, Kampala, says supporters of the anti-gay laws have been angered by the ruling of the five judges.

They wonder whether their decision has anything to do with the president's visit to Washington next week for the US-Africa Summit, she says.

In June, the US imposed sanctions on the East African nation, including travel restrictions on Ugandan officials involved in serious human rights abuses.

The White House also cut funds to a number of programmes it is running with the Ugandan authorities.

Several European nations - including Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden - had earlier cut aid.

But the Ugandan authorities have defended the law in the past, saying President Museveni wanted "to demonstrate Uganda's independence in the face of Western pressure and provocation".

Pastor Martin Ssempa, a vocal backer of the anti-homosexuality legislation, told the BBC his supporters would be asking parliament to investigate the impartiality of the judiciary.

Uganda's anti-homosexuality act:
Life imprisonment for gay sex, including oral sex
Life imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality", including sex with a minor or while HIV-positive
Life imprisonment for living in a same-sex marriage
Seven years for "attempting to commit homosexuality"
Between five and seven years in jail or a $40,700 (£24,500) fine or both for the promotion of homosexuality
Businesses or non-governmental organisations found guilty of the promotion of homosexuality would have their certificates of registration cancelled and directors could face seven years in jail.

Gay Lobby Challenges Gay Conversion Therapy in Chinese Court

Gay rights activists in China are preparing for what they say could be a legal milestone in their fight to stop homosexuality being treated as an illness.

Later this month, a Chinese court will hear the first case of its kind brought against a clinic that offers so-called "gay conversion therapy".

A long campaign in Europe and America has been successful in shifting the medical consensus against such treatment, and now campaigners want Chinese doctors to follow suit.

In an office block in the eastern city of Nanjing, down a gloomy corridor, I find the Nanjing Urban Psychiatric Consultancy Centre.

It's a small office with a sparsely-furnished treatment room upstairs, from which - seemingly prompted by our arrival - a young male patient hurriedly leaves.

Dr Zhou claims to have successfully
"cured" 70% of his gay patients

China declassified homosexuality as a mental illness well over a decade ago, but clinics like this one are still easy to find.

Dr Zhou Zhengyou shows me some of the books he's written on the subject over the course of his career.

One of them is a guide for parents who suspect their son or daughter might be gay.

The overriding message appears to be that it is their own parenting methods that are somehow to "blame".

Dr Zhou now claims to cure up to 70% of his gay patients, although he says it is a long and difficult process.

And, his critics point out, at $120 (£70) a session - a lot of money on an average Chinese wage - long and difficult can mean lucrative.

Dr Zhou significantly weakens his own case by charging what appears to be exorbitant fees.

Dr Zhou tells me that today he uses counselling alone and does not treat his patients with so-called aversion-therapy offered elsewhere in China. But he is happy to describe how it works.

"One common method is electric shock. When the patient has a gay thought, we electrocute them or inject them with drugs that make them sick," he said.

Gay pride parades have taken
 place in Chinese cities,
including neighbouring Hong Kong

China's gay community has begun to fight back. They've organised a number of protests - small in number but nonetheless brave in China.

Video footage of one demonstration shows activists holding up a protest banner at a Beijing medical conference. "Being gay is not an illness," it reads.

The delegates do not seem convinced. "We cannot support homosexuality," a doctor said. "Although we try to understand it," his colleague adds.

In addition to such direct action, the campaigners have been given another avenue to pursue.

Xiang Xiaohan

In March, activist Xiang Xiaohan challenged a government decision not to register his gay rights organisation.

For the first time, China has allowed them to challenge gay conversion therapy in the courts.

"I had electric shock therapy only once," the man bringing the case, who calls himself Xiao Zhen, told the BBC. "Imagine those who've had it many times."

He put himself through the treatment in order to gather the evidence and he's now hoping that a successful court ruling in his favour will effectively ban the practice.

It's a battle that has been fought elsewhere, of course.

Government plans to introduce "gay conversion" therapy in Hong Kong drew outrage in 2011.

Aversion therapy has been the target of campaigners in Europe and America for decades and today, the notion of the gay conversion has not completely gone away.

Gay activists in Hong Kong protest against "gay conversion" therapy, June, 2011

But the modern medical consensus in the West is that there's no good evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Have there actually been any trials? Any studies?

Some people suggest that attitudes in China have been slower to evolve because of the one-child-policy as well as heavy Confucian pressure on young people to get married and produce a family heir.

Attitudes in China, though, are changing fast - that Shanghai now holds an annual gay pride event is proof of that. It includes gay film screenings, discussion groups and a fun-run.

Being China, participants are not allowed to march.

Now the court case, it's hoped, will be another step forward, sending a message that the enduring medical prejudice needs to stop.

So the question is, where does homosexuality come from? Is it natural? Is it normal? Is it reversible?

If You are Gay and in a Gulf State, Stay in the Closet and be Quiet!

Manama: A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced an homosexual man to three years in prison and 450 lashes for using his Twitter account to promote homosexual contacts.

The man, 24, was arrested after he posted several tweets calling for homosexual relations and expressing his readiness to meet gay men, local daily Al Watan reported on Tuesday.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the religious police, was alerted about the tweets and was able to apprehend the young man after it set him up using an undercover agent.

Can't imagine why they would not want these guys in the gulf states?

His mobile phone was searched and several “immoral” pictures were discovered, prompting the Commission to refer his case to the public prosecution.

During the trial, the prosecutor requested a harsh punishment and the confiscation of the mobile phone on charges of promoting debauchery.

The suspect reportedly admitted to using his account on the microblog to contact and communicate with homosexuals.

The court decided that the 450 lashes would be given over 15 sessions. How merciful!

Homosexuality is banned in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states that also comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE.

Christianity and Gay Rights Collide Again - This Time in Northern Ireland

A Christian-run bakery in Northern Ireland that refused a customer's request to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage could face a discrimination case in court.

Ashers Baking Company declined an order from a gay rights activist, asking for cake featuring the Sesame Street puppets, Bert and Ernie.

The customer also wanted the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called "Queerspace". They also wanted the cake to say 'Gay Marriage' which is not yet lawful in Northern Ireland.

What the cake was to look like

The County Antrim firm could face legal action from the Equality Commission.

The watchdog confirmed it is assisting the customer whose order was refused and has written to the baking company on his behalf.

The cake was ordered for a civic event in Bangor Castle Town Hall, County Down, to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

The bakery, which was founded in Newtownabbey in 1992, is run by the McArthur family.

The directors, who are Christians, operate six shops in Northern Ireland and employ 62 people.

The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".

The customer placed the order in Ashers' Belfast branch a number of weeks ago, and it was then passed to their head office.

In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.

"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

Mr McArthur added that his firm offered the customer a full refund, which was collected shortly after the order was refused.

"We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation. Of course, this is a twisting of the facts; the bakery did not refuse to do the cake because the man who ordered it was gay, but because of what he wanted on the cake. 

A Christian cannot separate what he does from God. God, the Holy Spirit indwells a Christian at all times. For a Christian to assist in any way in the celebration of what is very clearly offensive to God, requires the Christian to offend God. For the government to order him to offend God is unthinkable.

"It asked us to propose how we would recompense the customer for this discrimination. It also said it would pursue legal proceedings if we didn't respond within a seven-day time period," Mr McArthur said.

The general manager said he was "very surprised" by the watchdog's letter and his firm asked the Christian Institute for advice on how to deal with the case.

The institute is supporting the bakery's stance and is now providing legal assistance.

Mr McArthur said: "I feel if we don't take a stand on this here case, then how can we stand up against it, further down the line?"

The general manager added that it was not the first time his company had refused customers' cake orders.

"In the past, we've declined several orders which have contained pornographic images and offensive, foul language." Again, the order was declined because of what the customers wanted on the cakes not because the customer was a foul-mouthed pervert.

Mr McArthur added: "I would like the outcome of this to be that, any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of their business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that."

However, Alliance councillor Andrew Muir - who hosted the civic event for which the cake was ordered - said he fully supported the action taken against the bakery.

"Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve," Mr Muir said.

"There would not be any debate if the cake had depicted an anti-racism or anti-ageism slogan, nor should it require intervention from the Equality Commission for this cake for Anti-Homophobia Day.

"It is ridiculous for this bakery to suggest that they would have to endorse the campaign."

The councillor, who hosted the event during his term as mayor of North Down, said another bakery in Bangor stepped in and accepted the cake order.

But Mr Muir added: "For Northern Ireland to prosper and overcome our divisions we need a new society where businesses are willing to cater for all, regardless of religious views, political opinion, disability, race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, gender and other backgrounds." That's a laudable idea in an ideal world, but will never happen in a sin-filled, anti-Christian world.

Gavin Boyd, a gay rights campaigner with the Rainbow Project in Northern Ireland, also supported the customer's discrimination complaint.

Rainbow Project's Gavin Boyd said the issue was not about same sex marriage but the provision of goods, facilities and services.

"It is because of sexual orientation that the company decided not to print this," Mr Boyd told BBC Radio Ulster. I guess I missed something here, print what? Do they make cakes with 3-D printers now?

"The law is really clear. You cannot pick and choose which sides of the law apply to you. God is also very clear, "Choose you this day whom you will serve".

"If you are a company that is trading out there in the market place and someone comes to you, you can't pick and choose whether or not to fulfil that order based on their sexual orientation," Mr Boyd added.

But the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said the Equality Commission had overstepped the mark and the complaint highlighted the need for a "conscience clause" to protect Christians and others who have deeply held beliefs.

DUP MP Nigel Dodds said: "The case re-opens the debate about how exactly religious belief is respected within the United Kingdom and the need for someone's conscience to be protected whilst ensuring that discrimination does not occur."

In a statement, the watchdog said: "The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland provides advice and can provide assistance to people who complain to us that they have suffered unlawful discrimination.

"In this case the commission has granted assistance to the complainant, and has written to the company concerned on his behalf.

"The commission will consider any response before taking further action."

Northern Ireland is now the only part of the UK which has not passed a law to introduce same-sex marriage.

Nanaimo City Council Leading the Western World in Anti-Christian Bigotry

In a post a couple weeks ago I revealed that the Law Society of British Columbia, Canada, was pressured into discriminating against Christians when it revoked its stand on recognizing Trinity Western University's Law Program. 


In that piece I wrote: "It has been obvious for decades that gay rights and freedom of religion were going to collide and this is the beginning of that collision." I was wrong! It, in fact, began a month earlier in the small (80,000) city of Nanaimo, British Columbia, when city council decided to tear up an agreement with the city newspaper to rent the convention centre to hold a leadership convention.

Actually, it was a live simulcast of a leadership convention held in Atlanta and Cape Town and simulcast all over the world. Speakers included people like Condaleeza Rice, Laura Bush, and many business leaders from all over. What was so offensive to the Nanaimo Council? One of the sponsors was Chick Filet, and one of the speakers was Dr Henry Cloud who happens to believe that gays can be straightened out. Since, at least, 90% of gays are not born gay, I believe it too.

The owner of Chick Filet spoke out once, a few years ago, against gay marriage and the franchise has been vilified ever since by the LGBT lobby and those who support it. Freedom of speech is well protected unless you are talking about gays or lesbians in which case - God help you.

However, this is tantamount to blasphemy to the city that wants to lead the world in liberalism. Only one councilor had the nerve to question the decision (albeit somewhat meekly) and then voted against the motion which would otherwise have been unanimous.

That they cancelled the contract less than 4 days before the event and after many tickets had already been sold was egregious enough, but they didn't let the newspaper or any of the organizers know that the issue was going to be raised. Consequently, no-one was there to defend the conference or the rights of Nanaimo's Christians. It was sneaky, underhanded, vile (one councilor said that Christians were like criminals), dishonest and illegal.

What they did violates at least four of the basic rights and freedoms in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and consequently, will most certainly be challenged in court. The court will rule against city council and that will be the end of that, for now.

Meanwhile, what is scary is that you can probably find a significant percentage of average Canadians who will agree with Nanaimo, most of them fooled into thinking that gays are born gay when they are not. At least the large majority are not. This has been well documented scientifically, and I hope to publish an article or series on that soon.

A 40 minute show on this report can be seen here. It features much footage of the council meeting and many commentaries by Ezra Levant. It's pretty interesting!

This is not just a Canadian thing - this anti-Christian movement will explode across the world with astounding speed. If you don't believe that we are in the 'end-times', just watch what happens with the anti-Christian movement. You soon will.

I would love to hear your comments.

Why the Church of England will Never Accept Gay Marriage

A remarkable disclosure by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Church of England.

‘Christians in Africa will be killed if Church of England accepts gay marriage’: Archbishop of Canterbury.

LONDON – African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested.

Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: “If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians.”

“I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact,” Welby said.

If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, “the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world.”

This reasoning has until now been kept private, although both Welby and his predecessor, Rowan Williams, anguished about it in private.

Welby also condemned homophobia in England. “To treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian,” he said. Although he continued to uphold what he called the historic position of the church, of “sex only within marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman”, he agreed with the presenter, James O’Brien, that it was “completely unacceptable” for the church to condemn homosexual people more than adulterous heterosexual people.

African churches do not share this opinion, and the Anglican churches in both Uganda and Nigeria have given enthusiastic backing to laws which criminalise even the expression of support for gay marriage.

Despite these confusions, Welby denied that the church was woolly in its preaching in a testy exchange with the former Conservative cabinet minister Ann Widdecombe, who left the Church of England over its support of female priests in 1992, but phoned in on Friday to attack it. “I think the opponents of women’s ordination are wrong theologically,” he said.

Welby refused an opportunity to criticise Iain Duncan Smith on welfare reform, but he was unequivocal in support of the church’s work with food banks and against inequality. He cited statistics showing that a third of those coming to food banks were entitled to benefits which had not actually been paid and another third were in employment, but for them “the month is a bit longer than the money”.

“Whatever the causes, those are the people we are dealing with. They need to be treated with human dignity and they need to be loved. I do want to live in a country where the economy works in a way that means that food banks are no longer necessary,” Welby said.

In remarks which showed the clear influence of Catholic doctrine, he said that food, house prices and energy costs were all moral issues that could not be left entirely to the market. “How much you charge for essentials is always a moral issue,” he said. – theguardian.com.

How Evangelicals Won a Culture War and Lost a Generation

A very thought-provoking piece! I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but, certainly, with most of it. 

Rachel Held Evans

Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.

(CNN) - On March 24, World Vision announced that the U.S. branch of the popular humanitarian organization would no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages.

It was a decision that surprised many but one that made sense, given the organization’s ecumenical nature.

But on March 26, World Vision President Richard Stearns reversed the decision, stating, “our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake.”

Supporters helped the aid group “see that with more clarity,” Stearns added, “and we’re asking you to forgive us for that mistake.”

So what happened within those 48 hours to cause such a sudden reversal? The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear.

Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the decision pointed to “disaster,” and the Assemblies of God denomination encouraged its members to pull their financial support from the organization.

Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course.

Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor, sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves.

So World Vision reversed course.

Stearns told The New York Times that some people, satisfied with the reversal, have called World Vision headquarters to ask, “Can I have my child back?” as though needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay and lesbian people.

Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events unfolded.

As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this.

But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become.

When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong.

There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor.

Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce.

But we’re not.

Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded?

As I grieved with my (mostly 20- and 30-something) readers over this ugly and embarrassing situation, I heard a similar refrain over and over again: “I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this.”

I feel the same way.

Whether it’s over the denial of evolutionary science, continued opposition to gender equality in the church, an unhealthy alliance between religion and politics or the obsession with opposing gay marriage, evangelicalism is losing a generation to the culture wars.

A recent survey from Public Religion Research Institute revealed that nearly one-third of millennials who left their childhood faith did so because of “negative teachings” or “negative treatment” of gay and lesbian people.

Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus.

So my question for those evangelicals is this: Is it worth it?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

And is a “victory” against gay marriage worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks, "what if we get this wrong?"

I, for one, am tired of arguing. I’m tired of trying to defend evangelicalism when its leaders behave indefensibly.

I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism's culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”

I’m ready to stop waging war and start washing feet.

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.

"No Professional, Career or Social Discrimination against Gays" -- Putin

Andrew Marr: A lot of British politicians and celebrities, including Elton John, express concerns over the attitude towards homosexuals in Russia. I would like to ask you, do you think there are fundamental differences between the attitude towards homosexuals in the West and in Russia? Do you think homosexuals are born or made? And what does the concept of propaganda imply, is it philosophical?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I am not in a position to answer the part of your question concerning homosexuals being born or made. This is beyond my professional interest, and I just can’t give you a qualified reply. And as I can’t give you a qualified reply, I would just prefer to leave it at that. And as for the attitude towards individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation, yes, I can give you quite a detailed reply.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that in Russia, as opposed to one third of the world’s countries, there is no criminal liability for homosexuality. 70 countries in the world have criminal liability for homosexuality, and seven countries out of these 70 enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. And what does that mean? Does it mean that we should cancel all major sport events in those countries? I guess not.

The Soviet Union had criminal liability for homosexuality, today’s Russia doesn't have such criminal liability. In our country, all people are absolutely equal regardless of their religion, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal.

We have recently only passed a law prohibiting propaganda, and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, child sexual abuse. But this has nothing in common with persecuting individuals for their sexual orientation. And there is a world of difference between these things. So there is no danger for individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation who are planning to come to the Games as guests or participants.

Andrew Marr: And as for the Orthodox Church, it calls for returning criminal liability for homosexuality. What is your opinion about that?

Vladimir Putin: According to the law, the church is separate from the state and has the right to have its own point of view. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that almost all traditional world religions are in full solidarity on this topic. And is the position of the Holy See different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church?

And does Islam treat individuals with non-traditional sexual orientation in a different manner? It seems so, but this other position consists in a much tougher approach. Those 70 countries I have mentioned mostly belong to the Islamic world, and the ones enforcing death penalty all have Islam as state religion. 

Thus, there is nothing strange in the Russian Orthodox Church’s opinion as compared to that of other traditional world religions, there is nothing strange in that, but I repeat once again: the opinion of the church is one thing, and the opinion of the state is another thing. The church is separate from the state.

Sergey Brilev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, perhaps, to add to the issue. You know, once I was lucky to meet the smartest and the most beautiful girl, and I have been married to her for a long time, well, generally speaking, my sexual orientation removes me a bit from being able to discuss this issue, but the thing is as follows.

All Russians of non-traditional sexual orientation, who I know, ok - not all, but the vast majority are people with excellent careers, who have never in their life-time faced any job restrictions and so on, though against the background of our bill to ban gay propaganda among minors, our country is getting the reputation of being just about the most anti-gay country on the planet, however, to a certain degree quite the opposite.

Vladimir Putin: It is not getting the reputation, there are attempts to create it.

Sergey Brilev: Yes, I agree. I wonder whether we should review this bill causing all the fuss that has, actually, little to do with its name or content, and to adjust it a bit? Probably with a view to offering not less sex education needed for children, but less sex, in general, available to minors, no matter if it is homosexual or heterosexual, what would be demanded by many people who are quite heterosexual. Or, probably, to really examine this notion. Frankly speaking, I have never come across gay propaganda among minors. Basically, I agree that I do not understand what it is in practice.

Vladimir Putin: Why so? Could you read the bill thoroughly, and pay your attention to its name. The bill's name is "Ban on propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality". The bill banning pedophilia, propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality.

There are countries, including European, where public discussions – I have just talked about this at the meeting with volunteers – for instance, on the possibility to legalize pedophilia currently take place. Public discussions in parliaments.

They may do whatever they want, but peoples of the Russian Federation, the Russian people have their own cultural code, own tradition. It's not our business and we do not poke our nose into their affairs, and we ask for the same respect for our traditions and for our culture.

My personal view is that the society should look after its children at least to be able to reproduce and not only thanks to migrants, but on its own base. We achieved what we had not experienced for a long time. In 2002, 2003, 2004 it seemed that we would never redress that absolutely terrible situation we had with the demographic crisis (deaths far exceeding births). It appeared that it was a demographic pit that would prove to have no bottom and we would continue investing in it endlessly.

And at that time we developed and adopted a program aimed at supporting demography, to increase birth rates in the Russian Federation. Frankly speaking, I was much worried myself: we allocated a big volume of resources, and many experts used to tell me: "Don't do this, anyway, there is such a trend, which is experienced by many European countries. And we won't avoid it as well".

This year in Russia, the number of newborns has exceeded the number of deceased for the first time. We achieved a specific positive result. If anybody would like to focus on, so to say, developing the cemetery, they are welcome. But we have different goals: we want the Russian people and other peoples of the Russian Federation to develop and to have historical prospects. And we should clean up everything that impedes us here. But we should do this in a timely and humane manner without offending anybody and without including anybody in a group of secondary people.

It seems to me that the bill we adopted does not hurt anybody. Moreover, people of non-traditional sexual orientation cannot feel like inferior people here, because there is no professional, career or social discrimination against them, by the way. And when they achieve great results, such as, for instance Elton John achieves, who is an extraordinary person, a distinguished musician, and millions of our people sincerely love him with no regard to his sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation does not affect attitudes to him, especially as to a distinguished musician. I think that this quite democratic approach to people of non-traditional sexual orientation alongside with measures aimed to protect children and future demographic development is optimum.

Junyi Shui: I also would like to proceed on discussing this issue of homosexuality.

Irada Zeynalova: And I would like to ask why we are discussing this issue in the context of Sochi when we gathered to speak about Sochi?

Junyi Shui: But I would like to continue.There were talks that the snow of 2014 in Sochi would be lonely because many Western countries spoke about homosexuality, about oppression of homosexuals in Russia, and those messages reached China. By the way, in 1980 there were also attempts to boycott the Soviet Olympic Games in Moscow for different reasons, and it was the same case at the Beijing Olympic Games. Why do such voices appear when a country is developing, for instance, China is developing, Russia is developing? What do you think, may be these are manifestations of the "cold war"?

Gay Activist

Vladimir Putin: I don't think that these are manifestations of the "cold war", but it is a demonstration of competition. When such a powerful country, potentially powerful country as China starts showing rapid pace of growth, it becomes a real competitor in global politics and in the global markets, and, of course, tools to restrain such growth are switched on.

Probably, you know that once Napoleon said that China was sleeping, and let it sleep as long as possible. This is a traditional attitude of Western Civilization towards the East, and towards China, in particular. But China has awakened. And I think that the right option to develop relations with such a big, potentially powerful and great country as China is to search for shared interests, but not to restrain. I believe that some old approaches towards Russia still exist from the perspective that there is a need to restrain something.

And as for the issue that we cannot leave, I would like to say the following. I explained that homosexuality is a criminal offence in 70 countries. The same is in the USA. It is still a criminal offence in some states of the United States, for instance in Texas, and may be in another three states. But what the heck, we shouldn't hold any international competitions, should we? Why does nobody speak about this and why do they speak about us, though we do not have criminal liability for this. What is this, if not an attempt to restrain? This is a remnant of the previous, old way of thinking and this is bad.

It is even worse when it comes to major sports events, especially Olympic Games. I know what many top US politicians that I respect and that are respected across the world think. They believe that the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, for all the serious grounds it had — I mean the introduction of Soviet troops in Afghanistan — was a great mistake even in those circumstances. Indeed, any major international competition, and Olympic Games first and foremost, are intended to depoliticize the most pressing international issues and open additional ways to build bridges. It is unwise to miss such opportunities, and it is far more unwise to burn such bridges.

Ed Hula: President Obama has appointed Billie Jean King and other members of the delegation who would represent the United States in Sochi. There are homosexual athletes. Do you believe it to be a political component of the Olympic Games? What political background does it create for the Olympic, if there are homosexuals there? Will you meet Billie Jean King as the head of the US Delegation in Sochi?

Vladimir Putin: People have different sexual orientation. We would welcome all athletes and all guests at the Olympics. At some point President Obama asked me to help make arrangements for a large US delegation to come. His request was related to a limited membership of relevant national teams, including both athletes and members of various administrative bodies.

The International Olympic Committee has its rules, but we did the best we could. We found solutions to that, bearing in mind that the US has traditionally had a larger delegation at the Olympic Games than other countries, they have a large team and many representatives. We complied with their request. So, I certainly will be glad to see the representatives of any countries, including the United States, there can be no doubts as to that. If they would like to meet me and discuss anything, they are welcome, I see no problems about it.

Billie Jean King

 George Stephanopoulos: President Obama said he was offended by the act on gay propaganda. He has also recently said that if there are no gay sportsmen and sportswomen in Russia, its team will be weaker. However, if they start protesting, meaning gays and lesbians, will they be prosecuted under this anti-propaganda act if they decide to hold protest actions?

Vladimir Putin: … protest actions and propaganda are after all two slightly different things. They are similar but if we look at this from the legal point of view, a protest against a law is not propaganda of homosexuality itself or child sexual abuse. That is first point.

Second point, I would like to ask our colleagues – my colleagues and friends – before trying to criticize, to solve the problem in their own home first. But I have already said that it is well known. In some US states, homosexuality is criminally punishable. And how can they criticize us for a far gentler and more liberal approach to these issues compared to the one they have at home?

However, I understand that it is difficult to do since there are a lot of people in the US itself that share the view that the laws of their state or of their country are just, reasonable and correspond with the sentiments of the larger part of its citizens. But we need to discuss this in some more appropriate international forums, to elaborate some common approaches. Anyway, we have got the message. And I am telling you that none of our guests will have any problems.

We remember how some African-American citizens of the US protested during the Olympic Games – a large-scale international competition – against segregation. I saw that myself on the TV screen. But that is all in all a general practice aimed at stating one’s rights.