Sunday, October 28, 2007

Scottish NHS on ‘Good Gay Practice’

As the Conservative Party ruminates upon the establishments of an English ‘Grand Committee’ in order to address the West Lothian issue raised by the existence of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, Cranmer remains puzzled as to why the Party continues to support the present settlement of the Barnett Formula. It is an annual windfall for the Scots, which permits the Scottish Executive to spend £1000 per capita more than the UK Parliament spends on the English. As Graham Brady MP observed in Prime Minister’s Questions, his constituents (in Altrincham and Sale West) have to pay more tax in order that the Prime Minister’s constituents (in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) get free prescriptions. In the context of UK devolution, the formula is a manifest injustice.

But it is not so much free prescriptions or even the abolition of university fees which exercise Cranmer – for they may be justified from the ‘social justice’ perspective - but the Marxist propaganda which is being produced by a very fat Scottish public sector, for which the English are effectively paying.

Following the Scottish NHS ‘Good Muslim Practice’, they have excelled themselves with their latest publication – ‘Good LGBT(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Practice in the NHS'.

Setting aside the appalling omission of hermaphrodites (or unacceptably simply assuming that they are all bisexual), the publication purports to provide ‘guidance’ (which is implicit directive) for NHS staff in Scotland, and is produced by the Scottish Executive, Stonewall, and the NHS in Scotland. It is designed to cohere with anti-discrimination law and the new Sexual Orientation regulations, and advises employees how they may avoid discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people. The reality, of course, is that the booklet will become a basis for disciplinary hearings when a patient complains, and any employee who is found not to have adhered to its instructions will doubtless be found guilty of unprofessional conduct.

Yet the cultural Marxism of these ‘instructions’ is evident. Among other things, the booklet instructs:

All staff should participate in awareness raising sessions so that they are fully aware of appropriate and inappropriate language…

And what constitutes this appallingly homophobic and offensive language?

Using the terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term ‘partner’ and ‘they/them’ to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status…When talking to children, consider using ‘parents’, ‘carers’ or ‘guardians’ rather than ‘mother’ or ‘father’.

So throughout the NHS, beginning in Scotland, the terms ‘mother’, father’, ‘marriage’, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are to be eradicated because they are discriminatory. The vernacular of the heterosexual majority is being set aside in order to the accommodate the presumed sensitivities of the homosexual minority. This mentality will doubtless eventually permeate all the public services, if only because Stonewall is on the ascendancy and is empowered to ensure legal consistency and regulatory harmony. The irony is that there are quite a few homosexuals who are utterly opposed to this sort of militant agenda.

And so, once again, we see an unintended consequence of the Sexual Uniformity Regulations, already observed here, here, and here. Or perhaps such cases were always a completely intended by certain members of the Government or Stonewall. The reality is that legislation which was designed to eliminate prejudice against homosexuals is being used to discriminate against heterosexuals, to eradicate the terms used to describe the traditional family unit, to demonise mainstream values, and erode the Christian foundations of the country.

And all made available free of charge to the impoverished Scots courtesy of the increasingly magnanimous English.

15 Comments:

Anonymous nedsherry said...

Setting aside the appalling omission of hermaphrodites...

A line worthy of Peter Simple.

And so, once again, we see an unintended consequence of the Sexual Uniformity Regulations, already observed here, here, and here. Or perhaps such cases were always completely intended by certain members of the Government or Stonewall.

Yes.

The reality is that legislation which was designed to eliminate prejudice against homosexuals is being used to discriminate against heterosexuals, to eradicate the terms used to describe the traditional family unit, to demonise mainstream values, and erode the Christian foundations of the country.

Yes. But that's what happens when you have rabbis in the House of Lords and fundraisers called Levy. White Christian Europe has been targeted for destruction and if it doesn't fight it WILL be destroyed.

28 October 2007 at 15:06  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

nedsherry

I assume you understand that when you say fight, it really is going to have to be FIGHT.

Provided you understand that, then I am in complete accord with you on this - though I don't think it's anything much to do with Jews in particular.

28 October 2007 at 17:34  
Anonymous דניאל said...

I’ve been to the House of Lords. They only turn up because if they don’t they wont be paid.
I think accusing Jews of destroying the countries "Christian values" is a false statement and one that will only lower peoples respect for you. I will speak no more on this matter but in future don’t bring you hatred to this site.
If you want to know why the world is going downhill then why don’t you go to scripture? It is written that in the last days men will be immoral and unrighteous. This is simply a sign that the end is near. When we see these things we should look to ourselves and take care we are doing all we can to follow Gods ways. Fighting in the name of God and Christian values show you have no faith or understanding.

"COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND BE YE SEPARATE"

28 October 2007 at 20:41  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Nedsherry,

His Grace has some sympathy for the sentiments expresed by Mr דניאל.

This blog is disinguished by the intelligent and erudite people who care to commune within its cloisters. Your anti-Semtic rants are becoming a little tedious, not least because they are devoid of reasoned argument. Please (and this is a very polite request) confine your irrationality, or persuade us of its rationality.

28 October 2007 at 21:42  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I hve read some of the document "Good LBGT practice..etc" but gave up half way through, because it is glib and doctrinaire. I could not help noticing that it seeks to assign blame to heterosexuals for the abberant behaviour of gays. (An example is given of a patient who lies about his orientation when registering at a GPs surgery. In this instance, the surgery is blamed for not making the registration process more gay friendly. Not only that, you are supposed to take account of the fact that some have "not come out", so you are left with a situation where the gay person can lie and obfuscate - and some how its us who is to blame.)

As usual, the "Gay Community" wants to take no responsibility for its actions and demands health care on their terms, regardless of whether they lie or obstruct the care giver.

On the other side of the argument is that the Health Service should be morally and socially neutral, and this cannot happen unless some of the language is changed.It could be argued that merely from a pragmatic viewpoint, making access to services easier for all saves money and resources.

When we get into the Orwellian realms of language modification - to suit an agenda - it does make me worry.

Finally, someone close to me is in a moderately senior post in the Scottish NHS and this person has never heard of this. That being the case, my guess is that a few leaflets will be printed as a sop to Stonewall and they will then be consigned to the stationery cupboard and forgotten.

Don't forget, up here we put people on the sex offenders register for having intercourse with a bicycle, so in spite of the show put on for the benefit of Daily Mail readers, this will probably not fly. Indeed, such is the modern dillema of liberal relativism, the Muzzie Doctors will probably demand that this LGBT stuff is binned.

Watch them fight it out.

28 October 2007 at 22:22  
Blogger Homophobic said...

"Indeed, such is the modern dillema of liberal relativism, the Muzzie Doctors will probably demand that this LGBT stuff is binned. "

Oh yeah. LoL.

28 October 2007 at 23:01  
Blogger Laban said...

Be fair. This kind of stuff is also available on the English "N".H.S

"The Navajo Lesbian and Gay Health Strategy for Preston, Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre currently has 50 local organisations signed up to its lesbian and gay friendly assurance charter mark scheme. This includes NHS health care services including Accident and Emergency, GUM Clinics, GPs, young people’s sexual health services as well as other statutory and voluntary services. The charter mark ensures equity of access to services and equality of employment and includes access to training, resources, support, funding and policy making for all organisations involved."

It was Navajo Chartermark literature which led to the Wyre Borough Thought Police incident, when an elderly Christian couple were questioned by police.

Strangely, the real Navajo nation aren't too chuffed about the use of their name.

http://tinyurl.com/34kmwo

28 October 2007 at 23:38  
Blogger El Draque said...

I support Your Grace in resisting the anti-Jewish sentiments that creep in here. Though Mr. Daniel (for that is the meaning of the Hebrew name)also expresses a strong view - which I suspect from the terminology emanates also from the Protestant fringe. We do not want a "kulturkampf" to erupt on this very readable blog. The Church of England is inclusive of many strands of thought and shoudl remain so.

29 October 2007 at 10:52  
Anonymous דניאל said...

I had no idea that expressing religious views on a site that deals with religio-political agendas was so offensive to some people. I will do my best to control myself. By the way, which side of this "culture struggle" do you fall on?

29 October 2007 at 11:12  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

דניאל said...

I think accusing Jews of destroying the countries "Christian values" is a false statement

You do, do you, דני? Then please explain the comments of the Chief Rabbi below and the behaviour of Rabbi יוליא Neuberger in seeking to end the Christian tradition of the House of Lord.

...and one that will only lower peoples respect for you.

Speaking the truth to politically correct or brainwashed people often does that. So does failing to understand the apostrophe.

I will speak no more on this matter but in future don’t bring you hatred to this site.

Where have I expressed hatred? His Grace and congregation were informed by one Dr Lancaster that Christianity tried for 2000 to exterminate the Jews. She supplied no evidence for this and seemed to think it a self-evident truth. His Grace, I am sad to say, made no attempt to challenge or correct her assertion.

His Grace writes:

This blog is disinguished by the intelligent and erudite people who care to commune within its cloisters.

Daniel doesn't seem particularly blessed with erudition.

Your anti-Semitic rants are becoming a little tedious,

Any criticism of Jews or other minorities is defined as "ranting" by the politically correct. I am sorry to see His Grace follow their usage, particularly when he is, by their standards, a ranter on the subject of homosexuals and Muslims.

not least because they are devoid of reasoned argument.

They are full of reasoned argument. His Grace will, I hope, recall Dr Lancaster's accusation about Christianity's 2000-year attempt to exterminate the Jews. If so, does His Grace believe she is exceptional among Jews? If so, can His Grace explain the behaviour of Rabbi Julia Neuberger in the House of Lords?

Please (and this is a very polite request) confine your irrationality, or persuade us of its rationality.

I ask His Grace to suppose that the statements below were made by me last month rather than the Chief Rabbi this. Would he have dismissed them then as an irrational rant? Does he dismiss them now as such?

Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."

"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380605648&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

29 October 2007 at 15:12  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

As the medical profession wishes to deny treatment to smokers,the obese,or in fact any-one whos lifestyle the disapprove of,can we take it that aids,hiv,std,will fall into the same category?or is it that "mummy""daddy" "marriage" are so offensive to homosexuals, that they will be treated as another special case and require a blanket exemption,and still enjoy the treatment denied to other suffering taxpayers?

29 October 2007 at 15:40  
Blogger El Draque said...

El Draque believes there is already a "kulturkampf" afoot on several fronts. He prefers that there be no such strife, though recent history suggests that it is fairly common. A clash between religiosity and secularism has been a feature of 20th centry life. What is new is the militant secularism of recent years, in which the very language is to be policed for traces of traditional religious structures and forms, under the guise of opposing "hate speech", or of promoting "inclusiveness".
Incidentally, there was indeed a 2,000 year Christian campaign to suppress Judaism and the Jews as a people, usually by conversion, frequently by coercion and in many places by force. Does one really need to quote evidence, in a short post? The references are legion.
And the history of the Jews carries a sad warning: repeal of legislation against Jews in the 19th century was at the time believed to be irreversible. It was not, and Antisemitism returned with the utmost savagery, in "Christian Europe". We may think our current freedoms are safe; but they may not be.

29 October 2007 at 23:53  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Incidentally, there was indeed a 2,000 year Christian campaign to suppress Judaism and the Jews as a people, usually by conversion, frequently by coercion and in many places by force. Does one really need to quote evidence, in a short post? The references are legion.

Extermination. Do you understand what the word means? Apparently not, or you would not have written the above. Christianity was persecuted by Judaism in its early years and returned the compliment later. But there was never a policy of extermination, as claimed by the Judaeocentric bigot Dr Lancaster.

30 October 2007 at 15:46  
Anonymous דניאל said...

I would not have used the word extermination but indeed the "Christians" did persecute the Jewish people wherever they could find them. Pogroms where common for hundreds of years and were encouraged by the so called "church". This persecution did not just stop at Jews either but went on to viscously murder anyone else who disagreed with the mainstream beliefs that formed the Catholic church.
Throughout history thousands, if not millions have died as a result of "fighting in the name of the Christian God".

Nedsherry, trying to justify this by saying that Jews persecuted Christians during the early years is a sick and degrading remark. It is a fact that Jewish leaders did try to put the Christian faith down, although I would say that the Roman Empire and the newly formed Catholic Church under Constantine killed far more.
Shame on you for not distancing yourself for the deaths of countless innocents. Those responsible have had their reward. It is death for them and nothing more.

Blessed be the Yahweh the God of Israel and his holy people.

30 October 2007 at 17:07  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Nedsherry, trying to justify this by saying that Jews persecuted Christians during the early years is a sick and degrading remark.

I was not justifying it, I was explaining it. Whether deeds are justified is another question.

31 October 2007 at 14:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older