Rainbow street signs establish Liverpool ‘gay area’
The title of this blog post may sound like a joke, but it really isn’t. And His Grace really (no, really) wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, if it were not for the inexorable ascendancy of the emerging hierarchy of competing and mutually-exclusive rights with which Labour has unremittingly burdened the British taxpayer and irredeemably corrupted all political discourse.
We have set religious liberties against gay rights and we have sexual equality legislation which infringes freedom of conscience. The law which was designed to protect minorities from discrimination is riding roughshod over the rights and beliefs of the majority. There is no limit to the application of such a principle. As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed: 'By legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk'
Now it transpires that homosexuals in Liverpool are being granted their own brightly-coloured street signs emblazoned with rainbows, and these signs are just so happy and gay (that is, if one is any longer permitted to use that word in its original sense of possessing a merry, lively mood or showing extravagance and ornament). Lest anyone be confused by this development in highway insignia, there are no street signs featuring Bungle, Zippy, George, or even Geoffrey: just up above the streets and houses, rainbow climbing high. Everyone can see it smiling over the sky. Paint the whole world with a...
As His Grace was saying, the rainbow (Gen 9:13) has been appropriated by the homosexual community/ies rather like the word ‘gay’ (not to mention Abba, Kylie, the colour purple [not the film – yet] and male grooming). Liverpool has become the first city in Britain to have street signs featuring rainbows, the first of which was unveiled last week on Stanley Street at the heart of the city’s ‘gay quarter’.
Apparently, these rainbows will also feature on Cumberland Street, Temple Lane, Eberle Street and Temple Street, after a decision by the city’s council to recognise the Stanley Street quarter as a ‘gay area’.
Now then, these signs are all very nice and jolly and would brighten up any neglected and rundown area. But the inescapable logic of this precedent (paid for, of course, by the Council Tax-payer) is that any geographic area typified by a distinct identity could now be subject to a barrage of ‘equality’ demands for councils to endow street signs with sundry logos.
Should the entirety of Brighton’s streets be recast with rainbow signage? Or Soho? And what about the straight areas? Should there be a whatever-the-logo-for-‘straight’-is in (say) Newcastle? Or is it only minorities which get dedicated street signs?
How about putting Labour’s logo all over Barnsley? Or the Tory logo over Gerrards Cross? Or Banbury Cross? Or the LibDem logo on rubbish bins? Talking of crosses, why don’t we have the Christian symbol on streets around Holy Trinity Brompton? Or the Sikh khanda in Southall? Or some expression of Islamic incursion and ownership in
O, hang on.
We already have some of the more robust followers of Mohammed demanding: ‘How dare you come to a Muslim area?’ And they know what they’re doing. Where they are in a majority, it becomes a territorial land-grab for Allah – part of the dar-al-Islam, where sharia law prevails. This leads to a rejection of the unbelieving kuffar, or the demand of special taxes upon them and the imposition of the sharia criminal code administered through sharia courts. There is a de facto ban on alcohol consumption in public, and many pubs and bars are forced to close. The advertising of ladies underwear is prohibited, and there are certainly no gay bars.
His Grace is not saying that those behind street signage with gay rainbows are as bad as those who seek to blow us all to kingdom come: but the alienating effects upon some straight people may be just as keenly felt as it is by the infidel gays who dare to venture into a ‘Muslim area’ where a rigorous policy of ‘no gays’ is in operation. It is ironic that, as our public space becomes more secular (and so, we are told, more ‘neutral’), we are apportioning a distinct sexual identity to entire quarters of our main cities. The logic of what must follow, under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is inescapable.