Equality - The Killer of Freedom

The law is the law is the law, quoted Nick Robinson, claiming that those were the words of a Labour cabinet minister replying to the Catholic criticisms of the new ‘Equality law’. The first question that arises in my head from hearing this is: does that little mantra apply to Muslims as well? If so, perhaps you should mention that to Sir Ian Blair.

But what the act, and the reaction of the government, really shows is that fundamentally liberalism is intolerant of any opposition to its belief system. In sum it’s a type of extreme fundamentalism, which may be the reason for its cosying-up to radical Islam. Note the almost Korannic nature of liberal doctrine – equality is good, discrimination ‘evil’, for instance.

This is where old-school conservatives, like myself, come into grief with liberalism. We try to be tolerant. Questioned on homosexuality, I tell people that really I am not interested in interfering in other people’s bedroom habits, and that the state has no place prosecuting people for sexual orientation. I also have no desire to abuse people, either verbally or physically, for their orientation. But, I will not accept and support gay marriage, civil partnerships, or gay adoption, ever. If a gay couple want to draw up some legal documents recognising them as next of kin, fine. But civil ceremonies are a charade; they are designed, like normal marriage, to show community approval of the union, but I will never approve of recognition of a marriage, other than the ones between a man and a woman.

I’d also say that it is up to an individual hotelier, and adoption agency, whether or not they accept gay couples. Freedom of conscience is a right we should all have. Yes, this is discrimination, and therefore probably doctrinally unacceptable to liberals, but criminalising this makes liberals as intolerant as those who prosecuted homosexuals in the past.

In many ways the modern Church, has also reached what seems to me to be an amicable accord. Namely, that homosexuals can live as they want, but those who oppose it do not have to ‘celebrate’ or condone their activities. And what’s the reward for those who have taken this moderate, tolerant line? Extremism and intolerance. A secular fundamentalism, led by a modern day Torquemada, Lord Falconer. I must obey, or I am a ‘criminal’.

The ludicrousness of this world-view should be obvious. It seems that to the nutty ‘rights’ brigade, there is no difference between the Catholic Church’s objection to this law, and a Muslim Iman who calls for homosexuals to be thrown from a mountain. And my belief that people should have freedom of conscience and the right to discriminate between what behaviour is viewed as good for society, and what is viewed as bad, probably makes me a Nazi sympathiser. And that’s the point about modern politics mired in a liberal epoch, there is no room for compromise, rationality and debate. Instead, there is only good and evil, equality or 'oppression', and an axis between secular and Islamic fundamentalism.

It really is hard not to be severely depressed and despondent, when faced with such truths. But we must battle on, for there may yet come a day when the public realise that to the gods of equality, freedom itself has had to be sacrificed.

The Liberalism of 'Conservatives'

Somebody once said that 'everyone will be blogging in a few years'. Well, it's not quite true yet, but we are definitely getting there. Now, Charlie Wolf has joined in, albeit a little sporadically.

Who's Charlie Wolf? Well, he is an Ayn Rand devotee, unemployed radio host, uber hawk and, generally, a Neoconservative extraordinaire. Unsurprisingly, he talks quite a lot of nonsense, especially about Iraq and Israel.

But even Charlie comes out with some salient points, sometimes. Take this post, in which he takes aim at David Cameron:

He said that he is not a neo-conservative but is a liberal conservative. But neo Conservatives are liberal conservatives.

Very true Charlie. Neoconservatism is liberalism, albeit right-liberalism. When Cameron professes he's a 'liberal conservative', he really means he believes in left-liberalism. The battle in modern conservatism is merely a civil war between right and left liberals. Let's not forget that Cameron still generally believes in the Iraq war, but not the way it has been prosecuted. His economic ideas are not radically different to that of the right of the party, with tax the obvious exception.

But, to support the war in Iraq contravenes fundamental conservative principles. Last week's Spectator quotes John Hulsman:

The necons have gone wrong by offering us humanitarianism on steroids. It has been false realism, as though you impose democracy at the barrel of a gun and people will like that. As though one size fits all for the world - culture and history don't matter at all. In essence, the neoconservatives are still Jacobin utopian Rousseauian Trotskyists, supporters of permanent revolution. That's their gig. And of course it's met with predictable disaster.

The traditions of conservatism go back to Edmund Burke, not to this utopian fantasy that you can make the world a Kantian paradise sometime in the near future.

Darwinian Conservatism picks up the baton:

The American war in Iraq violates such conservatism by assuming a utopian view of human nature. That explains why many American conservatives now realize that the neoconservative idealism of Bush's war in Iraq is not really rooted in conservative thought.

The American war in Iraq is foolishly utopian in at least two respects. First, it is utopian in the assumption that the institutions of ordered liberty can be nourished around the globe in every society by imperialistic wars.

Neocon Charlie Wolf, wouldn't understand that. His utopianist liberalism blinds him. That's why, later in his post, he wishes that Tony Blair would cross the House to become a 'Conservative' prime minister. Yes, anti-family, anti-liberty, anti-conventional marriage, pro-immigration, pro-taxation and pro-huge public spending Tony Blair. A conservative!!

Quite frankly, Cameron's rejection of neoconservatism, was the most salient thing he has ever said. His rejection of all neo-Jacobinist liberalism, would mark him out as fit to govern this country.