Gagged Dad has posted the following comment on
Parent vetted for political correctness – should the trial be in private?
I would like to thank the 21 who wrote to the judge and the 17 who attended the hearing, of whom four or more, three of them journalists, addressed the court. I would like especially to thank Stephen Green for his coverage before the hearing, in Christian Voice.
The hearing was bedevilled by the following problem: That the application for a private hearing was founded upon (I say) a false premiss, that my case was an attempt to have reconsidered family court proceedings that were properly held in private, in which the Defendant had played an expert witness role. I have not impugned in this case the outcome in the family court. It was said that the Defendant could not defend my claim without referring to those other matters, which ought not to be aired in public. The judge appeared to me to be taken in by this protestation, and to have insinuated that there was far more to this case than John Allman had brought to public attention.
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?
The court in A v Cornwall (case number A88YJ875) will hold a three day trial in December to decide Question 1, as it applies to Gagged Dad. He disagrees with same sex marriage and abortion. Cornwall Council has therefore prevented Gagged Dad from seeing his son for just short of two and a half years. Cornwall didn’t want Gagged Dad to “indoctrinate” his two year-old son in his own pro-life and homophobic beliefs.
A pastor from Northern Ireland is to be prosecuted after describing Islam as “satanic” …
(The pastor’s name is James McConnell. Please read a report of the prosecution here.)
The secular courts have no business making findings of fact that Islam is, or isn’t, “satanic”. If Islam were to be satanic, it would be the alleged offender’s duty to warn the public of this. Even if this was not his duty, or Islam was not satanic (a finding of fact that a secular court has no business making), the accused would merely be exercising his right of free speech.
This oppressive prosecution could be defeated using this entirely secular argument, which is (in the proper sense of the word) a *secularist* argument.
Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery
The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.
Earlier today, 719 people had signed a petition at Change.org, urging Tesco to punish Asher’s Baking Co Ltd, for having discriminated against a Mr Gareth Lee (whose occupation is said to be being activistly homosexual), in the matter of the decoration of a certain cake.
One of a growing number of what the media have taken to calling “gay cakes”, mind you, so many of these “gay cake” staged court cases have there been, the world over.
Not only does the “support gay marriage” political lobby represent a belief that appears to pass the Maistry test nowadays, it also seems to pass the “pastry test”. It is good for earning a few bob of pocket money, provided a gay activist like Mr Lee can still find a baker somewhere in the world who is opposed to same sex marriage and who hasn’t yet wised up to this particular hackneyed method of ambush, so repetitiously deployed in today’s culture warfare.
The 719 petitioners implored Tesco to retaliate, by doing a bit of discrimination of its own, against Asher’s. Forever, if they had their way, I dare say. By not buying from Asher’s any of the thousands of cakes or other products that Tesco might otherwise continue to buy from Asher’s, if it didn’t start a bit of discrimination of its own. Not “a cake for a cake” proportionate vengeance. Every single potential future cake order not to be placed with Asher’s, as a punishment for Asher’s not having sold one particularly controversial cake, on one particular occasion!
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people want to hear.
Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.
Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality. Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.
Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by. James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
The homophobic manifesto
What’s in a name? There’s LOTS in a name!
B*ggers CAN be choosers!
Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
UK Human Rights Blog
Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.
The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.
View original post 1,273 more words
Why the Ashers Baking Co Ltd were always doomed, and (I’m sorry to say) deserved, to lose their court case
The judgment handed down on Tuesday this week, in GARETH LEE -v- ASHERS BAKING, is attracting a lot of reportage and comment, much of it dumbed down, or even spiteful.
Yesterday, I was all fired up to take a strident pro-freedom of conscience stance on this case myself, putting me firmly into one of the two opposing camps battling it out in the comments following the various media coverages and blog posts. As I read the judgment, my heart was changed, and my entire stance changed by more-or-less 180 degrees.
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
The facts of the case are as follows: An individual ordered a cake, decorated with the slogan “support gay marriage”, from a baking firm whose owners supported the contrary “oppose gay marriage” political lobby. The bakers then reneged on the contract, because, they admitted, they wished (to use the appropriate term) to “no platform” the plaintiff, for reasons of their own lately-discovered consciences. (I have sympathy with them on this.)
Vote “Let every child have both parents” on 7th May in North Cornwall.
Please follow me on Twitter …
… and please obey your conscience when you vote on 7th May.
The 40 years-established registered charity Families Need Fathers (FNF), for which I designed the above poster by adapting an existing FNF poster, is not permitted officially to endorse the political party “Let every child have both parents”, or any other political party.
Watch a Head of School lie to the police, falsely claiming that there is a court order excluding a father from his four year-old son’s school Christmas play:
“Now we see the violence inherent in the system” 🙂
[Monthy Python and the Holy Grail]
Both parents. Every child. Wherever possible..
The registered political party “Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them)” (J4MB), which owns the above poster, does not officially endorse “Let every child have both parents”, or vice versa. There is no J4MB candidate in North Cornwall. There is no “Let every child have both parents” candidate in any of the constituencies in which there is a J4MB candidate. However, this coincidence is not because of any pact or alliance between the two parties.
“Let every child have both parents” was not a gendered issue in 1959, and there is no need to present it in a gendered manner today. (It’s a powerful poster though.)
Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel