Christianophobia has never really caught on. Perhaps it is a clumsy etymological construction: three syllables before ‘-ophobia’ is at least one phonetic unit too many, and it isn’t at all spoken trippingly on the tongue. Or perhaps it’s because the word is such a plainly fabricated concoction, designed to challenge the artifice of equality by asserting an identity, the sole purpose of which is to compete equally in the burgeoning hierarchy of rights. Or perhaps it’s because no one really believes that there exists in enlightened community either fear or hatred of Christians or the things that Christians believe in or do, which is undoubtedly the case with other phobias (though more often it is ignorance rather than fear; and disagreement rather than hate).
Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph about “a form of gay rights sharia”, which is censoring all debate and crushing all dissent from homosexual orthodoxy, to the extent that even homosexuals must conform to every precept of this immutable ‘Truth’, or risk being cast as ‘bigots’, ‘homophobes’, or, worse still, as suffering from the “internalised homophobia of gay people” which renders them traitors to their own kind. Thus one may no longer say that children are best brought up by their biological heterosexual and preferably-married parents, for to do so is an unacceptable prejudice. There is no tolerance of difference; no acceptance of diversity, even though, as Charles Moore observes:
Sensible people do not maintain this proposition rigidly: we can all think of excellent single parents, rotten double ones, outstanding fathers or mothers who turned out to be homosexual, loving stepfathers and stepmothers, wonderful adopters, kind aunts replacing unkind parents, posh people who got real love from their nannies rather than their own blood. Nevertheless, to think that a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman, preferably married to one another, are – other things being equal – the best parents, is common sense. It derives from an inherited knowledge of the complementary nature of the sexes, the need for security and burden-sharing, and the fact that blood is thicker than water. It could change a bit with circumstances – many argue that the formal marriage bit matters less nowadays – but the balance of proof lies with the conservative position.
Yet to voice such opinion in the contemporary context has inevitable consequences. Actually, merely to believe this is to risk ad hominem fallout and damaging career repercussions, as Moore affirms:
I am sure I would be barred from working in the public services if I said it at a job interview. I could not become a Labour parliamentary candidate, and probably not even a Conservative one. If I were 28 rather than 58, I doubt if I would dare say it in print if I wanted a successful career in media. Socially conservative moral views are now teetering on the edge of criminality, and are over the edge of disapproval by those who run modern Britain.
When the media narrative and political dialectic are controlled, how does one contend peacefully against moral coercion, or reason intelligently against an unjust oppression? Phrases like ‘Pink Mafia’, ‘Gayist’, ‘homosexualist’ or ‘Gaystapo’ have gained about as much vernacular traction as ‘Christianophobia’, invariably being met with the inevitable ‘homophobe’ riposte, thereby depriving society of the means of distinguishing the extremist homoeroticist from the moderate gay in the village. When language is controlled, morality is policed. What is the homosexual equivalent of the Islamist? There isn’t one. Just as Islamism is nothing to do with true Islam, “gay rights sharia” is a world away from the moderate quest for LGBT equality and justice.
And yet the Islamist and the Homosexualist (unless you can think of a better term) are both concerned with gaining ground for the causes of Islamism and Homosexualism (unless you can think of a better term). They seek to occupy the public space, silencing nonconformity, converting inhabitants to their ideology and then declaring victory. There can be no retrenchment. And then they move on to the next annexation and the process starts over, until the whole world belongs to the Dar al-Ideology. The Islamist silences dissent by beheading the infidel, literally: the Homosexualist (unless you can think of a better term) silences dissent by ripping out the tongue, metaphorically. This is the nature of the radical’s pursuit of the extreme..
But does Charles Moore not appreciate that the phrase “gay rights sharia” is appallingly Islamophobic?
This is the theme taken up by Andrew Gilligan, also writing in the Telegraph. In a forensic dissection of two initiatives designed to encourage Muslims to participate in democracy (ie vote), he notes that YouElect and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), are nothing but “clever fronts to win political access and influence for Islamists holding extreme and anti-democratic views”.
But you can’t say that, because it’s Islamophobic.
It’s also doubtless Islamophobic to point out that the directors of YouElect and Mend have links with hate preachers, extremist clerics, Holocaust deniers, misogynists and apologists for terrorism. Actually, it’s probably Islamophobic to even to juxtapose the terms ‘hate’, ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorism’ with the love and peace of sharia. Jihadi John is “kind and gentle”, just like Jesus is meek and mild. Islam means peace, we are told. When it is spread all over Tower Hamlets, the target is the whole of London, and then Britain, and then Europe and the world. The Caliphate will better the ballot box with its pure prophetic guidance, and abrogate democracy by reinforcing the perfect precepts of Allah. Gilligan notes:
According to a training session for recruits, the IFE’s goal is “not simply to give da’wah [call to the faith]. Our goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da’wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-Deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order]”. IFE’s “entryism” helped to install Lutfur Rahman as the Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council. He then gave them millions of pounds in grants. Mend also appears to have been funded by Tower Hamlets. Mr Rahman was expelled from the Labour Party, but re-elected as an independent, with IFE help. He represents Islamism’s closest ally in UK political office.
But for those who dare to criticise..
Mend and YouElect, along with the IFE, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Unite union and the TUC, on Saturday organised a “march against Islamophobia”, assembling outside that well-known media hotbed of hate, the BBC.
“Islamophobia”, one of Mend’s favourite charges, is a standard accusation made by Muslim wrongdoers to smear critics and deter scrutiny. No doubt this article will attract a similar response. But every time the charge is abused by the likes of Mend, it loses a bit more credibility and further damages the genuine victims of anti-Muslim prejudice.
And no doubt this blog post will attract the same response. Not since 1559 has there been an Act of Uniformity in England requiring everyone to assent to a particular worldview. It took more than 300 years to eradicate that. But now we see a new Act of Uniformity being imposed which elevates sexual orientation to a quasi-religion, and religious equality to the status of biological sexual identity. This is the new ideological ‘Truth’. It is secular pluralism and moral relativism imposed by cultural uniformity and political orthodoxy, if not by statute law. Resistance is not futile, but it is perilous in the extreme.