Take a gander, Gentle Reader, at the face of a complete and utter prat.
Says the Daily Mirror…
Susan-Anne White is running for election in West Tyrone, Northern Ireland, as an independent candidate. Her manifesto has appeared on social media in the last few days and it's pretty shocking.
And I suppose it is to anyone whose capacity for shock at the words of right-wing evangelist noodle-pates hasn't been raised through constant exposure to same. I really do wish I still found crap like this shocking. I still find it awful, but sadly there's nary a shock to be found.
As posted on her blog, The Truth Shall Set You Free, here's her manifesto:
- Close Marie Stopes Abortion clinic
- Oppose the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
- Remove State-sponsored amoral sex education from schools
- Restore corporal punishment to schools
- Uphold parental rights to discipline children, including the right to smack
- Raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 18 and enforce the new law
- Make it an offence for doctors to give contraceptives to underage children
- Oppose the LGBT agenda, whilst showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion
- Oppose the redefinition of marriage and uphold Biblical man/woman marriage
- Ban gay pride parades and recriminalise homosexuality
- Stop the State funding of LGBT organisations
- Make adultery a punishable offence
- Abolish the Equality Commission NI and the Human Rights Commission NI and give the money they receive to the NHS
- Oppose feminism
- Restore dignity to the role of the stay-at-home mother
- Restore the concept of a family wage with the father as the bread-winner
- Oppose the legalisation of dangerous drugs
- Protect the NHS and increase funding by abolishing unnecessary and money-wasting bureaucrats and quangos
- Withdraw from money-wasting and decadent Europe
- Oppose the global warming fanatics and their pseudo-science
- Imprison those found guilty of animal cruelty, including those involved in dog fights
- Install CCTV in all abattoirs
- Ban halal slaughter
- Oppose the Islamisation of British culture – no more mosques and no more mosque extensions
- Restore capital punishment for murder, including terrorist murders
Well, that's nice, innit. Let's take a closer look…
Close Marie Stopes Abortion clinic
Oppose the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
Well of course she would, what with being an utter prat an' all. Sex is dirty, an' icky an' kinda disgusting, and pregnancy is the right and proper punishment for the dirty gits who partake of it. Well, for fifty percent of the dirty gits who partake of it. You know—the people with ovaries. Or should I say harlots and strumpets? Yeah I probably should. But when we've said that…
Remove State-sponsored amoral sex education from schools
… we should remember that it's important not to take educational measures which might lower the number of people looking for abortions in the first place. Because, erm, umm, erm, 'Will somebody please think of the children‽' Always a good fallback, when you're stuck for an actual reason to do summat.
Restore corporal punishment to schools
Uphold parental rights to discipline children, including the right to smack
Because scared children are obedient children, and at the end of the day, scaring people into conformity is so much better than teaching them why we should do, or not do, certain things. And physical violence totes works as a deterrent, honest it does. I mean, the total absence of bad behaviour on the part of religious people, because they're frightened of Hell, is remarkable isn't it.
Raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 18 and enforce the new law
It's not that she's a pervert, who's obsessed with other people's sex lives. It's just that she thinks a lot about other people having sex. Ahem. But yeah, this seems like a good idea. First, as noted above, we decline to educate kids about sex, and then we punish them for doing it. Seems completely reasonable to me. It's blindingly obvious, is it not, that people who have never been taught about sex, will therefore not have sex? Well, it is if you're bloody ignorant and have as much common sense as a fried gnat. Back in the real world, studies consistently show the opposite. Like this one:
Young people who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report a teen pregnancy compared to those who received no sex education.
This study adds to the growing body of research in support of a comprehensive approach to sexuality education. First, it confirms that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are not effective in changing young people's sexual behavior or preventing negative outcomes such as teen pregnancy. More importantly, however, it confirms that programs that teach young people about both abstinence and contraception/disease prevention are, in fact, effective.
In particular, the authors found that receiving information about birth control in formal sex education was associated with a 50% lower risk of teen pregnancy when compared to receiving information only on abstinence. It also confirmed that talking to young people about birth control does not lead to increased sexual activity or higher STD rates as many critics of comprehensive sexuality education continue to claim.
And as for correlations between age of legal consent and age of a person's first experience of sex, I can't, after half an hour's googling, find any. In the UK, for instance, where the legal age is sixteen, anywhere between a third and a half, depending on which source you read, of people's first experiences were at an age below that. The average age of first experience would seem to be around seventeen; and this would seem to be the case in most countries, regardless of legal age of consent.
Damnit, I meant this post to be a quick piss-take, not a serious argument. I shall scourge myself with the Whip Of Satirical Sadism immediately.
Moving on, Ms White sez…
Make it an offence for doctors to give contraceptives to underage children
As shown above, when people, of whatever age, are gonna make with the rumpy-pumpies, they are gonna make with the rumpy-pumpies, regardless of what the law and their parents say. This is a fact, and no wishful thinking, praying or burying of heads in the sand is going to unfactualise it. Rather bleedin' silly then, isn't it, to deny them the means to practice safe sex? Unless of course, as I intimated earlier, you see pregnancy as a just and fair punishment for having sex.
Oppose the LGBT agenda, whilst showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion
The LGBT agenda would appear to be, 'Please leave us the hell alone to be who and what we are.' The compassionate response to this, in my not so humble opinion, would be to leave folk the hell alone to be who and what they are, provided they are doing no harm. People like Ms White, on the other tentacle, would appear to have an agenda which includes denying equal rights to certain groups, which is a harmful activity. We should all be opposing such an agenda with every fibre of our beings—and frankly, I feel bugger-all compassion for her and people who hold to similar agendas. My compassion is reserved for their victims.
Oppose the redefinition of marriage and uphold Biblical man/woman marriage
Fun fact. The church had sod-all to do with marriage until the eleventh century, and marriage wasn't officially made a Catholic sacrament until 1563, at the Council of Trent. By which time, of course, a rather large schism had occurred in the Christian church, and both Luther and Calvin had proclaimed marriage to be an entirely civil affair, having nothing to do with religion or the church.
Not, of course, that either of those gentlemen would likely have seen LGBT people as being worthy of equal treatment by civil authorities, but if we want to talk about 'redefining' marriage, we should first note that the major redefinition here is the one which attempts to define marriage as 'Biblical.' Because for most of the history of Christendom and of Europe, that simply has not been the case. So yeah, Ms White, please do explain why we should accept your redefinition of marriage.
And as for the current 'redefinition,' yeah; redefining 'two people who wish to be married' as 'two people who wish to be married' is such a horrendous thing to do, ain't it.
Ban gay pride parades and recriminalise homosexuality
Stop the State funding of LGBT organisations
Again, please do not think of Ms White as a pervert who has an unhealthy obsession with other people's sex-lives, merely because she spends an inordinate amount of time perversely obsessing over other people's entirely unharmful and none-of-her-goddamned-business sexual orientation and behaviour.
Make adultery a punishable offence
Now, if we define adultery specifically as the act of indulging in sexual or romantic behaviour with someone other than one's spouse, without one's spouse's permission, then yes; under current societal attitudes, wherein sexual and romantic fidelity is expected, by default, of a married person, then adultery is, in general, immoral. It is quite understandable, under such circumstances, that the spouse should feel hurt, and may even see it as a reason to end the relationship.
What harm this does to society as a whole though, I'm uncertain to say the least. And even if making adultery into a punishable offence could be shown to have any actual deterrent effect (which I highly bloody doubt), I hardly think that a relationship in which the only reason one or both partners was faithful to the spirit of the marriage contract was because they were forced by fear of punishment into being so, could ever be called a healthy relationship. But then, this is a trend with those ultra-religious who see marriage as the be all and end all, isn't it. Just as with objections to easy divorce, the emphasis is on the appearance of the sanctity of marriage, while the emotional health of those involved in the marriage is completely ignored.
And frankly, I think society would be a lot better off if we didn't enshrine the concept of sexual and romantic jealousy. We are quite obviously not an inherently monogamous species, and we'd probably be a helluva lot less prone to hurtful disappointment if we weren't raised to expect monogamous behaviour by default.
Abolish the Equality Commission NI and the Human Rights Commission NI and give the money they receive to the NHS
Because, one assumes, having those damned foreigners interfering with our right to discriminate against minorities, treat our criminals like abhuman monsters and beat our children, is just too awful to bear. Whereas, allowing the alleged wishes, prejudices and commands of the god of a minor iron age kingdom to influence our policies is completely reasonable!
I'm quite pleasantly surprised to see she at least supports the nasty ol' pinko-socialist NHS, given she says on the About page of her blog, that 'Our targets will be Marxism/socialism, which has spawned […] the moral collapse of society.' There's probably some deep point which can be made about the socialism one grows up with not seeming as pinko-commie as the socialism one hasn't grown up with, but I'll leave that as a thought for you, Gentle Reader, to expand upon, should you wish.
Says the woman promoting her views using technology which, without the past victories of feminism, she would quite probably have only had access to in its strictly limited role of a glorified typewriter, whilst engaged in her role as a man's secretary. Says the woman standing for election. But then, I guess that the feminism one grows up with… etc.
Restore dignity to the role of the stay-at-home mother
I do believe that the work of parents (mothers or fathers) who choose to stay at home with their children should be recognised as being valuable—but then, I'm a socialist who has noted that the capitalist obsession with the bottom line leads to any kind of work which doesn't contribute to monetary gain, being devalued. Somehow, I think Ms White's reasoning is, erm, somewhat less enlightened than mine, though, and has much more to do with promoting the idea that mothers—and specifically mothers—should stay at home. 'Cause God said so, probably.
Restore the concept of a family wage with the father as the bread-winner
Holy Moses, I was right! Women, stay at home and do the housework; men, go out and do manly money-earning stuff.
Still, we have actually found half a point on which I agree with her. We need a legally mandated living wage based around the concept that a family of two adults and one or two children should be able to live in at least moderate comfort on the wages of one adult working thirty-five to forty hours per week.
Oppose the legalisation of dangerous drugs
More head-in-the-sand codswallop. It should be obvious by now that prohibition simply does not work. It merely feeds money into organised crime and, ironically, makes drugs which would have been unharmful or minimally dangerous, more dangerous, by taking away any possibility of legally enforced quality control.
Protect the NHS and increase funding by abolishing unnecessary and money-wasting bureaucrats and quangos
Well knock me down with a feather; we agreed on summat. It's possible that earthquakes, floods and feline–canine cohabitation may shortly occur due to this astounding event. You have been warned.
Withdraw from money-wasting and decadent Europe
Now, I was once of the opinion that locating the major EU institutions in four cities—which adds a rather large amount of travel expense and 'lost' working-time into the workings of the EU, was a bad idea and rather wasteful. Then one day I considered what the effect of concentrating all that power into one city would be. To get an idea, think of London and the Home Counties in Britain, and multiply by lots. Quite simply, I think the social-stratification consequences would be horrendous.
Still, though, that's arguably a money-waster. I'd love to see Ms White's defence of her definition of Europe as 'decadent,' though. I've never yet seen or heard the word being used to mean anything other than 'engaging in activities that the speaker finds personally distasteful, but cannot show to be actually bad.' Or, in other words, 'Ewww!'
Oppose the global warming fanatics and their pseudo-science
Says the woman who believes that the creator of the entire friggin' universe gives a tinker's damn about what genitalia a married couple are in ownership of.
Methinks she wouldn't know the difference between science and pseudo-science if she were whupped upside the head with a signed copy of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.
Imprison those found guilty of animal cruelty, including those involved in dog fights
Gadzooks! We agreed again, though I'd be a tad more nuanced in my view than her 'Imprison them all' strategy. There are degrees of cruelty and degrees of harm caused by that cruelty, and sentencing needs to reflect that. However:
The Animal Welfare Act, an overhaul of pet abuse laws, came into force in England and Wales in 2007.
The Act introduced tougher penalties for neglect and cruelty, including fines of up to £20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban on some owners keeping pets. Enforcers such as the RSPCA have more powers to intervene if they suspect a pet is being neglected.
It would seem that this is, well, kind of a moot point for me, here in England, what with it already being taken care of by the law as it presently stands. Hopefully this law, like the 1967 Abortion Act, can be extended soon to Northern Ireland.
Also, is dog-fighting a thing, still, in this day and age? I've made a note to check on that for a possible future post; but certainly I'd agree that dog-fighting, cock-fighting, and the like, should be subject to the maximum penalties allowed by law. Cruelty is bad enough, but there is, I think, something particularly despicable about cruelty done for purposes of mere entertainment. I can't, I will admit, explain why I feel that to be true, given that the harm done is the same whatever the purpose behind the infliction of it, but I do.
Install CCTV in all abattoirs
Ban halal slaughter
I've lumped these together as I'm assuming the latter is the main raison d'être for the former. And again, I mostly agree, though I'm struggling to divine her motivation. On the one paw, it follows a proclamation which points to her having a genuine interest in animal welfare, but on the other hoof, it precedes one which points to her having a rather bigoted attitude towards Muslims. I am, I'm sad to say, drawn toward the second of those, given a rather glaring omission from the point as stated in her manifesto.
My google-fu let me down on this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that halal slaughter does not necessarily, according to some Islamic traditions, have to be done without pre-stunning. Which is not, of course, to say that all or even most halal slaughter is performed without pre-stunning. The omission, though, lies in the fact that all kosher slaughter is done without pre-stunning. Anyone, such as myself, who objects to unneedfully cruel methods of slaughter because of genuine concern over the cruelties involved, not because of a religious or anti-religious agenda, should, therefore, include kosher along with halal. That she doesn't is, I think, somewhat telling.
So here's my rather brief thoughts on this. (They're brief because it's an extremely simple concept, not because of any laziness or lack of thought.)
I am not a vegetarian, but I do demand that any animals slaughtered for meat should be killed as quickly, as painlessly and with as little stress as is possible. I allow no exemptions, religious or otherwise, on this.
If I—as many vegetarians do—thought that the methods used are too cruel, I would forego eating meat slaughtered by those methods, and I would campaign to have those unneedfully cruel methods made illegal.
Slaughter without pre-stunning is unneedfully cruel. End. Of. Story. It should be illegal. And if the illegality of their preferred, unneedfully cruel, method of slaughter leads to people not being able to obtain their god-sanctioned meat-supply, then they can bloody well become vegetarians. Christian, Muslim, Jew or any other creed, I don't care. This isn't about any dislike I may have for their beliefs; it is about a dislike I have for unneedful cruelty.
Oppose the Islamisation of British culture – no more mosques and no more mosque extensions
I completely oppose the Islamification of British culture. It's an easy thing to oppose because it isn't happening. British culture is in far more danger from prats like Susan-Anne White, whose bigotry is considered less extreme because it's couched in the 'maybe a bit potty but relatively safe' terms of the 'traditional' British religion we're most of us comfortable with through life-long exposure, than it is from a relative handful of easy-to-spot radical Islamists, whose claims are stark and glaring because they're expressed in the wording of a tradition which is strange and new to most of us.
Also, note the implied conflation of 'Islamism' with 'Muslim.' The building of a mosque is no more a definitively Islamist activity than the building of a Christian church is a definitively Christian Dominionist activity. The former is done by Muslims who may or may not be Islamists, just as the latter is done by Christians who may or may not be Dominionists. This whole point is pretty much a dog whistle for anti-Muslim bigotry. Of course, the thing to be wary of with dog whistle phrases is that they can produce false positives, but, well, let's say I wouldn't bet a ha'penny on this particular positive being false, her other views being taken into account.
And ('Callooh Callay,' I hear you cry) finally…
Restore capital punishment for murder, including terrorist murders
Because state-sanctioned murder isn't murder? Because using the state to end human lives somehow fixes the harm done by those humans? Because deterrence works? (Which is why hardly anyone was murdered before capital punishment was banned, right?)
But if you dismiss all the above as me being a typical bleeding-heart, soft-on-criminals liberal; because wrongful convictions, both by genuine mistake and by deliberate frame-up, never happen? It's extremely bloody hard to reprieve a dead body. Almost, though not quite, as hard as it is to ram rational thought into the head of a complete and utter prat like Susan-Anne White.
You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †