On 20 January 2010, The Huffington Post quoted the gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, thus:
“IN BRITAIN… WE CAN ONLY DREAM OF A BLACK HEAD OF STATE… The UK system is rigged against A BLACK LEADER… The Windsors are WHITE and only their descendants are eligible to be monarch and British head of state. The result is a de facto RACE BAR.
When the Queen dies, her role as head of state will pass to her first-born son, Charles. When he is dead, the title will pass to his first-born son, William and so on. FROM WHITE PERSON TO WHITE PERSON TO WHITE PERSON. Under this system, BLACK PEOPLE ARE EXCLUDED. THE ALL-WHITE WINDSOR FAMILY has the exclusive franchise on the office of head of state.
THIS WHITE-FAVOURING FEUDAL SYSTEM is totally out of step with the democratic, egalitarian and meritocratic ethos of modern British life.
A head of state is supposed to represent the nation and its people, and to symbolise its values and culture. In a DIVERSE MULTI-ETHNIC SOCIETY SUCH AS BRITAIN, surely it is wrong to automatically, a priori, deny this honoured, revered role to non-WHITE citizens?…
There is no escaping the fact that the head of state position is open to only THE WHITE WINDSORS. NON-WHITE PEOPLE ARE SHUT OUT for decades to come, and possibly much longer. They cannot hold the title of British head of state.
THIS MAKES THE CURRENT METHOD OF APPOINTING THE HEAD OF STATE RACIST BY DEFAULT… It reflects an INSTITUTIONAL RACISM… THE HEREDITARY METHOD OF CHOOSING THE BRITISH HEAD OF STATE FROM THE ALL-WHITE WINDSOR FAMILY IS RACIALLY EXCLUSIVE AND IS RACIST IN ITS CONSEQUENCE.
Equally appalling, THIS EXCLUSION OF NON-WHITE BRITONS EXCITES NO PUBLIC OUTRAGE... ONLY THE GREEN PARTY IS CALLING FOR A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED HEAD OF STATE…
The monarchical system may command majority support, at least for now. But THIS MANNER OF DETERMINING BRITAIN'S HEAD OF STATE IS SURELY AN OFFENSIVE, BIGOTED ANACHRONISM. It is premised on the assumption that the most ignorant, stupid, immoral WHITE Windsor is more entitled to be head of state than THE BEST-INFORMED, WISEST AND MOST MORAL BLACK BRITON. THIS IS A TRULY REPULSIVE RACIST ASSUMPTION…
Catholics and people of non-Christian faiths are also barred from being monarchs and heads of state…
It is true, of course, that BRITAIN COULD ONE DAY HAVE A BLACK HEAD OF STATE. If a future monarch married a non-WHITE person, their first born child could ascend to the throne and become head of state… WHY SHOULD BLACK AND ASIAN BRITONS HAVE TO WAIT IN LINE FOR GENERATIONS? IT IS A VILE INSULT TO MAKE THEM STAND AT THE BACK OF THE QUEUE FOR THE OFFICE OF HEAD OF STATE…
IF WILLIAM MARRIED A BLACK BRITISH WOMAN HIS FIRST-BORN MALE CHILD FROM THAT MARRIAGE COULD INHERIT THE HEAD OF STATE TITLE…
President Mary MacAleese of Ireland, like her predecessor Mary Robinson, offers a positive example of a democratic head of state… If Ireland can have a successful democratic presidency, why can't Britain? To paraphrase Martin Luther King, may the day soon come when the British head of state is chosen by the people, based on the quality of their character and not on their WHITE royal parentage.”
The top, gay Australian doesn’t appear to like white folks much, does he?
In 1983, Tatchell was chosen by an aggressively PC Labour Party to stand as their candidate in the by-election for the safe Labour seat of Southwark. However, the constituents of Southwark didn’t like the strident, heterophobic foreigner instructing them how to be, think and do and they voted for someone else.
23 years later, the President of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes, who won the Southwark seat from Tatchell in 1983, was outed himself. In 1983, however, the Liberal spin doctors had re-designed sweet, little Simon Softie as one of us, a rough, tough working man's champion and the working men of Southwark voted for him rather than Tatchell.
At the time, an outraged Tatchell blamed his defeat on a bunch of unreconstructed dinosaurs who weren't prepared to kiss his bot. The Southwark voter, however, had not rejected Tatchell because there was a leather-jacketed bovver boy who was a bit like them on offer. He didn't get sent to Westminster because he was a nasty, priggish, jumped-up little self-server and it showed.
Fourteen years later, the inclusive New Labour government of Tony Blair couldn't see too much wrong with jumped-up self-servers and Tatchell was recruited as a legal advisor. He was, at this time, campaigning with OutRage! for a lowering of the age of consent. The campaign paid off in New Labour’s first term, when the government saw to it that the legal age of "consent" regarding homosexual sex was lowered to sixteen.
On 27 June 1998, whilst Tatchell the Tony Crony was a trusted New Labour counsellor, he was quoted thus in The Guardian:
"SEVERAL OF MY FRIENDS... HAD SEX WITH ADULTS FROM THE AGES OF 9 TO 13... IT IS TIME SOCIETY ACKNOWLEDGED THE TRUTH THAT NOT ALL SEX INVOLVING CHILDREN IS UNWANTED, ABUSIVE AND HARMFUL."
Before this, he had already boasted that:
"OutRage! (launched) a new campaign TO REDUCE THE AGE OF CONSENT TO 14... arguing that l4 is more realistic than 16 and much fairer."
In September 1998, Tatchell also stated his desire to have a central London Square be designated as a law-free zone for homosexual activity. He said that the public did not have watch and could use other squares if such activity offended them.
In June 2005, Tatchell, who "has been arrested hundreds of times" was honoured by the Gay Police Association.
Its Chairman, Paul Cahill, MBE, said:
"His principles are very are very similar to our own."
As a point of interest, are there any native Britons out there, of a non-homosexual persuasion, who are "dream(ing) of a black head of state"?
Ah yes, New Labour,* the Tories** and the PC Crowd. Anyone else?
* In July 2000, Tony Blair said this at a meeting of non-indigenous business leaders:
"One day, yes, one day, THERE WILL BE A BLACK PRIME MINISTER!"
** On 2 June 2008, the former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Jeffrey Archer, was interviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta.
At one point in the interview, Gupta asked Archer if he saw any change in Britain. He replied:
"Massive. It IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OVER BY THE INDIANS. And I don't joke...
WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WHAT THE JEWS DID 30-40 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY CAME TO ENGLAND AFTER THE WAR. THEY TOOK OVER THE LOCAL COUNCILS AND THEY BECAME MAYORS. NOW THEY ARE IN PARLIAMENT. THE INDIANS ARE NOW TAKING OVER THE LOCAL COUNCILS. THERE ARE MAYORS ALL OVER ENGLAND WHO ARE INDIAN.
You are young enough, I suspect, TO LIVE TO SEE AN INDIAN PRIME MINISTER IN ENGLAND."