Thursday, 22 March 2012

However You Look at the Kaleidoscope, the View is Treason

In other words:

"Thank you for coming to give an address to Parliament, your Royal Highness. As you know, Parliament is going to redefine marriage no matter what you may think of it because we've got the power, not you. You are a Christian Queen, but this is no longer a Christian country. We've moved on, so up yours, Ma'am."

Fr Tim Finigan reports on the 'sublime to the ridiculous' nature of John Bercow's astonishing speech to the Queen. I post it here, just in case you missed it. Quite bizarre. If only newspapers reported stuff like this...

'John Bercow is the Honorary President of the Kaleidoscope Trust “Working globally to promote a sentiment for diversity equal rights for all.” He launched the Trust on 13 September last year at a Reception at the House of Commons. Kaleidoscope has been selected as the Official Charity Partner of World Pride 2012. In his endorsement of the Trust, David Cameron referred to its principal focus:
Our country has made real progress on LGBT equality and, without forgetting how far we've still got to go domestically, it is right that we should now increasingly turn our attention towards bringing about change abroad.
In addition to the endorsement from the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, the Trust has also published endorsements from Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat party leader; Ed Milliband, Labour leader; Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland; Carwyn Jones, First Minister of Wales; Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party; and Baroness Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security.

The Kaleidoscope Trust has made no secret of the plug given to it by the Speaker on the occasion of the Queen’s Address to Parliament on Tuesday.

So the Kaleidescope reference which David Cameron joshingly took up at PMQs the other day, as though it were merely a rhetorical gaffe, would have been known by all of the political leaders as a reference to the organisation that they have endorsed. Leaving aside any evaluation of the philosophy of the Kaleidoscope Trust, it does seem audacious to plug one particular organisation in an address to the Queen on a historic visit to Parliament on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of her accession. A correspondent has suggested to me  that the French have a good expression for an in-joke (which Her Majesty probably didn't understand) made in a formal address to the Sovereign: lèse-majesté.

Just on what is possibly an entirely unrelated matter: while googling around, I found an interesting post on Guido Fawkes about members room bookings. (Guido's interest is in the corruption invoved. He says "Some MPs have been trousering thousands from lobbyists and commercial interests to act as a room booking service.") My eye was caught by this entry:
Bercow hosts Masonic reception for 145. Gray’s Inn Lodge Ladies Night (Jun ’06)
I'm just saying...'


Jonathan said...

I didn't like his speech but I don't think we can blame Bercow for this gay marriage business. It is the government who are proposing this idea. We know the Speaker is in favour but that is immaterial; he won't even vote on the eventual legislation.

Anonymous said...

Princes are referred as His Royal Highness but addressed as "Your Highness".
The Queen is referred to a Her Majesty (the Queen) and addressed as "Your Majesty."

Annie Elizabeth said...

Or "Hi your Majesty, I'm the President of a gay advocacy group called the Kaleidoscope Trust. I'm going to have a little off-colour in-joke with my chums at the Kaleidoscope Trust by calling you the 'Kaleidoscope Queen' in my speech. Queen, geddit?"
You couldn't make it up.

Surely he can't be allowed to get away with this?

Anonymous said...

The long march through the institutions continues.

I read a book about a year ago called Liberal Fascism. In it the author gave several definitions of fascism. My favourite one was, 'everything inside the state, nothing outside the state'. I think the same thing can now be said fairly and squarely about liberalism, 'everything inside liberalism, nothing outside liberalism'. In short order they've taken over everything:

- Politics (it doesn't matter who you vote for, you get liberal)
- Education
- Employment
- The Church
- The police
- The judiciary
- Religion
- The press and media
- The BBC
- Music

I could continue. And now of course the latest thing is the monarchy. Is this some kind of warped attempt at a 'liberal coronation'. I wouldn't put it past them. It has huge symbolic value does it not?. Certainly you don't do something like that without thinking about it in advance.

I think our Bishops had better start planning for the worst. We need a sort of Marshall Zhukov style war plan just in case everything starts going pear shaped and going pear shaped a lot quicker than we think.


Amfortas said...

It may be rude and it may be banal. But treason? Hyperbole, surely?

The Bones said...

Forcing a Queen to act against her conscience?

I'd say that's treason.

Amfortas said...

We have a constituional monarchy. The Queen enacts what the elected Government puts before her.

The Bones said...

The Queen still has a choice. It is an act of treason against the monarch to force her to go against Her Majesty's Christian conscience.

Amfortas said...

You simply do not understand our constitutional settlement. The Queen does not act as an individual but as an office.

The Only Safe Space in the World

Virus normalcy, the so-called 'new normal', is for Christians almost certainly more abhorrent than it is for people of other reli...