The Queen's Hidden Anti-Discrimination Agenda

Discrimination is still going to happen whether the Queen signs this Charter or not, because she isn't signing it for the right reasons. Here's the agenda behind her royal signing...
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
2
Discrimination is still going to happen whether the Queen signs this Charter or not, because she isn't signing it for the right reasons. Here's the agenda behind her royal signing...

404

The Queen is due to sign a new Commonwealth Charter that will try and stamp out discrimination based on ‘gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.’ The Charter, helpfully dubbed 'the 21st Century Commonwealth Magna Carta' declares that ‘we are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination.’ Which is brilliant, right? It’s about time that someone took a stand against discrimination.

It’s not like there are hundreds of brilliant organisations already fighting for equality and against discrimination. Or millions of people who have suffered discrimination silently and got on with life. Or hundreds of millions of people who haven’t been born yet that will suffer increasing disparity in equal rights. These things are still going to happen whether the Queen signs this Charter or not, because she isn’t signing it for the right reasons.

2012 was definitely one of the best years for the monarchy; the culmination of the Diamond Jubilee, the Olympics and the announcement of Kate Windsor nee Middleton’s pregnancy meant that many people didn’t think that they were an inbred family that takes more than they put back in (like the families David Cameron and the Conservatives want you to hate) and instead became a family of the people; you could relate to them more because Kate Middleton was ‘one of us’ and, literally found her Prince, like many women want to. Even though she was as ‘one of us’ as Marvin The Martian is.

More...

How The Royal Family Is Destroying Britain

The Queen's Dangerous Secret Power of Veto

But if the Queen is as staunchly for gay rights as we’re being made to believe, then where was she in 1971 when Cliff Richard (ironic, right?) and Mary Whitehouse organised the Nationwide Festival Of Light that openly fought against ‘permissive’ trends in the mass media of homosexual themes. Or when AIDS hysteria took the country in the 1980s; could she not have spoke out in support of those suffering, as well as the nurses and doctors treating them? And where was she in 1988 when Section 28 was successfully passed in her government? She certainly wasn’t fighting against the action like all other right thinking people were was she? Can anyone remember seeing the Queen on picket lines? Or seeing the Queen talking to children who didn’t know what was going on in their own bodies because they thought that homosexuality was an illness? Or when the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Daily Telegraph supported Section 28. Or when David Cameron voted against it’s repeal?

She was stoically silent. And she was stoically silent because Daily Mail, The Sun and Daily Telegraph were working to her own interests; keeping the Monarchy alive and well and removing any threats.

Eventually staunch Monarchists will die out and all that will be left are people who don’t remember Princess Diana, and have a desire for change. And who will support the dying institution then? People who have to work until their 70 plus because the country has essentially been double penetrated by the Coalition, while Queen Kate and King Will sun themselves with whatever privileged offspring clawed itself from her womb? Or will it be the people who can’t afford to feed their children because the cost of living has risen like a phoenix while businesses don’t follow suit and try and get away with making people work for free? Or, the disabled people who live in solitude and confinement because they don’t have enough money to pay for support, and that’s if there’s enough nurses and support officers to even meet demand?

So it makes sense to tailor and court the attention of a new generation of adults. If you were running a business you wouldn’t try and plug products that no one will ever need, you would find what people wanted and try and give them that to keep yourself relevant and profitable. And the royalty are doing that by capitalising on the success of the Olympics and Diamond Jubilee. if the royalty is thought of as a business, then 2012 was their Christmas period. Everything they needed to achieve had to be successful in 2012 because people had already had enough; even the Mail was calling for a radical change in the run up to the Olympics and were expecting the whole thing to fall faster than your hopes that you’ll find someone who actually wants to spend the rest of their lives with you.

404

In the next few months, as plans start to get put into place for the Queen’s successor, Kate and Will’s are going to get pushed to the forefront of everything that the royals do. They’ll become the posterchildren for a new Royal Family; a better Royal Family, a more caring Royal Family. A Royal Family who are just like you.

Which is another reason why this Charter is a smokescreen of self interest and subterfuge. People have been crying out for gender reform in the Royal Family since Henry VIII royally screwed almost every female member of European royalty, and for it to fall in line with other countries’ reforms that make it fair and just (or as fair and just as it can be to be born into mindless fortune and unequalled power). But what if this Charter, which would also mean that if Kate is going to have a daughter then she would have equal right to the throne, is just another way to keep the Royal Couple relevant? If they had a daughter, and there was no way that she were to make it to the throne, people would lose interest eventually, and that’s not a possibility. They’ve literally got no one else to rely on, unless you count Prince Harry’s sexy buns as a viable ruler.

If the Queen was that bothered about creating change and a more positive and cohesive opinion of homosexuals, then she should make sure that the word ‘homosexual’ is used explicitly and obviously and not hidden under the cloud of ‘other grounds.’ ‘Other grounds’ could be anything: married to a horse, secret Val Doonican lover, as sexless as Ann Widdicombe. It should be spelled out as explicitly as possible and not just lumped together with everyone else. Gay rights are different to the rights of lesbians, which are in turn different to the rights of transgendered people. They’ve been that specific about including gender, so why sexuality?

Because the whole Charter only works in one respect; keeping Kate Middleton as the blue eyed bint.