Her Maj is a defacto Homophobe

Peter Tatchell wades into HRH to day. I have to say, that I am not a natural monarchist. I tend to view our constitutional monarchy as a least worst option. So, not really a fan, although I do have a lot of time for the Queen as an individual.

Tatchell wants more from her, though.

On one issue, however, she remains curiously out of step with public opinion. Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the Queen has never done so

Really? Do we? Or do most of us simply accept that tolerance is a good thing and leave it at that? I am tolerant of people’s sexuality, race, lifestyle choices et al. I tend on the whole to just let it be. I certainly don’t “embrace” them and don’t plan to start. Why should the Queen be any different? We no longer persecute or prosecute homosexuals –  and a jolly good thing that is, too. I fail, however, to see why we should all be forced to embrace or celebrate homosexuality and I will be damned if I am going to start.

Her Maj has said nothing –  what one might call a dignified silence –  and that seems just fine to me.

While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to gay-friendly. Not once in her 60-year reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community – or gay members of her own royal family.

To which the obvious retorts are: why should she and are there any? If there are, do we want or even need to know (or care)? And why should she publicly discuss a matter that is private –  even allowing for her public role? Again, I am not interested and I suspect that most of the population feel similarly. Homosexuals are not special and it is about time they realised this

Judging from her silence, it seems that we are the unspeakable ones – the people she cannot bare to acknowledge or mention in public. Why the double standards?

There’s more of this crap. Basically, Tatchell is making an assumption from her silence. This is a particularly insidious thing to do. If someone says nothing, then you can assume nothing from it –  either positive or negative because you have no evidence upon which to base a decision. That hasn’t stopped Tatchell from doing so, though, in a rather nasty demolition piece. The Queen has said nothing regarding gay Britons because, frankly, there is nothing to be said. Unless, of course you are a professional offence seeker…

Now is the time for all those other special interest minority groups to step up and take offence because her Maj hasn’t specifically mentioned them.

Cross posted from Longrider.

22 comments for “Her Maj is a defacto Homophobe

  1. Tatty
    June 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    I cannot bear people who pontificate such utter crap, all the while pretending to oh-so-enlightened and intelligent, yet cannot use the correct spelling of “bear”.

    Tatchell et al seem to think if they can just call people nasty names for long and hard enough they can get them to do anything they want.

    Playground bullying, plain and simple. Fuck ’em.

    • bunny
      June 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm

      Not literally one hopes?

  2. nisakiman
    June 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    “We no longer persecute or prosecute homosexuals – and a jolly good thing that is, too. I fail, however, to see why we should all be forced to embrace or celebrate homosexuality and I will be damned if I am going to start.”

    Amen to that. My sentiments exactly.

    Tatchell is an unmitigated twat who is under the misapprehension that being gay entitles one to favoured status.

    “Gay pride” for heaven’s sake. Psshaw!

  3. Sniper
    June 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    Knighted a few though. So clearly welcomes them into Her Orders of Chivalry. If only others could be so chivalrous.

  4. [ J_D_R ]
    June 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Tatchell is, always has been, and will undoubtably remain in the future, a 110% useless cunt – and a nasty, spiteful, arrogant cunt at that …

    HIT-MAN ! …

    Nah, waste of a bullet – one more Lampost and length of Piano Wire ? …

  5. June 1, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    The monstrous regiment of Elton Johns.

  6. Humph
    June 1, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    My definition of Buridan’s Ass. Me with a bazooka, Peter Twatchell 10 feet to my left & Diane Abbott 10 feet to my right.

  7. Tarka the Rotter
    June 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm


    Peter Tatchell, the well-known gay rights activist, has never once spoken about train spotters or acknowledged their existance. This of course speaks volumes. Train spotters are a much ridiculed minority and deserve to enjoy the same respect that gay people do. It begs the question why has he never embraced train spotters in public? Why hasn’t he acknowledged that some of his own family members are secret train spotters? We really should be told…

  8. June 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Yet the man had the courage to criticise Mugabe to his face in London, and get a potentially lethal beating from the henchmen.

    • June 2, 2012 at 1:18 am

      Glad you mentioned that and didn’t he get arrested for his troubles?

      Tatchell might be a “110% useless cunt” @[ J_D_R ] but he was on Radio 2 the other week discussing freedom of speech, his main argument being that Christians should be able to voice their opinions about huomosexality even if it offended gaylords like himself.

      • Lord T
        June 3, 2012 at 6:02 pm

        OK, only 98% useless then.

  9. Single Acts of Tyranny
    June 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    “I am not a natural monarchist. I tend to view our constitutional monarchy as a least worst option”

    Only if you view it as a bilateral choice which is how it is always presented. It’s not of course.

    If you prefer Liz over Tony, all you are really saying is designate my head of state, rather than giving me the choice of a few more or less identikit scumbags. Is Liz better than this? Maybe, against what do we judge? What is HM’s job description?

    I prefer no ruler and no cost to me thanks, so option three. None of the above, voluntaryism rather than Republicanism or Monarchy.

    • June 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm

      Actually, none of the above is my preferred option.

  10. graham wood
    June 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Presumably in his weekly cosy chat with HMQ the Camoroon, will have mentioned in glowing terms his determination to stamp out the infernal inequality that HMQ may not have noticed, that is, the terrible plight of her loyal ‘gay’ subjects, and that he intends to ride to their rescue with a ‘gay marriage’ idea of his.
    Far from HMQ being unable to contain her excitement, I hope she tells him with Unqueenly bluntness that “we are not amused”, and sends him out with a flea in his ear.
    One thing is for sure – she will never say “Arise Sir Peter Tatchell” 👿

  11. Voice of Reason
    June 1, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    As I recall, the palace was a safe haven for many homosexuals under the Queen Mum.

  12. June 2, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Campaign for the members of her Household to accuratley reflect the proportion of gays in the wider community. That will see about half of them sacked to make way for Normos.

  13. Jack Savage
    June 2, 2012 at 7:50 am

    I fear he is a case of a campaigner, who, having achieved all that one might reasonably require, now goes on to unreasonable requirements because campaigning is what he does.

    (See dozens and dozens of charities and action groups ad nauseam)

    Having said that, there is something to admire about the man. But not here.

    • June 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm

      I admire his stance on civil liberties, but yes, this particular campaign should now be put out to pasture.

  14. June 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    What seems to have happened is that as soon as minority groups have achieved legal equal rights (no problem), they have immediately then made further and further demands related to their minority status. This is another case of this, from a master in the field.

    Yes – he has done good works, Tatchell – but this, frankly, is small-minded, and more to the point, stupid. STFU is the only response to this.

  15. Andrew Duffin
    June 3, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    HM is discreet to the point of silence about all sorts of things.

    This is as it should be; discretion is one of her strengths.

    Thank goodness she does NOT pontificate in favour of (or against) any fashionable views at all.

    STFU Tatchell is about right.

Comments are closed.