Total Visits

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Vienna’s “Gay” traffic lights

Vienna’s “Gay” traffic lights

I am not often asked to comment on matters arising from the activities of the militant Gay Rights lobby. However I was recently asked, at quite short notice, to comment on this item.

My basic attitude to the whole gay, homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual lobby and agenda is that, people should be generally free and unmolested to live their private lives as seems appropriate to them if they are doing no harm to others.

However in my view it is also the case that, no-one else should be forced by law or pressurised to condone their actions or lifestyle if they disapprove of those for whatever reason, especially because of religious scruples.

Furthermore public money (i.e. taken from taxpayers by coercion) should not be used in the interests of this or any other special interest groups. Public money is in my view basically held in trust to be spent on matters that are in the national and public interest.

In short I support the mantra “Equal Rights but not Special Rights”.

Here is the clip of my interview from RTTV >>>

Robin Tilbrook Discusses Gay-themed Traffic Lights in Vienna on RT International

What do you think?


  1. "Political correctness gone mad", to coin a phrase. Public display of homosexual affection turns my stomach. What turns my stomach more is how the churches are prepared to ignore the explicit word of God on the matter. We are all sinners, but homosexuals should not be appointed to the clergy, from which posts they are explicitly barred by the Bible.

    1. The Churches SHOULDN'T get to define the rights of citizens. They should ONLY have the right to define who gets married ON THEIR PREMISES which the government has protected. The GOVERNMENT, on the other hand, has to treat ALL of its citizens including those who are LGBT equally with its straight citizens. I don't wish to live in a country whereby people have to live according to how the Church would want people to live. To wish for that is to say that Britain is no better than those mad Islamic countries in the Middle-East where Immans get to decide how their people live.

      There should be a clear dividing line between the SECULAR British state and the churches in our society.

  2. I ams sick and tired of Special Interest Groups. They deny everyone elses rights. What's mine is mine and what's your's is mine.


    1. I hope you are not putting in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people in your definition of special interest groups there. They as citizens of this country are entilted to be treated the SAME ie NOT given EXTRA rights but the rights that straight people take for granted.

    2. And the opposite of straight is bent.

    3. I refer to gay people using the proper scientific name for them which is homosexual. I do this because not only is it the correct term but terms like bent, queer can mean the person who uses them is being disparaging towards those who are homosexual (this isn't neccessarily the case but unfortunately sometimes is)

  3. Surely all this gay cwap is against the the principles of the UN's Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples dated September 2007.

    We need to lobby Parliament for a new Indigenous People's Act to replace all existing human rights and equality legislation.


    1. the English are also an indigenous people, but we have no rights as a people in the UK.

    2. How the hell is all this "gay crap" going against the UN's declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples? English people are not 100% staright. There are gay, lesbian and bisexual Engllishmen and women and some of them are patriotic too! This is the reason why the English/British 'Right-wing' never get anywhere ie because you lot concentrate on silly issues like being against the rights of gay people rather than far more important ones like immigration and the economy.

  4. "Political correctness, gone mad". In truth, "Political Correctness" IS madness.
    I listen to BBC Radio 5, in my car. I caught part of an interview with an American comedian/TV presenter who was clearly anti "politically correct". He said that "political correctness elevates sensitivity above truth". I rather like that.
    He went on to say that a presentation of "The Vagina Monologues", somewhere in America, (I haven't heard them and have no especial wish to but I understand that they are quite humorous,) was cancelled on the grounds that there might be some trans-gender persons in the audience who don't have vaginas, yet.
    That's how bad its getting.
    They want us to be so afraid of "offending" someone or some group that we don't say anything at all.
    Despite its self-righteous smokescreen, the purpose of "Political Correctness" is to stifle debate. It has to be defeated.

  5. The request(at quite short notice)to have you comment on the very topical subject matter of Vienna's "Gay" Traffic Lights, could be a classic State(anti English) Info/Ops exercise designed to have your profoundly important HEADLINE article on Police Commissioner Elections shoved into second place?

    Marxists getting the English to get their priorities right?

    1. It could be seen as a distraction from the real business of getting EDs elected.
      Theresa May's intention to introduce censorship of "extremist" views could be used against English nationalists. Something to watch.
      The UK is beginning to feel like a one party state with Cameron's (and Farage's) globalist agenda seeking to gag any dissenting voice such as English nationalism. Cameron and Farage are pursuing globalism. The only dispute between them is how to get it, through the EU with Cameron or outside the EU with Farage.

    2. Interesting as all this might be, the real question for the English Democrats is how to make the lives of ordinary English people better. Since the introduction of the Thatcherite globalist experiment with exporting jobs, working people in the UK are £90billion worse off. On average workers are £!,600 a year worse off than they were in 1979, with the disabled being hit hardest.
      Little Denmark does things better than we do here. There has to be a lesson in that for England (and certainly for Scotland).
      Folk are not going to be persuaded to vote for the English Democrats by airy fairy "Merry England", "St George", "Queen and country", "hanging drawing and quartering", or even social conservatism and all the other things that the establishment obsesses about. As Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stoopid". It's the basics.

    3. Maybe, but symbols do matter. (Personally, I'd rather have our own English saint, Edmund, than the Normans' St George).
      The most important symbol of a nation is its language. It must be distinctive, which is why I am in favour of New-English as described by David Cowley. Shakespeare was our greatest writer, but he did choose to write in, and shape, the State language which has become the world's lingua franca, and which, as a consequence, is less English and less ours..

    4. Yes, that is what the English Democrats should concentrate upon. Politics turns upon the 'bread and buttter' issues of the economy, jobs, welfare rather than obesssing over the scientific fact that some people (about 6-7% of the population) are going to grow-up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.

      If the English Democrats wish to improve their current woeful electoral performance then I would suggest you point-out the flaws of UKIP's globalist Thatcherite economic lunacy. Your party has a much better and more moderate stance on the economy.

  6. Do you support, Robin, gay CIVIL (ie in state registry offices and NOT churches) marriage? That is an example of an EQUAL right and not a 'special' one.

    1. The church defines marriage specifically as the union of a man and a woman for the production of children.
      All other sexual unions should be CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS, which could be blessed by the church, not marriages.
      The churches should not be in the business of registering such couplings on behalf of the state.
      Marriage (i.e., between a male and a female for the begetting and the raising of children in the faith) should be exclusively a religious rite, and nothing to do with the state.
      Separating state and church in this would be the way to get equality.

    2. No, I don't think you understand what I am saying. You think marriage is purely to do with religon. This isn't true and hasn't been true in this country since the 1800's when the state first started to allow people to be married in registry offices. Therefore, since that time, marriage has been BOTH a religious right (IN CHURCHES) and also a CIVIL one. My own sister got married in a registry office like so many people do these days. Is she less married than my mum and dad who got married in a church? The law says they all three people are EQUALLY married.

      The government REMOVED the formal ban on two men or two women getting married BY THE STATE in registry offices whilst PROTECTING the right of the churches and other religions to not allow this ON THEIR PREMISES.

      That is right. I agree with the right of churches to refuse to marry gay couples BUT I DON'T agree that gay couples can't get married at all in this country (in in registry offices).

      Also, the new law ENABLES religious freedom too by allowing THOSE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS that WANT TO ie the Quakers, liberal Jews, unitarians ect to marry gay couples whereas before there was an explicit state ban on them.

  7. A survey conducted on behalf of 'British Future' by Survation has revealed that the Tories closed the gap between them and Labour among ethnic minorities. One million minority ethnic votes helped to put David Cameron into Downing Street. 33% of non-whites now vote Tory. This follows Labour taking a tougher line on immigration in response to the rise of Ukip in Labour's traditional northern heartland. The Tories' lax immigration policy also sent a message to the Black and Asian communities. With Black and Asian spreading across the country from the major cities, the Conservatives are well placed to make further gains in 2020 and beyond.
    Ukip polled particularly poorly among BMEs at 2% which is at odds with Ukip's preference for African and South Asian immigration over immigration from the EU.

    1. Ukip's poor polling (2%) among BMEs reflects the perception of Ukip (despite its preference for BME immigration over EU immigration) as an anti-immigrant nationalist party.
      During the election that distortion of Ukip as anti-immigrant and nationalist was propagated by the Tory establishment through its ownership of the press and control of the broadcasting media.

  8. Steve Uncles - English Democrats SE wrote:

    "The name of our country on British passports is “The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland” This refers to the union of England,Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
    (Though most of Ireland is now independent)
    Most people however say “Britain” or “Great Britain”, usually “Britain” refers to the mainland and Great Britain includes Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and have different institutions of governance."

    But some “British” can get confused with these different names and usages. [including Steve Uncles]
    If he is going to pontificate, he should at least get it right.
    What is on the passport is "The United Kingdom of GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland" and Great Britain is the name of this island, alone. 'Britain' refers to 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Great Britain is often shortened to Britain. Got it?
    In earlier usage 'Britain' could also refer to the British Empire.

    Also, the whole of Ireland (short for 'The Republic of Ireland) is independent and has been since 1949. The island of Ireland is divided between two political entities - 'The Republic of Ireland (Ireland)' and 'Northern Ireland'.

  9. With the vote in Ireland the pressure will be on other RC countries and Russia etc . I am perhaps not alone in thinking that criminalisation of homosexuality was wrong but that any action should have stopped at civil partnerships and that most would have preferred a quiet lifestyle out of the public glare to the in your face situation we are now faced with.I still think that churches should have the right to marry or not to marry.

    But this brings me to Rod Liddle's excellent book again, Selfish Whining Monkeys which I urge you all to read to explain the demolition of civilised England since 1960. Liddle has something to say about the Faux Left, the "liberals" who terrorise anybody who criticises mass immigration or are not happy with gay marriage etc. Interestingly, of those who cites, the majority seem to have their origins in the Sub-continent, a case of the minority terrorising the majority again. He says the same people, like Rita Chakrabati, seem to crop up on Quango after Quango.

    Then he tells us about Yasmin Alibi-Brown and her newspaper article a few years ago castigating the "white working classes" for amongst other things their opposition to mass immigration. This shows that the English are now the aborigines faced with colonisation and Yasmin is showing all the arrogance of the coloniser; no thought at all for how we feel or that it was our country as the Sub-continent was hers, not to be treated in the same fashion of course. Like Rod I do not blame the immigrants for pouring in given the chance. I blame the political establishment of all hues. But such colonialist triumphalist arrogance has me seething. The FM of Libya has said that NATO's action there is to lead to Europe becoming like Africa, North and Sub-Saharan. If he were to visit England, France or Sweden he would know that the Afro-Asian future is already on its way.

    Liddle is bent on explaining what has been done to the English since the time of his parents, conservative Methodist working class Labour voters.
    I feel you should contact him, Robin, as he seems so in tune with the English. The Labour Party now owes more to Marx then to Methodism since the Marxist students of the 60s and 70s took it over and their aim was to destroy national European identities through mass immigration.
    So, despite the mixture of left and right wing thought which governs him and the working classes and many other English, he may suddenly become a lefty and reject you.

    I refer to the final pages of Chapter 13 when Liddle launches a tirade against mass immigration. He says that in 1959 more than 50% said they were very happy, now one third and he puts much of this down to mass immigration, citing London and Birmingham as the least happy.
    He says that in the countryside people can for the moment still believe it is 1952 but that will not last. Liddle is from Middlesborough and the EDs should now read his book and go out to all those working class towns and cities as that is where their voter base lies. Liddle excoriates Planet London and the elites who for 50 + years have foisted the foreign masses on the working classes whilst running away from the consequences. Viz Roy Hattersley who having seen his Birmingham consitituency turn from white to brown has white flighted it off to the Peak District. The book has left me seething and depressed and there must be many more who share mine and Liddle's anger at what has been done to us by the Marxist left and the wealthy and privileged for reasons of flawed ideology and personal gain. He says that in 1960 we were an insular, introspective, unicultural nation whose cohesion has now been destroyed. We were 20 miles of sea from the nearest foreign country and air fares were expensive. Now the elites have dug a big hole, tipped us in and are backfilling with people from all over the world knowing that they will eventually bury us and our wonderful country for ever.

  10. I am not quite sure where you get your information from with regards to the gay marriage issue. If you take it from UKIP then you have been lied to. In Britain (and no doubt this is the case in the Republic of Ireland as well) the government has made it VERY CLEAR that NO church or any other religious denomination WILL BE COMPELLED to offer gay marriages in churches for gay couples. The government has just enabled gay couples to have a CIVIL wedding in a REGISTRY OFFICE. If Churches or other religions WANT to marry gay couples (as the Quakers, Liberal Jews ect have long been asking for) then they WILL be allowed BUT ONLY IF THEY WANT TO.

  11. Political correctness has determined that only "Homosexuality is fine" is an acceptable point of view. I believe homosexuality to be a chosen behaviour. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or evolution. We were created or evolved male and female, either "for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God" or simply for the increase of mankind.
    Homosexual behaviour cannot achieve that goal and cannot be (in my view) what God or Mother Nature intended.
    I do not think ill of homosexuals - they are entitled to behave in whatever way they choose; but it is still their choice.
    I believe that marriage has an unassailable definition as "The union of a Man and a Woman." So I believe that despite legislation that suggests otherwise, anyone entering into a "Gay Marriage" will go on to live a lie.
    Parliament may legislate that two plus two makes five and make claiming two plus two to be four, a "Hate-Crime". That would not stop two plus two making four.

  12. Whilst no homosexual or bisexual has to act on their sexual desires this, of course, also APPLIES JUST AS MUCH TO HETEREOSEXUALS. What I am saying is that someone who is homosexual or bisexual HAS NOT FREELY 'CHOSEN' their SEXUAL ORIENTATION just like straight people don't. Basically, they are BORN THAT WAY.

    God DID INTEND gay or bisexual people to be BORN. They ARE god's creatures just as much as straight people are.

    No, they have entered into a GAY CIVIL MARRIAGE. No, one is suggesting that it isn't different to a straight marriage but it IS a marriage still and shows the SAME LEVELS of LOVE AND COMMITMENT to each other

    It is a REAL SHAME that people who are allegedly 'chrisitians' show such utter hatred towards people just because they are BORN gay or bisexual.

  13. I don't understand frankly how some people can be so against gay marriage. It isn't as if vast numbers of straight people are going to stop being straight, turn gay and not breed and bring about the end of the world. People who think like this are either severely prejudiced or brain dead.

    These people also need to be told that thanks to modern technology gay people CAN have children and that this is one of the main reasons why gay marriage was legalized as it is better for these children to be brought-up within the confines of a marriage sanctioned by the state.

  14. Barry- you're arguments are reasonable, if misdirected [see my closing remark].
    What you fail to realise is that, in today's society, the need to own the space that previously reassured citizens that 'All was right with the world' as they fought working on the land, fighting endless wars and suffering illness as rote, has got too cheeky.
    Thus, marriage, breeding new sons to fight on and daughters to make a strong society is a habit long held. When this status is challenged then MUCH more than than a law is at stake- it's a hidden landmark that is sensed as 'breached'.
    I don't like homosexuality - but it's a fact of life. I don't need it shoved down my throat , however gently, by a biased design type in a council road planning office getting off on it as well.
    Robin has stated the legal position very well, you are making a case for all sorts of other attitudes to be made 'non PC' on the back of it.

  15. I've seen recent research that goes against this 'Children do well in gay families' spin. Us straights can recognise a dodgy argument without having to provide references. Mother nature knows best and I respect that.
    Children deserve natural chances- but can't choose retrospectively.
    Same argument denies the right of the unborn as to having any rights.
    Others grab far too many, in my opinion.

  16. Barry- Do 'these people' really need to be told [No] - or do you Really need to TELL them endlessly -using taxpayers money if possible? I've seen enough commandeering of funds by special interest group from Feminists to HR Campaigners to last a lifetime be they couched Abuse,Needs,Human rights, Education twists Blah Blah.. Politicians like to be loved but they must stop encouraging so much co-dependent behaviour in 'minorities with a beef' - however genuine. The people paying want a rest!
    Political action is the way.
    Form a party if there really are 7% of your supporters
    [Not - another hatched up figure 1-3% more like].