Category Archives: Uncategorised

Homophobia and the use of war-terms by the pro-familylobby


Recently Ruth Hunt, the acting head of Stonewall, the UK’s main homosexual lobby, wrote an article for “Pink News” entitled: “We must celebrate equal marriage whilst looking ahead to what is still to be done”.

“As I say in my forthcoming column in SPUC’s Pro-Life Times: “This aggressive homosexual rights group wants to probe right into family homes – yours and mine – to dictate what parents should teach to their children. And they’ll be looking for legislation to enforce this”. John Smeaton says in his article “Families: beware the homosexual agenda.” (SPUC – Society for the protection of Unborn Children)

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC’s communications manager who has studied the homosexual lobby in Britain carefully, has written the following helpful reflections on Hunt’s article:

After reflecting on the legal recognition of same-sex pseudo-marriage, she (Hunt) writes: “This is an important milestone. But we’re not done yet. We must use our skills and energy to make sure homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are eradicated from our schools, our streets, ours sports fields, our workplaces, our churches and our homes. And we must support our friends abroad.”

Hunt deploys the term “homophobia” but, in her article, does not define it. Both the word and the concept of “homophobia” were invented by an American psychologist at the height of the 1960s’ sexual revolution. Some soi-disant pro-family commentators have accepted this ideological neologism and use it imprudently to try to position themselves as more reasonable than their sounder colleagues. They accept the gay rights lobby’s narrative that irrational negativity towards individuals homosexuals exists to a significant extent in society. The dangerous folly of this acceptance can be clearly seen when we consider what the narrative about “homophobia” will mean in reality.

Ozimic continues: Stonewall’s official definition of homophobia is “the irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.” This official definition, however, masks the reality of how “homophobia” is being deployed. Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP and a vice-president of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, who has called for the Church of England to be disestablished because it is “homophobic” , claimed that “lots of religious texts are homophobic” and that “discrimination against having gay sex equals discrimination against gay people” Dr. Harris has also called for faith schools to be stopped from sacking or rejecting a teacher based on their marital status, and for religious organisations not to withhold public services from users on “sexual grounds”.
If we move away from the high ground of politico-moral discourse and descend the low ground of trash television, we see exactly the same dynamic at work. In January this year, Evander Holyfield, the retired boxer, appeared on Channel Four’s “Celebrity Big Brother”. In the course of a casual conversation, one of the other celebrities raised the subject of homosexuals in sport, to which Holyfield replied with brief remarks that homosexuality was unnatural, contrary to Biblical morality and a curable condition. The programme’s production team disciplined Holyfield and warned him that “expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people…Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language…” Boy George, the homosexual pop singer, reacted to Holyfield’s comments by tweeting: “At customs there should be a huge sign! Welcome to Britain, racism, sexism, homophobia and bad hair are not tolerated!”

The result of this dynamic is that “homophobia” can be deployed to devastating effect to relegate anyone who objects to any aspect of homosexuality to “an irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of” homosexuals, akin to racism. So when Ruth Hunt calls for action “to make sure homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are eradicated from our schools, our streets, ours sports fields, our workplaces, our churches and our homes”, this will mean the eradication of the freedom to uphold normative sexual morality. To achieve this, new laws would need to be passed, especially laws to disempower parents and to make pro-homosexuality sex education compulsory in schools. A very disturbing development in this area is the proposal by the Scottish Government to assign every child with a state guardian. This proposal is reminiscent of the surveillance of citizens by Communist regimes and of the control exercised by sects over their victims. Such power to interfere in family life will almost certainly be used to clamp down on any parents who dare to preserve their children from the influence of the sexual rights agenda – abortion, contraception, homosexuality. The sexual rights lobby have always known that the complete success of their agenda depends upon suppressing the right of parents to be primary educators of their children in moral matters.

Ozimic and Smeaton greatly show how you can create an enemy, through the use of language, the terms they use are nothing less then part of a strategy, demonizing the ‘homosexual lobby’ or demonizing the homophobics, who’s gonna win the battle?

The business of campaigning: Profit with Purpose | The Economist


How a for-profit firm fosters protest

Jan 26th 2013 | NEW YORK | From the print edition Buisnes

CHUCK HAGEL, Barack Obama’s nominee for defence secretary, is attracting brickbats because he joined a campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons. Sweden has scrapped an old law requiring the sterilisation of anyone who has a sex change. In Rio de Janeiro, plans to demolish a popular high school to make way for Olympic buildings have been put on ice. These apparently unconnected events all have one thing in common. The campaigns involved (Global Zero, All Out and Meu Rio) were incubated by, a young company headquartered in New York.

The business was co-founded by Jeremy Heimans, who calls himself a “movement entrepreneur”. Mr Heimans previously co-founded Avaaz, a campaigning group focused on poor countries, and GetUp!, a citizens’-rights group in his native Australia. Those were charities. Purpose aims to make profits, though not necessarily to maximise them. Like another big petitions business,, it is structured as a B Corporation, the American legal term for a for-profit company with a social mission. It has a non-profit arm, which incubates protests and accepts donations. This is cross-subsidised by its for-profit arm, which makes money in a variety of ways. It sells consulting services to big companies such as Google and Audi, and to charities such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. It helps them to build mass movements to support their favourite causes. Audi, for example, wants to design and promote machines to dispense clean water in India, a market where it hopes to burnish its car brand. Purpose also hopes to develop a business promoting “new economy” products such as solar energy. It will recommend to its members that they buy solar power from such-and-such a provider. In return, it will charge a referral fee.

Mr Heimans says he will work only with clients that fit with Purpose’s values. BP, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s are out because, he says, “they are bad for the world.” (Cars are fine, apparently.)

Grassroots movements have usually been built, as the name implies, from the bottom up. Purpose seeks to accelerate the process by applying techniques drawn from Silicon Valley, such as social networking and the simultaneous incubation of diverse organisations. Its babies can grow fast: after two years, All Out, a gay-rights campaign, claims 1.3m members in 190 countries. Being for-profit makes it easier for Purpose to raise capital and hire good staff. Last year it raised $3m from investors.

The firm has been busy. Last year it launched unPAC, a campaign to support campaign-finance reform in America, and The Rules, which aims to give people in poor countries a voice. This year it plans to take the Meu Rio model for local anti-corruption campaigns to several cities around the world. It is also offering free open-source campaigning tools, including one that helps activists form flash mobs.

Luis Ubiñas, the president of the Ford Foundation, which has given Purpose’s non-profit arm a grant, reckons it is shaping up to be “one of the blue-chip social organisations of the future”. Its critics worry, however, that its brand of web-based activism is often skin-deep “clicktivism”. It is easy to click on a petition and then do nothing else.

Buisness or activism? Click!

Mr Heimans retorts that Purpose helps online campaigns nudge people along the “commitment curve”. It encourages first-time clickers to do more. Last year, for example, All Out raised a stack of cash in 24 hours to help airlift out of Iraq some gay activists who feared for their lives. A traditional bureaucratic charity could not have moved as fast, says Mr Heimans.

Some partnerships have fared better than others. An effort to recreate in America a campaign for healthy school lunches, started in Britain by Jamie Oliver, a popular chef, seems to have gone badly enough to make Purpose reluctant to work with celebrities in the future.

Perhaps the clearest sign that Purpose is having an impact is the enemies it has made. Some people who work for established charities accuse it of hyping the differences between new and old. Not so, says Mr Heimans. He contrasts The Rules with Oxfam, a 70-year-old charity that delivers food to the poor. The Rules campaigns to change the regulations that unfairly disadvantage developing countries in the global economy, he says; Oxfam is more focused on the need for the rich world to help the poor through charity. He adds that Avaaz, which he co-founded, has 120 staff and 15m members, whereas Amnesty International “has a staff of 2,500 and 3m members”. Maybe so, but many pay money to join Amnesty, whereas you can join Avaaz for nothing in ten seconds, depending on how fast you type.

via The business of campaigning: Profit with Purpose | The Economist.


Read a reaction of all-out with references to their website here:
Continue reading

CDSR Press Release –



The Coalition for the Defense of Sexual Rights (CDSR) wishes to commend the Nigerian Senate on the passage of the HIV Bill 2013 on Thursday 10th April 2014.

The Bill stipulated that every person living HIV and AIDS shall be assured of freedom from

unlawful termination of his or her employment by reason of his or her status. Senate

President, David Mark, noted that the issue of HIV/AIDS is not something that people

should be ashamed of anymore “because we all know that it existed.”

He said those affected should make their status known to those concerned in order to get

necessary support and assistance. Mark said: “HIV/AIDS is not something that people

should be afraid of anymore because we know it does exist, it is better that we take care

and look after those who are affected by it rather than discriminate against them.”

Dorothy Aken’Ova of INCRESE said, “The Bill is a very important step towards ensuring a

better life for people living with HIV and AIDS in Nigeria- those who have for many years

been faced with the effect of stigma and discrimination on the grounds of their HIV status.”

“It is mostly appreciated that the provision of section 4(2c) [further diversity – including

gender diversity in the society based on equal diversity and respect for all people.], which

enables the rights to take affirmative action and comprises of language on diversity”-

Joseph Sewedo Akoro, a member of the coalition said.

Thus as a Coalition, we are worried that the Same-Sex Marriage Act [2013], prohibiting

freedom of expression and association might produce a counter effect on the

implementation of the HIV Bill when and if it becomes law. We link this to the

intersectionality of human rights for all groups of person.

Nonetheless, we encourage members of the parliament to expedite the harmonization of

the Bills as passed by the House of Representative and the Senate, to enable the President’s

assent before the 2015 elections.

For further information, contact:

darlyndotty at

damianugwu at

Signed by:


International Centre for Sexual Reproductive Rights (INCRESE)

Changing Attitude for Healthy and Better Living Initiative

African Focus For Youth Development (AFFYD)

People Governed By Sharia Rule (PGSR)

Marps Behavioural Initiative (MBI)

Vision Spring Initiative (VSI)

Social Justice Advocacy Initiative (SJAI)

Total Health Empowerment and Development Initiative (THEDI)

Queer Alliance

Hope Alive Initiative (HAI)

Alliance for Behavioural Change (ABC)

Centre for Healthcare and Economic Empowerment for Women and Youth. (CHEEWY)

Development Aid International

Advocates for Human Rights (AHSUD)


Davis Mac-Iyalla

Dorothy C. Aken’Ova

Rashid Williams

Joseph Sewedo Akoro

Ayesha Imam

Samuel Shammah

Jake Effuduh

Toyin Ajao

Jude Onumabor

Peter Akakasiaka