Homosexual human rights priorities: animals first, women second

Yesterday I wrote about Peter Tatchell and why the paedophile crowd love him.

And today he’s getting another go.

This time it’s because Peter thinks that the imagined ‘oppression’ of animals is a greater problem than the real oppression of women in the Islamic world.

Now, to be fair to Peter, he is concerned about the oppression of women in the Islamic world. But he also thinks that our society should recognise that sex with children is not always harmful. So it would be an understatement to say that Peter’s logic is somewhat flawed.

This is because Peter does not believe in objective truth or reality. He believes in whatever makes him feel good. That is not a logical decision making platform. It is an emotional one and it is pretty easy to see that it has led Peter to support absolute and unadulterated evil.

Because Peter is emotional and wants to feel good about himself, he latched onto International Women’s Day and put out a feel-good statement about women’s rights in Iran.

These are the opening sentences of what he wrote:

Today is International Women’s Day. The oppression of women is the single greatest worldwide oppression. According to Iranian law, for example, a woman’s life is only worth half a man’s.

That’s all well and good.

Then because Peter writes for a bunch of emotional homosexuals who have no moral compass, he received this comment:

Isn’t the oppression of non-human animals the single greatest worldwide oppression and the oppression of women the second greatest worldwide oppression? After all, more animals are killed every year than there are humans in the world.

And so, on International Women’s Day, Peter Tatchell then wrote this:

Good point. I meant human oppression and should have said so. Apologies.

It’s kind of mind-boggling. Peter Tatchell and his cronies think that the oppression of animals (presumably because they are slaughtered and then served with tomato sauce at my dinner table) is the ‘single greatest worldwide oppression’. Even more oppressive than the treatment of women in Islamic regimes.

Of course, to put things in perspective, Peter Tatchell has also written a chapter in a book that advocated for paedophilia, even if he does claim that he was tricked. He shares that dubious achievement with the Ayatollah Khomeini. And, just like the Iranian Supreme Leader, Peter also shares a weird view of women.

The Ayatollah followed a religious belief in which women have half the legal value of men. I don’t think Peter is of the same view. However, he did use International Women’s Day as a platform to agree with the view that animals face more oppression than women. I’m not sure that it’s much of a better position for a ‘great’ ‘human rights’ activist to hold.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. So Bernard, do you feel strongly about the oppression of women? Or not?

    Can’t seem to find a single mention of it on your site.


    Post a Reply
  2. Thank you Bernard for standing and sticking to your principles and your catholic faith . I support you 110% , you keep on the good fight , we live in an evil world these final days . Eight years ago , my best mate and I left the Novus Ordo church after seeing the sacrileges committed by priests and laymen and we joined the traditional holy Roman Catholic church Latin mass and we are seeing an ever growing membership each week because the novus ordo church has shaken hand with the devil and therefore God has surrendered them to their lusts and errors and the churches are being turned into mosque especially in Europe and now Ireland in the mix as well..
    History always repeats itself , the Israelites abandoned God after being freed from Egypt and were left divided ,scattered and wandering in the desert.
    Henry V111 couldn’t: get his own way and founded the protestant church with his catholic treacherous bishops and bishop Fisher lost his head for not yielding to Henry. The church has a deathly silence on homosexuality and is more interested in ecumenism and collegiality , soon she will feel the lash of the mohamedans unless she returns to the Truth . The same goes for the armed forces brass and the politicians who are too afraid to speak up and defend the uniform, flag and country and its men and women , God help us all……………..

    Post a Reply
  3. Because there is now a taboo against hurting people’s feelings – courtesy Politically Correct Brigades – the very idea of normal behaviour has had to be abolished so no one would feel abnormal. So abnormal behaviour – such as sexual promiscuity or a family’s abandonment of children – became regarded as normal. Indeed the Government departments actively encourage all sorts of disintegration as part of a campaign to de-stabilise The Family as a social unit and increase liberalism as a moral code.

    On the other hand, those who were advocating main­stream values such as fidelity, chastity or duty have found themselves accused of promoting something illegitimate because it made people who did not uphold these values feel bad about themselves – the ultimate sin.

    Feminism told women they could do without men and exiled fathers from the family. The outcome has been the creation of social and moral deserts in communities where there are no committed fathers, relationships are transient and children’s lives are devastated. This is exactly what the UN-sponsored Fabians have planned from the onset eg sixties, free love generation, denim jeans, Beatles, Pop Art etc.

    Try telling these children that the Sixties produced a more tolerant society. Abandoned by the destruction of the family, children were further betrayed by equally radical Sixties views about education. The obsession with “social equality” meant the imposition of mediocrity and outright educational failure which trapped the poor in their disadvantaged backgrounds and made them work for virtually nothing under trickle down economics hatched in socialist regimes under international monetarist protection and free market madness. Just look what Soros/Buffett were really doing in the sixties!

    The obsession with personal freedom created “child-centred” education, where pupils were regarded as having equal if not superior talents to teachers. And the obsessional hostility to authority meant pupils were not taught not to have sex or do drugs but left to make their own choices or indeed coaxed into satanic rituals filmed and then later distributed under liberal media laws conceived of in US by broadcasting despots in the pay of hollywood studio golems!

    And beyond education, the insistence on equality eroded respect for all in authority: parents, police, defence force and judges. Faced with this revolt, those in authority did not hold the line but allowed themselves to be toppled like skittles – and subverted the rule of law to protect the freedoms now won by the skanky generation of sixties radicals who now held all the keys to the economy and the legislative muscle.. In particular, the Church lost the plot, vainly attempting to hold on to its vanishing flock by going with the flow of moral collapse and entrenching homosexual rights, pedophilia, inter-sex relations, heresy and Illuminati perversions. So the final line of defence in the culture war unleashed by the Sixties’ evolution disintegrated and was washed away into the ocean of time.

    Post a Reply
    • OK now you are hot. So who controls most of the of the worlds wealth?,and who is beyond criticism? If you know the answer to these last two questions then you know who controls the world and everybody in it.

      Post a Reply
  4. Animals in factory farms are raised in the most horrid conditions on the planet and killed inhumanely.

    Post a Reply
    • You claim that the treatment is ‘inhumane’ but are you not also claiming that some law exists somewhere that tells you that it is inhumane? Where is this law and why should you or anyone else obey it? Isn’t it just your subjective feeling that you don’t like the treatment given to these animals? If so, how can you imply anyone else should be concerned about it?

      Post a Reply
      • My views are based on documented footage of the practices that are carried out on factory farms.

    • Bruce…from one woman who is more important than any animal…up yours o-O

      Post a Reply
      • Women, men, children and animals are as precious as one another and worthy of respect and fair treatment. If you disagree with that then you need help.

      • Bruce,

        Is the way they presently kill animals in factory farms unethical?

      • Yes.

      • Bruce,

        As someone who has a degree in philosophy I believe I understand the is/ought fallacy very well.

        The problem is that you don’t.

        To observe some animals being killed in whatever manner is just that: an observation. You may not like it. You may be very upset by it. But to then reason to the conclusion that it is morally wrong to kill the animals that way doesn’t necessarily follow. There is an enthymematic premise that needs to be brought to the table. But of course you may be a genius who has finally solved this problem. I am all ears.

        BTW, have you read Hume’s famous discussion on this?

    • Bruce,

      Well of course they’re killed “inhumanely”: they’re not human!

      In any case, that old is-ought fallacy applies here: Just because something is doesn’t mean you can draw a moral proscription from the fact that it is. For example, animals feel pain, therefore it is morally wrong to cause them pain. As David Hume was rumoured to have once said (for the proper effect, please add you own Scottish accent), “Huh? X is an empirical fact, therefore it is wrong to do X? Huh? Something seems to be missing in this syllogism. Can someone please help?”

      And so the missing piece, even today, remains missing.

      Post a Reply
      • Marc, you don’t know what ‘inhumane’ means, do you? —————————– inhumane ɪnhjʊˈmeɪn/
        adjective adjective: inhumane 1. without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

      • Bruce,

        When someone elevates the “life” of a cockroach or kangaroo above that of a person, the first thing that suffers, apparently, is their sense of humour. I was making a joke about…oh heck, why waste my time!

        Of course, the other attendant aspect is their missing the point of a comment. Your ignoring my comment on the ought-is fallacy adds another of my all-time favourite fallacies, namely, question begging.

      • Marc, please don’t lie. I never elevated the life of a cockroach or a kangaroo above that of a human.

      • Marc, I don’t think you know what an ought-is fallacy means. Pointing out that animals are raised in factory farms under the worst conditions and killed inhumanely is a correct observation.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest