Friday, September 17, 2010

Vatican shocked at Britain’s hostile reaction to Pope’s visit

It’s a poisonous little article. I actually had to do a mental double-take at the start because I read this:

At the bottom of the scale, the cost of the visit — an estimated 10 million pounds (about 15.4 million U.S. dollars) to British taxpayers — has generated repeated complaints, although such protests are never heard when other heads of state come to Britain.

and thought “you know, that’s a good point.  Good on us.  We each pick and choose which states we want to officially visit us.  Very British.  I thought the article had the same tone of congratulation.  I thought it was gearing up to point out that we single out the pope in this way because he is the monstrous head of a monstrous organisation.  But I gradually realised that Laughland was actually accusing us of hypocrisy. 

More seriously, a controversy arose in April after the leak of a joke memo that a junior Foreign Office official had written suggesting that the Pope should bless a gay marriage and open an abortion clinic as part of his official program.

The government offered an apology to the Holy See, but the prank betrayed the sort of ignorant contempt that passes for cleverness in the corridors of power in Britain.

More seriously?  In what way is this serious?  A random civil servant joked about the pope’s idiotic and hateful views and somehow this is a serious international incident and an indication of British intolerance?  Puh-lease.  And check out the hyperbole “the corridors of power” indeed.  “Ignorant contempt”.  The contempt doesn’t seem ignorant to me.  It seems informed and intelligent to me.  And reasonably comical.  And it’s one person.  If the joke is not to your personal taste, you can hardly tar the entire civil service, the government or indeed the whole of the UK with the same brush.  Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the government issued a simpering apology.  Oh, and just for fun note that the article says that the government “offered” an apology, implying that it wasn’t – and presumably shouldn’t – be accepted by the Vatican.  Rhetorical games of this kind are becoming quite familiar.

Well, alright, the article is retarded and hateful.  It doesn’t seem to care much who it hates, although atheists and homosexuals are in the bullseye.  Look at this, for example:

Soon after David Cameron was elected to power, the new “Conservative” prime minister hosted a garden party at 10 Downing Street for the nation’s most prominent homosexuals. This kind of demonstrative support for gays is something not even the progressive Dutch have ever done, and certainly not something a right-wing politician would normally deem necessary.

I don’t know about you, but I’m openly guffawing at the silliness.  Are there such things as ‘prominent homosexuals’?  Are they prominent and happen to be homosexual or are they more homosexual than anyone else?  Can you imagine a garden party full of prominent homosexuals?  It sounds awesome.  Did this happen? I doubt it.  Do I wish it had?  Oh my yes.



I’m sorry.  It’s a little childish, but I have to reproduce this:

John Laughland, a British citizen, is studies director at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris.

Every part of this seems hilarious.

No comments:

Post a Comment