Christian magistrate Richard Page, sacked for stating his belief that it is best for any child to be raised in a traditional family with a mother and father, has lost his appeal, apparently because he spoke about the case in the media. Far from condemning the abuse he suffered, an employment tribunal panel said that if they had known of his view that homosexual activity was wrong, they ‘may well have concluded that this was not a belief that was worthy of respect in a democratic society’.
Their idea of a democratic society is one in which public opinion based on thousands of years of experience of what contributes to human flourishing should be repressed, and any dissenters excluded from the public sphere.



Most people would respect Mr Page’s view, not necessarily from a Christian angle but from one of mere common sense. Moreover they would condemn those paid from the public purse to arrange fostering and adoption who would rather earn brownie points from the sexual diversity campaign by engaging in social engineering at the expense of innocent children in desperate need of a loving and stable family – and persecute magistrates who actually care about their work.

16 COMMENTS

  1. So, a “democratic society” is one where individuality is crushed in the name of groupthink and cultural Marxism ?

    Such a society is what’s not worthy of respect, rather than such brave and principled men like Mr Page.

    • It’s worth noting that plenty of non Christians agree with this principled man.
      I’m not talking about other religions, I’m talking about agnostics & atheists who
      know the difference between what works & what doesn’t.
      Who know the difference between right & wrong.

  2. To suggest that a rational belief is unacceptable is not “democracy”, but dictatorship. Democracy has the potential to be perverted into a dictatorship of the majority, which is largely the way it was in ancient Athens. We, however, have a self-appointed oligarchy, considering itself élite, which tells hoi polloi what to think and then declares that it speaks for everybody.

    As Ann Farmer says, it is extraordinarily troubling that apparatchiks would rather ruin lives than question dogma, or even conceive of exceptions to it. In effect, they are vociferously decrying a benign religion, based on morality, in favour of a bigoted pseudo-religion of their own, although I suspect the irony is lost on them.

    • Civilisation in the UK must be nearing collapse. As you point out, “To suggest that a rational belief is unacceptable” whilst irrational beliefs become acceptable (gender fluidity, birth certificate changes, hate crime arrest and prosecution (or should that be persecution); positive action/discrimination programmes etc, etc) exemplifies how changed our society has become.

    • Democracy is the ‘dictatorship of the majority’ because if the majority doesn’t get its way though the ballot box it might try to get it by force.

      Better the dictatorship of the majority than what we have in this country now, which is the dictatorship of minorities.

      It sometimes takes a single complaint by a member of some minority for some ancient tradition of this country or area to be done away with.

      Thus the ancient institution of marriage as understood for millennia, for example, was overturned to please a minority of what, 1.5% ? comprising homosexuals, and far fewer than that who actually want to ‘marry’.

      This is amounting to the death by a thousand cuts of our culture and our Civilisation,

      • No, that wasn’t my point (and I’m sure we are on the same side here). Democracy is not necessarily and should not become a dictatorship of the majority. I have no problem with election or referendum results, since those are the basic idea, but democracy can be distorted, so that the opinions of The Other can be totally disregarded. Do you think, for instance, had the Brexit result gone the other way, the Beeboids would have indulged Leavers’ opinions for even five minutes?

        My point here was that the situation described by Ann Farmer isn’t even Athenian-style democracy, where, for better or worse, the voters got what the majority asked for, but a completely synthetic democracy, where a handful of people declare what is right and good and impose that on everybody. Most people in this country are not practising Christians, but they are probably sympathetic to the precepts of Christian charity and morality. The anti-democratic, self-advertised democrats see the numbers of observant Christians and attack Christians, Christian belief, the role of Christianity in our society today and in the past, all the while purporting to speak for some phantom majority. Christianity, in their cult, is the cardinal sin.

        This assumption that Christianity, or any other belief, may be attacked even with the force of law, on the basis that a putative majority don’t subscribe to it, has absolutely no place in a true, modern democracy.

  3. Well done for highlighting this case. Most people are unaware of these dangerous “progressive” subversives who have gradually slithered their way into positions of influence to destroy our liberal democracy from within.

    If we as a nation cannot see that stripping someone of their livelihood because they dare to oppose leftist/progressive political and social indoctrination is antithetical to real “British values”, we do not deserve our liberal democracy at all!

    Whether you are a Christian or not, the traditional family is a tried and tested bedrock for a thriving, free and flourishing society. Everyone who cherishes such a society should be outraged by this ruling and disgusted by those in this “panel” who dare to assert that such a tried and tested belief about family is not worthy of the nation’s “respect”. If they did not threaten all those who oppose them with government sponsored ridicule, sanction and persecution perhaps they would see that is it they who are unworthy of our respect!

  4. Their opinion of a democratic society appears to be one where everyone agrees with them.

    And if they don’t, the holders of these other opinions should be well and truly squelched.

    Seems like a tyranny, not a democracy to me.

  5. Can the public not see that a movement which has to demonise and silence all opposition must have something far wrong with it? I despair at how few speak out against it. Thank you for your article.

  6. Gain a right because a society is tolerant and accepting of your view point.

    When the right is gained change society to an intolerant one.

    In the longer term, especially for a minority, a rather dangerous road to travel…

  7. Children who are put up for adoption are unfortunate not to have a loving mother and father who are able to care for them. The state should do its level best to try and ensure that is what they get. Instead the government is less interested in the children than it is in promoting Stonewall’s agenda.

    This is all part of the “modern Conservative. party’s war on nature as exemplified by Mrs May’s endorsement of transgenderism.

    Incidentally there is a trial going o in Cardiffof a man who is part of a homosexual couple who were allowed to adopt a baby Girl. A few weeks later she was dead. Of course heterosexuals can murder children too but we have seen in Rotherham and other towns what happens when social workers place diversity above the welfare of vulnerable children.

  8. The really weird thing about this is that all the sociological and psychological evidence is exactly that the best and least risky environment to bring up children is the traditional family. Hence the aim (see the constant advertising campaigns) of increasing adoptions and fostering and closing “homes”. The huge efforts to support single parents find “male role models” to fill the gap apparent in many chaotic single families. It has to be the most bizarre set of “doublethink” to sack someone for stating what is at the core of public policy with regard to social services for children. Lets be honest here, for all the virtue signalling and posturing, the push to include “other forms of family” in adoptions or fostering reflects the desperation as the supply of ordinary families is simply not keeping up with demand.

Comments are closed.