When Islamist terrorists repurposed airliners as weapons of mass destruction and murdered almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children 16 years ago, President Bush declared a ‘War on Terror’. He destroyed the governments of two countries, demonstrating to leaders the world over what would happen to their own states if they helped in the massacre of Americans on American soil in a cataclysmic attack. To date, further Islamist violence has been restricted to more low-level assaults. People were still dying in America before Donald Trump became President, but the death tolls of the attacks were measured in the dozens, not the thousands.

Liberals sniffed at Bush’s choice of words, declaring that war could not be waged on such an abstract concept as ‘terror’. It is therefore somewhat hypocritical for the same people to state that they believe in ‘equality’, which is ‘equally’ abstract.

To believe in equality is presumably to oppose inequality. This would indicate that inequality in age should not be a bar to sexual intercourse. Indeed, forty years ago, the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) for a number of years at the same time as some people who are Labour MPs were working there in senior positions. When the government was legislating against child pornography in the 1970s, the NCCL, now called Liberty, argued that the laws should be not as stringent as proposed.

Ah, but that is different, the liberals will say. Really? So ‘limited equality’, ‘qualified equality’, perhaps. It’s either equality or it’s not. Paedophiles use an equality agenda to campaign for the lowering of the age of consent or its abolition.

Perhaps child rape is an exception to the ‘equality agenda’. Okay. Perhaps there are others that are equally exempt.

Consider the Olympics. Only one person or team can win the gold medal in each event. An equality agenda would require the abolition of competitive sports, it would appear, or the requirement for handicaps, so no one could win. Certainly, The Guardian’s sniffy attitude to the success of Team GB at the last three Olympics might be explained as part of an equality agenda. It does not do for the liberals to show that some British people are genuinely better than some foreigners, or to applaud that fact. Perhaps the absence of silverware garnered by the England football team since 1966 may be explained by ‘equality’.

Those facing open-heart surgery generally prefer it to be performed on them by someone properly trained and qualified. An inequality in medical ability and surgical skill seems unimportant when the surgeon is through a ribcage and fiddling away with his (or her) tools. Patients might not be happy if their surgeon is there only on the basis of an equality agenda.

Ah, but that is different, the liberals will say. More ‘limited equality’. Equality does not seem to matter in cases of dire need.

Equality is not just about stating that a road-sweeper adept at keeping streets clean should be permitted to perform coronary artery bypass grafting. It also concerns a refusal to recognise differences. Jeremy Corbyn refused to recognise the difference between a Marxist South American government using violence to seize power from a lawfully elected assembly and the people who resist this illegal revolution. This is despite the fact that the government forces are better-armed and more ruthless. Corbyn and his fellow-travellers cannot tell the difference between the regime of President Assad of Syria, with its torture and death camps, and the Syrian civilians fighting against his despotic rule. They cannot tell the difference between a Russian Tupolev bomber destroying a hospital and other civilian facilities, and the people trying to keep themselves alive in the face of this onslaught.

But Corbyn’s wilful blindness is also closer to home. He cannot tell the difference between the organised gang rapes that took place in Rotherham and rapes that happen under more opportunistic circumstances, and refuses to discuss the matter, stating: ‘Child exploitation is wrong, child abuse is wrong, it’s a crime that has to be dealt with . . . you have to deal with the crime of what it is’. Corbyn does not want to state exactly what the crime is for the same reasons the politicians and officials of Rotherham, a solid Labour area, did not want to ‘deal with the crime’.

He required his shadow minister on the matter, Sarah Champion, to quit her post for merely repeating the content of public reports. While there has been investigation into the victims and the crimes perpetrated on them, there has been insufficient focus on the organisation of the rape gangs and the social and economic relationships between the groomers and the men to whom they furnished their young victims. This was organised crime. It has to be addressed as such and not treated like a series of single crimes. In the name of ‘equality’, the feminists have also been as silent as Corbyn.

Equality of cultures, or multiculturalism, has resulted in a home-grown terrorist threat that cannot be removed, and will result in the cumulative murder of thousands over the coming years. It also means that cultures that treat women as mere chattels are given the same esteem as those that don’t. This is the reason why the rape, murder, and mutilation of the daughters in families with Third World-heritage cultures are not subject to the same feminist outrage as the historic depiction of topless women on Page 3 of The Sun. In the name of ‘equality’, the sisterhood should also be outraged that the Daily Star carries on this tradition. Strangely, they are not. Richard Desmond, with a history as a publisher of pornography, has for some reason not attracted the same feminist ire as Rupert Murdoch, who does not share the same publishing history.

Equality is an unrealistic abstract. Equal rights, equal opportunities are not. But these are limited as well. A person with no A-levels would not have an ‘equal opportunity’ to go to Oxford University by way of an equal right. Examinations are discriminatory by their very nature. Some people pass, others fail. Demanding ‘equality’ despite exam failure makes a mockery of the exam process. Again, people generally prefer professionals to have ability and achievement instead of being there to fill a quota. An assumption that there is an endless supply of competent professionals in a given field available from every walk of life is an assumption too far.

Differing opinions are not given equal consideration. There is evidence that the BBC did not practise ‘equality’ over its coverage of the pro- and anti-EU arguments prior to the referendum. A similar ‘equality’ does not exist over the global warming debate or the coverage of major events. A pro-EU march in central London a few weeks back was heavily reported by the BBC. An anti-terrorism march by thousands last weekend in the same place was ignored.

So there does not seem to be much equality in equality. But this is natural. Humans are not identical machines. We are inherently not equal, to be subject to some social mathematical equation. To treat us as equal is akin to animal husbandry, where the difference between one sheep and another matters not when they are destined to produce lamb hotpot or a Pringle sweater.

People are different and want to be so. Some differences should be approved, others, not. The ‘equality’ industry refuses to acknowledge this, and people suffer as a result. There is really only one true equality and that is the equality of our inevitable mortality.


  1. There was a debate on the possble elimination of exams in schools and universities and someone commented that they woud accept this if the Prime Minister would visit a dentist who had undergone no formal qualification process, travelling on a bus whose driver had taken no test.

  2. If ‘equality’ means treating everyone as equals, as one and the same, why are certain groups receiving preferential treatment?

    • Because when it really comes down to it, nobody really believes in equality at all. And they are quite right about that. It has very little meaning as an absolute concept, and is quite undesirable in so many circumstances, as the article explains. It is also incompatible with freedom, which is quite an argument against it.

      • “nobody really believes in equality”.
        Correspondingly, would I be correct in thinking that white, heterosexual, male Brits regard EDI and its associated ‘positive action’ programmes as an attack on their employability?
        Have you also noted that equality is a one way street? Find any of the public sector employment or service areas where males are an endangered species and wonder at the lack of ‘positive action’. Then extend this to cover other areas of life such as leisure, education, advertising, community activities and the native Brit is paying dearly for equality.

  3. This arch stupidity of equality of ability, and the equally fatuous expectation of equality of outcomes, are nothing but typical diversionary stratagems to lead the general public away from the catastrophic incompetence of this current administration.
    The basic premise of bare statistics “proving” anything has been deconstructed ad nauseam. The Government would, however, conclusively prove its stupidity by wasting any time or resources implementing any further enquiries along these lines.

    • I think the blind pursuit of the chimera of “equality” was in full swing long before this present government got in on the act. They are, quite typically, just following where others have led.

      • No such thing as equality except before God (if he/she/it exists). No longer equality before the Law as BAME defendants are now to be sentenced lighter than native defendants by reference to their colour, creed, handicapped upbringing by incompetent parents, White Racist teachers and everyone else who has noticed a number of serious anti-social traits like their killing each other for a variety of failings like being the wrong kind of Moslem, kaffirs, drug turf wars, etc.
        And who thinks the Judicial Studies Board is seriously going to ramp up terrorism sentences to the point where it deters fanatics? The better response is to arm our police and terminate terrorists or suspects at point of threat. Not after they’ve murdered dozens of innocent members of the public. Bring back Klaus Barbie……he had a knack with terrorists!

  4. Of course lefties don’t really believe in equality. How else are they going to explain to union members that Russell Hobby, of the National Union of Head Teachers is paid £161,548, John Smith, general secretary of the Musicians Union gets £155,728 and TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady gets £152,365.

    • What a glaring error. I often wonder why the equality thought police don’t campaign for equality of remuneration for all …

  5. The problem is that Paul is preaching to the converted rather than getting this message out nationwide. What he needs is a good agent, perhaps Laura Perrins, to get more access to the media.
    I laughed last week when I heard Alan Sugar stating that university was a waste of time (or some similar comment). My first thought was, would he like an apprentice to complete his heart or abdominal or, perhaps more appropriately, brain surgery.

    • I recall in interview with Alan Sugar where he told us of a boyhood experience of having a Saturday job at a greengrocers. He had to boil beetroot but claimed he was too small to empty the boxes of them into the vat and needed the greengrocers help. He expressed, with a smirk, is wonderment why they employed him.
      We know the answer, coreligionists giving him a look at commerce from the bottom rung, and to my mind, a well done to the greengrocer, pity we all didn’t think like the greengrocer and his mates.

      • Many of us worked as children but I’d disagree with you in how people get into a job as, in my utopian world, the best candidate should win as opposed to who you know and there is too much of this latter attitude in the UK and around the globe.

        • I did laugh when he wondered why they wanted him, but it was obvious, and as we know, he didn’t end up a greengrocer, but the Saturday job didn’t do any harm, and if more young people knew the joys of some hard graft in their formative years they may remember why they spent the next 10 or 12 years at school and university, to avoid, having to go back to menial work, or at least having done it, should they have to return to it, it is no surprise to them how onerous it is.

          • Agree in that too many young have not the experience of hard physical work but some of us can do both, hard physical and academic, although people appear to be getting lazier and, if affluent, pay for someone else to do the graft.

          • I just pay people to do the jobs I don’t have the experience to do. It’s why people serve apprenticeships and train to become experts in different subjects.
            Graft, as in lifting heavy weights, well it’s what I was born to do.
            I do the lifting and the wife does the thinking, what a team. 🙂

          • I do almost all tasks, even though I may not be trained, from building houses to servicing cars. It certainly reduces your mortgage, other liabilities and provides huge satisfaction.

  6. “The Guardian’s sniffy attitude to the success of Team GB at the last three Olympics might be explained as part of an equality agenda”.

    Do they change their tune on an individual basis if these successes happen to be BME or LBGTQ……Alphabet Soup?

    Just curious as I’m not generally privy (except at second hand) to the Grauniad’s outpourings.

  7. You are trapped on the third floor of a burning building, a firefighter is climbing a ladder to attempt a rescue – who would you rather see, a man or a woman?

    • Actually I had difficulty with the opening sentence. It seems perfectly obvious to me that the Twin Towers only collapsed because they had been pre-rigged with explosives. If that’s the case it puts a whole different complexion on the ‘war on terror’.

  8. Inequality, as defined by freedom of the individual within society, under a law protecting rights against the initiation of force by other individuals, is a beautiful and moral thing. It is the basis of civilisation.

    Those that pedal the ideology of equality, are those that despise the reality of human nature, which is that each person is uniquely different, that, philosophically speaking consciousness has a specific identity. Those that deny this identity deny reality and hence deny the rights of the individual.

    • Property is theft etc.

      You are going to see a great deal of tis when the Corbyn Marxist government takes power, as they will.

      Marxist governments almost always declare a state of emergency at some stage which precludes the need for any further general elections.

      • If it could do what it promises to do, but it can’t unless it has a massive revolutionary force in the form of a public prepared to back it with violence. I see no difference between Conservatives who no more believe in property rights and full socialism except in the degree/form of application.

        However, this is all academic, as at present we have in essence a corpocracy running the country, which runs it for its own benefit ,whilst accepting that it can only do so as long as it has a democratic government supported by the public. It will not allow a Corbyn government to act out an ideology which is against its interests-and full Marxism would represent a clear existential threat to the status quo both financially and from stability. The Government needs to borrow and it can only do so through the banks who can turn the taps off at any time.

        • Lovely thought but Marxist governments always nationalise domestic clearing banks.

          This will happen as night follows day.

          Marxist governments are blind to threats or blandishments of corporations which is one of many reasons why their State economies always collapse.

  9. Peculiar that my daughter, an oral surgeon, attended university after obtaining four excellent ‘A’ grades and rejected the three other universities who gave her an offer.
    I’d agree with you, however, that there are too many worthless degrees and as degrees are not suited to all then there should be many more apprenticeships as in the past.

  10. As has been explained many times by many people for many years, it’s much harder of a task to raise people up to a high level of equality than it is to raze people down to a lower level of equality. The latter also appeals to the nastier side of human nature, and as such, is often done with far more adamancy and vehemence.

  11. Those concerned about equality are middle class art graduate types. Craftsmen and working class people are more concerned about equality.

    Many middle class types who are concerned about equality tend to be the types who scrape into university and are no good at sport. Even if someone goes up to Oxford to read PPE, they tend to feel unequal to those who read say, Engineering Science, Medicine or Greats and were also in the British u19 rowing, rugby, cricket, hockey, lacrosse, etc, squads. To make matters worse , while they are swatting to a 2:1 there are those who winning their colours and/or making the national squad and winning a First who are also charming, attractive to the opposite sex and modest. Basically, middle class socialism is resentment who are more talented, witty and modest than them. It is quite funny watching a lefty seethe with resentment when a modest, well spoken person admits they did little studying for their exams as they spent so many hours training in their sport and they were just lucky.

    • Those concerned about equality are middle class art graduate types. Craftsmen and working class people are more concerned about equality.


  12. Currently reading Atlas Shrugged and it is like reading the news, if somewhat more verbose and eloquently put!

      • It is hard work, a bit like reading Tolkien, but at the end of the day if you stick with it you can see the characters and progression of sinking into totalitarianism which are very much visible in today’s politics.

        • It is hard work, a bit like reading Tolkien

          From what I’ve seen of her work, the only comparison that could be made would be to some of JRRT’s clumsier posthumous publications, edited by his son.

          No comparison is possible with his major works — Rand’s writing is woefully bad.

          Atlas Shrugged : The crowd knew from the newspapers that he represented the evil of ruthless wealth; and—as they praised the virtue of chastity, then ran to see any movie that displayed a half-naked female on its posters—so they came to see him; evil, at least, did not have the stale hopelessness of a bromide which none believed and none dared to challenge. They looked at him without admiration—admiration was a feeling they had lost the capacity to experience, long ago; they looked with curiosity and with a dim sense of defiance against those who had told them that it was their duty to hate him.

          He had stood without moving, he had listened with no change in his face, only his eyes had looked at her as if he were hearing every word, even the words she had not pronounced. He answered, with the same look, as if the look were holding some circuit not yet to be broken, his voice catching some tone of hers, as if in signal of the same code, a voice with no sign of emotion except in the spacing of the words: “If
          you fail, as men have failed in their quest for a vision that should have been possible, yet has remained forever beyond their reach—if, like them, you come to think that one’s highest values are not to be attained and one’s greatest vision is not to be made real—don’t damn this earth, as they did. don’t damn existence. You have seen the Atlantis they were seeking, it is here, it exists—but one must enter it naked and alone, with no rags from the falsehoods of centuries, with the purest clarity of mind—not an innocent heart, but that which is much rarer: an intransigent mind—as one’s only possession and key. You will not enter it until you learn that you do not need to convince or to conquer the world. When you learn it, you will see that through all the years of your struggle, nothing had barred you from Atlantis and there were no chains to hold you, except the chains you were willing to wear. Through all those years, that which you most wished to win was waiting for you”—he looked at her as if he were speaking to the unspoken words in her mind—”waiting as unremittingly as you were fighting, as passionately, as desperately—but
          with a greater certainty than yours. Go out to continue your struggle. Go on carrying unchosen burdens, taking undeserved punishment and believing that justice can be served by the offer of your own spirit to
          the most unjust of tortures. But in your worst and darkest moments, remember that you have seen another kind of world. Remember that you can reach it whenever you choose to see. Remember that it will be waiting and that it’s real, it’s possible—it’s yours.”

          Comparisons with JRRT are ludicrous — comparison with Mills & Boon “novels” are a lot more realistic :

          Mills & Boon : “But it was not his job to comment or participate. It was his job to maintain order. The club that had begun as the college lark of four well-heeled gentlemen had grown to be the most notorious and decadent nightspot in London. For a time, its libertine excess had come close to total anarchy. It had taken the mysterious disappearance of one of the owners to convince the other three that something needed to be done to regain control.

          When they had come to Ben with an offer of employment, he had been little better than an illiterate brawler, making a living off the prizes he took by pummeling his opponents into unconsciousness. They wanted hired muscle to ensure that the place ran in an orderly fashion when they could not watch over it.

          But though his arm had been strong, his manners had been far too rough to associate with the ladies and gentlemen who came here to shed their inhibitions. Mr Gregory had impressed on him the need for a good tailor, and given him a sharp razor. He had been taught to read, and write in a hand that was not elegant but was at least legible. In speaking, he had learned the difference between an ‘f’ and a ‘th’, and that it was always better to use words than fists. Now he kept the little notebook in his pocket, collecting new words as he had once hoarded pennies.

          • I was more thinking of him rambling off for two chapters about the etiquette of disposing of Hobbits toenail clippings. Personally I was more interested in the ideas she was trying to get across as expressed in both my comments but you only seem to be interested in being an intellectual snob!

          • It is not “intellectually snobbish” to point out the utter Mills & Boon -like atrocity of her prose.

            As for your comment on Tolkien’s writing, it is so unsupported by evidence, nor even humour, as to constitute objective stupidity.

            So — ask for intellectual snobbery, and I’m happy to provide some personalised variety for you, you complete nitwit.

          • As I said it is hard work so I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I was just more interested in the observations she was making, even if somewhat poorly put across.

          • In other words, you give undeserved praise to a certain number of shallow utopianist platitudes, poorly devised and execrably poorly written, the practical implementation of which, politically, would require the imposition of a totalitarian police state and the brutal repression of any and all public political opposition ?

  13. The left gets more like the Marx brothers every day; “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”

  14. There is only one Equality, and that is as an equally loved Child of God according to Christian teaching. It is this that gives individuals their dignity.

    Leftist who deny Christianity but who assert Equality of persons are then faced with the reality that by a range of measures individuals are not inherently equal.

    So they are forced to deny this reality. They do this first and foremost by assigning any actual inequalities to an individual’s environment; by denying the validity of scientific studies which reveal inherent differences and by resorting to a self- serving strain of dubious philosophy.which actually denies reality and uncoincidentally supports their prejudices.

    Unfortunately for leftism, although it makes strenuous efforts to suppress by various oppressive means (including the denial of the validity of science itself) the actualities of empirical studies into eg the differing levels of mean IQ, testosterone etc as between ( for example) black peoples, whites and orientals, ithese realities are not going to go away.

    As time goes on and more studies confirm and reconfirm these differences, the current brand of extreme egalitarianism is goi g to bite the dust.

    It is not a question of culture or nature. It is a question of both.

    • “As time goes on and more studies confirm…” the way the Left deals with this threat to its agenda is to warn, threaten, condemn scholars considering studies that might lead to the wrong conclusion. For example Bath Spa University has just barred proposed research into transgender regrets after surgery.

  15. Mr Horgan

    I should think that for most people, the Equality Act 2010 has become a false god. It was hoped by leftfwing lawyers that everyone would be treated more or less equally.

    That view was wildly optimistic. Most people could see that where, for example, Christianity collilded with homosexuality – the latter would trump the former.

    What is fascinating is this. It is clear that Judeao-Christianity gave birth to the notion of rights in the West with its imago dei. The irony is this: the exercise of pansexual rights is sawing off the branch (Judeao-Christianity) on which they are perched.

  16. Very good article! Equality is a very positive sounding word that has been co-opted by a very negative worldview. The “new equality” is yet another case of “progressives” redefining moral terms to promote their immoral worldview. To the progressive “equality” is nothing more than a pseudo-moral justification for the government to intervene in every aspect of our lives – for the sake of justice and all that is good of course!

    At the heart of “progressive equality” is Marxism. It appeals to our baser instincts, specifically covetousness, in order to turn us against each other and divide society. It is the epitome of the verse – “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Cor 11:14

  17. Equality is also a force for serious mediocrity in employment. Once, people appointed applicants to jobs on the basis of judgment as to how well they thought they’d perform. That’s now frowned on in the name of equality, and people are appointed on the basis of boxes they tick on a pre-prepared “job spec”. Everyone has to be asked the same questions at interview, and as often as not references aren’t taken up until the decision has been made as to whom to appoint. No wonder we’re becoming uncompetitive.

    • I have a 4 page document containing questions I’m not supposed to ask people at interviews..
      It seems I can’t even ask a candidate these days if they’re in good health, or their marital status, for crying out loud

  18. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity !

    Sounds good.

    Problem: All of these slogans imply open- endedness.

    The least threatening: Fraternity, was soon beaten up by the extremist forces of Equality with the Terror, the Guillotine and the mass murders in the Vendee.

    Then extremist Equality turned on Freedom and is trampling it underfoot.

  19. Mr. Horgan says “they (the cumryd and his followers) cannot tell the difference between a Russian Tupolev bomber destroying a hospital and other civilian facilities, and the people trying to keep themselves alive in the face of this onslaught”.

    Mr. Horgan doesn’t say what the clip below says. Is that because he cannot tell the difference between the Americans using depleted uranium destroying hospitals and other civilian facilities, and the people trying to keep themselves alive in the face of this onslaught?


  20. I sincerely hope that no page 3 girls have been genitally mutilated, forced into underage “sharia” marriages, abused as children, nor brainwashed into voting Labour …

  21. Of course, the West isn’t try to impose “Democracy”. The West is collusively removing Dictators who have kept Saudi Arabian salafist Wahhabism out of their Countries so that the Saudis can insert their brand of Sunni Islam We can but speculate upon the terms of agreement between America and Saudi Arabia but it hardly stretches intelligence to see money, oil and proxy power.
    The destruction of what passed for stable civil government in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and the attempt in Syria is only viewable with the prism of the ultimate aim of American power with Wahhabist tolerance.
    As for Yemen, the Saudi bombing of civilians and the imposition of siege warfare on the civilians aided and abetted by Britain and America should reflect the poison that the West is allowing into our Country, sponsoring our State education in the Northern Mill Towns under the guise of Deobandi teaching.
    And the West demonises Assad…..he bombs terrorists with “barrel bombs” ie metal cased explosives like we dropped on German civilians; but the use of British made and supplied cluster bombs on civilians and children isn’t a war crime according to Boris. It is to the UN (or that bit of it not in debt to the Saudis….

  22. ..President Bush declared a ‘War on Terror’. He destroyed the governments of two countries, demonstrating to leaders the world over what would happen to their own states if they helped in the massacre of Americans on American soil in a cataclysmic attack….

    Pity he didn’t demonstrate it to the actual people who funded the attack – the Saudis…..

Comments are closed.