The Queensferry Speech

This talk was to be given at Holyrood, but heavy-handed, aggressive and threatening action by Police Scotland succeeded in ensuring that no ideas were shared on the green outside the Scottish Parliament.

So it became the Queensferry Speech.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I have noticed that as well as controlling what we do, the state is increasingly telling us what to think and what to believe.

They tell us there are certain values we must endorse. To question those values is to open oneself up to venomous attacks, social shunning and, increasingly, thanks to Humza Yousaf and those like him, legal prosecution. As a result, the promotion of values that claim to be liberal and democratic is increasingly closing down free and open debate. In the name of fairness, the state is ushering in control of speech, and hence of thought.

So today, let us push back and consider one of these hallowed beliefs and see what we think of it.

The idea I want to discuss with you today is equality.

The French Revolution proclaimed Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. It also resulted in the Reign of Terror, directed against the economically successful and those of Christian faith. This alone is sufficient to question the concept. So, let us do so.

The attainability of ‘equality’

What does it mean to proclaim that people are equal? Are we not all different, all unique?

If you are more handsome than I am, is that unfair? Should the state pay a plastic surgeon to mess you up a bit, lest I feel inferior? If your parents sacrifice for your benefit, engage your interest and curiosity as a child, provide experiences that give you a love of learning, must they be stopped? How is it possible for us to be equal when we are all different? ‘Equal’ and ‘different’ are opposites, mathematically and linguistically.

And if we accept that mankind is not uniform but still hold that each person is equal to his neighbour, what assumption is made? The assumption that the worth of a human being can be assessed by some form of calculus. That their skills, qualities and flaws can be added to a personal statement of account. It assumes we can be summed up in a single number.

The Prisoner said, “I am not a number, I am a free man.” He might as well have said, “I am not equal, I am unique.”

The state and equality

Well, the state does not exactly try to resolve this. It accepts, temporarily at least, that there are differences, but it then achieves a sleight of hand to undermine us all in two distinct and dreadful ways. It does this by first stating that we must all “ensure that every individual has an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents” — I quote here from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Okay, you may think, what is wrong with that? What is wrong is that in specifying this, the state has claimed jurisdiction over every part of our lives. The choices every individual makes have become the business of the state. It is an open-ended mandate, power over us without limit.

And look what comes next: “No one should have poorer life chances because of the way they were born, where they come from, what they believe, or whether they have a disability.” In making this statement, the state:

  • Claims authority over the upbringing of every child, for bairns are no longer permitted to have a unique inheritance from their family.
  • Claims all belief systems are of equal worth. Christianity and Satanism, one must assume, are to be viewed as equal. Indeed, more generally, whether you believe in truth or in lies cannot be allowed to influence your life chances.

Our Lord said:

The Truth shall make you free.

The state says that the truth can be no benefit to you, for that would be unfair to those who love lies.

And what does a world where all beliefs are equal look like? If we take today as an example of a waypoint on the road to that world, what do we have? For starters, if I so choose, I can be a woman. The beard is no barrier. Neither is the willy.

And shortly, laws may be passed to ensure that I could go down to the swimming pool and go into the ladies’ changing room. I could walk about naked. And if any woman objected to the beard, or to the willy, she would be guilty of “hate”.

Two years ago, had I done this, I would have been arrested as a flasher. Soon, it will be the women who would be arrested, and I would be the victim!

And it will not stop there. A further example: Dr Philip Cook, senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh’s “Just World Institute”, argues that justice demands we should abolish childhood. For treating children and adults differently is unequal. That means we abolish families. It means that children will be prey to every predator of every type. The harm would be colossal.

Equality, no family, no faith for thee

So, with the adeptness of a professional conjurer, the state shows you briefly a card marked ‘Equality’ — but when it is grasped, it turns into two cards marked ‘Attack on the family’ and ‘Attack on belief’.

We have seen the attack on the family many times in Scotland. Most famously in the form of the SNP’s creepy Orwellian child-watching scheme called Named Person. This was fought and defeated by some beautiful people who could recognise evil when they saw it. The Scottish courts, to their everlasting shame, failed to protect us from our government, and the case had to go before the Supreme Court in London. They ruled it unlawful and furthermore said:

Individual differences are the product of the interplay between the individual person and his upbringing and environment. Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.

Therefore, equality requires that the nature of one’s birth is not allowed to influence one’s life chances. In turn, that requires that the state separates children from the subversive varied influences of their families. It is a totalitarian concept at its very core.

And who is pushing the totalitarian idea that we are all equal? The Government. The very people who also tell us that we are not equal. They say they are superior, they have special powers. Powers of arrest. Powers of taxation. Powers of compulsory purchase [eminent domain]. Powers of coercion and control of every type imaginable, even including insisting that you do not visit your dying relative or go more than a few miles from your home for fear of a virus.

But you must understand, ladies and gentlemen, they do not claim to be superior as such: that would be unfair. They are not privileged people, no, they simply occupy privileged positions — and reluctantly wield power over us, take our money bully and terrorise us, all for the greater good. Please remember, our Wise Overlords are only here to serve us.

Can ‘equality’ be rejected?

Now, we hold that we are all equal before the law in a common-law jurisdiction. So, you might ask, how can I object to equality? Let me explain. The law — the common law, that is — sets limits on our behaviour. It says: Do not cause loss or harm to your neighbour, do not use fraud in your contract. These are actions it controls, not thought or beliefs, or opinions or ideas.

Our Lord guides us in similar ways, to judge the value of men and women by their actions and by the outcomes of the decisions they make. Christ said:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It is by our actions that we are defined.

In the imperfect world of human judgement, we cannot base our assessment of our fellow man on anything other than the principle “By their fruits shall ye know them”.

This means the common-law concept is correct. We are all equal before the law, judged on our actions alone. This also means that Humza Yousaf’s Hate Bill — which claims to discern motives and intentions, to select which ideas can to expressed, even in a private home, and to judge the significance of our words, ideas and beliefs and to punish us accordingly — is claiming the wisdom, not of Solomon, but of God.

And God warns us of the limits of human judgement.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

And the reason, of course, is that we are part of fallen mankind. We cannot clearly or easily know the desires of our own hearts let alone those of another. As the Prophet Jeremiah wrote:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

We cannot know what hardships and abuse another person has suffered, we cannot know what changes and triumphs they are capable of. Therefore, we cannot judge the content of their heart. We can only look at their actions and see what they are. Not what they can be in the future, nor what has afflicted them in the past. We are not fit to judge more than that.

If you see Humza Yousaf, please tell him that.

Equality unattainable, justice inevitable

Let us be clear. Scripture does not say we are equal; it says there will be justice, there will be judgement. The sheep shall be separated from the goats, the wheat from the chaff, and the righteous from the wicked.

For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Christ said:

For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

Does this sound like equality?

Christ compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a field growing wheat and tares, and said:

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn”.

Does this sound like equality?

No, we are not equal — but we will receive justice. And who will be our judge?

There are times, ladies and gentlemen, when I find the perfection of Scripture breathtaking. It is not God the Father who judges, for how could one who has never known pain or suffering, fear or hunger, frustration or temptation, judge men? No, it is Jesus Christ, who experienced all of these things and overcame them, who will judge us. Only one who has the wisdom of God and the experience of being human is qualified to judge us. No-one else could.

Tell the truth

So, ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I wish to say this:

You are not equal, you are unique and beautiful human beings; you are fearfully and wonderfully made. Your lives and your decisions matter.

There is no such thing as equality. If we are fooled into believing this lie, that error will erode every good thing. For how can light be equal to darkness? And how can we discern the difference if we believe them to be the same?

The state is lying to you. Do not believe them. As Solzhenitsyn said:

Live not by lies.

And also, as Lew Rockwell said:

Never miss an opportunity to tell the truth.

I have a few truths I wish to tell you today.

  • Most science writing is false.
  • Most politicians are irrelevant.
  • Taxation is theft.
  • The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service [Scotland’s monopoly prosecutoris organised crime.
  • The Word of God is government of the people, by the people and for the people.
  • Jesus Christ is our Judge.

If you have truths you want to share, drop me a line to david@ukcolumn.org and I will read them out on UK Column News Extra and discuss them with Brian, Mike and the team.

Thank you so much for listening. God bless you all.

Reprinted with permission from UK Column.

The post The Queensferry Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: