As the Government has sensationalised a minute issue in legalising gay marriage; their double-standards shine through yet again. I fully support freedom and liberty of peoples; yet understand that this is a two-way street, taking the freedom of one man to allow a freedom to another is nonsensical and emotively dangerous in certain situations.

Let me elaborate on this issue; it should, perchance, be up to each individual denomination of the church and Christian leader as to whether they want to permit gay marriage. The government cannot ram this topic and force it through as making the Church partake in gay marriage against their will would make a case for religious discrimination.

This rings bells with enforcing one man’s freedom whilst taking another man’s freedom away. The Government needn’t get involved and like it or not there are more important issues as hand today and in the foreseeable future than staging a debate on gay marriage.

The real issue lies in the government-endorsed ‘equality’, however. If they are to demonise the church into submission on gay-marriage in the name of equality, then what about the other religious denominations in Britain?

I may be wrong here, yet doubt I am; can we really picture Islam’s mosques also forced to accept gay marriage? The government must do so if it’s to proceed with the church in doing so, otherwise the equality motto will go out the window.

If the coalition doesn’t bend the mosques to their ways yet does so with churches; we see finite proof that the coalition acknowledges  that Islam is different to the cultures who embed these isles, which means that their ‘equality’ enforcement patrols need to be stopped.

‘Your government cannot preach, enforce or make laws on equality if your government can’t practise it (i.e making churches and mosques marry gay couples, not just churches), or if your government knows we’re not all equal in society (which it will have to admit if it stays quiet on the issue of mosques also marrying gay couples).

Tread this line carefully, Cameron, the path you’re going down will either end in violence and dangerous contempt, admittance to incompatible cultures or religious discrimination and further deconstruction of the Church.

This month, a subject as trivial as separate swimming times for muslim women in public swimming pools hit the headlines, with Sarkozy trying desperately to hijack the Le Pen vote one hit at a time, fervent socialist Francois Hollande will be relaxed as Sarkozy keeps splitting the right vote.

However both Sarkozy and Hollande have missed the basic point here; there’s a misconception (not just in France) that changing social norms to fit conservative Islamism in to make it feel at home is a good, or fair sacrifice. It isn’t. It isn’t fair for the existing population for them to feel they have to change for any newly-settling population in 2012.

One doesn’t say this on the point of Islam; it should be said for any newly-settling populous; when a group of a certain peoples/culture/religion want to settle in a new country, they must be prepared to change their norms that they know from their homeland. If such an issue as separate swimming times for muslim women isn’t a big one and if it happens it isn’t such a big deal as the Socialists have suggested; then why does it become a big deal if it isn’t allowed?

This goes beyond the Tebbit test; it should be a common-sense approach adopted by all countries on the planet. If you willingly move to a new country that indeed doesn’t share the social norms or culture you live by then you must be prepared to think what you can change in yourself to fit into your adopted new homeland, not trying to enforce your new homeland to adopt your culture. Just as you don’t visit someone’s house and re-arrange their furniture.

I have had this debate in Britain with many politicians and members of the public alike, from all walks of life. With varying reactions. It seems when the general consensus  that everyone should be treated equally with no exceptions is proposed; it is championed. Yet when this equality motto (that ironically the centre-left in Britain all cherish) is put into practise with real-life examples, these same advocates turn rather muted or even vicious.

The point here is that time and again what would otherwise be fringe, minority issues have again taken centre-stage in a national election build-up.

This is a real shame as national interests aren’t being focused upon; instead, a minuscule issue for a minority in France has again risen to the forefront. Unless a firm stance is enforced that all are equal, the tide will continue changing. There is no phobia of any kind here, no fear of change, just a question of why a change is necessary.

The liberal attitude toward problems stemming from nearly exclusive Islamic communities that have ‘their feet under the table’, rejecting the diversity that embraced them, has always been one of ignorance and fear, not of confrontation and ‘nipping problems in the bud’.

This has lead to extremists (yes, he’s an extremist, regardless of what the BBC may tell you) like Qatada feeling at home voicing his odious beliefs in public, (which as a staunch supporter of total freedom of speech, I’m not opposed to) yet with the added impact of the knowledge that he and others want to enforce what they believe regardless of the law and regardless (or more probably in spite) of British culture.

Certain people will die by same sword by which they live, this works both ways; the leftist groups that have invented ‘islamophobia’ and insist it’s  the ignorance of the British electorate and racists among them that are the problem have come to realize that recent actions have spoken louder than their Islam-defensive words. The extremly anti-gay leaflets calling for gays to be executed, the mass prosecutions of 47 muslim men caught in a paedophile ring and the attempted blowing up of the stock exchange (it’s only February) this year so far are indefensible.

The marriage between liberal leftist groups and ‘misunderstood’ extremists is a strange one; if it were a predominantly white, Christian group pronouncing such ideals then these same groups would be hounding them down, yet they’re instead defending them like human shields. If we were all equal in this society, these groups and even whole political parties wouldn’t disregard criticism of extreme Islam as ‘islamophobic racism’, they know there’s a massive problem, yet refuse to acknowledge it. This is illustrated by how the (black) Archbishop of York was berated by many different equality groups stating that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized, yet only a handful of representatives dared to comment when the anti-gay leaflets were handed out by Islamic extremists. Fear.

There should be strict limits on freedoms for peoples who want to take your existing freedoms and culture away, it’s that simple. Perhaps running the risk of being called ‘islamophobic’  for doing so is worth the ultimate risk of having people on the streets whom are wanting and willing to eradicate people who live here in peace.

We have let Liberal faux-fairness equality standards so far into government, we can’t even deport Qatada to Jordan on charges of terrorism, I’m sure if you’d have suggested this fate twenty years ago you’d have been laughed at.

It seems Bin Laden’s ‘ambassador’ in Europe must also be laughing, at these same equality groups who defend his ilk fanatically, knowing if he had his way, they would not have the freedoms to protest anything at all. The fruits of liberal fear.

Cameron has stated that there are not a ‘sufficient’ number of women in top jobs, using voluntarily  quotas as a nudging hint toward firms to ‘suggest’ this ideology. The booming economies of the world today don’t typically have high rates of females in top economic jobs, indeed there is no positive correlation or evidence to back his latest ‘do-gooding ‘up.

Apart from the patronization of women that Cameron has achieved with this latest attempt at a cheap and easy vote winner, he’s also broken the ice in terms of Conservatives using gender as a vote winner in the same way that Labour love to. This is a dangerous precedent and shows that Cameron has no problem pandering to the left vote at a time where his center right established vote is under threat seeing as the European question has bluntly been whipped-against in parliament, mass-immigration is rising and other Conservative benchmarks are being ignored.

Cameron should really be pushing to increase his right vote rather than try to steal some of the left vote in the same manner yet with opposite vote lending that Sarkozy is in France by copying policies from Le-Pen. Cameron shouldn’t be afraid to be right-wing, as votes to be gained and doing the right thing can be achieved in this manner in all of the major issues we face today.

Just as Le Pen is ”de-demonizing’ her party, Cameron is doing the opposite, making traditional Conservatives feel very unsettled seeing as there isn’t another serious true right party in Britain to leave to, even as a protest.

Ministers have really stepped into an unknown by stating that 25% of company executives should be women; perhaps a company should have the right to making decisions  regarding said company, perhaps the greatest aid the economy could get is by employing the best economists in the best jobs regardless of gender. This may end up with less, or indeed more than 25% of top jobs going to women, yet the equality culture in effect has only achieved inequality and patronization en masse.

The balance of job hiring and the quality benchmark of employees  must stand on ‘the best man (or woman) for the job’ alone with no interruptions. It doesn’t matter whether the possible employee is white, black, male or female, it should all come down to who is best for the job. This faux-liberal promotion of equality will and has turned out to have an opposite effect, it always seems to be the people whom preach for equality being the only ones constantly highlighting the natural differences of the human race in 2000′s Britain.

If Cameron was right in stating ”it’s about quality, not equality’, then there would already be more women in the aforementioned jobs, as employers are looking for the best person for the job, not quotas. This is also an anti-family stance that Conservatives should not be associated with, Britain has managed fine for many a year with traditional mothers raising the children and businesses being male dominated; it’s true that our youth are now more disorderly than ever, at a time when the thought of a mother at home raising the children is being ‘bigoted’ rather than rational.

For economics’s sake, perhaps you should concentrate on red tape and taxes, Mr Cameron.

The advocates state that the English Democrats will continue to come over to UKIP as many ex-BNP members have joined the ED’s, which many ED’s were not favourable about. Yet although some ED’s have joined UKIP, the ones who haven’t aren’t too likely to now, or at least Robin Tilbrook, ED chairman, told me.

Yet the camp against the policy change and also some advocates have stated that this will make the steady trickle of disaffected Tories lessen into more of a slow drip. Then you have the UKIP members in Scotland and Wales, some, if not many of whom will quit the party if they are forced to change their stance from the abolishment of the Welsh assembly and supporting an English parliament; the former is an issue the Welsh UKIP have campaigned tirelessly for years in all elections.

It would not be a vote winner for UKIP Wales if this policy changed, they would no longer be the alternative. The leadership state that the vote on the Welsh assembly clearly illustrated that the Welsh were clearly in favour  (517,132 voted Yes, and 297,380 No) the Lion’s share of the yes vote will always belong to Plaid and Labour, with Lib and Con fighting for the scraps. UKIP will go from a field of 297,380 people whom the aforementioned four parties do not appeal to in this policy, to swimming in the ocean of the 517,132 voters whom are more likely to vote for one of those four parties.

UKIP Wales members do not see this in the same light as the national leadership, as they know that the Welsh assembly is a pro-EU establishment and that this assembly along with the Scottish parliament is the real reason for the new, larger calls for an English parliament, in a form of they have one, why can’t we?’ attitude.

This is the crossroad where UKIP must either chase votes or do what they think is right, their excuse with the possible Welsh assembly policy change is that the public have voted in favour of it, yet the public also voted in favour of being pro-eu in the last general election in terms of taking Labour, Liberal Democrats and half of Conservative votes against UKIP votes, yet will that mean they will change this policy accordingly, too? No.

The whole basis of the Welsh assembly vote was on a false premise; the sensible option would be to let Welsh MP’s vote on Welsh only matters in Parliament, not to create a whole new layer of government (something else UKIP are supposed to be against) which costs the taxpayer extra millions.

Paul Nuttall MEP for UKIP is the biggest advocate of the English Parliament, hopefully he made read this and understand that some problems are not solved by choosing the weakest path, and some policy vote winners will turn out to have the opposite effect.

If UKIP are to stand by what they believe in and not chase votes (which might not even be there) then they must adopt their policy of abolishing all regional governments such as the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament and have all laws and decisions made in Westminster; with x amount of days in a month allocated to the Scots, Irish, English and Welsh MP’s for their countries only.This way any talk of unfairness will be cast away and the Union would not be left in question by the likes of Alex Salmond.

Local councils are in place for a reason; to tackle local issues. These councils represent their constituents at the most intimate level and the Welsh assembly et al are really just acting like middlemen between parliament and local councils.

There are not many issues, if any, that cannot be sorted out either via parliament with a day or two per month for each country to sort issues out and local councils.

Libertarians advocating more layers of government and defending existing layers of government that aren’t necessary doesn’t look good. The UK independence party should also remember the UK in UKIP.

Even Baroness Warsi looked impressive and sharp as she easily countered the slow, stolid and obtuse claims from Lucas that the Falklands should be handed to the Argentines, with arguments consisting of  ’why would anyone want to be associated with Britain’ and ‘the people of the Falklands should have their say’.

Lucas, if you don’t know the former, then why would you want to represent Britain unless it were to change it to something far different. To the latter, the vast majority of their population happily consider themselves part of the British brand.

I have made this entry short as I don’t even want to get started on your view that cutting public sect spending shall harm the economy as if the private sector didn’t exist.

Lucas also received the joker of the night award by stating that it is illogical that the Falklands should want to remain British if they have no voting power in British parliament. We have a great friendship with the Falklands and they have never indicated that they want such power, for a ‘friend of the Earth’ you were certainly quick to point out the distance between the Falklands and Britain. Perhaps you should stay away from foreign policy and stick to the green energy ticket you were elected on. Not that there is any proof of anthropogenic cause there, either.

Yet although the left, centrists and media-perceived right, or pseudo right as one tags them, have indebted, stolen from and continuously lied to the mass public over the foreseeable past, the thought of having a real right-wing government elected is still a ‘dirty’ thought among most mediums of media. What could be the straw that breaks the shackles of political correctness and fear of electing the right?

Extremists such as Abu Qatada, of recent media fame, may just be the tip of the iceberg in terms of threat to national security, with recent news of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded by devout Hitler-admirer Hassan Al-Banna) gaining what a year ago was thought of as unthinkable ground in Egypt (today claiming 47% of the election vote) and beyond- we must ask whether future immigration from such newly fundamentally run islamic countries as the aforementioned is going to have a tendency to be more extreme.

Taking Egypt as a current example with news breaking that the Brotherhood has won what appears to be a landslide, backed up in second place by the heavily islamist Al-Nur party, then it is not hard to see that the future of any immigration from such regions as being hazardous at best. Call this scaremongering if you like, call it what you like; yet to think the ranks of vehemently islamist migrants whom currently dwell in Europe today are to diminish in future with the shaping scene in certain African countries is ill advised.

One can only hope in ten years we will not have to admit; suddenly, Gaddafi didn’t look too bad.

Yet on the other hand, the hordes of younger (self-confessed) liberal socialists will also continue to insist that they shouldn’t have to pay for their University fees, even though these are times of deficit and austerity Britain. You will also hear the echo of  ’there are no jobs’ yet you’ll then here any talk of immigrants taking jobs from future graduates dismissed as racist scaremongering.

It seems, as often as ever, that the liberal youth want both options; they’re rallying against the cuts and protesting about lack of jobs yet reject any notion that having 370,000 migrants on jobseekers allowance and having an influx of an estimated 575,000 new immigrants in the first year of the coalition on top of the Labour years has had a contributing effect on what they’re upset about.

This would be fine if the socialists had a good answer to this predicament they have placed themselves in; yet ‘tax the rich’ is not such an answer. To the contrary, taxing the rich would make the problem of the rich moving abroad worse, never mind killing off any aspiration for the next generation whom might otherwise want to work hard in the education system to succeed and earn what they are due.

The socialist stain on Britain is still lingering, it’s is alive and kicking in many University campuses; and their process of marching against anything they disagree with throws their whole ‘equality’ motto out the window.

The new young left SWP types that horde Universities are actually encompassing a deep hatred for all things quintessentially ‘British’ and thus want to change the demographic, even if that means ignoring the fact that many immigrants bring values over from the 1800′s,the same values that they’re trying to rid.

Ergo, they are often racist themselves for wanting to rid a culture of its right to exist and will do so by any means; they will insist on equality and freedom of opinion as long as it’s an opinion that is equal to theirs.