"Sir Ian McKellen gives keynote speech at fundraising gala 'Tea with Tony' fetches £20,000
Sir Ian McKellen, a co-founder of Stonewall, gave a rousing keynote speech about the charity's 'tireless work for equality', paying tribute to Stonewall's 'fantastic team'. He recalled: 'We were part of a historic initiative, that little group in which gay men and women took things into their own hands.' He shared with the 540 guests that he had visited Tony Blair on behalf of Stonewall three months before his election as Prime Minister. 'I reeled off Stonewall's demands, and he nodded, wrote them down and put a tick by them all. Then he said we will do all that.' ...
"Auctioned at the Dinner were a range of items .... The opportunity to have tea with Tony Blair secured a bid of £20,000. All funds raised will go towards Stonewall campaigns such as Education for All, tackling homophobic bullying from Britain's schools."
Well, now we have a public admission of the extent of the influence of gay activists on the Blair government.
On 3rd April 2008, Tony Blair is lending his name to funding raising for a gay activist organisation. [And, just to make clear, St***wall are actively promoting a policy of 'removing heterosexist assumptions' from the work of schools under the name of "equality" - ie demanding that schools, and society in general, treat LGBT lifestyles as absolutely equivalent to heterosexist lifestyles. This is not just about fairness of treatment for LGBT people, it is about working for an ideological change in our culture, an ideological change that is not compatible with Catholic teaching. A possible justification that supporting St***wall is about supporting fairness, without condoning the LGBT concept itself, just does not hold water.]
On 3rd April 2008, Tony Blair is lecturing on "Faith and Globalisation" at Westminster Cathedral, and observing that
"If you are someone ‘of faith’ it is the focal point of belief in your life. There is no conceivable way that it wouldn't affect your politics".
I have real difficulty with this. How can someone, on the same day that they are saying that they are a man of faith (and in this case the faith involved is the Roman Catholic faith) be lending their support to an organisation that profoundly opposes the teaching of that faith? I really can't get it.