David Bullard writes on the Disney Company’s decision to go to war against Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill
Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to Woke we go. The creator of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs seems to be changing its tune. As you may know by now the formerly family friendly US entertainment behemoth known as Disney has made headlines for its opposition to Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s newly signed bill to prevent children under the age of eight potentially being indoctrinated in queer theory and gender identity in kindergartens and primary schools.
According to an article on the Washington Post website:
“Disney — they get everything they want,” said Anna Eskamani, a Democratic state representative from Orlando, who can rattle off a list of measures killed or pushed through with the company’s weight, such as an exemption designed for Disney from a 2021 bill that restricted the ability of social media firms to ban political candidates.
So Eskamani and many other lawmakers were surprised when Disney — and its lobbyists — kept quiet as a mouse when state lawmakers started debating a bill to ban discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary school classrooms.
Having ignored the passage of the bill the Disney lobbying machine only sprung into action it seems when LGBTQIA+ activist employees started to agitate, labelling it the ‘don’t say gay’ bill.
The “Parental Rights in Education” bill (to give its full name) appears to enjoy widespread support and simply seeks to protect the rights of parents of young children by ordering that “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
Those school personnel may be teachers and the third parties that new breed of public nuisance, diversity consultants, but the fact remains that most sensible people would prefer that delicate matters such as sexuality and gender identity remain topics that a parent should engage in with their children as and when they feel the time is appropriate. ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
To call the proposed law ‘the anti-grooming bill’ as DeSantis’s press secretary did may be a little extreme but parents of young children are understandably suspicious about the motives of some of those who seem rather keen to promote to pre-pubescent children their particular sexual preferences. Hell, when I was that age my parents drummed into me that I should never get into a car with somebody I didn’t know or accept sweets from a stranger. What innocence.
Following the fallout from the DeSantis bill though various videos have found their way onto social media, thanks to journalist Chris Rufo, which reveal a rather sinister change in direction for Disney. One exec proudly announces that last summer they removed all gender-based greetings at their theme parks such as ‘ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls’ in favour of ‘hello everyone, hello friends’ or ‘dreamers of all ages’. Bring me a sick bag quickly.
Scariest of all though was a woman called Latoya Raveneau who is an Executive Producer with Disney Television. Here is a transcript of what she said in what we assume was a Zoom meeting between Disney execs over the sensitive issue of the De Santis bill:
“… like our leadership over there like had been so welcoming to like my not at all secret gay agenda and like I feel like, I felt like I mean like maybe it was that way in the past like (lots more likes) ... like whenever I could I was just basically adding queerness, like no-one would stop me”
Now, if Disney think there’s a ton of money to be made from producing films heavily featuring LGBTQIA+ characters then that’s fine with me. In fact, I quite like the idea of Sleeping Beauty being woken from her deep slumber by a heavily tattooed butch lesbian rather than Prince Charming.
And surely a ‘Brokeback Mountain’ style remake of ‘Toy Story’ is long overdue in which Woody and Buzz Lightyear can finally emerge from the closet in which they have been hiding and become a couple; possibly even adopting a first nation baby birthed by Pocahontas.
Then there’s Mary Poppins to consider. Hardly surprising that Disney execs are lobbying for the right of complete strangers to mould the thinking of young impressionable minds when back in 1964 they made a movie about a woman who floats in through a window and does precisely that to two young children; urging them to eat a spoonful of sugar thereby setting them up for adult obesity and the risk of heart disease. I shudder at the memory.
Amusing as it will be for the persecuted minority of cis-gender heterosexuals to watch the gay antics of Mowgli, Snow White and The Little Merperson I am sure that we will soon become utterly bored with the sheer tediousness of it all.
The real problem with LGBTQIA+ activists is that they no longer represent a persecuted community and that appears to upset them a lot. In the days before the Sexual Offences Act was passed in 1967 after recommendations from the Wolfenden Commission, homosexuality was illegal and carried heavy penalties. ‘The Buggery Act’ of 1533 passed in the reign of Henry VIII made sexual acts between men punishable by death. That was only repealed 328 years later in 1861. Later punishments were imprisonment or deportation to Australia (no comment on that).
The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 (under which Oscar Wilde was prosecuted) outlawed any homosexual act and continued to viciously discriminate against homosexual men although there were no laws that discriminated against homosexual women. That was almost certainly explained by the fact that women weren’t allowed to vote until 1918 and were therefore not regarded as citizens in 1885. Therefore, no reports of Sapphic activity could pose any threat to the state.
Cases generally reached court under the rather euphemistically named charge of ‘gross indecency’ and one of the most famous was Enigma code breaker Alan Turing who was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment or probation in which he would have to undergo hormonal treatment to reduce his libido. He opted for the latter and the treatment left him impotent and caused breast tissue to form. He also lost his security clearance to carry on work at Bletchley Park. Unsurprisingly he took his own life at the age of 41.
The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 made sex between consenting males legal but only in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland had to wait until 1980 and 1982 respectively for the same protection in law.
After the passing of the 1967 Act the sky didn’t fall, the final trumpet didn’t sound and the earth wasn’t consumed by fire. In the swinging sixties homosexuality began to be accepted as a lifestyle choice by most people, who took the sensible view that what a person does in the privacy of their own home is their business.
Surely that is still the opinion of most people which is why it’s very odd that an attention hungry and very well-funded and politically powerful LGBTQIA+ lobby should demand that everyone conform to the belief that gender is a matter of personal choice and not a reflection of fundamental biology, and that they should be able to promote this worldview to young children and teenagers unimpeded by parents, while constantly pleading that they are protecting a persecuted minority.
An older gay friend of mine swears that things were much more fun pre 1967 when there was a frisson of danger about the whole ‘queer’ scene. A regular visitor to gay haunts in both London and Germany back in the day, he compares the search for pre 1967 ‘rough trade’ as similar to the illegal cigarette smoked at boarding school. Part of the thrill was the risk of being caught and exposed. No rainbow flags, no Pride marches or safe spaces back then. Only the danger of it all. Maybe that’s what is being missed today.
I’m always amazed at the enormous support ANC criminals get from the party’s rank and file (or maybe that should read ‘rank and vile’). It seems that criminality is a pre-condition for party membership.
When Bathabile Dlamini finally appeared in court last week and was found guilty of perjury there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the party faithful, egged on by the increasingly absurd figure of Carl Niehaus.
Niehaus was warning against calls for Dlamini’s resignation from the position of president of the farcical ANC Women’s League just because she had been found guilty of a criminal offence. What kind of world is it when somebody must give up political office simply for being thoroughly dishonest?
Comrade Carl may have a point since the EFF is headed up by a known pair of bank robbers and Tender Swindlers with no sign of justice on the horizon. Why pick on an overweight, elderly woman simply because she suffers from bouts of selective amnesia?
It seems that Dlamini got off pretty lightly since she was given a sort of money or the box sentence. Four years in the slammer or a R200 000 fine, half of which was suspended. So, realistically, that’s either two years in the slammer or a hundred grand and it didn’t take our girl long to go for the cash option.
So she almost got away scot free since a hundred grand is almost certainly petty cash to any of our struggle stalwarts. It just remains to be seen whether she can hang on to high office or if the ANC are finally serious about taking out the trash. Don’t hold your breath on that one.