WhatFinger


Bryan Barkley: “No Same-Sex marriage"

Red Cross Volunteer Sacked for Gay Marriage Opposition



Back in March, Bryan Barkley was photographed standing outside Wakefield Cathedral holding a small placard reading “No Same-Sex marriage" on the first day they took place in England. The 71 year old Barkley believes in traditional marriage and has also been a Red Cross volunteer for almost 20 years.
The following month, according to the Christian Institute and on the same day that he was at a British Red Cross garden party at Buckingham Palace, Mr. Barkley was requested to attend a Red Cross disciplinary meeting about the issue. The issue! This is the Red Cross, blood bank and general medical aid extraordinaire! Its job is to render various kinds of aid to the needy. In Barkley’s case he volunteered in the international family tracing service, working on 84 cases, irrespective of sexual orientation. On 8 August he was informed that he could no longer volunteer! He is appealing the decision! He said: “What have I done wrong? I passionately believe that the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman and is the cornerstone of our society. Why is it wrong to say so in public? Freedom of expression is being stifled in this country. I have nothing against homosexuals. But I don’t believe Parliament was representing the views of the people when it changed the definition of marriage.” But as the march of liberalism and progressive thinking gathers steam, individuals can and are being tried for their thoughts and beliefs. Even when those opinions are unrelated to the task at hand the nanny state thinkers see fit to pass judgment on the activities of others. And Barkley’s protest was not related to the Red Cross nor did it make mention of them in any way. Regardless Barkley was told that his “opportunity to volunteer with the British Red Cross (was withdrawn) permanently and with immediate effect”. The reason given was the incompatibility between his views on marriage and the Red Cross’ “fundamental principles and values”. The irrevocability is an additional shot across the bow, warning others that they’d better not get caught expressing the wrong views because there is no way back.

Support Canada Free Press


Coalition for Marriage (C4M) Campaign Director Colin Hart commented: “This is a shocking case. For nearly two decades Bryan helped reunite people with lost family members. Yet after voicing his opposition to the Government’s plans to rip up the traditional definition of marriage he was fired. His only crime seems to be that he was one of millions of ordinary people who opposed this change. What will disturb most people is that the Red Cross says it is not his actions but his thoughts and views that were the problem. Is it now official policy of the Red Cross that any volunteer who holds traditional views on marriage will face the sack?”

Lefty’s who claim to cherish democracy reveal their true desire is absolute control

Hart underscores the most important point. Even greater than the debate on traditional marriage, it was Barkley’s ‘thoughts and views that were the problem’. Once these become the focal point, there won’t be debate allowed on anything. Once again the lefty’s who claim to cherish democracy reveal their true desire is absolute control. Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecome said: “I challenge Mr Cameron to condemn the Red Cross for this decision and if he does not then we must assume that this was the sort of country he wanted all along. This supposedly neutral organisation has sacked a man who has worked for 20 years as a volunteer just because he opposes gay marriage. He did not mention the Red Cross nor did its name appear in any reports of the protest”. Writing in the Daily Express, Widdecombe raised the case of Adrian Smith, who was demoted and received a cut in his salary because he stated his opposition to gay marriage. “One can conclude only that this charity polices private views in much the same way that Trafford Housing did in the infamous Adrian Smith case. Parliament was given assurance after assurance that freedom of conscience would be respected if the law on marriage was changed. What price those promises now, Mr Cameron?” And Widdecombe’s point is well made. Just like with ObamaCare in America “you can keep your Doctor and keep your plan” which was never going to be true, lefties and progressives will make whatever promises are necessary to gain support without any regard to the feasibility of keeping them. Fortunately, as the Daily Telegraph reports, the Red Cross is coming under growing pressure to reinstate Barkley as MPs have tabled a motion in the Commons voicing “deep concern” at his treatment and urging the charity to reconsider. C4M says it has received almost 50,000 expressions of support, including many messages from people speaking about boycotting the charity. The Red Cross, trying to save face, said in a statement that it had not dismissed Mr. Barkley “specifically because of his views on same-sex marriage” but added it was feared his stance would have a “negative impact on the way services are delivered to a particular community”. Now there are many parts of the world where references to animal dung are used to describe such disingenuous rubbish. The truth is nobody would have tied this to the Red Cross anyway. It was some liberal busy-body, unsatisfied with having an opposing view, who decided to move heaven and earth to get the ball rolling and cause this charitable man some problems. Meanwhile. a Red Cross spokeswoman alluded to the fact that it was "tragic" that the protests over Mr. Barkley's case had diverted staff from dealing with issues such as Ebola and the Syrian crisis saying: “The British Red Cross is working internationally tackling enormous issues like the Ebola crisis, Syria and the food crisis in South Sudan. Orchestrated actions like this inevitably divert us from our humanitarian mission. Tragically it has taken up vital staff time and resources away from our international mission and in the UK. We have said repeatedly that we respect the right of individuals to hold personal views so long as this does not affect their ability to deliver our services impartially to all who need our help, as enshrined in our fundamental principles.” Spot on Ms. Red Cross! Maybe your organisation should put its resources into such noble activities and stop meddling in the private beliefs of its staff. But she countered “Where there are serious concerns the British Red Cross has no option but to act. We cannot give further details about any specific circumstances because we have a duty of confidentiality in matters like this.” So the Red Cross seriously takes the position that Barkley’s protest brings about a serious concern that negatively impacts the way services are delivered to a particular community. Such is the level of paranoia on the left concerning people who believe in God. And the concerns about Barkley are so great that fighting Ebola should be placed on the back-burner. In reality it is the British Red Cross that is negatively impacting its services as it reveals its obvious biases. One can only imagine the kind of decision making that is made by people who think that believers of traditional marriage simply are not safe and cannot be trusted to provide their services. MPs should go further than simply pressuring the Red Cross. They should challenge its tax-exempt charitable status. And if they want to keep it, there should be a head to toe examination of the leadership and culture in the organization with executives shown to exhibit political and religious biases removed.


View Comments

David C. Jennings -- Bio and Archives

David Jennings is an ex-pat Brit. living in California.

A Christian Minister he advocates for Traditional & Conservative causes.

David is also an avid fan of Liverpool Football Club and writes for the supporters club in America

David Jennings can be found on Twitter
His blog can be read here


Sponsored