Muammar Al Khadafi

Mother and Father? No, we can't ask you that, it might upset gay parents, it has to go from our passports, heaven forbid that any reference to the traditional mother, father, child family structure should remain anywhere in officialdom.

It's only recently the crazy Lib Dems wanted to remove details of a holders sex from passports in case it caused embarrassment to transgenders etc, and now the Home Office is to replace "mother" and "father" on passports with "parent 1" and "parent 2".

Of course, who'd have guessed it, it has been decided that asking someone to fill out details of their mother and father is discriminatory, it fails to be inclusive to same sex parents.

Apparently it comes as a result of lobbying by gay rights group Stonewall - who really would be better off devoting their time to doing something about rabid Islam and the threat it poses to gay rights rather than worrying about inclusivity on a piece of paper.

Good luck to Stonewall, brandishing their gender neutral, parent 1 and parent 2 passports and screaming about a victory for gay rights when more and more 'gay free zones, Allah will punish' spring up around the UK.

Shouldn't we add parents 3 and 4 and 5 as well just to take account of tacitly endorsed polygamy, children whose parents have remarried - or embarked on a same sex relationship - since the child was born, thus potentially leaving someone with more than 2 parents! Parent 1 and 2 certainly refers to more than biological parents after all, Adam and Steve can't manage a baby between them no matter how hard they try.

We see the same across the board, all references to anything traditional or majority removed in the aims of appeasing minority.

If minority says they are offended or discriminated against then majority must change, if majority is offended then nobody cares, that's equality.

Most of us have a mother and father, but nobody worries that we might feel offended, or consider that our parents and the traditional family structure are demeaned, by having to refer to them as parent 1 and parent 2.

Everything is minority, everything must be inclusive, minority must write the rules by which majority must live, this is our new Britain. It won't be long until everything is re-written to appease minority, there will be nothing of majority left.

With the support of the 3 main political parties, new gay rights movement The Kaleidoscope International Diversity Trust has launched - with the aim of improving gay rights around the world.

Cited among the nations with major issues on their treatment of gays are Uganda and Nigeria, both of whom are large recipients of foreign aid (£98million and £250million a year respectively according to the DFID).

Now, how about something simple if the 3 main parties are serious about doing something for gay rights around the world.

Foreign aid ought to be stopped altogether, but while it isn't and the money is still flowing to many of these nations, is it really too simple to say "unless you change this, the money stops"?

If they are desperate for our money they will change things, if they are not then so be it, they can do as they wish but without hundreds of millions in funding from the UK.

That way not only are we not funding countries who - by the admission of our own authorities - are unsafe to send homosexuals back to, we may also actually improve things there and not end up paying at both ends of the scale when we fund both the country and the immigrants who fetch up here and whom we can't send back.

True, this wouldn't be applicable to all countries, but every country who receives foreign aid could have 'equality' imposed upon them - or forego foreign aid, their choice.

We've no qualms about using law and fear to force so called equality on to the people of our own nation, why should we think twice about doing it to other countries?

After all, we're quite happy to bomb some countries into submission in the name of democracy, we shouldn't bat an eyelid at the idea that we might look around and say to other countries "fine, but if you want our money then here are the conditions".

We should be stopping foreign aid across the board, have no doubts about that, but whilst we continue paying it out then why shouldn't we attach conditions to it.

It's the British taxpayers money, why on earth we are paying it out to support regimes whom we all know are distinctly dubious and doing so with no strings attached is beyond most of our understanding.

The big three parties, who make such a big deal about equalities and rights, actually all ensure that those who violate those rights which are apparently sacred will be rewarded with large sums of money, just so long as they happen to be a foreign nation.

In a society led by politicians who claim to be devoted to bringing rights to all, and to fixing the problems of the world, it is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that their actions regarding foreign aid do nothing of the sort, and actually perpetuate the denial of the rights which they supposedly support to people in many other nations on the planet.