…no one can hear you scream!
I thought it was about time we had an action hero. So No 8 in the Leading Female Season is Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in the Alien series. You don’t know the plot? Have you been hiding under a rock? The first (and finest) in the series follows the crew of the commercial space tug Nostromo, who, after coming across a mysterious derelict spaceship on an uncharted planetoid, find themselves up against a deadly alien loose in their vessel.
I also think that the theme of the alien is quite apposite for us as we face this monstrous ideology that has infiltrated our workplaces, our institutions, our schools, our churches and even our governments almost without us noticing.
Anyway, this is another long one, dear readers!
Irish Referendum - Vote NO NO
To remind readers, I first explained the Irish Government’s proposed disastrous reforms to the Constitution here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/sound-the-alarm-irish-constitutional
The referenda are taking place on 08 March.
Gript News continue their magnificent and determined campaign for the No vote. Fatima Gunning (LEGAL GROUP SAY ‘YES’ VOTE WOULD HAVE “LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES” 29 February) reports:
Senator Michael McDowell has launched ‘Lawyers for No’ in opposition to the upcoming referendums on article 41.2 of the Constitution and the proposed carers’ amendment.
The group was set up in order to “spread awareness” of the legal consequences of a ‘Yes’ vote passing, with members of the panel at today’s meeting saying there is “vast confusion” among the public about what exactly they are being asked to vote on.
Senator McDowell heavily criticised the government’s behaviour saying that the referendum bills had been pushed through “in a matter of hours”, and without “pre-legislative scrutiny”. He said Minister Roderic O’Gorman’s department’s decision to not publish the minutes of 16 meetings held between interdepartmental groups was “absolutely extraordinary”.
McDowell said the government was in effect saying that it is “in the public interest to keep the public in the dark” on the consequences of the constitutional amendments it is keeping until after votes have been cast.
The group’s executive summary says that the “proposal to extend the constitutional family to “other durable relationships” is “unnecessary and introduces huge uncertainty into our fundamental law.”
They say the “rejection by the Government” of wording that would permit the Oireachtas [ the Irish Parliament] to define the meaning of “other durable relationships” will create “major uncertainties for everyone in short term relationships.”
The proposed constitutional amendments would also cause the “proper protection” provision afforded by Article 41.3 to be “avoided by spouses leaving the home to form new constitutional unmarried families based on durable relationships.
TD Michael McNamara said that the erasure of marriage as the cornerstone of society would lead to a “ridiculous” situation where litigants would be submitting “Christmas cards” as evidence before the courts to establish “durable relationships”.
Cormac O Dúlacháin BL said that the erasure of the legal significance of marriage before the law would render it as no more valuable to society than relationships between “boyfriends and girlfriends”.
The group says that this lack of legal certainty of the definition of terms would open the door to “concurrent and successive families with multiple partners”, and that this would have “long term consequences for family law, family property rights, succession law, pension law, tax law, welfare law, as well as migration and residence law.”
Laoise de Brún BL of The Countess said that the ‘Yes’ campaign were relying on people’s ignorance of the legal consequences of ‘Yes’ votes by focusing only on terms that sound “good and progressive” without addressing the “real-world consequences” of removing “the only acknowledgment of the work that women do in the home” and the “value that this contributes to society”.
Journalist and Barrister, Brenda Power, said the timing of the referendum was “suspect” given that it is scheduled to take place only a matter of weeks before the Supreme Court hears the case of a mother who is the full time carer of her 18-year-old son who has “profound disabilities”.
Power said that the article which the government seeks to delete from the constitution was the basis of this woman’s ability to seek legal redress before the courts after her carers allowance was redacted after her partner’s salary exceeded 45,000 euro per annum.
Lawyers for No says there is “no truth whatsoever” in “repeated Government statements” that article 41.2 says that “women’s place is in the home” the article “give advantages and no disadvantages” to women.
The group says that the “proposed amendments to the constitution and their likely effects” contain “uncertainties and contradictory language” and that the amendments are “utterly vacuous” in respect of Care.
They say they are “strongly of the view that there is no legal or constitutional argument for acceptance of these amendments” and that they “urge the citizens of Ireland” to vote no to both referendums.
Niamh Uí Bhriain in Gript ( “DON’T KNOW WHAT A ‘DURABLE RELATIONSHIP’ IS? WELL, YOU’RE NOT ALONE” 29 February) reports:
Prof Gerard Casey posted a most interesting thread on X yesterday regarding the definition of a phrase which, because of the two referendums being held on March 8th, is now attracting significant public attention.
The government is proposing to amend references to “the Family” in the Constitution – deleting the reference to the institution of Marriage “on which the Family is founded”, and then describing families as being “founded on marriage or on other durable relationships”.
This phrase, “durable relationships”, has led to issues being raised which the government likely did not expect in the debate – such as the possible impact of the change on immigration.
Fine Gael TD, Neale Richmond, certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons inadvertently or otherwise, when he told The Tonight Show that changing the definition of family was a “key point” which would have “serious consequences” for “immigration law” in relation to “family reunification”.
While the government has warned against ‘red herrings’ being raised, Senator Michael McDowell also pointed to officials warning the Cabinet that the new definition “could lead to increase in people seeking reunification with family who emigrated to Ireland.”
The former Attorney General said that was “entirely naïve of the government to think that the extensive group of lawyers who act of behalf of asylum seekers would not seek to have those rights asserted.”
In response to questions about what “durable relationships” might mean, the Chair of the Electoral Commission, Ms Justice Marie Baker said the interpretation of what was a durable relationship would be somewhat subjective.
“Its durability can sometimes be how you are treated by other people. Are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send Christmas cards to both of you? These are the indicators of your commitment to each other,” she said.
That didn’t seem to add much clarity, with all respect to the learned judge. The government says that the courts will decide what “durable relationships” means – but only after the referendum is passed, obviously.
“Lots of people have all sorts of durable relationships – business relationships, for example, that might go on for decades. Nobody’s going to be able to drop down to the courts and say that makes them a family,” Leo Varadkar insisted at the launch of Fine Gael’s YesYes campaign.
Again, that doesn’t seem like a very concrete answer to give to voters who are, after all, being asked to amend the country’s foundational legal document.
But, as Prof Casey pointed out, perhaps that certainty simply doesn’t exist. “Don’t know what a ‘durable relationship’ is? Well, you’re not alone,” he wrote.
He gathered the following comments on ‘durable relationships’ from the Dáil record, mostly from TDs who are campaigning for a Yes vote.
Ivana Bacik, Labour leader
“Durable relationships…is not a phrase which has that precise and established legal meaning which I think we need.”
Holly Cairns, Social Democrats leader
“What exactly is being defined as a durable relationship under the law? For example, at what point does a couple in a relationship come under the protection of Article 41? What are the implications for the application of taxation policy, social welfare payments, joint income assessments, succession, family law and mortgages, to name just a few areas?”
Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, Fine Gael TD
“It [durable relationships] is not a constitutional concept that I have ever seen. I questioned what it meant. It is really important that we tease this through now because it is naturally going to be a question later. What is durability? Is it about commitment or enduring?”
Sorca Clarke, Sinn Fein TD
“The word ‘durable’ is peculiarly odd and vague in a constitution…We need assurances that this language will not cause legal issues or loopholes. Ambiguity is not much use. We should have clear and defined wording.”
Verona Murphy, Independent TD
“The proposed amendment to the Constitution includes the words ‘durable relationships’. Marriage is a legal contract that is clearly defined and easy to understand. Therefore, we refer to marriage in the Constitution and it is legally clear what is being referred to. However, the phrase ‘durable relationships’ is open to interpretation, whomever you discuss it with. Is it a good idea to insert a clause in the Constitution which contains a very subjective term?”
Catherine Connolly, Independent TD
“I have the greatest difficulty with the word ‘durable’. If I take it on a personal basis in my own experience, I might apply the term ‘durable’ to one particular relationship and not another that was much longer than a shorter relationship. I do not know about that word. It needs to be teased out.”
This seems completely bonkers. Why would Labour or Fine Gael or the Soc Dems or Sinn Féin support an amendment which its own leaders and representative’s find “odd and vague” or lacking in “precise and established legal meaning”.
As Michael McDowell wrote: “We are being offered no explanation as to what ‘other durable relationships’ means and are being told that it will be up to the courts to decide it meaning in future.
And he observed: “We are simultaneously offered bland assurances that nothing will really change and passionate claims that the amendments are important.”
That inherent contradiction is obvious everywhere: we are being told the change is radical and necessary and important and progressive – yet concerns regarding its impact on immigration or family law or marriage are waved away as being matters to decide afterwards.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity,” as Yeats wrote: a passionate intensity for an undefined term lacking certainty and legal meaning.
“Is it a good idea to insert a clause in the Constitution which contains a very subjective term?” asked Independent TD Verona Murphy. That’s a good question with a fairly obvious answer.
The Irish Digital Services Act
Meanwhile this awful Act is already in law.
I last reported on this (where there is more information on the role of ‘trusted flaggers’) here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/farewell-my-lovely-062
Dr Matt Treacy in Gript News ( COIMISIÚN NA MÉAN APPEARS TO TAKE LEFT WISH LIST ON BOARD FOR ‘TRUSTED FLAGGERS’ 29 February) reports:
This week, COIMISIÚN NA MÉAN [ Ireland’s media regulator] which has the responsibility for overseeing and implementing the provisions of the Digital Services Act – which was signed into law by President Michael D. Higgins on February 11 – published guidelines on how to apply for the position of “Trusted Flagger.”
The Act is simply the transposition into Irish law of European Union Regulation 2022/2065. An Coimisiún refers directly in its text to Article 22 of the Regulation rather than the corresponding section of the Act passed by An Oireachtas. That is found in Part 15, Chapter 2, 190.
That section was sought to be amended at Committee and Report Stages by Louise O’Reilly of Sinn Féin. As we pointed out at the time, the amendments that O’Reilly proposed were certainly not designed to mitigate any concerns about possible restrictions on the exercise of free speech.
Instead, they could be interpreted as wishing to ensure that entities with a left liberal bias would be granted favoured status when the positions of “Trusted Flagger” came to be filled.
O’Reilly had tabled an amendment which put that demand in the context of a proposal that “applications from a recognised trade union or an NGO for approval as a vetted researcher will be considered.” She went on to explain that this was on the basis that it “would not be right to exclude trade unions and other vital NGOs.”
Well, I do not recall that anyone had proposed that trade unions or other “vital” entities on O’Reilly’s side of the barricades would be excluded, did you? In fact the only one proposing that anyone be excluded was Comrade O’Reilly herself. She made this crystal clear when speaking on a related amendment when she said that “there is a need to ensure entities with a partisan agenda, an agenda which is intent on shaping or controlling content to suit their own agenda and their own needs, are not permitted.”
Seriously, do some people not even have the modicum of self-awareness to realise the complete double standard, and dare I say it, hypocrisy that is baldly laid out here. While on the one hand, those who share the left liberal consensus are to be given access to powers of censorship – for that’s what is proposed – “entities” which demur from such a view are not even allowed to object to this hoped-for scenario in which one side can not only say whatever they wish, but ensure that they also have a veto on what others say.
Nor was O’Reilly being shy about stating exactly which “entities” to which she was referring. At Committee Stage she made it clear that she was determined that “a respected entity or institute, or whatever we want to call it” might have a view on issues related to “women accessing healthcare.” Healthcare being abortion of course.
While the Minister, Dara Calleary, opposed the amendments, he was clearly sympathetic. He stated at Report stage that he certainly did not wish to exclude the trade unions or the NGOs – the very idea! – but he also pointed out (in deference to the actual framers of the legislation in Brussels) that the lowly Oireachtas could not insert things that had been overlooked by the Empire.
Happily, his assurances to O’Reilly were sufficient to set her mind at ease and she withdrew her amendment on the promise of the Minister that he was confident that her fears would be assuaged by the manner in which the provisions of the legislation would be put into effect.
And now we have the official body responsible for appointing such “Trusted Flaggers” employing wording that is very similar to that of O’Reilly’s amendments, and therefore reflective of the lobbying that undoubtedly has and continues to take place on the side of left liberal organisations who crave such a position.
The guidelines as to “How to apply for Trusted Flagger status” published on Monday explicitly refer to “Bodies such as non-governmental organisations, industry federations and trade associations, members of established fact-checkers networks, trade unions, non-regulatory public entities and private or semi-public bodies may become Trusted Flaggers.”
That is as close to fulfilling O’Reilly’s and the trade union and NGO demand as can be, short of including that wording in the legislation itself, and the only reason they did not as Minister Calleary hinted was because its not for their sort to be amending the decrees that are issued from the Imperial Palace.
Those categories are also listed in the application form and guidance for anyone applying to become a “Trusted Flagger.” One of the exclusions set out is that a flagger is “independent of online platforms” which appears to be Facebook and Twitter and others.
Of course, there are currently other forms of “online platforms” which are busy ‘flagging’ – and it is not even beyond the bounds that some of the persons connected to them might apply to be a Trusted Flagger. I would be fairly confident of who some of the applicants will be, and they have already have substantial influence within mainstream media and elsewhere when it comes to monitoring and attempting to censor views with which they dissent.
And we already know that there was, and is, considerable such monitoring and censorship carried out within certain powerful social media platforms. It’s notable that they are never the subject of attack from the left – not least because they resent the influence which they had within just one of the tech giants being diminished.
Potentially giving these kinds of people official status under the Digital Services Act should be a cause of concern for all who value the free expression of opinion. The doctrinaire left never has, but at least in the past it has had to capture state power in order to suppress such freedoms. Is it wise that they be given the cover of those same freedoms to undermine them when exercised by others?
The British Woocasting Corporation
More total nonsense from the BBC who, just a few days ago, were unable to describe a brutal murderer as a man.
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/may-the-force-be-with-you
I wonder if Mr Webb might be better off joining GB News!!
Casey Cooper-Fiske in The Daily Express ( BBC Today presenter Justin Webb's trans comments complaint upheld 29 February) reports:
A complaint over comments made about trans people by Today Programme presenter Justin Webb has been upheld.
Webb made the comments during a discussion about new International Chess Federation (FIDE) guidelines released last year regarding whether being born male can give players an advantage in the game.
During the programme, he referred to trans women as "in other words males", leading to a viewer complaint that he had given his personal view on the matter in a breach of BBC guidelines.
In a ruling published on Thursday, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) adjudged that he had broken impartiality rules but said it was not in a position to determine Webb's personal opinion on the issue.
It said in a statement: "The ECU understood Mr Webb's intention in using the phrase 'trans women, in other words males' was to underline the question arising from the FIDE guidelines but noted a press line issued at the time included an acknowledgement that his phrasing did not convey an entirely accurate impression.
Justin Webb in Washington, DC© Getty
"In relation to impartiality, however, the ECU considered it could only be understood by listeners as meaning that trans women remain male, without qualification as to gender or biological sex, and that, even if unintentional, it gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area. It therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint."
The ECU said the findings had been "discussed with Justin Webb and the Today team” It is not the first time that Webb has been in hot water for breaching BBC guidelines when discussing trans people.
In February 2022, Webb had a similar ruling partly upheld against him after alluding to his personal view on transphobia accusations against university professor Kathleen Stock.
During an introduction to Radio 4's newspaper review back in October 2024, he said: "And quite a lot of coverage still of Kathleen Stock, the academic from Sussex University who's been abused by students who accuse her, falsely, of transphobia."
The full article is here:
Sex Matters
Another excellent newsletter has just been published which includes:
Details of awful online harassment of poor Helen Joyce;
A gender critical group being set up in Parliament;
The launch of the Committee on Academic Freedom (with a keynote speech from Professor Kathleen Stock).
However, I am picking out an excellent and important letter from journalists.
Journalists call for rethink on gender reporting ( 01 March).
An open letter organised by journalist Jill Foster and signed by 70 journalists, editors and production staff calls on editors across the media sector to rethink the almost universal practice of referring to people as the sex they identify as, rather than the sex they actually are. Many more media professionals offered support, but did not dare to add their names publicly for fear of losing work.
The letter points to examples of male criminals referred to as women, even when their crimes were ones only men can commit, such as rape and indecent exposure of a penis. “Accuracy is the bedrock of journalism,” the letter says. “If we cannot accurately report the sex of criminals, journalism not only fails its readers, it fails victims and future victims of crime.”
The letter comes as it emerges that Justin Webb, one of the presenters of the flagship BBC Radio 4 programme Today, was reprimanded....
The corporation upheld a complaint against Webb for saying the words “trans women, in other words males” in a programme last August. This, the complaints panel decided, “even if unintentional... gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area”.
Public-policy experts MBM have written to the BBC to point out that most people do not understand the terms that Webb was trying to explain.
Police and Strip Searches
Thanks to wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic for passing on this piece from the Daily Mail. Can the Government please just get this put in place!!!
Transgender police officers will only be allowed to strip search suspects of the same biological sex under new government plans after concerns women’s safety was being compromised ( 01 March)
Transgender police officers may no longer be allowed to strip search suspects of the opposite biological sex as the government orders a review.
Under the currently national policing guidance, police officers who were born male but identify as female can strip search women suspects if they have a gender recognition certificate.
Women’s groups were outraged when it emerged that most – 34 out of 43 – police forces in England and Wales either intended to or had implemented the controversial policy.
Conversion Therapy Bill
I am pleased to report that Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP’s awful Bill has finally run into the sand. At the second reading yesterday Suella Braverman, Rosie Duffield and Miriam Cates, amongst others, spoke against the Bill. I think this (and the other private members’ bill in the Lords - also going nowhere) have acted as useful dry runs in case a future Labour Government re-introduces just such a Bill ( as it is feared will happen). Mrs Braverman also spoke out strongly against so called ‘gender affirming care’.
Amy Gibbons in The Telegraph ( Suella Braverman fears she could be criminalised if trans conversion therapy is banned 01 March) reports:
Suella Braverman © Provided by The Telegraph
Suella Braverman has said she fears she could be criminalised if transgender conversion therapy is banned because she teaches her children that “a boy cannot be a girl”.
The former home secretary urged MPs to oppose plans to outlaw the practice as she expressed concern for parents trying “valiantly to navigate this unchartered territory”.
The Tory backbencher, who previously served as attorney general, also called for transitioning to be banned for under-18s.
Mrs Braverman was speaking during a debate on proposals to ban LGBT conversion therapy, tabled by Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour backbencher.
The Government has said it wants to make the practice illegal but is yet to bring forward its own plans amid fears it could end up criminalising parents for refusing to let their children transition.
The suggestion that therapists should be banned from pressurising gay people to be straight is entirely uncontroversial.
But extending the law to prohibit the use of conversion therapy to persuade children not to change gender is more complicated, given the possible implications for parents, doctors or teachers who might wish to question the decision.
Despite a caveat in the draft law to the exempt people whose child’s welfare is their “paramount consideration”, some MPs fear parents could still be criminalised if they try to stop their child transitioning.
Mrs Braverman claimed there is “very little evidence” that the practice is a “current problem” in Britain, with gay and trans people already protected from verbal and physical abuse under existing laws.
She warned the “misguided” proposals put forward by Mr Russell-Moyle would “capture so many types of behaviour where there is an innocent or well-intentioned objective”, with therapists, teachers and “regular parents” all at risk of falling foul of the rules.
She said: “If I were in the position of having a child presenting anxiety, my own child presenting questions like this, I would want to support them, I’d want them to be happy but I’d also want to direct them in the way I knew best, consistent with my parental authority, educating and teaching them about gender and sex.
“And in my view, in our household, in my family, we believe that a man cannot be a woman, a boy cannot be a girl and that is what I would be telling my children, with the best intentions and from a place of love.
“And if that were to criminalise me… that would be a crying shame and a total undermining of good parenting in this country.”
Mrs Braverman also said she would welcome a change in the law to ban transitioning for under 18s.
She said the Government’s draft guidance for schools is a “good start” but added: “My own personal view is it doesn’t go far enough and ultimately if we are to properly safeguard the welfare of children we do need to totally ban transitioning under 18.
“And if that requires a change in the law then I can’t think of any better reason than to change the law but to support and safeguard young children in those circumstances.”
She said she felt obliged to make clear that she is “not transphobic”, nor homophobic because she expected to get a “barrage of trolling and abuse and hate mail” for speaking out.
“We’ll all be smeared very quickly after this debate. It’s a sorry indictment of our political discourse on this subject,” she said.
The full article is here:
Stop Press
Just came across this piece from EDI Jester about the outrageous response during the debate from Alicia Kearns ( a Tory believe it or not) to the speech by excellent Neil Hanvey.
Wes Streeting
Despite Labour’s Wes Streeting saying some sensible things about the NHS, I’m afraid that the Labour Party cannot be trusted and, if you are gender critical, I do not understand how you could vote for Labour. To see some of Labour’s proposals, I reported in detail here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/carry-on-camping
Though they have pulled back from supporting self ID , they propose a system of ‘gender recognition’ that would be the next door neighbour of self ID and only need a report from one GP. I reported on this, care of James Esses, here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/orwell-the-prophet
All thoughts gratefully received, of course.
Dominic Penna in The Telegraph ( Stop doing ‘daft things’ in name of diversity, Wes Streeting tells NHS 01 March) reports:
Wes Streeting © Provided by The Telegraph
Wes Streeting has urged the NHS to stop doing “daft things” in the name of diversity as he vowed biological sex would matter under a Labour government.
The shadow health secretary insisted he would prioritise addressing healthcare outcomes that affect women and black and minority ethnic communities instead of “right on” initiatives focused on inclusive language.
Mr Streeting’s remarks are his strongest criticism of NHS chiefs for reducing mentions of the word “women” and gender-specific language from official guidance.
Labour backed down on trans self-ID last July after Sir Keir Starmer had pledged to change the law to allow people to self-declare their gender.
The full article is here:
Pronouns, Toilets and The Terf Resistance
I wanted to emphasise an excellent piece from Kellie-Jay Keen.
Her piece on pronouns is spot on in my opinion and the response videos are, as usual, hilarious.
In terms of protection of women’s single sex spaces, there are some dramatic and fundamental issues such as trans identifying men being placed in women’s prisons and women’s refuges but I have long thought that, in many ways, the crux of the matter is women’s toilets. All women and girls have to use public toilets or toilets in schools or workplaces. If we can get all men, however they identify, banned from women’s and girls’ toilets and we can ensure that women’s and girls’ toilets are provided when that is possible, then I think that knocks down the middle pin and all the other pins come crashing down as well. So I was pleased to see KJK’s emphasis on toilets. Hence my analysis of two tribunal judgments concerning this issue recently - I may put that analysis into one paper and see if I can get it published somewhere - hope springs eternal!
Additionally I have recently started using the term Terf Resistance - so I was delighted to hear KJK use the term ‘resistance’ on several occasions during this video 😎
Please do let me have your thoughts, dear readers.
Endpiece
Since I am running a season on leading female actresses, I thought a piece on a great but somewhat forgotten woman artist of the past might be suitable. Here is a nice video about the great Rosa Bonheur centring on perhaps her most famous work, The Horse Fair.
Thanks as ever Dusty.
I don’t really know what to say about what’s happening in Ireland. It’s completely bonkers. What do they think they are gaining by pushing such ill thought through nonsense?
Your phrase at the top “no one can hear you scream” is perfect. It’s how we’re all feeling. No matter how much evidence of harm or unintended consequences is presented to the people in power, apart from a few exceptions, they ignore it. We really are screaming into the void….. although it does seem that the silent majority is beginning to wake up. The WRN street events seem to show that.
Hope my roasties are as good as yours today 😁
I enjoyed learning about Rosa Bonheur - what a great artist! Thank you!