Jimmie Blacksmith

Update 449. The Genesis of Gender Ideology Special. #BeMorePorcupine

Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:

'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.

From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas.'

This is a long one, dear readers.

I have been featuring recently the Moira Deeming trial which stems from the Liberal Party leader, John Pesutto calling Moira a Nazi following the Let Women Speak event in Melbourne. Here’s some real racism for you, Mr Pesutto, in the 1978 Australian film, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. It is a harrowing film and very much a film of two halves. In the first half Jimmie ( played by Tommy Lewis) and his family endure discrimination and racism. In the second half Jimmie and his half-brother Mort ( played by Freddy Reynolds) seek revenge.This is my last choice in the Aussie Heroes season. I am going to continue my travels around the Anglosphere and will be moving on to an Irish Heroes season. All suggestions for that gratefully received.

Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.

Free Speech and Hate Speech

Free Speech is, of course, fundamental to the Terf Resistance but not fundamental to the Labour Government it seems. Most readers will know that I think that hate speech laws should be repealed. Two excellent pieces from Andrew Doyle on his substack.

You CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theatre

Tim Walz repeated the pro-censorship cliché during last night’s vice-presidential debate. It’s about time it was put to rest.

Oct 02, 2024

There are few people who are courageous enough to openly admit that they oppose freedom of speech, and so we would be forgiven for thinking that the authoritarian mindset is rare. In truth, those who believe that censorship can be justified typically resort to a set of hackneyed and specious arguments. It doesn’t seem to matter how often these misconceptions are conclusively rebutted, they continue to be trotted out with depressing regularity.

Take yesterday’s Vice Presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, in which one of these very misconceptions was parroted once again. This is how it happened:

JD Vance: You guys attack us for not believing in democracy. The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to…

Tim Walz: Or threatening, or hate speech…

JD Vance: …use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas, and then let’s come together afterwards.

Tim Walz: You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.

The cliché that “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre” originates in the 1917 United States Supreme Court ruling against Charles Schenck, a socialist who had issued a broadside calling for young men to refuse military conscription and was convicted under the Espionage Act. These were the circumstances under which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the statement: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire!’ in a theatre and causing a panic.” Note that the word “falsely” is invariably dropped when quoted by advocates for censorship.

Leaving that telling little edit aside, it should be remembered that this was never a legally binding statement. Walz maintains that this is “the Supreme Court test”, but Holmes merely used the analogy to justify upholding Schenck’s prosecution. In fact, the decision of the court in Schenck v. United States was overruled in 1969.

Far from being “the Supreme Court test”, it is now widely regarded as an egregious error in judgement, which makes it a somewhat frail basis for justifying the suppression of speech on legal grounds. As Gabe Rottman has noted, the “crowded theatre” argument is “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech” because as a metaphor “it can be deployed against any unpopular speech”.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to prevent us from falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, so long as we accept that the proprietors will be within their rights to have us ejected from the premises. In buying a ticket to a public performance, we have tacitly entered into a contract to behave in a manner that does not detract from the enjoyment of others. By extension, we have already consented to be removed if we breach that agreement. Needlessly generating a panic in which people are likely to be injured clearly falls into this category. In other words, the crowded theatre analogy is misleading because the scenario it describes is unrelated to the issue of free speech.

Besides, there are quite obviously circumstances in which one would be obliged to shout “fire” in a theatre. If, for instance, you were the first to spot an actual fire, it would be indefensible not to alert others to the danger.

It would be reassuring if debates about free speech, this most fundamental of values, would not be freighted with this long-discredited pro-censorship boilerplate. When it comes to the question of which presidential candidate is the greater “threat to democracy”, I would suggest that it would depend upon whichever one is willing to make excuses for diluting the First Amendment.

I note that the full transcript of the debate on the CBS News website omits a key interjection by Walz which would help to answer this question. Just after Vance pointed out that Walz had said “there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation”, Walz added “or threatening, or hate speech”. But we know that “hate speech” is a hopelessly nebulous and subjective term which can be used to justify the suppression of any speech at all, from abusive rhetoric to unfashionable opinions.

This was a “blink and you’ll miss it” moment in the debate, but it was very revealing. Walz’s contention that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech” situates him firmly in the authoritarian camp. It means that he would prefer to carve out exceptions to free speech as safeguarded by the constitution, and empower the state to limit the viewpoints its citizens are able to express. If the Democratic Party wins the next election, it won’t just be theatregoers shouting “fire” who should be worried.

https://www.andrewdoyle.org/p/you-can-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre

What does “hate speech” actually mean?

No government has yet been able to define the term successfully. Could you do any better?

Oct 04, 2024

To all those who support “hate speech” laws, I ask one simple question: how would you define the term in law?

In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that there “is no universally accepted definition” of the expression “hate speech”.

A manual published by UNESCO in 2015 accepted that “the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely”.

In his book Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination (2017), Alexander Brown pointed out that the jurisprudential literature on hate speech “contains numerous competing, sometimes contradictory characterizations”.

In his book Censored (2016), Paul Coleman compiled and reproduced all the current hate speech laws in Europe and, by doing so, showed that no two governments can agree on the phrase’s meaning.

Most governments specify that “hate speech” is usually directed against those with “protected characteristics”. These characteristics vary from country to country, but in the UK they are:

• age

• gender reassignment

• being married or in a civil partnership

• being pregnant or on maternity leave

• disability

• race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)

• religion or belief

• sex

• sexual orientation

But while such characteristics are clearly defined in most country’s laws, the same cannot be said for the all-important concepts of “hate speech” and “hatred”.

Let’s consider a few examples from around the world…

The Irish government were up until recently proposing to introduce hate speech legislation in which “hatred” was defined as “hatred”.

In March of this year, the Canadian government proposed a law that would give judges the ability to put a citizen under house arrest if they thought they might commit a hate crime in the future. This is Bill C-63, which would allow citizens to file complaints if they see any examples of online “hate speech”, leading to a potential $20,000 fine for those found guilty.

The Scottish government drafted a “hate speech” bill in which those found guilty of “insulting” behaviour could be imprisoned for seven years, and even statements uttered in the privacy of one’s own home could lead to prosecution. The law as it currently stands means that police are obliged to investigate all complaints of “hate speech”, and what classifies as “hateful” is based solely on the “perception” of the “victim”.

The UK government currently prohibits the posting of “grossly offensive” material online under Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, even though the legislation does not specifically what “grossly offensive” means.

Police in the UK also routinely investigate “non-crime hate incidents” which, according to the Hate Crime Operational Guidance issued by the College of Policing, can be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.

The French government currently permits the prosecution of citizens for “public insults” based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin.

In Germany, paragraph 103 of the German criminal code insists that “whosoever insults a foreign head of state or an accredited diplomat in Germany… shall be liable to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine”.

In Turkey, the current president (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) reinstated obscure laws meaning he could prosecute anyone who offended him. Tens of thousands have been arrested for “insulting the president” in the ten years since he came to power.

In Finland, “agitation against a minority group” is a crime under the Finnish criminal code, which is why politician Päivi Räsänen was prosecuted for posting a Bible verse on Twitter that was perceived to be opposed to homosexuality.

Many regimes in the world today – e.g., Thailand, Cambodia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia – retain lèse majesté laws in order to criminalise criticism of the king. 

In the USA this week, vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz said that “hate speech” was not protected by the First Amendment, and in a recent speech to the World Economic Forum, former secretary of state John Kerry described the First Amendment as a “major block” to preventing people spreading “disinformation”.

It is quite clear that the nebulous nature of “hate speech” laws leave them wide open to be weaponised against political opposition. And yet more and more nations are introducing them to the statute books.

So I ask again: given that no two governments can agree on how “hate speech” ought to be defined, could you do any better?

In the comments, I stated:

‘I think it is often impossible to assess whether a statement involves 'hate' or not. 'You are an imbecile' could be a statement of fact or an expression of hatred ( or both). In any event the law should not be troubling itself with this! In the face of the alarming approach to free speech by the current Labour government I am continually quoting Lord Justice Sedley’ ( for which quote, see above). All comments gratefully received.

https://www.andrewdoyle.org/p/what-does-hate-speech-actually-mean

UK - The Role of the Family Courts

I chose the above image as being appropriate to go with Sarah Phillimore’s excellent examination on her substack of family law cases where the child in question is undergoing or wants to undergo some form of so called ‘gender affirming care.’ A disappointing start but recent cases show more hope especially following on from the Cass Review.

Genspect Conference Lisbon September 2024

The battle for children's capacity; how the family courts got it very seriously wrong but seem to be now back on track.

Sep 30, 2024

This is the longer and dryer version of the talk I ended up giving at the Genspect Conference in Lisbon.

Children, Gender Identity, Autonomy and Paternalism

The developing response of the court’s to a child’s claimed gender identity

1.     The last decade has seen a significant shift in the adoption of ‘gender identity’ as an organising category in society, rather than sex. This has not been confined only to adults. ‘Gender identity’ is something that even very young children are said to have and to wish to express. The particular problem ‘arising out of ‘gender identity’ for children is that many claim it must be supported by medical intervention such as puberty blockers and hormones. The evidence base for such treatment is sparse at best and regardless, children who are under 16 and not Gillick competent cannot consent.

2.     This brings ‘gender identity’ directly into the family justice system.  A dispute between parents or between parents and clinicians can only be resolved by the court.

3.     My aim in this half an hour is to briefly examine the courts’ approach over time regarding cases around the social and medical transition of children. I think not only is this useful evidence about the degree to which any system is vulnerable to ideological capture but it also shows optimism for recovery and useful lessons in how ideological capture can be challenged.

5.     Whenever we make decisions about children we meet significant tensions between the intersection of paternalism and autonomy. Those tensions are exacerbated by the reality that any decision about ‘best interests’ for a person who lacks capacity is inevitably the imposition of a third party’s decision about what is best for them. That is an onerous task in any arena; a near impossible one when carried out against a back drop of considerable controversy about what the evidence in reality supports.

6.     The youngest child referred to the Tavistock at the time of the BELL case was only 10 years old. But the majority of those referred were older and could potentially have capacity to consent to treatment. The focus here will be on those children from about 12 upwards.

7.     I first emphasise the key disadvantage of ‘LawFare’ to deal with wide societal controversy. It is not appropriate for judges to make law, that is the job of Parliament. Judges interpret law and decide if public bodies have acted lawfully or not. This essential constriction of the power of the courts has shown starkly how limited the court system is to deal with this unprecedented situation where an ideological commitment to prioritising gender identity has robbed many adults of their ability to rationally analyse the evidence before them, which does not support an assertion that very significant and irreversible medical interventions are in children’s best interests. To be blunt, the courts understandably find it hard to accept that parents and doctors have both gone mad at the same time. Courts are not a public inquiry. They can decide only the case in front of them.

8.     I note for example Mr Justice Francis at para 25 in NHS Trust v Mother, Father and G [2024] EWHC 2207 (Fam). The Judge rejected the Code of Practice that applies to the Mental Health Act, which warned medical practitioners that parents were not permitted to consent to everything;

‘I agree with that Judgment of Lieven J. but would add this, perhaps by way of qualification: in [51] above, Lieven J said, " If the parent was exercising parental rights, including consenting to the deprivation of liberty, in a way which was said to be contrary to the child's best interests then such a decision would no longer fall within the zone of parental responsibility". It seems to me that even a decision which was made contrary to the child's best interests could still be a decision made in the exercise of parental responsibility. Every day parents will exercise parental responsibility and will sometimes make decisions that are contrary to their child's best interests. This is still exercising parental responsibility. It is the duty of the State to intervene where a decision is contrary to the best interests of the child, and might cause the child to suffer significant harm. However, where, as in the instant case, the treating medical team and the parents agree, the state's intervention is unnecessary; indeed, in my judgement, it would be inappropriate unless, for example (in what I believe would be a very rare case) a local authority or the Children's Guardian took the view that both the hospital and the parents had "got it seriously wrong". Such cases, as I have said, will be extremely rare.

9.     By being reluctant to accept that loving parents or highly qualified doctors have lost their senses, ensures that the courts quickly also became captured. The lack of curiosity and analysis in some of the cases about medical transition is shocking. And we simply do not see that lack of care in any other area of dispute over children. For example, consider this very anxious consideration given to a child’s wish to change her name so she could sever a link the father who sexually abused her.  A name of course can be changed back. Breasts once amputated cannot regrow.

10.  The court said: BC, Re (Child in Care: Change of Forename and Surname) [2024] EWHC 1639 (Fam) (26 June 2024) (bailii.org)

‘A change of forename and/or surname for a child is a serious decision whatever the age of the child. The court's paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. The views of others, in particular of those with parental responsibility, are to be taken into account. The family's views are relevant insofar as they may affect their conduct and attitude and therefore affect the welfare of the child. The views of the Local Authority, having parental responsibility in respect of a child in care, are of importance. The court must take into account the child's competence to make the decision, their age and maturity, the steadfastness of their wish to change their names, and the reasons behind the wish to make the changes. The court should consider the choice of name(s) – are they frivolous or would they be liable to be detrimental to the welfare of the child because of their nature or associations? The court should have close regard to the impact on the child of allowing them to change their name(s) as well as the impact of refusing them leave to do so. In the case of an older child, the court can have regard to the fact that a 16 or 17 year old not in care and not subject to a relevant child arrangements order or special guardianship order, could change their name without consent or leave, as could any 18 year old’

Brief history of the rise of the trans child

11.  But as the history of the ‘rise of the trans child’ shows, I have some sympathy with the courts who were presented by the medical profession with a ‘fait accompli’ about the importance and necessity of medical transition, based on ‘international good practice’ that was in fact nothing of the sort. It takes a considerable amount of reading and thought to fully take on board the ‘rise of the trans child’ and how this has been promoted. It’s taken me about four years to feel that I have properly understand the genesis of this phenomenon. The narrative has been carefully crafted to position ‘transition’ as a fundamental human right, to allow a person ‘to be who they have always known they were’ and essential to prevent children killing themselves.

12.  By the 1990s in the UK, parents of ‘gender dysphoric’ children began to request hormone suppression at the first signs of puberty. Such ‘puberty blockers ‘ administered at a young age, followed by cross sex hormones, would enable a child to ‘pass’ more effectively as the opposite sex when an adult.

13.  In 1997 the European Court stated in X, Y and Z v the UK (1997) 24 EHRR 143 that transexuality “raises complex scientific, legal, moral and social issues, in respect of which there is no generally shared approach among the Contracting States”

14.  By 2007 we had the’ Yogyakarta principles’ which spoke about ‘deeply felt internal’ experience of gender, and around the same time the Department of Health and the Endocrine Society developed new guidelines which recognised a child’s sense of ‘gender’.

15.  As Dr Cass noted, this was happening alongside a shift in the model of medical care – from ensuring good health from a robust evidence base, to seeing this as an unacceptably ‘narrow’ goal and instead seeking to ensure the patient’s self fulfilment. See for e.g.  Forever young? The ethics of ongoing puberty suppression for non-binary adults | Journal of Medical Ethics (archive.ph)

16.  The explosion of referrals to the Tavistock began -  97 in 2009/10 to 2,016 in 2016/17.  In 2015 Stonewall added the ‘T’ to the LGB. We end up in 2024 with high profile lawyers such as Jolyon Maugham making public and dire predictions that the decision of the Government to stop prescription of puberty blockers will cause a massive leap in the suicide of children.

17.  In my own practice, I saw not a single case involving a child with a claimed ‘trans’ identity from 1998 – 2020. Since then, I have been involved with six cases where the subject child had a ‘trans identity’. 3 were teenage girls with a history of serious trauma and significant mental health concerns.

How do the courts deal with a child’s consent?

18.  The law In England and Wales approaches this by making a distinction between children who are under 16 and over 16 and retaining in the High Court, an over-arching ability  to override a child’s capacity at any age, via the inherent jurisdiction, if to do so is in the child’s best interests and will prevent significant harm

19.  Once a child reaches 16, provided they don’t have an impairment of their brain functioning which means they lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, they are considered to be able to give consent to medical treatment as if they were an adult – section 8 Family Law Reform Act 1969.

20.  If the child is under 16, they can provide valid consent if they are ‘Gillick competent’. This phrase derives from the decision in the (then) House of Lords in Lords in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112. A mother objected to a her daughter if under 16 being able to consent to contraception. The House of Lords recognised that the capacity of a child to make serious decisions will increase alongside age and understanding. Case law has shown a distinction between cases where a child wanted to choose treatment or where a child wanted to refuse often life saving treatment – the latter is more likely to see a child being found not competent, because the consequences of refusal are so severe. See for example the Australian case X and Others v The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network [2013] NSWCA 320;  (2013) 85 NSWLR 294, the court did not allow a competent 17 year old Jehovah Witness to refuse blood products which were potentially lifesaving.

21.  But regardless of age or capacity, the court can still be asked to exercise its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ to allow or refuse treatment if to do so is in the child’s best interests and will prevent significant harm. – most reported cases concern issues around the likely death of a child if treatment is refused.

22.  All of this is of course an adult assessment made by adult clinicians and adult judges – what do they see as the value of the medical intervention and the consequences of the refusal? The imminent death of a child if the treatment doesn’t go ahead, tends to focus adult minds and ensure a shift away from autonomy to paternalism.

23.  But the massive problem with invasive treatment for ‘gender distress’ is that the adult assessment, both in the medical and legal professions, has been so poor for so long that paternalism has been jettisoned almost entirely to a promotion of the child’s ‘autonomy’. Given that the evidential basis for the efficacy of medical or surgical transition is so poor, this is using concepts such as ‘autonomy’ and ‘capacity’ to provide illusory justification for a decision that does not appear to be directed at any individual child’s welfare, but rather to support a political and ideological framework around the desirability – or even necessity – of ‘transition’.

The full piece is here and I recommend it:

https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/genspect-conference-lisbon-september?publication_id=317201&post_id=149624589&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The British Woocasting Corporation

In another speech from the Lisbon Conference, Graham Linehan on his substack takes aim at the BBC. Some very interesting information here from BBC insiders.

How the BBC was captured

My speech for Genspect's 'Bigger Picture'

Oct 02, 2024

(I didn’t do a ‘pomposity pass’ over this speech but it turned out ok, I think. Thanks to the BBC insiders who helped me with the nitty gritty.)

To begin, I would like you to picture a sunny day in a park in San Francisco.

Spring has sprung and a group of children are collecting flowers. Their teacher instructs them to pick a few that they can take home to their parents and they flutter towards the nearby constellations of bright red blossoms. It’s all very wholesome.

Sadly, the children have the misfortune to be in the 1978 remake of the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. The flowers they’re bringing home to their parents will be placed in vases, on windowsills, next to beds. As night falls and the family sleeps, the flowers bloom, releasing minute spores into the air. These spores, fine as dust, settle on each family member, sinking into pores, entering through slightly parted lips.

As the night wears on, tendrils emerge from the flowers, extending across rooms, under doors, and attaching to each family member, by now lost in a profound sleep. As dawn breaks, near where each person slept, there's now a pod-like form growing rapidly. Inside, a perfect copy of each family member takes shape, while the originals turn to dust. The new beings awaken, identical in every way to those they've replaced, except now they’re driven by one purpose only—to further the spread of these pretty, scarlet flowers.

Now here’s the really frightening thing about this scene. It takes place at the start of the film. So when you see it a second time, you realise that Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams and the rest of the cast never had a chance. Their fate was sealed before the film began, and the two hours spent running, fighting and hiding was all just an exercise in futility.

I thought again of this scene on a recent visit to Ireland, where I found myself in Dáil Éireann with a group of conservative politicians and intellectuals. Just a few years earlier, we were at each other's throats during the lead-up to the abortion referendum. Now, we found ourselves on the same side, fighting the grotesque form of American cultural imperialism known as the trans rights movement.

During this visit to the Irish Parliament, I heard something that made me shiver. Apparently, the monstrosity that is the Progress Pride flag had been engraved onto a door in the building. A conquering army had planted their flag at the heart of Ireland's legislative power. But this didn’t come at the end of a war of words like the referendum on abortion—where at least each side was able to make its case. Rather, this was the result of a silent coup, a war fought in whispers and behind heavy closed doors. A war to which the enemy was not invited.

The progress pride symbol, highly contentious, hated both by feminists and many gay people, now stands as a victory banner in the halls where Irish laws are made. It represents an ideology suddenly beyond questioning or debate. The battle, it seems, is over - and the Irish public didn't even know it was being fought.

Of course, this situation isn't unique to Ireland. Like the flowers undergoing the same predatory life cycle in ‘Body Snatchers’, the trans movement has followed its programming in the same way throughout institutions across the Western world. Much like in the film, the process was subtle, silent, and followed an identical template wherever it unfolded. There are still many in Ireland who simply don’t know that self-id is the law of the land. In fact, Irish trans activists were praised in the infamous Denton’s Document for successfully pulling the wool over the eyes of the Irish public.

But I haven’t lived in Ireland for nearly thirty years, so for a case study in how institutional capture works, let’s talk about the BBC who once employed me to write television comedy, and never will again, which is convenient, because I wouldn’t work for them. In the last decade, the BBC has undergone a transformation as profound and as devastating as that experienced by the unfortunate characters in 'Body Snatchers'. Its outward appearance may remain unchanged, but its core purpose and duties have been hollowed out.

Auntie, as the BBC was once fondly known, now walks in lockstep with ABC in Australia, RTE in Ireland, and PBS in the United States. In New Zealand, the coverage of Posie Parker’s Let Women Speak event, was so hostile and deranged, so dishonest, that it may go some way to explaining why viewing figures across the media landscape there are in freefall.

But back to the UK. In 2013, a group called All About Trans gained unprecedented access to the BBC. They didn't storm the building or stage protests. Rather, they used meetings, workshops, and fun social outings. They met with children's programming, and had afternoon tea in the Langham hotel with Steve Hermann, one of the people in charge of the BBC’s online style guide.

In the same year, the BBC’s drama commissioning team spent a delightful day with trans activists at the London Aquarium. Why the London Aquarium? Who knows. But I suspect they lingered at the Clown Fish. These weren't formal meetings with minutes and agendas. They were casual, friendly interactions designed to build relationships, influence thinking and most importantly, leave no trace.

And it all worked spectacularly well. Only three months after the meeting in the Langham Hotel, in November 2013, the BBC’s style guide was rewritten. It now included the language of self-ID, effectively enshrining the concept into BBC policy. While we were distracted by the Great British Bake Off, trans activists managed to change the very language the BBC uses to describe reality. The result? A decade of misinformation, misogyny and bias. When historians try to piece together the progress of the trans delusion, they will find in BBC archives a decade-wide black hole.

Where there should have been robust journalism, analysing the progress of a ideology that brought permanent harm to generations of gay, autistic and gender nonconforming youth, there is instead so much coverage on the activities of drag queens that you would think them diplomats from a nation controlling global energy reserves. Programs like "I Am Leo" led to a spike in referrals to gender clinics. Victoria Derbyshire’s show became a platform for unchallenged trans activism. Children's programming began promoting gender ideology to still-forming young minds.

Victoria Derbyshire and Steve Hermann

But it wasn't just about what they reported - it was also about what they didn't. And this brings us to Hannah Barnes and her groundbreaking report on the Tavistock clinic, when she became one of the first mainstream BBC journalists to report on the medical scandal behind the term ‘trans kids’. In a normal news cycle, a story uncovering grave issues at a prominent institution such as the Tavistock would only begin on a flagship programme like Newsnight. After that, the news machine would kick into gear. They'd create shorter versions - maybe a 3-4 minute piece for the main bulletins, and a 2-minute version for hourly news updates.

The story would be everywhere. On breakfast TV, you'd have in-depth interviews with the journalist and key figures from the report. The 24-hour news channel would run panel discussions, bringing in experts to debate the implications. Online, you'd see a flurry of articles exploring every angle of the story. But that's not what happened with Hannah Barnes' report.

In the end, the story was largely confined to Newsnight. The broader BBC ecosystem fell eerily silent on the matter. No cut-down versions for the main bulletins. No in-depth interviews on breakfast TV. No panel discussions on the news channel. It was as if the story had hit an invisible wall. This wasn't accident or oversight. It was a deliberate suppression of information that didn't fit the narrative trans activists had dictated to BBC executives while sipping earl grey in the Langham Hotel. The same silent influence which got that ugly flag etched on a door in Dáil Éireann was at work here.

The BBC's impartiality guidelines became a weapon against truth. Gender-critical voices were invited onto panels and then disinvited when their opponents refused to debate, killing entire stories. Jenny Murray, the much-loved presenter of Women’s Hour, was silenced on trans issues during her time on the program and eventually forced out.

Having started in journalism before my comedy career took off, and now returning to it, I’ve seen more than my share of careless writers. Bluffers, whose job consists of taking passages from Wikipedia and placing them on the page in a different order. But this wasn't just bad journalism. This was something else. This was deliberately misleading journalism towards an ideological end. One of the worst examples of this was Jon Ronson’s ‘Things Fall Apart’, in which Ronson told the story of The Michfest Music Festival, which had been a beloved part of the calendar for lesbians and feminists for 15 years. Ronson did not tell the story from the point of view of the attendees. Instead, he zeroed in on the men who had been tormenting the festival-goers for years. Ronson depicted Camp Trans as a model of restrained and measured protest and neglected to mention that its members would drive dirt bikes around the festival in order to drown out the folk acts playing within.*

Dana Rivers and Jon Ronson: A brutal insult to lesbians.

Even worse, he failed to include an incident that would have cut the legs out from under his premise. Dana Rivers, a member of Camp Trans, invaded the home of two Michfest attendees, Charlotte Reed and her wife Patricia Wright, and killed them and their adopted son, Benny Diambu-Wright, 19. Ronson’s excuse, that he was only interested in the origins of Camp Trans, which conveniently featured no triple murders, holds no water, and in fact his excuse merely confirms that he knew about the murder, and left it out deliberately.

That’s not just bad journalism. It’s a betrayal of journalism, it's a betrayal of the public trust. If a pharmaceutical company was promoting a drug that caused permanent harm to children, while suppressing evidence of its dangers—imagine that!—we'd demand accountability. We'd expect arrests and prosecutions. We wouldn't just shrug and say, "Well, that's Big Pharma for you!" How is this any different?

The BBC, through its reporting and its lack of reporting, has effectively promoted a medical scandal. They've given a platform to those pushing experimental treatments on children. They've silenced experts warning about the dangers. They've created an environment where questioning this ideology is seen as bigotry, effectively gaslighting an entire nation. Again, this isn't just bad journalism, this is fraud. This is complicity in child abuse.

Under the Criminal Law Act of 1977, conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal act. This includes planning to commit offences against children. I believe that some of the meetings I’ve described today, could fall under that heading. This may sound extreme, but we're dealing with an institutional failure so profound, so damaging, that I feel it demands a legal reckoning, or at the very least some kind of truth and reconciliation process.

We're not talking about a difference of opinion here - we're talking about the deliberate promotion of an ideology that's causing irreversible harm to children, the suppression of evidence that would have reduced the damage, and the ruination of those who tried to stop it. The BBC's reporting has improved somewhat in recent months. But the damage has been done. A generation has been indoctrinated. Lives have been irreparably harmed. And someone needs to be held accountable.

I would suggest at the very least, The Director General of the BBC should be summoned before the Parliamentary Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport, and made to answer for the channel’s behaviour over the last decade, but sadly, that committee includes MP and gender loon John Nicolson, who could take any number of naps near one of the pods in ‘Body Snatchers’, wake up and show no discernible change in his behaviour.

As we move forward, we need to demand more from our media. We need true impartiality, not the false balance that sits on truth while feeding on ideology. We need journalists who are willing to ask difficult questions, and we need executives who will protect them from the inevitable Twitter onslaught of anime profiles with she/her pronouns. We need a media landscape that values truth over trends. But most importantly, we need accountability. Those who have used their positions of power to promote harm must answer for their decisions. Only then can we begin to rebuild trust, not just in our national broadcasters, but in every other institution that helps keep our societies healthy.

Only then can we prevent future spores of toxic ideologies, carried on digital winds, from finding purchase in young minds. Thank you.

Dusty: Meanwhile, us substackers will keep telling the truth.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/how-the-bbc-was-captured

The Irish SPHE Scandal

I have been following this in recent updates and this piece ( which has been around for a while but I have only just come across it) from Natural Women’s Council by Jana Lunden and Eugene ( anyone know his surname which I could not locate!?) provides a wonderful explanation of where the gender madness came from going right back to the Frankfurt School of Marxists and forward through John Money, Michel Foucault, Queer Theory, Judith Butler and beyond.

This is Part 1 of a series and I will leave you, dear readers, to explore further if you want to. I intend to do that as well but if anyone does look at a future part and wants to write a review for this substack, please do so.

The Takeover Of Womanhood

This piece just out from Mr Menno acts as an excellent companion piece to the above.

Council of Woorope

Sex Matters in their latest newsletter (04 October) report:

Council of Europe report insists men can be lesbians

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has been presented with a report which claims that men can be lesbians.

On Thursday, rapporteur Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo delivered the 16-page document titled Preventing and combating violence and discrimination against lesbian, bisexual and queer women in Europe.

Despite meeting with gender-critical organisation LGB Alliance when compiling the report, Fresko-Rolfo ignored all the concerns raised by the British charity. Referring to the organisation just once, she stated: “I expressed my disagreement on their decision to exclude lesbian transgender women from the LBQ women’s group. I reiterated that transgender women are women.” 

Having had its concerns disregarded, LGB Alliance sent copies of the evidence submitted to Fresko-Rolfo to the president of PACE, Theodoros Rousopoulos, and all the representatives.

New Zealand - The Midwifery Council

My latest report on the capture of the Midwoofery Council is here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/crocodile-dundee?utm_source=publication-search

The latest update from Mana Wāhine Kōrero is here:

https://manawahinekorero.substack.com/p/all-submissions-are-equal?publication_id=1628493&post_id=149690342&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

New Zealand - Holding The Line

Excellent piece from Katrina Biggs’ substack, A B’Old Woman on who can and who cannot be trusted to fight for women’s rights in New Zealand (including a good interview with Jill Ovens of the Women’s Rights Party):

Who's holding the line for women’s sex-based rights in NZ, now that legacy women’s organisations won’t?

Oct 05, 2024

Jill Ovens, national secretary and co-leader of the Women’s Rights Party NZ, gives an excellent presentation about the party in this recent Women’s Declaration International video below. In it, she describes how the Women’s Rights Party came about, and what it has done since its inception, including campaigning during the run-up to the general election in October 2023.

Amongst a scant handful of other groups and organisations now, the Women’s Rights Party is dedicated to holding the line for women’s sex-based rights. Most legacy organisations, such as the National Council of Women, have disgracefully sold out to the agenda of men who say they’re women. In the case of the National Council of Women it’s especially disgraceful, because Kate Sheppard, who is revered for being highly instrumental in winning the vote for women in NZ in 1893, was the “inaugural president of the National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCW) in 1896”. She’d turn in her grave at the sell-out the National Council of Women has become. They don’t even mention the word ‘woman’ once on the front page of their website anymore, apart from in their title, which I’m sure they’d bastardise if they could. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if efforts are already underway to rename the organisation the ‘National Council of People who Identify as being a Woman’. Dusty - National Council of Willies should do 😁

Jill Ovens, New Zealand - The Women’s Rights Party: Holding the Line

Zonta appears to be one of those included in the sellouts. Initially, they come across as all for and all about women, especially when they support groups like Wahine Toa Rising (Wahine Toa = Strong/Brave Women), who are a survivor-led group for women and children in the sex trade.

Knowing what I now know about women’s organisations, though, I contacted the NZ-based organisation via their website around mid-September, and politely asked if they included men who say they’re women in their advocacy. Then I did a bit more digging around, and found that Zonta International have a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement – groan. In it they state “As a global organization, Zonta International values the contributions of members of all backgrounds, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, color, ability, religion, socio-economic status, culture, sexual orientation or gender identity”. Double groan. So, Zonta is not only for women, but also for men who say they’re women. I knew then that there was probably a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a reply from Zonta NZ. So far, I’ve been proved right.

I don’t know of any women’s organisations advocating for both women and men who say they’re women, can hand-on-heart say there’s no conflict of interest. Any answers they give to questions about that are obfuscatory and disingenuous. Men who say they’re women do not enhance women’s organisations in any way, nor do they add to them in any way which is not primarily focussed on benefiting men who say they’re women.

If you live in New Zealand, membership to the Women’s Rights Party is open to both women and men, and supports them by adding numbers to their membership list. It’s just $5 per year. I myself am a peripherally active member, as I feel I may be a little too wayward these days for full involvement – lol! As we know, transactivists like nothing better than to try and destroy organisations that won’t worship at the altar of gender ideology, and, because I freely ‘misgender’ men who say they’re women, it’s entirely possible they could try and use me to discredit the party.

To the Women’s Rights Party credit, though, they won’t entertain transactivists even for one second. Unlike legacy women’s organisations, they know how to stay true to women.

https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/whos-holding-the-line-for-womens?publication_id=1177996&post_id=149827162&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Australia - Tickle v Giggle update

Thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic for these two updates.

Giggle for Girls founder fights ruling that ‘sex is changeable’(04 October)

Sall Grover is challenging a controversial Federal Court ruling that “sex is changeable”, after a judge found excluding a transgender woman from the women’s-only social media app Giggle for Girls amounted to indirect discrimination.

In a statement on Thursday, Giggle for Girls and Ms Grover said they would argue the court “misinterpreted the legal definition of ‘sex’ under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), expanding it beyond biological realities, which could undermine protections meant for women and girls.”

The “appeal challenges a declaratory judgment that wrongfully finds our actions constituted ‘unlawful indirect discrimination’ based on gender identity”, the statement said.

There were mixed reactions to the polarising judgment handed down in August. Some legal experts said the ruling made it “clear cut that you cannot have spaces designated as women-only, where what you mean is cisgender women-only”. Others said discrimination law no longer offered women the protection it was once legislated to guarantee.

Experienced silk Stuart Wood AM KC has been brought onto the Giggle team, alongside Bridie Nolan, Anca Costin and Katherine Deves.

Source: Giggle for Girls founder fights ruling that ‘sex is changeable’

Statement on the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sally Grover | Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem (04 October)

I am gravely concerned over the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sally Grover, which ruled that the exclusion of a male who identifies as a woman and is recognized as a female under the law from a female-only social media platform constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination.

The ruling demonstrates the concrete consequences that result when gender identity is allowed to supplant sex – and override women’s rights to female only services and spaces.

Source: 20240904-stm-sr-vawg-australia-en.pdf

The American Academy of Child Harm

Sex Matters also provide this shocking report in their latest newsletter:

US: detransitioners kicked out of conference

A group of gender-critical mental-health advocates, including detransitioners, have been removed from the conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

The group had booked a stall for the event, where they were hoping to raise awareness of the harms of “gender medicine”.

As reported by Matt Walsh, the AAP sent venue security to inform the group that they had 10 minutes to pack up their booth and exit the conference venue.

One of the group asked to leave, lawyer and mother Erin Friday, said: “We have a parent whose daughter was on puberty blockers for three years and testosterone for two years. She cannot find a medical provider to help her ... detransition. There is no help for somebody who wants to detransition.”

PITT’s Top Ten

The excellent Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans have produced their top ten posts over the years based on viewing figures. I must admit to intense envy over those viewing figures!!!!!

https://www.pittparents.com/p/the-pitt-top-ten?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true

Rooted In Resilience

One of the Party of Women candidates at the General Election, Kelly Dougall has started a podcast called In The Therapy Room and here is an excellent interview with Louise Styles going through Louise’s troubled childhood and leading up to her current grassroots activism. Good down to earth women’s rights campaigning 😀

Women’s Sports

Georgia O’Keefe on the substack Woman: Adult Human Female reports:

Silencing Girls, Women, and Their Supporters by Threats and Cancellation

Oct 3, 2024 - Massachusetts Library caught in crosshair of Trans Stasi and biological reality

Two weeks ago, we reported the Tewksbury Public Library was hosting a zoom webinar featuring Dr. Gregory Brown to discuss “Males and Females Are Different, and That Matters in Sports". The webinar was originally scheduled for Oct 2. As expected, the Trans Stasi threw a fit. The library’s director Diane Giarrusso issued a statement, citing reasons for cancellation being: (1) the library had discovered a lack of evidence supporting either side of the argument (Uh-huh, no evidence males are physically stronger than female); and (2) “the levels of intolerance for a discussion around this issue has brought bullying to our staff.”

Following the cancellation, the Women’s Liberation Front (WOLF) stepped up to host the webinar so it can proceed as scheduled on Oct 2. Meanwhile, the Tewksbury Library, receiving strong complaints from the local community objecting to the cancellation, reversed course and decided to host the webinar after all on Oct 3.

Dusty - well done to WolF for stepping in. Dr Brown’s presentation is the most comprehensive explanation of just why men should not be in women’s sports that you would ever need and includes why this also applies pre-puberty and regardless of testosterone suppression or use of puberty blockers. It is long, so set aside some time.

I am reminded of statistics that I previously quoted about the ‘Four Minute Mile’:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/chariots-of-fire?utm_source=publication-search

Endpiece by Liz

I think we need some light relief after all of that.

#BeMorePorcupine

#LetWomenSpeak

I hope that the next update will be on Monday or Tuesday, Terven.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.