Keeping A Case In The Public Eye
Update 463. Stop German Self ID Special. #BeMorePorcupine
This is a long one, dear readers.
Well, I might be pushing at the boundaries a bit here in the Irish Heroes season since really virtually the only Irish person involved in this film is the director, Martin McDonagh…but his films are great…and this is a classic …so, any excuse!
Kellie-Jay Keen knew what to say on a billboard!! So did Billboard Chris!!
So did Mildred Hayes ( Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) when fighting for justice for her murdered daughter. Some time ago, I was listening to a discussion about the parents of children who decide, against their parents’ will, to ‘transition’ and then disown their own parents - it was described as like a bereavement. I know this applies directly to at least one of my readers. So this has a very real resonance hence the relevance of this particular film. If you haven’t seen it, do check it out. It is pretty damn powerful!!
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Glasgow Rape Crisis
This is a step in the right direction but it should be noted that larping men will still be allowed to access the service - they just won’t be employed at the Glasgow Centre. And I’m quoting the BBC - wonders will never cease!
Mary McCool
Mary McCool in BBC Scotland News (Rape centre breaks away from charity in row over gender 24 October) reports:
A rape support centre in Glasgow has broken away from the supervision of the umbrella charity Rape Crisis Scotland in a row over gender.
Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis said its priority was to provide a single-sex service by an "all-female workforce" - and this was "at odds" with the charity's priorities.
RCS chief executive Sandy Brindley recently apologised after another centre in Edinburgh, which was run by a trans woman, failed to provide single-sex spaces for 16 months.
At the time Ms Brindley made clear that all member centres should provide single-sex spaces, but said there was no reason why transgender people could not work in rape support centres.
BBC News understands the Glasgow centre made the decision in February to end its membership with Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) - the national charity that sets service standards for member centres.
The centre then held a number of meetings with RCS to discuss concerns - its view was it wanted to go beyond providing single-sex spaces and have a women-only workforce.
Katie Cosgrove, co-chair of Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis, said the centre was not changing the way its service is run - rather that the decision was to "publicly disassociate" from RCS.
Asked what the impact of the move would be on service users, she said she was "not clear on what kind of impact that might be".
She said she recognised there was a need for trans women to use the service and that the centre had seen a "small number" of trans women - 17 in the last year.
A condition of the charity's funding from the Scottish government is that services are trans-inclusive. The Glasgow centre will continue to support trans women who seek support but will not employ trans women.
Ms Cosgrove said: "We believe very strongly in the rights of women to have single-sex services within a rape crisis setting and we believe, to ensure that they are protected and that risk is minimised, that it should be an all-female workforce."
The full piece is here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7w322230go
Demand an End to Taxpayer-Funded Puberty Blocker Trials
Here is a petition created by James Esses - please consider signing it.
My name is James Esses. In May 2021, I was three years into a five-year MSc course, training to become a therapist. One day, without warning, I received an email from my course provider expelling me from the course, after I began to raise concerns regarding the impact of gender ideology on child safeguarding.
This is particularly relevant in the field of psychotherapy because individuals with gender dysphoria need to be treated in a balanced and holistic way.
After years of litigation, I have been vindicated and I remain at the forefront of the fight against radical gender ideology in order to protect and safeguard vulnerable children who fall pray to it.
I am reaching out to you today because I need your help! Our government plans to ruin the lives of vulnerable children by experimenting on them.
As you may have heard, the NHS is about to start puberty blocker clinical trials on children.
Dr Hilary Cass has revealed in a recent interview on BBC’s Women’s Hour, that unlimited numbers of children will be able to access puberty blockers through this clinical trial.
To have any trial at all for medication we already know is harmful is bad enough. But to allow unlimited numbers of children to partake is horrifying.
Since neither the NHS nor the government care about the health and wellbeing of these children, the burden for their protection falls on you and me.
It is up to us to oppose this horrid scheme. We must be the voice of reason and stand up for these children, as no one else will!
Children are not lab rats to be experimented on by the NHS. These drugs have serious and long-term devastating effects on the reproductive and general health of individuals. No child should be put on them.
We have to act now!
Mermaids
Sticking with James Esses, on Matt Goodwin’s substack he investigates Mermaids who I have been looking at in recent updates following the Charity Commission report.
How charities impose radical gender ideology on our children. The SHOCKING case of Mermaids
Oct 28, 2024
I want you to imagine an organisation. Not just any organisation. A charity. A charity whose stated purpose is to “support transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children”.
Imagine that this charity was, for several years, run by a woman [ Dusty - see front row on the right above] who, in a TedTalk, admitted to taking her own 16-year-old son to Thailand to have his genitals removed, on the basis it was illegal to offer such surgery in the UK. She even joked about her son’s genitals, saying they were underdeveloped so “not much to work with”.
Now imagine that this charity targeted young, vulnerable, confused children. It told these children they may have been born in the wrong body. It told them that the answer to their problem was to be found in things like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And if anybody raised concerns about what things like this might do to their bodies, the charity lied and told them the effects were reversible.
And imagine, too, that this charity told young people that human biology is “blah blah blah” and there was a “war raging” against them.
When young pubescent girls, unhappy in their bodies, wrote in and said they hated their breasts, imagine that this charity sent them breast binders, which studies have shown can have serious negative effects, in the post without telling their parents.
Imagine, too, that the charity even ran residential weekends for children, in which young girls could try on these breast binders and where staff members described this as “gender euphoria in action and it made my queer heart soar”.
The full piece is here:
Kemi Badenoch
I reported on Kemi in the last update.
Sam Lister in The Daily Express (Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch says children cannot be transgender 28 October) reports:
Kemi Badenoch; Tom Tugendhat © Getty
Tory leadership frontrunner Kemi Badenoch insisted children cannot be transgender and warned it was "critical" they are not allowed to make irreversible decisions.
The shadow cabinet minister said she "fundamentally disagreed" with the idea a child can be trans and suggested the phrase "gender-questioning" was more appropriate.
Facing questions from Mumsnet in the final days of the contest to become party leader, Ms Badenoch raised concerns about claims there are "24 different genders".
"We have to make sure that we don't lose touch with reality," she said.
As Equalities Minister, she had been rewriting equalities laws so they specifically refer to biological sex rather than how someone chooses to identify but the election was called before the work was completed. [ Dusty - of course, the Tories had had 14 years while in Government to sort all this out!!]
Ms Badenoch suggested there was a "huge overlap" between gay children with autism and those who describe themselves as transgender.
She added: "Looking at the purpose of what a gender recognition certificate means in 2024 I think is important. [ Dusty - note that none of the Tories are actually taking aim at the Gender Recognition Act itself]
"I also think that we should look at how a law that was made for adults is now being used for children, so I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a child being trans when the law talks about doing these things post-18. So I use the phrase 'gender-questioning children'."
The full article is here:
The Irish Hate Crime Act
As readers know, I have been covering this awful piece of legislation recently ( well , I’ve actually been covering it, on and off, for over a year!!).
Excellent interview on Andrew Doyle’s Free Speech Nation with Laoise de Brún, CEO of the Irish Women’s Rights group, The Countess.
Stop Press
I can’t believe that Barbie Kardashian has been found not guilty of threatening to kill and rape an officer and an inmate when held in a women’s prison ( after admitting it!!??). See JL’s report on her excellent latest Week in the War on Women on the Glinner Update:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-f31
Canada - Sanity in Alberta
Eva Kurilova on her substack brings us some good news from Alberta (albeit that there is still lots of room for further improvement).
Legislation to Help Restore Some Sanity is on Its Way in Alberta
I still can't believe it's really happening!
Oct 26, 2024
Earlier this month, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith released a video announcing that her UCP [ United Conservative Party] government would be introducing trans-related legislation based on policies announced earlier this year in less than a month—which means it will be introduced this coming week.
If you are unfamiliar with the proposed policies or you want to brush up on the specifics, the government released some handy infographics for quick reference.
I also encourage you to watch the video because it provides an excellent overview, and I think the Premier touched on a very important point when it comes to the way that the policies are portrayed. I’ll just quote below because it was so well said.
Anyone who claims that these rules were designed to target or somehow harm you in any way are mistaken. Although questioning or disagreeing with these new policies is any person's democratic right, adults who choose to tell children and youth that these policies were designed to hurt them or marginalize them—that kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and harmful to the young people involved and it is entirely false.
I am so glad that this point was brought up, and brought up so well. I’ve long wondered how adults like activist senator Kristopher Wells can live with themselves telling kids that their government and their Premier hate them. This is exactly how we need to push back on the people who think their control of the narrative gives them a free pass to, quite frankly, act like terrible human beings. It doesn’t get much worse than trying to make kids believe that people with different beliefs and politics would like to see them commit suicide.
The full piece is here:
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/legislation-to-help-restore-some?publication_id=1079486&r=1v403b
New Zealand - The LAVA Case continued
My latest report on the Lesbian Action for Visibility (LAVA) case was here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-gard?utm_source=publication-search
Garwhoungle continues the excellent reporting on her substack The Ministry has fallen.
The curious case of Pride vs the Lesbians: Part 4.
Legal aspects of the LAVA case against Wellington Pride
Oct 28, 2024
This issue of THE MINISTRY HAS FALLEN is Part 4 of The curious case of Pride vs the Lesbian series and focuses on the legal aspects of LAVA’s human rights case against Wellington Pride.
Read Part 1. In which it's all inclusion and aroha, but not for lesbians.
Read Part 2: Lesbianism, patriarchy’s final frontier
Read Part 3: Gender extremist attacks on lesbians: three quick case studies
What is the case?
Hilary Oxley and Margeret Curnow, on behalf of their group Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (LAVA), are taking Wellington Pride Festival Incorporated to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The case number is HRRT 053/22.
What is the Human Rights Review Tribunal?
The Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) hears claims about breaches of the Privacy Act 2020, the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, and, relevant to this discussion, the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA). Tribunal members are appointed: the Governor-General appoints the Chair and Deputy Chair on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, other members are appointed directly by the Minister of Justice.
What’s the gist?
LAVA believes its members have been discriminated against because of their political beliefs, beliefs based around the proposition that men can’t be women. The gist of the case is to find out whether, according to law, this has happened. It’s slightly complicated and involves several intertwining issues.
Was Wellington Pride offering a service?
First, the Tribunal has to establish whether Wellington Pride, in making a public call to Rainbow groups to apply for stalls, was providing a service to the public. This is important because it tells us if the Human Rights Act 1993 actually applies to what happened.
Section 44 of the HRA says people who supply goods and services to the public must not discriminate. If, however, it is found to be a private event, the HRA would not apply and Pride could decide who was allowed to hold stalls for whatever reason it wanted. As the song goes, it’s their party, they can be anti-lesbian if they want to.
If it was a service, did Wellington Pride discriminate on one of the HRA-protected grounds?
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act lists 13 grounds on which, if the Act does apply to you, you must not discriminate. It includes sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and a bunch of other prohibited grounds. Pertinent to this case is the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of ‘political opinion’.
This is a big deal. On the HRRT decision web page, I can’t see any record of a previous case focused on political opinion. Apparently, some cases in the 1990s talked about bus drivers with communist sympathies. This case could set a modern precedent, not just for those who want to be true to their belief in biological sex, but for anyone who fears that their political opinion might see them booted out of a job, a restaurant, or a house.
Can the views expressed by LAVA be considered ‘political opinion’?
Wellington Pride acknowledges that it refused LAVA’s stall because of their ‘trans-exclusionary views’. LAVA’s primary case is that its members’ views on trans issues are political opinions. If they are found to be political opinions then Wellington Pride might, according to law, have discriminated against LAVA members.
Dusty - I am not clear why this case is not being taken under the heading of ‘sex discrimination’ but I’m not a NZ Law expert.
But if Wellington Pride did discriminate, was it justified because of a need to protect transgender and non-binary people?
But wait, there’s more! If Wellington Pride did discriminate, there’s a potential legal out. Section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993 lays out instances where discrimination is deemed okay. They’re grouped under the heading ‘Measures to ensure equality’.
If discrimination occurs, Section 73 states, it will not constitute a breach of the Act if:
‘(a) it is done or omitted in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons, being in each case persons against whom discrimination is unlawful by virtue of this Part; and
(b) those persons or groups need or may reasonably be supposed to need assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community.’
This is interesting. If Pride claims that transgender people are so marginalised that the discrimination against others was justified in order for trans people to “achieve an equal place with other members of the community” is such a claim reasonable? Many insist that trans people are the most discriminated against and marginalised group ever, anywhere and in all time. I don’t think the facts support this but it might be the argument made by Wellington Pride.
Was Wellington Pride acting in ‘good faith’?
You’ll note in the wording of Section 73 that any measures to ensure equality must be made in ‘good faith’. If Section 73 is part of Wellington Pride’s arguments, was that organisation, in refusing to let LAVA display its map of lesbian history, acting in ‘good faith’ to protect its trans and non-binary whanau? [ Dusty ‘Whanau’ is Maori for ‘family’]
A reminder that LAVA wasn’t there to chant trans women are men or wear lesbians don’t like dick t-shirts. The problem was, according to Wellington Pride, that LAVA members simply thought such things. This gives rise to supplementary questions. Could other people attending Out in the City also have had the wrong sorts of thoughts? Was everyone vetted at the door for their opinions on trans issues? Could Pride guarantee an atmosphere free of people with TERF-like thoughts?
Are trans and non-binary people protected under the current version of the Human Rights Act?
The ‘measures to ensure equality’ section brings up another issue. Is discrimination against trans and non-binary people prevented by the Act?
Bear with me. Section 73 of the HRA, the Measures to Equality section, only applies to those groups covered in Section 21, the Grounds of Discrimination section. This means that if Wellington Pride argue discrimination against LAVA was necessary to protect trans and non-binary people it’s got to show that Section 21 covers transgender and non-binary people.
Let’s jump back a bit. While gender identity and gender expression are not explicitly listed in Section 21, the Human Rights Commission has long taken the position that they are covered in the Act under the ‘Sex’ ground. Back in 2006, Crown Law advised as much to the Attorney-General. This opinion, however, has never been tested in court. 2006 was a long time ago as well. That Crown Law opinion pre-dates the more recent expectations of some people who identify as trans or non-binary, that in every sex-based scenario (toilets, changing rooms, sport, prisons, refuges etc), they may use the facilities or category of their choice.
Ambiguity around the issue remains and that ambiguity prompted the Law Commission this year to instigate a review of whether the current wording of the Act adequately protects transgender people, those with innate variations of sex characteristics, and those who are non-binary. That review is still in progress.
The LAVA case, however, will be taken under the version of the Act in place at the time of the alleged discrimination. Remember the issue here is not whether trans and non-binary people should be protected under the Act, it’s whether, in law, gender identity is a characteristic that is protected from discrimination.
If you care about sex-based rights, lesbian rights, or the right to hold a political opinion without discrimination, and you have some spare change, then LAVA could really use some financial support for their court case:
Support LAVA’s human rights case against Wellington Pride
World Bank
Róisín Michaux reports on X that the World Bank wants men in women’s prisons. The report below is intended to “inform” the bank’s support for “borrowing countries”. Very worrying stuff to say the least!!
https://x.com/RoisinMichaux/status/1850584642023227771
https://x.com/RoisinMichaux/status/1850584722767823345
Australia - Victoria - State Religion In Disguise
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic via Claire Lehmann in The Australian. Yet another example of the immense dangers of hate crime and hate speech legislation.
Victoria’s new orthodoxy is state religion in disguise
If the government’s proposed changes proceed, Victorians will lose their right to free speech, setting a precedent for the entire country.
Current anti-vilification legislation in Victoria is restricted to race and religion, which is in line with the rest of the country. But the government wants to expand this law to include a laundry list of additional attributes, including disability, gender identity, sexual characteristics, and sexual orientation. If such an expansion is passed, it will become illegal in Victoria to offend people who are disabled, trans, non-binary or “sexually diverse”. Maximum prison sentences will be up to three to five years.
The legal thresholds for what constitutes vilification will be lowered. Currently, one must “incite hatred” to breach the law. Under the proposed changes, however, speech that is “likely to incite” will become a criminal offence. Under such a standard, almost all speech referring to those with protected attributes – regardless of intent or context – could be deemed criminal. This means journalists, writers, comedians, academics, artists and activists will all be open to prosecution.
Unlike previous false alarms, this threat to free expression is both real and urgent.
In 2023, for example, trans activist Claire Southey took the Australian Press Council to court for failing to rule against The Daily Telegraph for reporting the gender identity of a sex offender. The Council had ruled that The Daily Telegraph had not breached journalistic standards when it reported that “pedophile Scott Lee Irwin … identified as transgender and was now known as Sheryl”. Yet Southey alleged that such reporting promoted negative stereotypes about transgender people, and thus took the Press Council to court.
The ideology of this belief system (whether we want to call it progressivism, “wokeness” or something else) is now acquiring the trappings of official doctrine. This doctrine determines that certain groups have special moral status, with demands that are sacrosanct and beyond questioning.
This new orthodoxy operates on multiple levels. First, it holds that speech inflicts harm equivalent to physical violence, which means stringent controls must be placed on expression. Second, it establishes a hierarchy of moral authority based on perceived victimhood, where some voices are deemed more virtuous than others. Third, it promotes a series of dogmas about identity, privilege and systemic oppression that brook no dissent. This means debate is off the table.
Like any religion, this belief system has its own heresies. Questioning the concept of gender fluidity or expressing concern about biological males in women’s sports or suggesting that factors other than discrimination might contribute to disparities between groups – all these become dangerous utterances, potentially worthy of legal sanction.
Just as heretics once faced inquisitions for challenging church doctrine, today’s dissenters risk social ostracism, professional ruin and potentially legal consequences for transgressing this new moral code. Victoria’s shift represents a fundamental reimagining of the role of government in a liberal democracy. Rather than serving as a neutral arbiter, protecting the rights of citizens who have equality before the law, the state is now becoming the enforcer of a particular worldview. It’s a vision where the government not only dictates what citizens can say, but what they must believe.
Source: Victoria’s new orthodoxy is state religion in disguise
Pearl Red Moon
Following the Tickle v Giggle judgment ( see here: https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/attaboy-clarence), Aussie Terf , artist and friend of this substack, Pearl Red Moon has made a whole exhibition of works celebrating the beauty of the female figure intended to illustrate her resistance. Here is one of the wonderful pieces.
For more lovely works and details of the exhibition, see here:
Lasst Frauen Sprechen
The German Self ID law comes into force on 01 November. Protests are taking place around the world at German embassies and consulates. My friends and I (my wife can’t make it) will be at the German Embassy in Belgrave Square, London at 12pm on Friday. Any of you coming, dear readers? Hope to see some of you there. If you are coming you need to register:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/protest-at-german-embassy-tickets-1012760843947
Endpieces by Liz
This is amazing! Wonderful KJK impersonation!! Governor Weiner looks suitably uncomfortable! Everyone Walk The Dinosaur 😄
https://x.com/theposieparker/status/1850945958768722074?s=58&t=4i5ih5tBDrRrk0-cY5TVaA
#BeMorePorcupine
#LetWomenSpeak
#Grassroots Army
Thanks so much. Dusty. I just keep wondering why “trans women” can’t be a special class of men instead of a special class of women!! Let them dress as they like and be as special as they want as very special men! I also hope we all use the word sex and not gender when we mean sex and that we correct those around us when they use gender when they mean sex!! Oh well……
Wow what an amazing speech by the Alberta premier!