Sleeping Dogs
Update 432 Scotland Special #BeMorePorcupine
This is a long one, dear readers.
Thanks to one of the wonderful readers mentioned below who first provided me with a list for the Heroes season and now thanks also to Rex Landy for substantially adding to that list. This is their season!! This one is from Rex.
Sleeping Dogs is a 1977 New Zealand film directed by Roger Donaldson. The film stars Sam Neill, Clyde Scott, and Warren Oates, and is notable for being the first feature-length 35 mm film produced entirely in New Zealand.
It follows "Smith" (Neill) as New Zealand plunges into a police state as a fascist government institutes martial law after industrial disputes flare into violence. Smith gets caught between the special police and a growing resistance movement, and reluctantly becomes involved.
Bye Bye, Stonewall! No Such Thing As A ‘Trans Kid’
Stonewall have decided to pull out of work with schools and colleges!! Additionally the Keeping Children Safe guidance has been amended to separate the LGB from the rest of the alphabet soup!! EDI Jester celebrates!!
I can’t help thinking ‘why are Stonewall doing this?’ All thoughts gratefully received.
Scotland and Cass
Here is the sequence of events.
STV in Scotland reported that the Scottish Government have said they will follow the Cass Review:
EDI Jester investigated this and said he smelt a rat.
According to Wings Over Scotland, Barry is exactly right and the Scottish Government are not going to follow Cass and are, in fact, going to do exactly the opposite including speeding up so called gender affirming care for children.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/your-children-will-be-harmed/
Barry later reported, based on a piece in the Telegraph, that the Government were not going to follow Cass with regard to adults but, as I have pointed out to Barry, that is not the evidence from Wings Over Scotland.
https://edijester.substack.com/p/cass-for-kids-but-not-adults
Anyone got any further information on this?
LGBT Youth Scotland
I reported here on Children In Need finally withdrawing the funding from this awful organisation.
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/vigil?utm_source=publication-search
It was, in fact, due to some amazing detective work by Malcolm Clark, reported on his substack The Secret Gender Files, that the link to the latest paedophile involved with LGBTYS was made. Great work, Malcolm!
The Charity That Shames Scotland's Elite.
There is only one convincing explanation why LGBT Youth Scotland has never been held to account for its child abuse scandals. Our political and cultural elite did everything they could to enable them.
Sep 04, 2024
Last week’s article in The Times about LGBT Youth Scotland’s latest paedophile scandal was a powerful indictment not just of Scotland’s charity sector but by implication our entire political and cultural leadership. Janice Turner’s calm, forensic analysis of the history of LGBT Youth Scotland could not disguise her sense of outrage about the apparent immunity the organisation has been gifted for almost two decades by the great and the good.
It’s worth pointing out in passing there might have been no article linking LGBT Youth Scotland to yet another abuser were it not for a thread I posted on Twitter/X on August 17th.
A few days before my thread, a 39 year old man called Andrew Easton had been convicted in Aberdeen of sharing child sex abuse images as well as trying to induce someone he thought was a 13 year old boy to have sex with him (thankfully it was an undercover cop he was talking to in the chatroom). At first, Easton’s link with LGBT Youth Scotland appeared rather tenuous.
The first clue came in an article about his case in The Press and Journal which featured a picture of Easton from his Facebook account. Keen-eyed observers tracked this image down online….only to discover it was accompanied by a curious message.
“For my birthday this year, I'm asking for donations to LGBT Youth Scotland. I've chosen this charity because their mission means a lot to me,”
I bet it does.
The full piece is here and I recommend it though it is behind a paywall.
Tickle v Giggle
I have been reporting on this important case in recent updates. On Gender Critical News the Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances (AAWAA) argue that, despite the fact that the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ were removed from the amended Sex Discrimination Act, the introduction of the new grounds for discrimination remained subject to the Act’s provisions for special measures aimed at achieving equality and that this could provide a way forward on appeal.
Trouble with Tickle
There's simply no evidence that Australia's MPs meant to vaporise the sex-based rights of females
Sep 02, 2024
Some questionable claims have been made recently about gender, sex, what it means to be a woman, and women’s rights. But one statement from Justice Robert Bromwich in the Tickle v Giggle case really takes the biscuit.
Set aside, if you can, Justice Bromwich’s declaration in the Federal Court that “on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable” and consider his claims around the “overt and deliberate” intention of the Australian Federal Parliament in 2013 to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to redefine sex. The logical consequence of this apparent intention is that women must now accept transgender women into their specifically female spaces and services.
But the evidence in Hansard and other contemporary records just isn’t there. Nothing was said in the relevant parliamentary debates about redefining “sex” or “woman” or about women’s rights, while the now famous explanatory memorandum to the Act notably excluded “special measures”—that is, measures that previously allowed for female services and spaces—from the 2013 changes.
It is well worth remembering that the Australian High Court has upheld the “principle of legality” that judges must not interpret legislation as diminishing rights, imposing new burdens, or altering the common law unless the legislation does so expressly in “unmistakable and unambiguous language.” As the High Court has previously explained: this presumption is not merely “a commonsense guide to what a parliament in a liberal democracy is likely to have intended,” but “an aspect of the rule of law.”
These are complex matters but not beyond the capacity of the Federal Court, and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), which advised the court, to understand. Nor should it be beyond their comprehension that the Act allows for both the protection of transgender people from discrimination and the maintenance of female-only spaces—including in cyberspace, where the Tickle v Giggle matter was centred.
Had Justice Bromwich and the AHRC examined the historical context more carefully, the court would not have come to this egregious ruling that, left unchallenged, will have far-reaching consequences for women.
The Australian Parliament enacted the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 to give meaning to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Act was intended both to prohibit discrimination against women in defined areas such as employment and education, and to authorise “special measures” to promote gender equality. The Act included in its interpretation section a definition of woman as “a member of the female sex, irrespective of age.”
Parliament has since amended the Act, including in 1995 to clarify and encourage the use of “special measures.” This has specific implications for Tickle v Giggle. As then Attorney-General Michael Lavarch explained at the time, the 1995 amendments were to ensure that “special measures” were “not to be treated as a form of discrimination, but to be understood as an expression of equality.”
In 1996, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commissions, the precursor to the AHRC, noted that these amendments were specifically designed “to save initiatives to promote equality from attack on the ground of discrimination.” Its policy guidelines on special measures initiatives included examples of health and legal services run by women, for women—services to meet women’s unmet needs, including physiological needs. The Federal Court has also upheld the legality of permissible special measures, such as single-sex exercise classes for women.
The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 was introduced to Parliament in early 2013. The House of Representatives considered it in March and May and the Senate twice in June before the text passed both houses with minor amendments. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee received 90 submissions on the Bill, including one from the AHRC. It did not hold public hearings but sought to clarify some issues in writing with the Attorney-General’s Department.
No new definition
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and all those who spoke to the Bill in Parliament focussed their remarks on the Bill’s purpose in introducing new grounds for discrimination—on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status—in the areas defined in the Act. No one mentioned the pre-existing rights of women, including special measures. And for that matter, no one discussed a possible new definition of woman. Was this an oversight or a sleight of hand? Neither. Why? Because the explanatory memorandum to the Act makes clear that the introduction of the new grounds for protection against discrimination were to apply subject to the existing provisions in the Act for “special measures” to achieve gender equality. In fact, the explanatory memorandum makes this point repeatedly.
Asked to clarify certain aspects of the operation of the Bill by the Senate committee, department officials repeatedly ruled out any broader policy changes intended by the amendments beyond introducing the new grounds for protection from discrimination. The AHRC’s own submission to the committee noted the original purpose of the Act to eliminate discrimination and promote substantive gender equality but noted the proposed amendments impacted the former but not the latter.
And what of the “definition of woman”? Both Justice Bromwich’s statement of reasons in Tickle v Giggle and the AHRC amicus brief to the Federal Court make much of the fact that the Amendment Act repealed the definition of woman from Section 4 (interpretations) of the Sex Discrimination Act and elsewhere changed references from “opposite sex” to “different sex.” Both quote paragraph 18 of the explanatory memorandum—
“These definitions [of man and woman] are repealed in order to ensure that man and woman are not interpreted so narrowly as to exclude, for example, a transgender woman from accessing protections from discrimination on the basis of other attributes contained in the [Sex Discrimination Act].”
According to Justice Bromwich, the introduction of the new discrimination provisions, the change of all references to the “opposite sex” to “different sex” and the repeal of the definitions of men and women “all point forcibly to an understanding of sex, as it is deployed in the Sex Discrimination Act, that is changeable and not necessarily binary.”
But the explanatory memorandum’s comments on repealing the definition of “woman” must be considered in conjunction with its repeated emphasis that the introduction of the new grounds for discrimination remained subject to the Act’s provisions for special measures aimed at achieving equality. This caveat was also clearly noted in the document’s explanation of the new operative provisions, including where the Bill amended the Act to refer to “different sex” rather than “opposite sex.”
The full piece is here. This includes a comment from UK academic lawyer, Michael Foran and a response by AAWAA to that comment.
Reem Alsalem has also now commented on the case ( thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic):
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 September)
GENEVA (4 September 2024) – In a statement today, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, expressed grave concern over a decision by the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd and Sally Grover, that the exclusion of a male who identifies as a woman and is recognised as 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,” said Alsalem.
She noted that the ruling concerned the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, and that while the Act differentiates between the concepts of sex and gender identity, this distinction is abandoned in practice. She said the Act severed the term sex from its ordinary meaning of biological sex, operating on what she described as a built-in and fictitious premise that every human being has a gender identity. Consequently, she said that the Federal Court had argued that the Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), ratified by Australia in 1983, was irrelevant to certain aspects of this case, on the pretext that gender identity discrimination was not alleged in favor of a man or men. However, in her view, the Court ignored the fact that the CEDAW Convention recognises that there are women who are more vulnerable to discrimination as a result of the interplay between sex and other factors that affect their lives.
Alsalem said that the Federal Court relied on a general anti-discrimination provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 26, next to Australian legislation to argue the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity. However, as noted by the UN Human Rights Committee, “not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant”.
The Special Rapporteur referred to the position paper she issued in relation to this court case, which highlighted that “where tension may arise between the right to non-discrimination based on sex and non-discrimination based on gender identity, international human rights law does not endorse an interpretation that allows either for derogations from the obligation to ensure non-discrimination based on sex or the subordination of this obligation not to discriminate based on sex to other rights”.
The Special Rapporteur expressed concern that the court decision could make it potentially harder for women and girls to argue for the proportionality, legitimacy and necessity of female-only spaces in some circumstances.
Source: 20240904-stm-sr-vawg-australia-en.pdf
Michael Foran largely agrees with Ms Alsalem’s statement while remaining concerned that some of the arguments were not advanced by Sall Grover’s legal team.
All thoughts gratefully received.
The Para Woolympics
Alex Davies in GB news ( JK Rowling unleashes furious rant at 'cheat' trans athlete Valentina Petrillo amid Paris Paralympics row September) reports:
JK Rowling unleashes furious rant at 'cheat' trans athlete Valentina Petrillo amid Paris Paralympics row© GB News
Transgender sprinter Valentina Petrillo sparked controversy this week by qualifying for the women's semi-finals at the Paris Paralympics, despite previously competing in men's categories.
The 51-year-old Italian athlete, who is visually impaired, secured her [ HIS!] place in the T12 400m event on Monday, but missed out on a spot in Tuesday's finale after finishing third.
Petrillo, who transitioned in 2019 at the age of 46, had previously won 11 national titles in men's T12 competitions between 2015 and 2018. Her [ HIS!] inclusion in women's events has reignited debates about fairness in sport, with prominent figures voicing their concerns.
JK Rowling, the renowned British author, has been vocal in her criticism of Petrillo's inclusion.
In a scathing tweet, Rowling sarcastically remarked: "Why all the anger about the inspirational Petrillo? The cheat community has never had this kind of visibility!
"Out and proud cheats like Petrillo prove the era of cheat-shaming is over. What a role model!"
The Harry Potter creator's comments have added fuel to the ongoing debate surrounding transgender athletes in women's sports.
Rowling's stance reflects a growing concern among some that biological differences may confer unfair advantages [ Dusty - MAY!!??] , potentially compromising the integrity of women's competitions.
Her outspoken position has resonated with those who argue for maintaining sex-based categories in sports, whilst drawing criticism from trans rights advocates.
Former Olympians have joined the chorus of criticism against Petrillo's inclusion. Mara Yamauchi, a two-time Olympic marathon runner, expressed her frustration on social media, stating: "This makes my blood boil.
"A talented, hard-working, exceptional female athlete is out of the T12 400m bc of a 50-year old father of two performing womanface on the world's stage."
Tennis legend Martina Navratilova echoed these sentiments, retweeting Yamauchi's comments and adding: "Amen to this thread! And stop telling (me) it's the democrats that did this.
"It's men who are doing this- men in positions of power like IOC who make the rules and males who know they have advantage but compete against women anyway."
These reactions from respected athletes highlight the growing concern over the fairness of transgender participation in women's sports.
The full article is here:
The Bar Standards Council
Barrister, Sarah Phillimore on her substack discusses shocking proposals by the BSC.
Not an arc: a wheel
The BSB consultation on a 'new core duty' supports my hypothesis that the 'arc of history' does not 'bend towards equality' but rather power. And it is our obligation to resist.
Sep 04, 2024
The nice thing about being disabled and currently undergoing frequent blood tests to see how I can tolerate a chemotherapy drug, is that I have to take frequent days off work for my appointments. I get to enjoy a coffee and a trip to my local bookshop where I bought this book and can sit in a sunny garden and try to put my rage in order.
Of course, not working means I won’t earn anything and won’t be able to pay my mortgage or buy food to eat - but of course, in this Brave New World of inclusivity and equality I will be ok won’t I? Or will I find that if my needs are more than can be met by a lanyard and a flag will I be left to fend pretty much for myself or rely on the kindness of strangers?
This is of course a rhetorical question. I am fucked. My own fault of course for not saving more money when I was younger or persuading a rich man to marry me. The poor and the disabled know better than anyone else what the ‘arc of history’ is telling them.
So what has enraged me this time? Last night I was sent a link to a new consultation by the Bar Standards Board, my professional regulator. I enjoyed a two year tussle with them recently, when it took them six months to draft a charge sheet of my online publications which they wished to investigate as offending against Core Duty 5 - not to bring the profession into disrepute. They withdrew in the light of Jon Holbrook’s successful appeal against the breach of his article 10 ECHR rights and I - naively - assumed sanity had been restored.
I was wrong. The consultation is seeking views on a proposed new Core Duty
‘We propose to replace the current Core Duty 8 (You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person) with a new duty: You must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion, which expands on the current Core Duty not to discriminate unlawfully. This will apply to all barristers when practising or otherwise providing legal services. We also propose to amend outcome oC8 to reflect the new breadth of the duty. and to remove the current rule rC12 which states that “you must not discriminate unlawfully against, victimise or harass…” (as this restates what is already required by law and in any case the Equality Rules specify that barristers must not discriminate, harass, bully, or victimise.)’
So a perfectly sensible and necessary duty, to not discriminate, harass, bully or victimise will be placed by a positive obligation to ‘act in a way’ that ‘advances equality, diversity and inclusion’. You will note that (of course) there is no attempt to identify what these terms mean or what happens when two protected characteristics clash. Who then takes priority? The most obvious example and close to my heart is the clash between those who think ‘gender identity’ should take priority at all times and those who think sex is the proper organising category in certain situations where the safety and dignity of women is at stake.
Both these views are lawful, both are worthy of respect in a democratic society but in certain situations - who competes in what sport? Who gets sent to what prison? Who gets to decide if lesbians can have a book club for women only? - one view must prevail. There will have to be a winner and a loser. Someone is going to be excluded.
Where the BSB went badly wrong pre Holbrook is that they appeared to have very little understanding of the importance of protecting political speech pursuant to article 10 ECHR, and hence diversity of thought and opinion. I struggle to see how this proposed new Core Duty is going to do anything other than take them down a path they have already trodden, and which led to expensive and embarrassing defeat in the courts. Why are we wasting our time in this way?
But it isn’t simply a waste of time and it isn’t good enough to say that this obvious nonsense won’t survive a court challenge. It is part of embedding into our very culture a contempt for the rule of law - or worse, a belief that we have a moral obligation to dismiss it, should dare stand in the way of what we believe subjectively to be ‘right’.
I was shocked to learn that solicitors are already subject to a version of this duty. And we can see from this blog its immediate and corrosive power. Professor Stephen Vaughan is very excited about this duty.
‘Imagine a client comes to a lawyer based in England & Wales and asks for their help with the permitting of new coal-fired powered plants in a country where such development is legal and encouraged. Given the lawyer knows, or should know, about how climate harms globally impact women and people of colour much worse than other groups (plus the inter-generational impacts on young people, and the impacts on those with a disability etc etc), are they encouraging equality, diversity, and inclusion when they give life to their client’s instructions?’
Read that again. Let it sink in. Professor Vaughan is saying that a lawyer’s ‘duty’ to promote equality etc is more important that his or her client’s rights before the law to enforce or claim a right that the law permits them to have. These are laws in the main created by a democratically elected Parliament who have consulted and refined the drafting, who have enacted the law as something important and necessary for society as a whole. But to Professor Vaughan, this is of little importance when set against a individual lawyer’s moral obligation to stress test any law against their own internal set of beliefs as to how well it meets the needs of young disabled people of colour.
The full piece is here:
The British Woocasting Corporation
Deep in The Gender Woo Jungle, where the BBC are hopelessly lost, they will now be cutting dozens of jobs as they spend £80m on a new diversity drive.
All thoughts gratefully received!!
https://x.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1831424915033243803
Eli Rubashkyn
Larping man Eli Rubashkyn who doused Kellie-Jay Keen and the organiser of the Auckland rally with tomato sauce has been convicted but let off without a penalty!! There’s justice for you! All thoughts gratefully received!
Thanks again to Feminist Legal Clinic.
I’ll leave you to spot the wrong pronouns!!! FLC are quoting from the New Zealand Herald I hasten to add.
Posie Parker assault: Activist Eli Rubashkyn who doused anti-trans campaigner in tomato juice convicted (04 September)
Eli Rubashkyn was denied a discharge without conviction for assaulting Posie Parker with tomato juice
Judge Kirsten Lummis deemed the assault premeditated and serious, despite Rubashkyn’s remorse
Rubashkyn, also known as Eliana Golberstein, pleaded guilty to two assault charges in June
However, Judge Lummis was not persuaded.
She told the court today the seriousness of the offending was elevated because it was a “well thought out premeditated assault” that she later justified to the media.
While Judge Lummis acknowledged Rubashkyn, whose legal name is Eliana Golberstein, was remorseful, she noted an apology was absent from her submissions to the court.
Judge Lummis told the court Golberstein had been subjected to death threats following the assaults and she agreed with Olsen’s submission that she had already received enough punishment.
With this in mind, Judge Lummis chose not to impose a penalty, resulting in Golberstein receiving a conviction and discharge for her crimes.
The Good Laugh Project
The GLP has decided not to take any further court cases regarding ‘trans rights’. Could this be because they have lost all of the ones they have taken so far 🤣
https://x.com/berk_hamstead TV/status/1830990411965333702
EDI Jester celebrates😊
Murder of ‘Trans People’
An Edinburgh school has been teaching that lots of transgender people are murdered. Firstly, this is appalling and dangerous nonsense. Secondly, you’ve guessed it, LGBT Youth Scotland were involved yet again!
This piece on it provides a very useful resource for countering this frequently wheeled out garbage.
Daniel Sanderson in The Telegraph ( Many trans people are murdered ‘simply because they try to be themselves’, pupils told 02 September) reports:
More than half of Scottish secondary schools, and dozens of primaries, have signed up to a radical LGBT charity's inclusion scheme
An Edinburgh school has been accused of teaching “propaganda” to teenage pupils after they were told transgender people are regularly murdered.
Teaching resources seen by The Telegraph show that children are being told that “many” transgender people are killed “simply because they try to be themselves” in a lesson about hate crime.
The information also implies that the Brexit referendum led to a “large rise” in racist murders in England.
On Monday, the City of Edinburgh council was unable to provide any evidence to back up the claims, with no known murder of a trans person ever to have taken place in Scotland.
‘Deceptive mess’
A parent of a teenager at the prominent state school, which she asked not to be named to protect the identity of her child, claimed teachers were peddling myths spread by trans rights activists who regularly insist members of the minority group are facing a “genocide”.
A worksheet states that pupils will face an exam on its contents and adds that young people “often” become criminals because “they tend to have a lot more free time”.
The school is a member of a charter scheme run by the controversial charity LGBT Youth Scotland, which has faced accusations that it is promoting unscientific ideologies in classrooms across the country.
“The statistics being presented to children are a deceptive mess, with no context or anything to back them up,” the parent said.
‘Narrative embedded in schools’
“While they focus on trans people, there is no mention of the domestic abuse which many women face, or disabled people, who are a very vulnerable minority.
“To me, it just seems like propaganda and misinformation, which they are telling students to accept as part of a narrative being embedded in Scottish schools.
“They’re shepherding children towards believing things that aren’t true, which is the opposite of what education should be about.”
More than half of Scottish secondary schools, and dozens of primaries, have joined the charter scheme run by LGBT Youth Scotland, an organisation that endorses puberty blockers and claims there are at least 17 different genders.
Members must agree to allow the organisation to train school staff and some have rewritten policies to state that parents should not always be told if their child socially transitions to live as a member of the opposite sex, for example, by adopting a new name.
‘Scared of being vilified’
The parent added: “Scottish schools and the government now seem obsessed with normalising the idea you can be born in the wrong body, which I think is really destabilising for many children.
“There are a lot of LGBT flags around the schools, pronouns everywhere. A lot of parents and pupils are completely sick of it, but nobody wants to talk about it because they’re scared of being vilified.”
The teaching materials state that “assigned sex” is “based on reproductive organs”, which for trans people do not match “who they are”.
It adds: “Often transgender people have been abused and killed simply because of who they are.”
While statistics on UK murders of trans people are not officially collated, a fact check carried out by Channel 4 News in 2018 based on available data found that in Britain, “a trans person is less likely to be murdered than the average person”.
The school resource also states that since the EU referendum there has been a “large rise in the number of racist incidents in England against ethnic minorities” including murders.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at the charity Sex Matters, described the school exercise as “disgraceful” and said it marked a “new low” in how sex and gender was being taught in Scottish schools.
‘Impressionable teenagers’
“It’s hard to fathom how anyone involved in developing educational material can be so irresponsible as to tell impressionable teenagers the falsehood that people who identify as the opposite sex are ‘often’ killed,” she added.
“Whoever drafted this worksheet has ignored the many ways in which women are disproportionately victims of crime. It seems designed to sideline women and girls, and position every other group in society as more in need of sympathy.”
Edinburgh council was approached for comment and said it was looking into the matter.
Endpieces by Dusty and Liz
Did someone mention sleeping dogs??
Meanwhile Liz attends a parent teacher evening
#BeMorePorcupine
#XX
#SaveWomensSport
Dear readers, Mr Menno has an interview with Sall Grover tonight at 20.30 GMT. See some of you there 😊
Dusty
The BBC- bah, humbug!
Stonewall could be pulling out of schools either because they’re afraid of future court cases or because they think their work is done……or is there a darker reason as in Scotland? Great work by Malcolm Clark and Wings of Scotland. Parents need to organise.
Sarah Phillimore’s words about power at the top of her piece, remind me of Genevieve Gluck’s words regarding all the different threads and influences behind gender ideology. Gluck says the same thing…that all roads lead to power. All Critical Social Justice themes are really about divide and rule strategies which enable the imposition of state power. None of the ideas occur naturally in a population, they have to be forced fed through propaganda and then enforced through legislation. With gender ideology we have the imposition of male power over women and children with the added bonus of predatory rights for narcissistic, entitled and abusive males who then act as state or ‘religious’ informers and enforcers. And all the time, handmaidens and good little lefties act as the useful idiots for authoritarianism.
Love the end pieces 😂. Great work Dusty.