Watership Down
Update 476. Citizen Journalist Special. #BeMorePorcupine
Today in the British Heroes season, the heroes are rabbits in the 1978 animation, Watership Down - a kind of rabbit version of 1984!!
In the present, in a warren near Sandleford, a rabbit seer named Fiver has an apocalyptic vision when he and his older brother Hazel come across a signboard; it says a residential development is coming, but they cannot read it. The two beg the chief rabbit to order an evacuation; the chief dismisses them, and orders Captain Holly, the head of the warren's Owsla police force, to stop those trying to leave. Fiver and Hazel manage to escape with six other rabbits named Bigwig (an Owsla officer who deserts), Blackberry, Pipkin, Dandelion, Silver, and Violet.
After many adventures, they settle at idyllic Watership Down.
The actual Watership Down is not far from where my mate, Fingers lives 😄
Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind paywalls.
Free Speech
We continue our recent discussion arising from the cases involving Allison Pearson and Maya Forstater.
Interesting piece by Mary Harrington in Unherd.
Welcome to Thought-Police Britain. Kafka predicted our age of petty tyranny
November 19, 2024
“Kafkaesque” has long been a byword for the distinctive type of tyranny imposed by impersonal bureaucracies. Franz Kafka himself was a petty bureaucrat: he spent his life working in insurance, writing late into the night. But as a tiny cog in the bureaucratic machinery, he understood its sensibility intimately.
In The Trial, published 1925, Kafka recounts the tale of Josef K., accused by a remote and impersonal authority of an unknown crime, whose nature neither Josef nor the reader ever discovers. Now, as we approach the centenary of its publication, in Britain The Trial reads less as dystopian fiction than a Telegraph headline.
On Remembrance Sunday, Essex Police visited the journalist Allison Pearson, to inform her that — in Pearson’s telling — she was the subject of a non-crime hate incident report. Allegedly this concerned something she posted on X a year ago, and subsequently deleted. But the police would not specify what. Nor would they disclose who had made the report. In a subsequent statement, it transpired that the “non-crime hate incident” was in fact a criminal investigation for “inciting racial hatred”.
The row has since escalated. Elon Musk got involved. Tories have denounced Essex Police for “policing thought”. And Starmer has declared that police should focus on actual crimes rather than mean tweets.
From America, if my most recent visit is anything to go by, Thought-Police Britain is now viewed as somewhere between a laughing-stock and tragic cautionary tale. For this is far from the first such incident. In 2021, Harry Miller took the police to court and won, for allegations of “transphobia” based on internet posts. Feminist writer Julie Bindel reports that she was visited by police for her tweets in 2019. And Sex Matters founder Maya Forstater was subjected to a 15-month “hate crime” investigation by Scotland Yard on the basis of a post, and that was only recently dropped. What these surreal incidents illustrate is the gap between bureaucratic promise and reality: one in which, the more impersonal the system, the more effectively it can be weaponised by those who understand it.
She concludes:
For though procedure is meant to save us from bad actors, in reality it just empowers them — as in, perhaps, a public-sector worker who would prefer a conservative journalist to stop writing. One need only pull the correct lever, and institutional procedures will rumble into gear whose operation is designed to minimise individual judgement and agency. Even if it exonerates Pearson in the end, as Forstater and Miller were exonerated, the process is the punishment.
Kafka understood, more than a century ago, that bureaucracy will never be a cure for sin or cruelty. To the extent that we trust in such systems at the expense of our capacity for moral judgement, we will only produce new sins and cruelties. And this applies well beyond sexual wrongdoing, to every one of the darknesses that lies in human hearts. Far from increasing safety and probity by eliminating moral judgement from the messy business of public life, and saving us from our own wickedness in the process, bureaucratic architecture affords new openings for just that wickedness. And these openings prove difficult to close because the process resists those individuals whose moral sense remains functional enough to see and protest them.
If there’s a crumb of comfort to be gained from this dispiriting episode, it’s in the outcry it has prompted. It had come to seem dispiritingly as though the Covid-era national character was all we had left: a mean-spirited, curtain-twitching, pettifogging snitch Britain. But this mood suggests that neither the Welbyan HR-ification of our souls, nor the hi-vis Stasi of Starmerism, have consumed us yet. We still know wickedness when we see it — even the kind inflicted via procedures that were meant to save us from ourselves.
The full piece is here:
Matt Goodwin deals with these issues on his substack. I am taking the liberty of providing his conclusion below since I think readers are well up on the basic facts by now! Personally I would abolish all hate crime not just these ridiculous non-crime incidents! All thoughts gratefully received.
We should abolish "Non-Crime Hate Incidents"
Britain should promote freedom, not Orwellian censorship
Nov 20, 2024
In August, at the height of the unrest after the Southport murders, the CCDH The Center for Countering Digital Hate] met with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ofcom, and the counterterrorism internet referral unit at the Metropolitan Police to advocate for “emergency powers” to censor “misinformation”.
I wonder, did they know then what we now know about the alleged murderer, Axel Rudakubana, that he had produced Ricin and downloaded Islamist literature?
And then came Labour’s decision to try and thwart the Higher Education Free Speech Act —which I helped bring in—after it had already been passed in parliament.
The Act, which creates a legal duty on universities to protect and promote free speech on campus, was also clearly at odds with Labour’s instinctively authoritarian impulse so they rushed to get rid of it.
That too was another example of how Labour, like all left progressives, view free speech as an obstacle to their political goals rather than an inviolable right.
And then came reports that Labour’s Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, who joined Keir Starmer in denouncing many British people as “far-right thugs” while completely ignoring their legitimate concerns about mass immigration, plans to repeal the recent guidance on those non-crime hate incidents, brought in by the Conservatives.
In what I suspect will become part of Labour’s broader push to entrench “Islamophobia” at the centre of our national debate, a word that’s now used to silence legitimate and rational criticism of Islam but which has become central to Labour maintaining its increasingly shaky and ultimately unsustainable electoral coalition of Muslims, students, and urban progressives, Cooper says she wants to tighten the monitoring of non-crime hate incidents, including those relating to Islam.
And while Starmer himself has tried to distance himself from the recent scandals over non-crime hate incidents, our new prime minister has said the following:
“It's important that the police can capture data relating to non-crime hate incidents where it is proportionate and necessary to do so to help prevent serious crimes which may later occur.”
What all of this shows, again, is how radical left progressives like those in the Labour government are always willing to sacrifice free speech, free expression, and individual freedom on the altar of what they see as protecting minorities from perceived ‘harm’, ‘hate’, and the ‘far right’, however broadly these terms are defined.
No matter how many of Labour’s nefarious efforts to censor lawful speech and independent journalism are publicised, the intent to control public debate and contain public outrage remains clear for all to see.
The second-order effect of all this, if we are not careful, will not just be the continuing collapse of public trust in politics but also, and far more worryingly, a collapse of public trust in the rule of law and policing.
Sir Robert Peel founded the police on the principle of consent, that, because “The police are the public and the public are the police,” there must be a bond of trust between them.
But now the British people have clearly concluded that whenever they come into contact with the police they should get out their phone, record every interaction, and not agree to be interviewed without a lawyer.
The default assumption is that the police are out to get the public, on behalf of whatever racial, religious, or sexual minority [ Dusty - if you are referring to larping men and women, Matt, they are not a ‘sexual minority’] is offended on any given day.
Which is another reason why, I think, if we are to prevent a breakdown in the rule of law and reinstate the entitlement of lawful free speech as the traditional pillar of English political life, we must not just manage non-crime hate incidents but abolish them completely. We must remember and reassert who we are, a people committed to freedom.
Any insurgent movement must commit to removing these measures from the law outright, and expunge every black mark from the British people’s record.
Otherwise, amid the creeping intolerance that we can all feel around us, amid these relentless attacks on our identity, culture, history, and heritage, we will continue to descend into an Orwellian police state that shows remarkably little if any interest in protecting the very thing that defines who we are on these islands: our freedom.
The full piece is here:
Baroness Claire Fox writing on the Academy of Ideas substack also wants to ban NCHIs. Once again, I am skipping to the conclusion:
We need to banish 'non-crime hate incidents' to the dustbin of history
As the case of Allison Pearson has brought to the fore, NCHIs are illiberal, censorious and authoritarian.
Nov 20, 2024
Astonishingly, the current director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, has admitted to The Times that when he saw the furore over NCHIs last week: ‘I had to look up what on earth the term meant - I was puzzled by it.’ He added that ‘even within the police service there has been some surprise at the level of non-crime hate incidents that have been investigated’. It is highly alarming that even the country’s chief prosecutor is in the dark about the use of NCHIs.
The ease with which the police upgraded their NCHI threat to Allison Pearson to a possible criminal charge for a public-order offence shows the mission creep and slippery slope way that such policies undermine free expression in general. Arguably there is a broader problem of hate speech laws, as articulated eloquently by Joan Smith here. All hate-speech legislation, as well the ‘grossly offensive’ speech clauses from Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the clauses from the Public Order Act 1986 covering ‘stirring up hatred’ with regard to speech/expression all create a labyrinth of censorship trip wires.
In a useful thread on X, Professor Abhishek Saha explains these broader threats and calls for us to clearly hold to the distinction between action and speech. I especially like his point: ‘Speech is not violence; free speech is a cure for violence. The principle of free speech allows us to engage with our opponents with words rather than weapons.’
The only positive outcome of what Allison Pearson has described as her ‘week from hell’ is that now the public knows about the draconian nature of non-crime hate incidents and they don’t like what they see. What’s more, her disgraceful treatment – not just by the police, but by too many of her fellow hacks, who have expressed glee that a columnist they disagree with politically is subject to criminal punishment, has ignited a useful debate in society about why free speech is crucial, and why hate speech as a concept can be chilling.
To finish, take a look/listen to this panel discussion from last year’s Battle of Ideas festival in Buxton, titled Politics of hate: is everyone a bigot but me, which is an example of the sort of public conversation we need to keep on having until, finally, public opinion can cut off all those Hydra’s heads off and kill the monster.
The full piece is here:
If you want to end up swearing at the computer screen, try the recent ‘News Agents’ podcast about the Allison Pearson case. Andrew Doyle deals with this on his substack.
Is free speech really so difficult to understand?
A recent discussion on “The News Agents” podcast demonstrates the widespread ignorance of this most fundamental of principles.
Nov 20, 2024
Free speech is a global and historical aberration. We are immensely privileged to live in a society in which our liberty is still valued. But, as the old saying has it, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”, and so the case for free speech must be restated in each successive generation.
This is a point that appears to have escaped many in the media and political class. I have written previously on this Substack about our government’s flippant attitude towards free speech, but those who know anything about the recent history of the British left will not find it all that surprising. It is quite a different matter to see journalists display such brazen ignorance on the subject.
Enter The News Agents. This podcast by three exiles from the BBC – Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel and Lewis Goodall – has somehow managed to showcase all that is wrong with the very middle-class leftist commentariat, what Orwell called the “anti-Blimps”. A short clip from their latest episode went viral this week, but for all the wrong reasons.
It features these three seasoned broadcasters blithely demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of free speech. They appear never to have heard any of the key arguments in this debate, which makes it all the more remarkable that they would spend so much time talking about it. As such, it is a useful snapshot of just how much work still remains to be done if we wish to safeguard freedom of expression.
Let’s go through this point by point…
During the course of this conversation, our three commentators scoff at the police investigations into the Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson for a tweet she posted last year (you can read more about this story here). Completely devoid of sympathy, our self-congratulating triumvirate take a flagrantly partisan stance on what ought to be a non-partisan issue. These are individuals whose opinions currently align with the orthodoxy, and so threats to free speech do not trouble them.
Maitlis begins by stating that she fears an “ingrained narrative” that we are living in a police state. She offers the example of Boris Johnson, who recently said that when journalists are being investigated for long-deleted tweets it is “redolent of some of the worst actions of the Soviet Union”. Well, if she doesn’t want to hear it from Johnson, perhaps she would accept it from a High Court Judge. After Harry Miller had been investigated in 2019 for retweeting a supposedly “transphobic” poem, he took legal action against Humberside Police. In the ruling at the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Julian Knowles condemned the police action: “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society”.
Authoritarianism does not happen overnight. Maitlis’s dismissal of the problem is echoed in the clip by Goodall, who says that “1.7 million people in the Gulag” would “probably have something to say” about Johnson’s remark. Has he actually read any accounts from survivors of the Soviet labour camps? Of all people, they would be the most keenly aware of how tyranny advances by degrees, and how the stronghold of liberty is gradually eroded by those who fail to speak out as the fissures appear.
Let’s take the testimony of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a mathematics teacher turned novelist who was sentenced to eight years in forced-labour camps for a letter he wrote that was critical of Stalin. In The Gulag Archipelago (1973), he writes about a particular arrest in which the victim was dragged through a crowd in broad daylight.
“You aren’t gagged. You really can and you really ought to cry out – to cry out that you are being arrested! That villains in disguise are trapping people! That arrests are being made on the strength of false denunciations! That millions are being subjected to silent reprisals! If many such outcries had been heard all over the city in the course of a day, would not our fellow citizens perhaps have begun to bristle? And would arrests perhaps no longer have been so easy?”
Quite contrary to Goodall’s view that gulag survivors would be complacent about free speech, Solzhenitsyn is eager to remind us that the road to tyranny is often navigated at a glacial pace. It has always struck me that those who have grown up in societies in which freedom of speech is not valued are always baffled by our complacency on the matter. It seems unlikely that Goodall has taken the time to speak to anyone with this experience. Perhaps until he does so, he should refrain from making assumptions about what prisoners of the Soviet regime might have thought about anything.
Maitlis then invokes “Godwin’s Law”, the idea that the longer an online discussion continues, the higher the probability that a comparison with the Nazis or Hitler will take place. She compares this to her view “that you can’t get very far into investigating any kind of story without saying, oh we’re now living in a police state, we’re now living in a sort of fascist or communist or Soviet state where nobody’s allowed to do anything”.
The point, of course, is not that we are currently living in a police state, but rather than we are inching towards such an eventuality. History tells us quite clearly that ignoring the early signs of authoritarianism lays the groundwork for future tyranny. It is hardly hyperbolic to point this out, particularly when judges are imposing draconian jail terms for offensive memes and the police are threatening journalists with arrest for wrongthink.
The full piece is here:
Excellent interview with Toby Young, Director of the Free Speech Union on GB News. A message to Terfs in the UK - if you are not yet a member of the FSU, JOIN IT!!! It currently costs £30 per annum. And no, I am not funded by the FSU - I wish 😂
The Need For Citizen Journalists
As most readers know, I regard myself as a citizen journalist and, though this interview on Dan Wootton Outspoken has nothing to do with gender ideology, I am just drawing attention to the first ten minutes to show the importance of citizen journalism at this moment in time. For the record I disagree with some of what is said later in the programme about the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. However I agree with what is said later about a ‘police state’.
Ireland - Online Safety Code
Continuing the Free Speech and anti Hate Crime theme of recent updates, please see my emphasis in the piece below. Dangerous provisions are often hidden in what, at first glance, appears to be a reasonable and sensible piece of legislation.
Image: Creative Commons
Maria Maynes in Gript News ( X brings legal challenge against Coimisiún na Meán’s online safety code 18 November) reports:
Social media giant X, formerly Twitter, has lodged judicial review proceedings in the High Court against Ireland’s media regulator over its new online safety code.
In October, State media regulator Coimisiún na Meán published its finalised online safety code, bringing in new rules for video-sharing platform services, many of which are household names and services used daily. The Code requires these platforms to restrict certain categories of video and associated content, so that users cannot upload or share the most harmful types.
The code was developed in the wake of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act (2022) being enacted, and gives effect to obligations on the State set out in the European Commission’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
The online safety code obligates video-sharing platforms under the jurisdiction of the State “to protect people, especially children, from harmful video and associated content” or face fines of up to €20 million or 10% of the platform’s annual turnover, whichever is greater. The companies who will be obliged to comply with the code or face hefty fines include Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, X, Pinterest, Tumblr and Reddit.
The adoption of the new Online Safety Code would bring an end to the era of social media self-regulation, Coimisiún na Meán said last month.
Twitter International Unlimited Company brought the case against Coimisiún na Meán, judicial review papers filed on Friday show. It is understood that X, owned by free speech advocate and tech billionaire, Elon Musk, had 28 days after the publication of the code to take a court case to challenge aspects of it, with the deadline set to expire on Tuesday.
Coimisiún na Meán had vowed the code could hold social media multinationals to account for content inciting hatred, self-harm, and cyberbullying, however it faced scepticism from some. Lobby groups for social media giants including X and TikTok claimed the provisions in the code were “overly prescriptive” and “overreaching”.
Taoiseach Simon Harris was among those who welcomed the development, stating: “The Online Safety Code sends a strong message to social media platforms that they will be held accountable for how they protect those who use their sites from harmful video content.” Media Minister echoed that backing, stating that the adoption of the code marked a “major step forward in online safety”.
In August, X raised concern about the code, writing: “[Twitter] reserves its right to challenge the lawfulness of the Code.”
But in a submission to the commission in August, Twitter International Unlimited Company said it strongly supported “the co-regulatory approach encouraged by the AVMSD, to achieve protection of all users, including children and young people, from harmful online content. However, we view that it is important that Ireland’s transposition of the AVMSD does not impose obligations which go beyond what is required by the AVMSD and which potentially conflict with the Digital Services Act.”
“Twitter International Unlimited Company reserves its right to challenge the lawfulness of the code. We reserve our position and all rights at this time, regarding Coimisiún na Meán’s legislative and procedural approach, including in relation to further guidance being issued,” it said.
An Coimisiún said last month it would adopt a supervisory approach to enforcing the code, ensuring that platforms implement systems to comply with the provisions of the code.
“The Code applies to video-sharing platform services, many of which are household names and services we use every day. It requires these platforms to restrict certain categories of video and associated content, so that users cannot upload or share the most harmful types,” the code states.
“The restricted categories include cyberbullying, promotion of eating and feeding disorders, promotion of self-harm and suicide, dangerous challenges, and incitement to hatred or violence on a range of grounds including gender, political affiliation, disability, ethnic minority membership, religion and race. Restrictions also include criminal content such as child sex abuse material, terrorism, racism and xenophobia.” [ Dusty - my emphasis].
No hearing date has been set.
La Leche continued…
Recent updates have been looking at the appalling policies of La Leche. The sooner they collapse the better or the sooner an alternative organisation supporting breastfeeding is set up the better. All thoughts gratefully received.
Lucy Leader deals with this on her substack, Bodies get in the way…
Is La Leche League International promoting pedophilia?
If supporting men to let babies suckle on them isn’t child abuse, what is?
Nov 19, 2024
Dominating the breastfeeding world’s global news at the moment is the resignation of the 94-year-old Founder of La Leche League International (LLLI) the global force that rescued breastfeeding from the trash.
Back in 1956 in the USA breastfeeding was not even mentioned as a possibility for pregnant women to consider as an infant feeding choice. The number of mothers who were still breastfeeding upon leaving the hospital (about a week or less after birth) slid from 38% to 21% between 1946 and 1956 and fell a further 3% before 1966.
America in the 1950s: not a woman’s paradise
Post World War II was a dynamic era in American life. Fresh off the victory against the Nazis and the Japanese, with the economically devastating depression firmly in the rear-view mirror, the road ahead could not have looked brighter (for men). Because at the end of the war, once the ‘boys’ returned home, the ‘girls’ were instructed to leave the factory floors, offices and all other employment, put on their aprons and get the house and children tidied up for when dad came home.
Google “instructions for 1950s housewives” and prepare to alternate between laughter and alarm. Woe betide any woman who enjoyed using her brain for anything but house cleaning, cooking and childcare. This book outlines middle class women’s prospects in the 1950s and it’s a grim read for this modern woman.
Marian Tompson and her friends were conventional women of their era. They had husbands, children and homes to care for and rebellion was not their purpose when they first started holding meetings in response to friends (and friends of friends) who were desperate to breastfeed. Women sure weren’t getting any help from obstetricians, pediatricians or any sort of primary care physicians, who didn’t actually know anything about breastfeeding anyway (aside from the doctor husband of one of the seven Founders). In any case, doctors didn’t care to learn because “modern” formulas were “so good” and meant that women weren’t tied to their babies anyway. (Why this was considered beneficial, goodness only knows, especially as fathers were not expected to do any sort of childcare and women were no longer expected to be employed outside of the home.)
Marian Tompson has what gender ideology lacks: integrity and ethical standards
Marian freely shared her resignation letter with the entire world:
From Marian Tompson
November 9, 2024
Dear Leaders of La Leche League,
I want to share some important news.
On November 6, 2024, I resigned from the LLLI Board of Directors and from LLL itself, an organization that has become a travesty of my original intent.
From an organization with the specific Mission of supporting biological women who want to give their babies the best start in life by breastfeeding them, LLL’s focus has subtly shifted to include men who, for whatever reason, want to have the experience of breastfeeding despite no careful long-term research on male lactation and how that may affect the baby.
This shift from following the norms of Nature, which is the core of mothering through breastfeeding, to indulging the fantasies of adults, is destroying our organization.
Despite my efforts these past two years as a Board member, it has become clear that there is nothing I can do to change this trajectory by staying involved.
Still, I leave the door open to come back when La Leche League returns to its original Mission and Purpose.
I thank each of you for your years of making this world a healthier and happier place by being there for all mothers needing help with breastfeeding their babies.
With much love,
Marian Tompson
Founder of La Leche League
Lucy concludes:
Back in 1956, Marian Tompson and her friends would have been horrified at any thoughts around men breastfeeding as would the entire society they lived in. The mother-to-mother support group that LLL has been for most of the last 68 years seems to have lost its way entirely by prioritizing the fantasies of adults through abandoning the care of the most vulnerable population in the world: our babies. “Times may have changed” is the argument that some are using to excuse their support of adult dominance, denial of sexed reality and the adoption of a destructive and chaotic philosophy; the “problem” is that babies haven’t changed at all, they just want to be fed by their mothers, not used as props by uncaring adults.
Note: Fundraising is vital for LLL’s future. Make sure your charitable funding is going to a cause you can live with…
The full piece is here and I highly recommend it:
https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/is-la-leche-league-international?publication_id=1056660&r=1v403b
News From New Zealand
Thanks to Katrina Biggs on her substack, A B’Old Woman for providing the latest newsletter from the NZ Women’s Rights Party and I feature her their piece about the German Self ID law demonstrations. I featured the London demo here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/151039232?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
We joined in the global action against new German sex self-ID law
Women's Rights Party members turned up to protest against Germany's extreme Self ID law, on 1 November at the German Embassy in Wellington, which was organised by Speak Up for Women. This was part of a grassroots women's protest around the world, and a demonstration of international sisterhood.
“Lasst Frauen Sprechen!”, the German organisers of the global event, put together a summary of the protests outside German Embassies and Consulates around the world in support of women and girls in Germany against the new Self-ID law #Selbstbestimmungsgesetz. They are urging us to keep the spirit and show the world that we are a force to be reckoned with. “If you hurt one of us, we are watching and we will ALL stand up and say: NO!”
In Wellington, the first of the events because of the time zone, Women's Rights Party members unfurled banners over two bridges: one saying “Save Women’s Sports” and the other with the official “#Self ID Harms Women”. While we were on one of the bridges, two TRAs spilled a foul-smelling substance on the footpath behind us and then proceeded to spill the rest of the substance along the front of the German Embassy. We think it might have been fertiliser. Another two trans rights supporters turned up, and some of our members attempted to engage in discussion with them.
We were standing opposite the German Embassy with our banner and placards while Suzanne Levy and Tania Sturt, SUFW convenors, led the one-minute silence at 5 past 12. The significance of this is that when it is too late, Germans say, “It is five past twelve.“ We have to believe it is not too late to turn around self-ID laws that have been passed in almost every Western country, including here in New Zealand.
We then went through to a beautiful spot in the Katherine Mansfield gardens near the German Embassy where the speeches were held. For video footage of the speeches, hear is the link to the Speak Up for Women website: https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/global-selfid-protest
You can also find a collage of photos from the day on the Women’s Rights Party public Facebook page, dated 5 November: https://www.facebook.com/womensrightspartynz
Women’s Rights Party member Katrina Biggs did a live stream from one of the bridges and wrote up the event in her substack:
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/kiwi-women-in-support-of-german-women
The rest of the excellent and recommended newsletter is here:
Stop Press
Mr Menno deals with how to deal with the ‘reasonable transsexuals’ - see also previously featured videos by Kellie-Jay and EDI Jester;
Endpiece by Liz
Liz is sticking with animation
New readers may be puzzled by the occasional reference to Porcupines! This all stems from this video where the (Terf) Porcupine parents defend their children from the (Gender) Leopard 😀
#BeMorePorcupine
#LetWomenSpeak
#Grassroots Army
#GenderIdeologyIsEvil
I will repeat my first question: why are the police investigating non-crimes & whose idea was it in the first place? Very comprehensive & informative update, Dusty. Thanks. Will share.
Completely agree with Dan Wootton- thank goodness for citizen journalists. Without them we’d be struggling to figure out what on earth was happening on a variety of issues and the fight backs against woke, gender ideology and the crushing of free speech wouldn’t be happening. What an awful thought.
Thanks Dusty and bravo. 😄