Qohel Home Page

Click photo to go to Peter's profile






Quality Web Hosting at the Best Price






www.1and1.com

Archive for the ‘Gender’ Category

A couple of days ago I posted an article essentially saying that same sex relationships may be as loving and worthy of respect as heterosexual relationships, but they are a different thing, with different meaning to society, so it is wrong to get the government to force everyone to pretend they are the same.

Of all the odd responses I got, which included various names and obscene suggestions, this was surely the oddest: “How are they different? Give me one way they are different, you ignorant bigotted piece of sh%t.” I had three different variations of this question, including “Your an ar^$hole how th f$%k are they differnt?”

It surely cannot be the case that large numbers of people really cannot see any difference between a long term relationship between a man and woman which is open to the possibility of new life, and a relationship between two men or two women.

There are multiple differences. But the most fundamental is this: society can survive perfectly well without homosexual relationships. No society can survive without heterosexual relationships. This is why every society in every place and every part of history has given special recognition and protection to long-term heterosexual relationships. That is what marriage is.

To paraphrase gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos: ” I am in love. I would like that relationship to be recognised and celebrated. But It’s not a marriage. We all know it’s not a marriage. It is silly to pretend it is. Just call it something else.”

To be fair, people do and say silly things all the time. They don’t much matter. If some same sex couples want to go through a ceremony and say they are married, fine. I don’t want to stop anyone doing what makes them happy. But I do object to anyone trying to get the government to force everyone to pretend to agree, or labelling any disagreement “hate speech.”

Last word from gay Irish journalist Richard Waghorne:

“Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman.

Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not. I am conscious of this when considering my own circle of friends, quite a few of whom have recently married or will soon do so in the future. Many, if not most or all of them, will raise children. If, however, I or gay friends form civil partnerships, those are much more unlikely to involve raising children.

So the question that matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a marriage, despite this fundamental difference? A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

This is why the demand for gay marriage goes doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people – it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point of romance.

If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial under-standing of what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. What that amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships identically. And it is a token gesture.

Isn’t it common sense, after all, to treat different situations differently? To put it personally, I do not feel in the least bit discriminated against by the fact that I cannot marry someone of the same sex.”

Credit for some of the above, including the long quote from Richard Waghorne, to Bill Muehlenberg’s thoughtful, detailed and meticulously researched book “Strained Relations.”

I have gay family members, and have had gay friends all my life; people who are dear to me, whose feelings I value, and whose opinions I respect. I have been to gay bars, events and festivals with gay friends, been propositioned by men more times than I can remember, and am happy to greet my gay friends with a kiss on the cheek. In the same way as my other friends, they deserve my love, loyalty and support.

Nonetheless I will be voting No.

These are some of the issues:

1.We are told that if Australia does not legislate to redefine marriage we will be falling behind other civilised countries.

2. We are told redefining marriage is a matter of justice and equality.

3. We are told that nothing else will change. The only thing that will be different is that gay couples will now be allowed to marry. It won’t affect anyone else, so no one else has any right to have a say.

4. We are told there is no “slippery slope,” that no further changes to the definition of marriage will be made after this.

5. We are told there is no connection between same sex marriage and the teaching of gender fluidity.

Let’s consider these claims.

1. The fact that some other society is doing something is not in itself a reason for us to do it. Even if it were, so far approximately ten percent of the world’s nations, representing less than ten percent of the world’s population, have legislated to change the meaning of marriage. This is a long way from an overwhelming or compelling majority.

2. To claim that redefining marriage is a matter of justice is to prejudge, to take for granted, what is being discussed. To say something is just is to say it is right. That is exactly what is at issue.

Things can be equal in different ways. People are equal in dignity and value, regardless of gender, race, intelligence or physical ability. But that is not to say they are same in every way. Men and women are different. People have different levels of intelligence, different abilities, different interests. It is entirely reasonable and fair to distinguish people on the basis of these factors. If you are short and slow, you probably won’t get picked to play basketball. If you have never sat down at a piano in your life you probably won’t be invited to perform a piano concert at the Sydney Opera House.

Marriage has varied from society to society, for example in the permissible difference in ages, the degree to which the partners may be related, or sometimes, the number of people involved. What has never changed is that it is a permanent bond between male and female. Even in societies with a high degree of tolerance for homosexual acts, it has never been suggested until twenty years ago that a relationship between two men or two women was identical to a life-long commitment between a man and a woman with openness to new life, or that it had the same meaning to society.

Recognising this difference, that these two things are not the same and therefore not equal, is not unfairly discriminatory any more than saying a dog cannot be a cat, no matter how much it wants to be, or that a square cannot be a triangle.

This not to suggest that same-sex relationships cannot be as loving, as stable, as worthy of respect as a marriage, but simply simply to note that they are different things. This is similar to the argument employed by some of the many same sex attracted opponents of the re-definition of marriage. “We know our relationships are different,” they say, “so why do we need to appropriate hetero-sexual institutions to feel validated?” Not better or worse, just different. It is ignoring reality to insist they be called by the same name.

3. Since the early 2000s a number of countries have redefined marriage to include same sex partnerships. Of these, only Ireland has made the change as the result of a vote by the people. In all others it was changed by judicial fiat, as in the United States, or by government without direct reference to the people, as in New Zealand and the UK. Fifteen years is not a long time over which to study impacts on society, but some things have become clear.

The first is that redefining marriage does not change what same sex attracted people can do. In Australia, same sex partnerships have exactly the same protections under law as marriages. The have the same rights in relation to superannuation, succession, taxation and government benefits. Same sex attracted people can find a celebrant, get dressed in white, invite their friends, go through a ceremony, and say they are married. They can claim their relationship is exactly the same as a relationship between a married couple, and means the same thing to wider society. The legalisation of “same sex marriage” does not change that at all. What does change is that everyone else is now obliged to agree.

The promised protections for conscience and free speech in Ireland have been undone two years later. The US has seen a seemingly never-ending targeting of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim bakeries, florists, venue operators, printers, photographers, etc, etc, etc, or anyone who still believes about marriage what everyone believed until twenty years ago. No one is permitted to disagree. Last year there were demands that Fixer Upper, a popular house renovation TV show, be taken off the air because activists had discovered that the couple who made the show went to a church whose pastor had expressed the view that marriage was between a man and woman. In 2014 the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his position after it was discovered that he had made a donation in support of the traditional view of marriage. In Denmark Lutheran pastors are now forced by law to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.
Redefining marriage changes nothing that same sex people can do, or the protections they have under law. It simply forces everyone else to comply.

4. Once the essence of the meaning of marriage – a lifetime commitment between male and female – is removed, It is difficult to see how further changes can be avoided without cries of unfairness and discrimination. This story sent to me by a friend sums up the situation:

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?” said the clerk.
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones?? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, of course, that’s the law. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“‘Incest?’ No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“We love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve claim they’d been denied equal protection under law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, have it your own way. Here’s your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The law guarantees us equal protection.”
“All right, have it your own way. Here’s your license. Next.”

5. If men and women are different, then a relationship between two men or two women is different from a relationship between a man and a woman. Claiming equality between same sex relationships and marriage can only be maintained if men and women are interchangeable. This depends on the claim that gender is fluid, can be changed, and is largely a matter of choice. A man can become a woman, or a woman a man, because there are no essential differences between the two.

Once marriage is redefined to include same sex relationships, general acceptance of gender fluidity becomes a necessity. This needs to be taught. And taught it will be. In the UK, couples who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are no longer considered suitable to act as foster parents. But in an astonishingly hypocritical policy, children can be taken from ordinary English families which are in trouble, and sent to be fostered with Muslim families, despite the fact that under Sharia law homosexual acts are punishable by death. In Canada children can be removed from families which do not support their children’s gender choices, or facilitate gender transitions if desired. California is currently considering legislation which makes it a jailable offence to call someone by other than their preferred pronouns.

To summarise:

I love my gay friends and family members. I would oppose any legislation which gave them less protection under law, or limited their choices.

Demands to redefine marriage are not about tolerance for homosexual acts, or for same sex attracted people. Their relationships already have equal status in every way relating to succession law, benefits and taxation, etc.

If same sex attracted people want to say their relationships are exactly the same as a life-time commitment between a man and woman, and mean the same thing to society, most people would not be bothered about this.

If they want to go through a ceremony and say they are married, most people would wish them well.

But if they want to get the government to force everyone to agree with them, that moves over the line from the rightful and realistic expectation of tolerance, to Stalinist enforcement of compliance.

The campaign to redefine marriage is not about letting same sex attracted people do what they want. They already can. It is about demanding the government create a society in which no one is permitted to disagree. That is not tolerance and freedom. It is the exact opposite.

Societies are successful when their policies and practices align with reality. Success for a society means the ongoing ability to provide resources and safety to ensure that children can grow to maturity, and in turn, have children of their own. Once this basic necessity is ensured, success can also be measured by life-span, low infant mortality, growth in scientific and mathematical understanding, in political participation and freedom, and in literary, musical and artistic output.

At the most basic level, if one group of cave dwellers insisted on hunting for mammoth in rugged mountains were mammoth were few in number, they would be less successful than another group who hunted on the plain where mammoth where plentiful. If one society believes the universe is worth investigating, and is ordered according to rules which are consistent and can be understood, such a society will be more successful than one which believes nature is ruled over by a god, or gods and demi-gods, so fickle that any attempt at understanding nature is doomed to failure, or a society which believes nature is an illusion, or that matter is intrinsically evil and not worth investigating.

The belief that the universe is worth investigating and can and should be investigated is so familiar to us that it seems obvious. But it was the view of no one at all until 2,000 years ago, and has become the majority view of mankind only in the last one hundred years. It has become the majority view of mankind not so much because of any direct evidence that it is true, but simply because it works.

The alignment with reality that leads to success for a society is not simply a matter of insight into the nature and rules of physical reality, but also of a realistic assessment of human nature. For example, socialism has never worked in practice and never will work, because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. It is too generous in its assessment. It is difficult to motivate or inspire people to take pains and labour if they do not see some benefit of their work flowing to themselves or their families.

Because the most basic requirement for a successful society is to provide conditions in which children can be raised and go on to raise future generations, societies everywhere have taken measures to recognise and protect the family. The choice to live together and raise children has been regarded as something in which the wider society has an interest. This is more than respect for and celebration of the mating/loving relationship between male and female. In almost every known society there is official recognition by the community of long term sexual relationships between male and female, which involves notions of binding or tying together, from which exit is made difficult, and outside of which sex is regarded as illicit, or at least discouraged or viewed as not fully meaningful.

For most of the last 2,000 years, the West has regarded marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. The Western tradition includes other requirements before a couple can be considered married. Free consent must be given by both parties. If one party is unable or unwilling to consent, no marriage has taken place.  There can be no coercion. This means that neither party to the marriage can be intoxicated or otherwise impaired to the extent that there could be doubt about his or her ability to understand and enter freely into the marriage agreement. The parties must be of marriageable age. How this has defined has varied, but in the West it has meant as a minimum that both parties must have passed through puberty. The parties must not be within restricted degrees of relatedness. The list of prohibited degrees included in the English Prayerbook forms the basis for law in most English speaking countries and prohibits marriage between close relatives, but not cousins. The relationship must include the reproductive sexual act. A marriage which is not consummated may be annulled; it was never a marriage.

Other societies have had varied these requirements. In some, a man may have more than one wife. In a very small number, a woman may have more than one husband. In some societies the marriage of older men to very young women is common. Others have different rules about how closely related the parties can be. In every society, however, the relationship is regarded as a permanent and civilly or religiously recognised and bonded sexual relationship between male and female.

This is a very different view of marriage to the rather cloudy notion that has overshadowed recent discussion. Marriage has not in any previous society ever been regarded as purely a matter for the parties concerned. Indeed, part of what makes a marriage is the public commitment, and public recognition and recording of this commitment. Marriage is not simply a relationship in which there is respect and care for one another, although those will be part of any successful marriage.

For example, imagine two brothers, one seriously disabled. They share a house. One has devoted his life to caring for the other. This is clearly a relationship based on a high degree of trust, love, and commitment. But almost no one would describe this relationship as a marriage, even if the two expressed a wish that they be considered married. What if they began having a sexual relationship? If they then asked their community to recognise their “right’ to marry, and went through a form of ceremony claiming as much, would that mean that a marriage existed between them? If not, why not?

A few days ago news outlets reported a mother and daughter being arrested for incest after living together in a sexual relationship after having been through a marriage ceremony. http://www.people.com/article/what-you-need-to-know-about-patricia-spann-the-oklahoma-mother-who-married-her-children The mother had previously married her son. That marriage had been annulled at the son’s request on the basis that it was incestuous and therefore not a genuine marriage. The mother and daughter are both adults and entered freely into the relationship. Are they in fact married? If not, why not?

Some people in such relationships claim they are genetically predisposed to be sexually attracted to close relatives. They are born with urges which makes it difficult for them to form sexual relationships with others. Sex with close relatives seems right and normal to them. If they were born that way, they ask, how can it be wrong? In recent years there have been reports of people marrying dogs, dolphins, inanimate objects such as bridges, and even themselves, a state of being called sologamy. Most people would not consider these relationships marriages, although they would probably be content to let people in them call themselves married if they wanted to, as long as others were not forced to agree.

One argument for not regarding those relationships as marriages, no matter how much care and respect the partners have for one another, is that no societies ever, anywhere have done so. Whatever other variations there have been in understanding what a marriage is, it has never included relationships with animals, or with oneself. Nor has it ever included relationships with members of the same sex. Even in societies which had a high degree of tolerance for homosexual relationships it was never suggested that those relationships were identical in nature and function and in their meaning to society as a long-term relationship between male and female.

This is not to suggest that those relationships are inferior. There may be homosexual or polyamorous or inter-species relationships which are every bit as caring, respectful and committed as heterosexual relationships. It is simply recognising what ought to be and until recently was, obvious; that they are not the same thing.

I asked a random sample of friends whether they thought it would be appropriate for the government to insist that everyone agree it was a marriage when 1. A woman married a dolphin 2. A group of three men marry each other. 3. A man marries himself. The answers were no, no (with one exception) and no. The one exception was “Why shouldn’t they, if they want to. They are not doing anyone any harm.” But she had missed the point. The question wasn’t about whether it was acceptable for the three men to go through a commitment ceremony and think of themselves as married, but rather, whether it would be appropriate for the government to force everyone else to agree.

When I asked why these things should not be considered marriage, or rather, why the government should not insist that everyone agree they are, the answers were remarkably uniform. Essentially; “It’s silly. They are not the same thing.”

Words are meaningful not only because of what they include, but because of what they exclude. For example, the word cat is meaningful because it includes cats, and also because it excludes all other objects, including other four legged mammals. Some objects are in (all cats) and some objects are out (all other things). Let’s say some squirrels felt distressed at being excluded from the world of catness. They begin to call themselves cats. No one much minds. But then they begin to insist that other animals also call them cats. “Don’t you believe in equality?” they ask. It is hard to argue with that. Everyone wants to be on the side of equality. So eventually the government passes a law saying that all animals are cats, and no one has the right to discriminate. It is hard to argue with that. No one wants to be guilty of discrimination.

Except for one thing. Squirrels are not, in fact, cats, and therefore are not equal to cats. Nor are horses or chimpanzees. Even if they want to be. And this very useful word, cat, is no longer useful at all, because its meaning has become so wide, so equal, so non-discriminatory, that it has no meaning at all. If a word can mean anything, it has no meaning at all.

Sometimes SSM activists claim that redefining marriage will not affect anyone but themselves. It won’t affect anyone else, they claim, so why should anyone else even have a say?

How would legitimising sex with minors affect your relationship with children you know? It would, even if you never had any such intentions towards them, because it would change the whole dynamic of child/adult relationships.

How would allowing brother and sister to marry affect your relationship with your siblings? It would, regardless of your feelings for your siblings, because it would change the way siblings relate to one another. And if you object to a father marrying a daughter, or two brothers marrying each other, what is wrong with you? Don’t you believe in marriage equality? Haven’t we moved past the time when society can tell people who to love?

Any change to the definition of marriage affects all existing marriages. We thought we were entering into one sort of covenant, now it turns out that we have actually entered into something quite different, something other than an open to life, lifetime commitment between one man and one woman.

Forcing people to call a variety of types of relationships by one word will not alter the fact that they are different. This is not a religious judgement. It does not suggest that gay relationships are less loving or noble. They are just different.

Those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are not trying to stop anyone doing what they want. SSM activists are the ones who want force others to change their behaviour. Anyone who doubts this is simply not paying attention. In Australia, same sex relationships have exactly the same rights under law relating to succession, taxation, benefits, superannuation, etc, etc. People in same sex relationships are free to go through a ceremony, invite their friends, get dressed in white, have a wedding cake, go on a honeymoon. The proposed changes in the law will not change what same sex attracted people can do, and are not intended to. They are intended to force everyone else to agree, or pretend to agree, that two things that are different are the same.

This article lists a few of the changes in the UK since marriage was redefined there. https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

In other jurisdictions in which marriage has been redefined, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim businesses, and anyone who believes what everyone believed about marriage until twenty years ago, have been subject to Gestapo type targetting and  persecution.

The notion of “marriage equality,” that is, that a relationship between two men or two women is in every way identical to a lifetime commitment between a man and woman, and has the same meaning to society, rests on the claim that gender is a social construct which has no basis in reality. If there are real differences between men and woman, then a relationship between two men is a different thing from a relationship between a man and woman. Consequently, coercing people to agree that two men or two women can be married, is inextricably linked to attempts to force people to accept “gender fluidity.”

In Canada, children can be removed from their family home if parents do not affirm their gender choices and encourage and assist “gender transition” (ie, life-changing and destructive hormone therapy and surgery)  if the child desires it. California is currently considering legislation which would make it a jailable offence to call someone by other than their preferred pronouns.

Demands to redefine marriage are not about tolerance for homosexual acts, or for same sex attracted people. Their relationships already have equal status in every way relating to succession law, benefits and taxation.

If same sex attracted people want to say their relationships are exactly the same as a life-time commitment between a man and woman, and mean the same thing to society, most people would not be bothered about this.

If they want to go through a ceremony and say they are married, most people would wish them well.

But if they want to get the government to force everyone to agree with them, that moves over the line from the rightful and realistic expectation of tolerance, to Stalinist enforcement of compliance.

The campaign to redefine marriage is not about letting same sex attracted people do what they want. They already can. It is about demanding the government create a society in which no one is permitted to disagree. That is not tolerance and freedom. It is the exact opposite.

Visit Blissyoo.

Don’t let Facebook decide what you see and what you can post.

Blissyoo means no censorship of posts, freedom of speech, videos, music, groups, pages, news, and soon, revenue sharing.

Visit, join, invite your friends.

By asking? Checking?

13-Year-Old’s Rape Case Dismissed Because Her Body Is ‘Well-Developed’

A Swedish court acquitted a 27-year-old man of raping a 13-year-old girl because she looked older. Add this to similar cases in the U.S. and U.K., and we’ve got a sickening problem.
A man who raped a 13-year-old girl has been acquitted on the grounds that her body was “well-developed” for her age. The Swedish teenager had lodged an appeal against the ruling on her perpetrator, 27, but it was thrown out of court this week as officials decided her figure exempted him from blame as he “could not have known” how old she was.

This latest case is horrifying, but it’s not the first in recent history to expose how authorities around the world mistreat young rape victims. Earlier this year, a London judge accused a 16-year-old girl of “grooming” her 44-year-old teacher for sex, likening her actions to a stalker and telling the older man: “If anything, it was she who groomed you. You gave way to temptation at a time when you were emotionally vulnerable because of problems with your wife’s pregnancy.”

Add to this the Montana judge who dismissed a 14-year-old girl as “older than her chronological age” after she was raped by her 47-year-old teacher, and therein lies a very bleak picture of our attitudes toward young victims of sexual assault.
The regular refrain espoused by prosecutors and judges—that these girls seem beyond their years, and therefore cannot benefit from the protective laws afforded to others of their age group—is a paltry excuse.”

But hell, yeah, men should have the right to use ladies’ bathrooms, and 12 year old children need to roleplay being in sexual relationships.

Mixed messages, anyone?

woods

Well yes. It certainly does seem a questionable mindset.

Reality just doesn’t count any more. And loss of connection with reality is insanity.

via Andrew Bolt:

Antigone’s brave stance for Justice and Nature against unjust human laws is what electrified me. We in the Western world live in days of mad, accelerating, and bewildering change. A same-sex couple is the same as a man and a woman; male and female is an illusion; an unborn baby has a right to life only when her mother grants her that right; children may be taken from their natural parents for the gratification of adults; and anyone who opposes these schemes may, for their intolerance and bigotry, be ridiculed, sacked, fined, imprisoned, and, most sinister by far, re-educated.

At this time when the laws of nature and basic justice are conscientiously unravelled and suppressed, Antigone’s defiance makes the heart swell.  “I was not like, who feared no mortal’s frown, To disobey these laws, and so provoke the wrath of Heaven.”

As the storm-clouds of social change gather and loom, here is Sophocles’ ancient and potent inspiration for all those who stand, whether in the Christian tradition or not, for Nature and Justice. Seeing that we must die, we had best do so, in this awesome battle, faithful and brave.

From a longer article by Campbell Markham at MercatorNet.

The Reverend Mr Markham refers to the bright and courageous Sophie Scholl. If you are not familiar with her story, this is a good place to start. With all respect to Anne Frank, Sophie Scholl is more inspirational by far:

Obviously the Governor of North Carolina is a homophobic pig for thinking little girls should not be forced to use the same public restrooms as sweaty middle-aged men. That includes me, incidentally, but I am pretty careful to use the bathroom that matches my own bathroom equipment, if you get my meaning.

If you really think the people of North Carolina are bigots, and especially their governor, and PayPal is tight to boycott them (I wonder what Geoff Boycott would think of this) while simultaneously operating in countries like Saudi Arabia where homosexual acts are illegal and homosexuals can be executed, then you probably won’t bother to read this article from the always illuminating Chicks on the Right. But if you have a brain cell or two, perhaps you should …

I hate to be That Person who gloats and says “I Told You So.” But – I told you so.

According to this, a person who is biologically a man claimed to be transgender so he could get into a women’s shelter in Toronto. Toronto, if you aren’t aware, allows transgender people to use whatever restroom they like – and it appears that also extends to other facilities meant solely for women. From the article –

Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.

Court heard how one woman awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her on her bed. “Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” court documents reveal. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”

Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.

The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.

But you know – places like North Carolina are a bunch of bigots for passing laws that make it illegal for biological men to use facilities meant for women.

I’ve raised this point before, but it bears repeating – if progressives are so insistent on pushing statistics like 1 in every five women will be raped on a college campus and that all men are rapists simply by existing and women are helpless victims whenever men are around – then why in the name of all that is good and holy would they criticize a law that’s meant to prevent terrible things like rape and sexual assault from occurring?

Oh, that’s right – because they’re a bunch of hypocrites.

Here’s the scary part of this story: women’s shelters exist to help women and children who’ve been abused by scumbags who don’t even deserve to be called “men.” That includes everything from physical abuse to mental and sexual abuse. Why would you let a strange man into a shelter meant to protect women, just because he says he’s actually a chick? That’s the exact OPPOSITE of compassion!

Bruce Springsteen and every other wailing liberal moron can take their boycott of states who actually WANT to protect innocent people from predators and perverts and shove it.

I feel like a woman

 

Michael Moore - hypocrite

Kind of puts it in perspective:

abortion2

Very, very sad. But surely this is not a surprise to anyone?

The mother of toddler Sanaya Shaib has been charged with murder after she confessed to killing the 13-month-old infant.

sanaya

It is pretty clear now that Donald Trump will not get the required number of delegates to win the Republican nomination. There will be a contested convention. At this stage, although he has a majority of delegates, less than 40% of votes have gone to Trump, and a disturbing (for the GOP) proportion of people in the street say they will not vote for him if he is nominated, regardless of who he chooses as running mate, or of who the Democrat candidate is.

I like Trump, but I also said months ago that the only way the Republicans could lose the election was to choose Trump as their candidate. If the GOP has any sense, and I am hoping they still have some, they will choose someone else. Who?

Cruz is a viable option, but not likely to get the numbers at a convention, though I wouldn’t mind if he did. The likelihood now is that something completely unprecedented will occur, and that someone who has not participated in the primaries will end up as the nominee.

Nikki Haley has shown herself a courageous and competent politician. She does not bow to popular opinion. She is consistently conservative on social issues, and sensible on economic policy. Foreign policy is important, and that is an area where she lacks experience. But it is also an area where good advice counts and is available. Character, intelligence, experience and energy all matter more. Nikki Haley is a woman and the child of immigrant parents. Those things should not count, only who will do the best job for the US and the world, but they do count with voters and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

haley

So Nikki for president! But who should she choose as VP? Well, Cruz, of course. Stacked up against either Clinton or Sanders, both bottom of the barrel candidates, Haley/Cruz would be an winning combination electorally, and an outstanding mixture of character, skills and knowledge in office.

Not waited? Called the police? Done something to help? Rescued the girls? Saved the planet?

The need to believe ourselves morally superior to others has impacts on our understanding of history, the way we respond to calls for social or environmental action, and the way we interpret current events. The story of the story of Kitty Genovese is instructive. Thirty-eight neighbours watched the assault and did nothing? No. Thirty-eight neighbours were interviewed by police. Most of them heard and saw nothing, because they were inside with their families.

The rape and murder of Kitty Genovese was sad, horrific. There are lessons to be learned. But the story of Kitty Genovese does not say anything about the willingness of “other people” to stand by idly or curiously and watch a neighbour being stabbed and raped. That is not what happened.

“At 3:15 on the morning of March 13, 1964, a 28-year-old bar manager named Kitty Genovese drove her red Fiat into the parking lot of the LIRR station by her Kew Gardens home.

As she walked home — she was only about “a hundred paces away” from the apartment she shared with her girlfriend, Mary Ann Zielonko — she heard a man’s footsteps close behind her. She ran, but the man, Winston Moseley, was too quick. He caught her, slammed her to the ground and stabbed her twice in the back. She screamed twice, once yelling, “Oh, God! I’ve been stabbed!”

Across the street, a man named Robert Mozer heard Genovese from his apartment. Looking out his seventh-floor window, he saw a man and a woman, sensed an ­altercation — he couldn’t see exactly what was happening — and yelled out his window, “Leave that girl alone!”

Moseley later testified that Mozer’s action “frightened” him, sending him back to his car. At this point, Genovese was still alive, her wounds nonfatal.

Fourteen-year-old Michael Hoffman, who lived in the same building as Mozer, also heard the commotion. He looked out his window and told his father, Samuel, what he saw. Samuel called the police, and after three or four minutes on hold, he reached a police dispatcher. He related that a woman “got beat up and was staggering around,” and gave them the location.

Other neighbors heard something as well, but it wasn’t always clear what. Some looked out the window to see Moseley scurrying away, or Genovese, having stood up, now walking slowly down the block, leaning against a building. From their vantage point, it wasn’t obvious that she was wounded. Others who looked didn’t see her at all, as Genovese walked around a corner, trying to make her way home at 82-70 Austin St.

But the police did not respond to Samuel Hoffman’s call …

Word of the attack spread though the building. A woman named Sophie Farrar, all of 4-foot-11, rushed to the vestibule, risking her life in the process. For all she knew, the attacker might have still been there. As luck would have it, he was not, and Farrar hugged and cradled the bloodied Genovese, who was struggling for breath.

Despite the attempts of various neighbors to help, Moseley’s final stab wounds proved fatal, and Farrar did her best to comfort Genovese in the nightmarish ­final minutes of her life.

..  Instead of a narrative of apathy, the media could have told instead of the people who tried to help, and of the complex circumstances — many boiling down to a lack not of compassion, but of information — that prevented some ­others from calling for aid.”

Yes, but telling the truth, the whole truth,  is not what the lamestream media does.

“How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover?”

“Love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship.”

The author of these tributes to the beauty of ‘intergenerational love’ is Gary Dowsett, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He wrote those words, and many more in the same vein, in an article on ‘gay men and kids’ in a 1982 edition of a publication called Gay Information. Dowsett is a former schoolteacher now employed in La Trobe’s department of Sex, Health and Society, the nest of thinkers who gave us the Safe Schools Coalition.

Lest anyone think that Safe Schools is just the latest whim of an LGBTI establishment wanting to push its entitlements to the limit in a society which has lost its hitherto defining moral principles, Dowsett’s Gay Information article shows that initiatives of this sort are part a carefully thought out strategy, planned over the decades. Long before many of today’s advocates of gay ‘marriage’ and such novelties were born, the future professor was stating that:

…a new political position is needed for there are significant political struggles at stake. First, we have three legal/social questions to win: custody rights for gay men and lesbians; the legal right of paedophiles and their young lovers; and finally the sexual rights of children as a whole…

As with manifestos such as Mein Kampf, what ‘we’ intended to do could not have been spelled out more clearly for anyone who could be bothered to read it. This, of course, was back in the days when the ABC in its hippie mode was endorsing paedophilia as a ‘lifestyle choice’ and the fashionable LGBTI demand, the gay marriage of the day, was for the age of consent to be lowered to eleven.

Excerpted and edited from an article by Christopher Akehurst in The Spectator.

But it’s easier to whine than work…

stemwomen-500x497

Pages