Human Rights Act Reform Consultation

Introduction

The British government, while currently appearing less authoritarian than some other Western governments due to the removal of many ‘Covid restrictions’, is seeking other ways to create a punishing authoritarian regime. Some of these I have already discussed, such as the Police Bill and the Nationality Bill, and others I have not, such as the Online Harms Bill (which seeks to ban ‘Covid misinformation’). One of the most important authoritarian moves is the reform of the Human Rights Act which has now been put out to consultation by the government. This article will look at the consultation and what is in it.

The Consultation Document

The Government has provided a document to read alongside the consultation. This document is extremely long and goes in to a lot of random detail. My guess is that the idea is to make the entire thing as intimidating as possible, so that people do not bother to respond. The questions (also listed on the page) on are also very technical and legalistic and so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit that I am not the best with legal jargon myself.

Fortunately there are already a couple of guides out there to help with filling in the consultation. It can be done via email or through an online link. The guides I have found so far for filling this in:

Here are the questions copied and pasted from the UK consultation document. You’ll see what I mean about obtuse when you have a look:

  • Question 1: We believe that the domestic courts should be able to draw on a wide range of law when reaching decisions on human rights issues. We would welcome your thoughts on the illustrative draft clauses found after paragraph 4 of Appendix 2, as a means of achieving this.
  • Question 2: The Bill of Rights will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial arbiter of our laws in the implementation of human rights. How can the Bill of Rights best achieve this with greater certainty and authority than the current position?
  • Question 3: Should the qualified right to jury trial be recognised in the Bill of Rights? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 4: How could the current position under section 12 of the Human Rights Act be amended to limit interference with the press and other publishers through injunctions or other relief?
  • Question 5: The government is considering how it might confine the scope for interference with Article 10 to limited and exceptional circumstances, taking into account the considerations above. To this end, how could clearer guidance be given to the courts about the utmost importance attached to Article 10? What guidance could we derive from other international models for protecting freedom of speech?
  • Question 6: What further steps could be taken in the Bill of Rights to provide stronger protection for journalists’ sources?
  • Question 7: Are there any other steps that the Bill of Rights could take to strengthen the protection for freedom of expression?
  • Question 8: Do you consider that a condition that individuals must have suffered a ‘significant disadvantage’ to bring a claim under the Bill of Rights, as part of a permission stage for such claims, would be an effective way of making sure that courts focus on genuine human rights matters? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 9: Should the permission stage include an ‘overriding public importance’ second limb for exceptional cases that fail to meet the ‘significant disadvantage’ threshold, but where there is a highly compelling reason for the case to be heard nonetheless? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 10: How else could the government best ensure that the courts can focus on genuine human rights abuses?
  • Question 11: How can the Bill of Rights address the imposition and expansion of positive obligations to prevent public service priorities from being impacted by costly human rights litigation? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 12: We would welcome your views on the options for section 3: Option 1: Repeal section 3 and do not replace it; Option 2: Repeal section 3 and replace it with a provision that where there is ambiguity, legislation should be construed compatibly with the rights in the Bill of Rights, but only where such interpretation can be done in a manner that is consistent with the wording and overriding purpose of the legislation. We would welcome comments on the above options, and the illustrative clauses in Appendix 2.
  • Question 13: How could Parliament’s role in engaging with, and scrutinising, section 3 judgments be enhanced?
  • Question 14: Should a new database be created to record all judgments that rely on section 3 in interpreting legislation?
  • Question 15: Should the courts be able to make a declaration of incompatibility for all secondary legislation, as they can currently do for Acts of Parliament?
  • Question 16: Should the proposals for suspended and prospective quashing orders put forward in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill be extended to all proceedings under the Bill of Rights where secondary legislation is found to be incompatible with the Convention rights? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 17: Should the Bill of Rights contain a remedial order power? In particular, should it be: a. similar to that contained in section 10 of the Human Rights Act; b. similar to that in the Human Rights Act, but not able to be used to amend the Bill of Rights itself; c. limited only to remedial orders made under the ‘urgent’ procedure; or d. abolished altogether? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 18: We would welcome your views on how you consider section 19 is operating in practice, and whether there is a case for change.
  • Question 19: How can the Bill of Rights best reflect the different interests, histories and legal traditions of all parts of the UK, while retaining the key principles that underlie a Bill of Rights for the whole UK?
  • Question 20: Should the existing definition of public authorities be maintained, or can more certainty be provided as to which bodies or functions are covered? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 21: The government would like to give public authorities greater confidence to perform their functions within the bounds of human rights law. Which of the following replacement options for section 6(2) would you prefer? Please explain your reasons. Option 1: Provide that wherever public authorities are clearly giving effect to primary legislation, then they are not acting unlawfully; or Option 2: Retain the current exception, but in a way which mirrors the changes to how legislation can be interpreted discussed above for section 3.
  • Question 22: Given the above, we would welcome your views on the most appropriate approach for addressing the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, including the tension between the law of armed conflict and the Convention in relation to extraterritorial armed conflict.
  • Question 23: To what extent has the application of the principle of ‘proportionality’ given rise to problems, in practice, under the Human Rights Act? We wish to provide more guidance to the courts on how to balance qualified and limited rights. Which of the below options do you believe is the best way to achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Clarify that when the courts are deciding whether an interference with a qualified right is ‘necessary’ in a ‘democratic society’, legislation enacted by Parliament should be given great weight, in determining what is deemed to be ‘necessary’. Option 2: Require the courts to give great weight to the expressed view of Parliament, when assessing the public interest, for the purposes of determining the compatibility of legislation, or actions by public authorities in discharging their statutory or other duties, with any right. We would welcome your views on the above options, and the draft clauses after paragraph 10 of Appendix 2.
  • Question 24: How can we make sure deportations that are in the public interest are not frustrated by human rights claims? Which of the options, below, do you believe would be the best way to achieve this objective? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that certain rights in the Bill of Rights cannot prevent the deportation of a certain category of individual, for example, based on a certain threshold such as length of imprisonment; Option 2: Provide that certain rights can only prevent deportation where provided for in a legislative scheme expressly designed to balance the strong public interest in deportation against such rights; and/or Option 3: provide that a deportation decision cannot be overturned, unless it is obviously flawed, preventing the courts from substituting their view for that of the Secretary of State.
  • Question 25: While respecting our international obligations, how could we more effectively address, at both the domestic and international levels, the impediments arising from the Convention and the Human Rights Act to tackling the challenges posed by illegal and irregular migration?
  • Question 26: We think the Bill of Rights could set out a number of factors in considering when damages are awarded and how much. These include: a. the impact on the provision of public services; b. the extent to which the statutory obligation had been discharged; c. the extent of the breach; and d. where the public authority was trying to give effect to the express provisions, or clear purpose, of legislation. Which of the above considerations do you think should be included? Please provide reasons.
  • Question 27: We believe that the Bill of Rights should include some mention of responsibilities and/or the conduct of claimants, and that the remedies system could be used in this respect. Which of the following options could best achieve this? Please provide reasons. Option 1: Provide that damages may be reduced or removed on account of the applicant’s conduct specifically confined to the circumstances of the claim; or Option 2: Provide that damages may be reduced in part or in full on account of the applicant’s wider conduct, and whether there should be any limits, temporal or otherwise, as to the conduct to be considered.
  • Question 28: We would welcome comments on the options, above, for responding to adverse Strasbourg judgments, in light of the illustrative draft clause at paragraph 11 of Appendix 2.
  • Question 29: We would like your views and any evidence or data you might hold on any potential impacts that could arise as a result of the proposed Bill of Rights. In particular: a. What do you consider to be the likely costs and benefits of the proposed Bill of Rights? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. b. What do you consider to be the equalities impacts on individuals with particular protected characteristics of each of the proposed options for reform? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate. c. How might any negative impacts be mitigated? Please give reasons and supply evidence as appropriate.

The consultation allows you to only answer some of these questions and ignore others. To he honest I am going to ignore most of them and only focus on a few. I used the email method because I didn’t want to make arguments on the uber technical questions.

Questions 4/5/6/7: Free Expression

I looked at two bits that they mentioned in their consultation:

The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.

The government wishes to explore ways of strengthening the protection for freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, mindful as always of the government’s primary duty to protect national security and keep its citizens safe.

Basically, ‘harm’ and ‘abuse’ can mean anything and ‘national security’ can also mean anything.

Question 8/9: Preliminary stages

  • These will be abused by the government to prevent cases they don’t like coming to court.
  • The examples that they gave on the consultation are very small uses of public money
  • Problematic to introduce this over a few frivolous cases, even if those cases lead to slight waste of public funds.

Question 22: Extraterritoriality

  • Concerns that they government will try to change this to prevent their soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes

Questions 26/27: Compensation

  • Deflects attention from the abuse and towards the individual making the claim
  • Divides the population into ‘good’ citizens worthy of rights and ‘bad’ citizens who are unworthy
  • Behaviour could mean anything such as attending a protest the government doesn’t like
  • May be used to discriminate against certain races, religions, etc. or against people who don’t agree with a state narrative e.g. the unvaxxed

General comments on the concept of a ‘rights culture’ and the public interest

See Naked Emperor’s post above on this one. Basically they are trying to put more emphasis on obligations to society. In other words another possible means to attempt forced injections in the ‘public interest’.

Cost of Living Protest Birmingham 12th February 2022

This was a protest organised by the usual suspects on the left, who to be honest I find generally tiresome at this point. This included the unions – Unite and the National Education Union – and the People’s Assembly. In other words, the lockdown fanatics that advocated for the situation we now find ourselves in regarding the economy – and those who mocked people like me for pointing out the devastation that lockdown would inflict on working people.

People’s Assembly even went so far as to refuse to protest alongside ‘anti-vaxxers’ against the draconian Policing Bill:

They later deleted this because of the backlash but here it is for posterity. As you can see it is a ratio’d tweet.

I primarily went to the protest in order to provide coverage of the event, rather than to take part. I have lost faith in the traditional and modern left to do anything useful due to their Corona fanaticism, advocacy for working class destroying lockdowns, harmful and useless (in terms of stopping viruses) face masks, and mocking and smearing anyone who even questions a dodgy Big Pharma product as an ‘anti-vaxxer’.

The framing that was present during the speeches is exactly what you would expect regarding Corona, complaining about the old staples such as ‘useless PPE’, ‘dodgy contracts’ etc., which does not get to the heart of the matter. The oblique framing of the ‘the Tories making us pay for the pandemic’ was present, but no mention of the horrific consequences of locking down and how it has harmed working class people. (The only speaker to use the word ‘lockdown’ was Nila from Stop the War coalition, from what I heard, which was not all of it due to wind noise).

Then we get the typical complaining about left wing bugbears such as Tommy Robinson (I believe he is only highlighting grooming gang victims to push a particular narrative, but the left has failed on this issue, see below), ‘The Tory government’ (as if Labour wouldn’t do the same thing), Brexit (as if this topic has any relevance to anything at this point and I say this as a Brexit/Lexit voter), etc. Though one of the speakers did call out Prince Andrew for being a pedophile and the royal family for protecting him, so maybe common sense hasn’t completely left the building.

I don’t want working class people to have to pay more money for energy bills etc., especially since they were the primary victims of lockdowns. I think that is fairly obvious. The question is how we tackle the problem. In general, even though I disagree with capitalist economics I have become a lot more sceptical of calling on the (capitalist) state to do anything about anything, since they will just use it to push more pain onto working people (a good example is the environment: while it’s clear that many things humans are doing are negatively affecting the environment, any state action is likely to be more authoritarian nonsense that will punish the working class like carbon based digital IDs). Unlike libertarians I believe that this authoritarianism is inherently interlinked with the capitalist system.

Alternative systems within the current one such as opting out as much as possible and doing other things within the freedom based community are a good idea. However, they are difficult to implement in practice given that people still have to survive within the current system (e.g. people have to go to work full time, leaving limited time and energy for alternatives). Such suggestions can come across as a bit naïve in some cases though I advocate them where realistically possible.

I have uploaded some of the footage onto my Bitchute channel of the speeches that were audible and not ruined by wind noise.

RE Tommy Robinson: Robinson wants to promote the idea that foreign or Muslim men are inherently a threat to women and girls, which is false (even though I do believe Islamic ideology to be misogynistic, it does not follow that all men from these backgrounds will rape children). However the left has ignored the grooming gang victims because they were victims of Asian men and that does not fit their own narrative of foreign/Muslim men not being a threat to women and girls. In reality a minority of men of all races are a violent threat to women and girls (which is one reason why we have separate spaces for women and men). Robinson ignores victims of white men, whereas the misogyny of the current left causes them to brush over the problem. The left also allows for more abuse of women and girls to take place by pushing transgender ideology, which states that any man is a woman if he declares himself to be so (including violent males). The women from Stand up to Racism claimed that their slogan involved justice for the victims, I wasn’t there so I can’t say, but there is no evidence of that in the signage.

Anti-Nationality and Borders Bill Protest Birmingham 27th January 2022

A quick post on this protest with uploaded footage.

The Nationalities and Borders Bill is a new piece of legislation relating to issues such as citizenship and asylum put forward by the Tory government. As such, it has enraged the Modern (aka woke) Left due to their heavy emphasis on immigration.

This bill is of concern due to its authoritarian aspects – alongside other bills and acts opposed by the Modern Left – such as the Police Bill – and ones the Modern Left refuse to oppose – such as the Coronavirus Act. The key authoritarian aspect of concern is that the bill makes it possible for the government to strip people from immigrant backgrounds of citizenship without notification. The number of people calculated to be possibly affected is 6 million including dual nationals and people born in foreign countries.

Of course, while the government claims this will only be used against criminals, we cannot trust the government not to abuse these powers and go after activists or anyone they don’t like in general.

Unfortunately, as is in line with the left today, many protesters were clearly in alignment with the Official Covid Narrative.

Here is the protest crowd:

Some of the speakers are up on my Bitchute channel. Unfortunately the sound was not the best due to an arcade game being run very close to the protest site, which is the noise that you can hear in the background in some of the clips.

Kill The Bill Protest Birmingham 8th December 2021

A quick post about this protest which I attended at short notice. This protest took place because the government are continuing to push the draconian Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill which will severely restrict the right to protest. This goes along with all the other authoritarian police state things that they are pushing or have pushed, such as the Coronavirus Act, mandatory masks, vaccine passports and the persecution of Julian Assange.

I have expressed some reservations about the Kill the Bill movement before, primarily the fact that they ignore the Official Covid Narrative as a justification for tyranny.

Unfortunately, they are at it again. The group People’s Assembly (which I know nothing about and have no dealings with) refused to protest at the Kill the Bill event in London because some ‘anti-vaxxers’ were going to be there. (Screenshot courtesy Ian Jenkins – they later deleted this after they got called out).

Presumably this was because some groups like Stand Up X and Save Our Rights, who are anti-lockdown, were advertising the event and encouraging people to turn up. Of course, this is beyond pathetic – looking a gift horse of additional support in the mouth. Despite the fact that the left has mocked and smeared people supportive of Stand Up X and Save Our Rights for months, they backed the protest because stopping the bill was more important than disagreement. Obviously this ‘People’s Assembly’ lot don’t represent the whole left but there are a significant proportion who like to mock people who don’t follow every restriction out of Boris Johnson’s mouth and don’t trust Big Pharma.

Anyway, I went to this protest despite reservations because this bill is terrible. Apart from being a lot darker (it was at 5pm) and a lot colder, not a lot has changed in terms of the kinds of things they are talking about (and still no acknowledgement of the evils of the Coronavirus Act or vaccine passports). The usual leftist groups were around including Stop the War coalition, the Workers Party of Britain and trade union groups. The speeches were the usual kind of left leaning stuff that you get at these kind of events with the themes of the ‘climate emergency’, imperialism, migrants etc. (The speaker from Stop the War even had a go at the Workers’ Party of Britain for being too anti-migration, so we couldn’t get through the event without a left wing spat.)

There was also a lot of Extinction Rebellion people around as well, giving out badges and leaflets, and they also brought the drums along. There was a period of 10-15 minutes where they just did some drumming. (I’m a bit cynical about the ‘climate emergency’ narrative at this point given that it seems to be the next narrative after Covid to be used to drive in the authoritarian police state. There was quite a lot of plugging of this narrative at this event with another protest on another date being mentioned for climate change.)

After a few more speakers there was a bit of chanting that was a bit half-assed. Though for a Wednesday 5 o’clock protest, the turnout was decent. Maybe 100-150 or so people (difficult to see in the dark).

Birmingham Clean Air Zone through the lens of Techno-Tyranny

Introduction

On the 1st June 2021, Birmingham (UK) introduced a ‘Clean Air Zone’. The plan is to charge vehicles that emit too many greenhouse gases a fee for every day that they enter the city centre. The supposed motivation for this is to lower emissions and improve air quality, thus improving the quality of life of people who live in Birmingham. As with any capitalist state initiative, however, we have to look beneath the surface, and in this case there is a link to the Smart City agenda.

Birmingham Clean Air Zone

The Birmingham Clean Air Zone – which came into force on the 1st June – will charge any non-compliant household vehicle that enters into the zone or drives within the zone £8 per day. Non-compliant vehicles are those that are (considered to be) non-fuel efficient and so emit too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There are various exemptions to these rules, but for our purposes they are not important.

The main aspect which I will focus upon in this article is the mechanism by which the Clean Air Zone will be enforced. According to the BrumBreathes website, the official website for the changes:

Vehicles that do not meet the emission standards for the zone will be detected by an ANPR camera (automatic number plate recognition).

Number plates that are non-compliant with the low emissions zone will be flagged for a fine.

What precisely is ANPR? The RAC has an article discussing the basics of the technology.

ANPR technology converts an image of a number plate into machine-encoded text, this is called optical character recognition.

The technology can be used across CCTV, traffic enforcement cameras and ANPR-specific cameras. Infrared illumination can help cameras to capture a clearer image.

ANPR cameras are used to monitor speeding vehicles and handing out fines based on that basis. The police also use them to monitor stolen vehicles.

A Step Towards Smart Cities

Smart Cities – cities with endless sensors and monitoring managed by AI – are a dream of the global elite. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum are promoting the smart city concept through the creation of a ‘Pioneer Cities’ program. While smart cities are promoted as the solution to humanity’s problems, in reality, they will lead to the end of privacy – as every single device, even a kettle, will be hooked up to the ‘Internet of Things’ for monitoring. One of the main narratives being used to drive the smart city is the Official Covid Narrative – with smart cities being sold as ‘pandemic management’.

However, another idea being used to sell smart cities is the ‘green’ agenda. A significant proportion of Western populations are concerned about genuine environmental issues such as pollution and plastic waste, and this can be leveraged by Smart City promoters to push their agenda. For example, this article from 2018 talks about how the ‘Internet of Things’ is the best way to improve the environment by making everything more efficient. In reality, smart cities would devastate the environment due to the large amount of rare earth metals required for chipping everything and the creation of 5G networks, but that aspect is ignored by smart city promoters.

It is clear that the Birmingham Clean Air Zone is being used in such a manner, due to the fact that its surveillance policies will automatically slap online payable fines on non-compliant cars through ANPR processes. These cameras will be able to collect a large amount of data on drivers which allows for a higher level of privacy violation, a key concept of the Smart City.

On an even more sinister level, the idea of the Clean Air Zone may begin to normalise the exclusion of individuals from certain areas for not meeting certain criteria. This is being pushed extremely hard in Britain at the moment through the attempted normalisation of vaccine passports – preventing people from going to social events unless they have had the Covid-19 vaccine. The Official Covid Narrative and the ‘green’ agenda may merge with the concept of the ‘climate lockdown’ – an idea already being promoted and normalised in the mainstream media.

Conclusion

An initially innocuous idea – that of reducing pollution in the Birmingham City Centre – is actually tied into deeper agendas for the introduction of ‘smart cities’ and ramping up mass surveillance under the guise of ‘protecting the planet’.

Birmingham Protests 5th June 2021

It could be just me, but it seems as if there are a huge number of protests going on, more than ‘normal’. I don’t mean this from the point of view of one ideology or another. I just mean people protesting about things in general. It could be me simply being more aware of protests, but at the moment we have multiple Free Palestine events, Kill the Bill, Anti-Lockdown events, that have all drawn significant numbers of people.

There were two events on the 5th June, both taking place in Victoria Square at the same time (12 noon). (There was also a third protest going in in Kings Heath against the Low Traffic Neighbourhood organised by the Workers’ Party of Britain, and there were some Extinction Rebellion people hanging out and chalking near the intersection between New Street and Corporation Street.)

The two protests that took place in Victoria Square were by BrumLAG (Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group) and a group seeking to stop the deportation of Osime Brown to Jamaica.

The BrumLAG protest took place near the statue of Queen Victoria, off to the side of the square. It was pretty well attended, at least a few hundred were there.

BrumLAG protest about 12.20pm

The protest for Osime Brown was around 30-odd people and took place in the section of Victoria Square under the building.

Stop the Deportation of Osime Brown protest

The BrumLAG event was about the issue of cladding in homes. In 2017, Grenfell Tower, a tower block in London, set on fire. The fire was able to spread rapidly because of the type of cladding used in the building. 72 people were killed as a result of the fire.

Safety concerns regarding the risk of fire had been raised before the fire took place.

Many other buildings contain the same or similar unsafe cladding. This has caused serious worries to those living in such buildings due to the risk of a fire.

The BrumLAG protest was focused upon the issue of who pays for the replacement of the cladding. Leaseholders have been expected to pay and their properties have no value. BrumLAG have been making the case that the developers that should be paying for the changes to make the buildings safe.

BrumLAG leaflet. The other side says ‘Is your home worth £Zero?’

I did listen to some of the things that the speakers were saying. Unfortunately, they had a fairly low quality sound system. The recordings I made of the couple of speeches I managed to film on my tablet came out pretty garbled.

The Osime Brown event, on the other hand, had a much better sound system. The event was organised by some of the people involved in Kill the Bill and there were several of the same faces there as the event on May 1st.

I am going to be honest and say that I do not know a lot about this case. I will post the leaflet handed out by the organisers below so that you can read what they have to say:

Some of the speakers at this event were also at the Kill the Bill event. The woman with the bright coloured hair was speaking at Kill the Bill. I’m pretty sure the man with the yellow jacket introducing the speakers spoke there as well, or was involved in some way. Joan, Osime’s mother, also spoke at Kill the Bill and this is the first that I heard about this case.

I have embedded the videos below.

Here’s some Birmingham Leaseholders Action Group footage:

I am also trying to offer a Bitchute alternative for my footage, but am having some technical problems uploading. [EDIT: This is now resolved and all the above footage is available on Bitchute}.

Election Nonsense

I suppose that I had better comment on what went on in the UK on Thursday, an election in which we had the grand choice between the pro-lockdown Conservative Party and the pro-lockdown Labour Party. And if you live in Scotland, you can toss the pro-lockdown Scottish National Party into the mix as well.

The Media Blather

The media was quite excited about the fact that the Conservatives won Hartlepool from Labour in a by-election. Hartlepool is a traditionally Labour constituency, part of the so-called ‘Red Wall’ that went partially Conservative in 2019 due to Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to stand up to the centrists sabotaging his campaign and endorsing a second Brexit referendum.

Of course, many liberals in the media claimed that if Labour got rid of the ‘loony left’ Jeremy Corbyn and replaced him with the ‘moderate and forensic’ Keir Starmer they would be much more likely to get elected. Now of course it’s good to poke fun at the media for promoting this nonsense. But really, what difference would it have made if Labour would have won this seat? None as far as I can tell – we would have a pro-lockdown Labour politician instead of a pro-lockdown Tory politician.

How Many People Voted for House Arrest?

I think what is significant about these elections is the amount of people who voted for pro-lockdown candidates, i.e. people that were willing to put their vote towards job destroying, working class impoverishing lockdowns. The answer seems to be: quite a lot.

I will focus this analysis on a couple of mayoral elections, simply for reasons of space and patience.

Let’s start with the London Mayoral election. The standard 4 pro-lockdown options were available: Labour (the utterly dire Sadiq Khan), Conservative (Shaun Bailey), Liberal Democrat (Luisa Porritt) and Green (the uber woke Sian Berry). However, there were several other candidates: The anti-lockdown, anti-woke actor Laurence Fox; the independent media personality Brian Rose (who I have to say I am not familiar with, though I have heard of London Real and am aware they oppose the ‘pandemic’ narrative); the anti-lockdown, climate change critic and vaccine sceptic Piers Corbyn; and the anti-lockdown, socially conservative David Kurten. In terms of other options, there was also a Rejoin EU party candidate (yawn), a Women’s Equality Party candidate, and some random joke candidates.  And some others.

Sadiq Khan was re-elected as London mayor, but that’s not really my main concern here. I am going to add up the vote for our four main pro-lockdown candidates. 1,013,721 for Khan (seriously?), 893,051 for Bailey, 197,976 for Berry, and 111,716 for Porritt. This puts the pro-lockdown vote at 2,216,464. The anti-lockdown candidates (the four mentioned above), when totalled, add up to 110,374. I do find this to be utterly depressing, especially as mayoral elections have first and second choices so you can still vote against Lab/Con for your second choice and pick an anti-medical tyranny candidate for your first choice. However turnout was only 42.1%, so nearly 60% did not vote at all.

I will look at one more mayoral election, the West Midlands election. In this election, there were 5 candidates, the four standard pro-lockdown party candidates and a Reform UK candidate who is anti-lockdown. The total for the four pro-lockdown parties was 600,722. Pete Durnell, the Reform UK candidate, scored 13,568 votes. Turnout was even lower in this election at 31.2%.

Conclusion

These elections show that there are a heck of a lot of people who are willing to vote for the destruction of their freedom, the destruction of their mental wellbeing, and the destruction of their children’s education by supporting pro-lockdown candidates (yes I am aware they may not have voted for the candidate on the grounds of their support for lockdowns, but there are some things that you just don’t endorse at the ballot box). I am hoping that the lockdown sceptics are more prominent among the non voters, because given the London protests, there has to be quite a lot of us.

Kill The Bill Birmingham 1st May 2021

In a previous article about Kill the Bill, I expressed my reservations about this movement. The article, hosted on OffGuardian, agreed that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an assault on human rights and the right to protest. My disagreements with the Kill the Bill movement focused upon its failure to challenge the Official Covid Narrative – and indeed, their reinforcement of that narrative via compliance with masks and speeches supporting that narrative.

For this reason, I believe that the anti-lockdown/vaccine passport movement is the most important movement to support – along with the Free Julian Assange movement – in order to truly protect our freedoms. (In my own activism I largely focus on Assange).

I decided to attend this event in order to cover it for this website.

I was pleased to see that someone had taped up a ‘Don’t Extradite Assange’ sign among the various other taped up signs (mainly ‘Stop the War’ Coalition signs).

Tweet from my Assange account

There were not many there until about 2:10. It was tipping it down between about 1:00 and 2:00, meaning that the only people in Victoria Square were huddled at the back:

Victoria Square about 1:30pm.

The speeches started about 2:15 and lasted until about 3:15. The rain stopped, fortunately.

The crowd size was not that large. I would guess a bit smaller than the two anti-lockdown events I have attended at Victoria Square. Guessing how large a crowd is is notoriously difficult and annoying. I would give a ballpark of 500.

Victoria Square about 2:40.

Most of the speeches were pretty short, a few minutes each.

I did see aspects of the same hypocrisies in terms of Covid-19 as I highlighted in my OffGuardian article, though these were less in-your-face than at the London event. Most though not all of the attendees were complying with wearing a mask. The last speaker was the main person to address Covid directly, saying that the Tories want to ‘make us pay for the Covid crisis’. The correct thing to do, of course, is to oppose the manufacturing of the ‘Covid crisis’, rather than support that narrative. After complaining that there is no opposition in Parliament, the speaker then went on to state he was going to quote Lenin. Say what you want about Lenin, but I don’t think he would have advocated ‘Pandemic’ capitalist narratives.

The first speaker mentioned the repression at the Sarah Everard vigil as the spark for these protests. The fact that the Left reacted to this but ignored the police harassment of Piers Corbyn or even harassment of Assange supporters highlights the hypocrisy on this point. There has been no shortage of police overreach to trigger action, but the ‘nutter’ Corbyn is not deemed worth defending by the left even when he is on the receiving end of unwarranted repression. The left barely defends Assange (the likes of the Socialist Workers’ Party shack up at everything but I didn’t see many people affiliated with these socialist groups outside the Old Bailey in September/October 2020 on the four days I was able to attend the protests).

A couple of side points. Another speaker, talking about Traveller communities, compared Priti Patel to Hitler. The quote was (paraphrasing) ‘Hitler did not succeed in destroying the Romany peoples, don’t let Priti Patel succeed’ or something similar, that was the implication. I can only imagine how quickly I would get cancelled if I used a Hitler analogy in relation to Covid Tyranny. Another person talked about free speech on campuses and honest discussions of colonialism. (I agree with protecting free speech and being able to speak the truth about the British Empire, but given that this is a woke milieu, I have to wonder their view on Maya Forstater).

I did not see any examples of repression from the police though I left at 3:15 and did not go on the march afterwards.

I would rather people protest this bill than not protest it. I do not want this bill to pass because of its restrictions on protests – it says that protests can be shut down for noise reasons, which in reality means any protests that the state does not like will be called ‘too noisy’ and shut down.

But I would even more rather the left get off its arse and realise that the Official Covid Narrative has to be opposed along with the Coronavirus Act 2020. We all need to unite to oppose tyranny, and that is going to involve left wing activists uniting with the anti-lockdown movement. If this does not happen, the left will become even more irrelevant in the face of more and more ordinary people getting utterly fed up of this ‘Covid’ nonsense. Despite media manipulation, this is evident in the hundreds of thousands of attendees at the large London events against lockdowns and vaccine passports. Once you add in people who sympathise with the protests you are looking at millions of people and that number will only likely get larger as the government pushes more and more authoritarian policies.

We are in a race against time to stop the vaccine passport. If the vaccine passport is introduced, even if in a limited capacity, freedom will most likely come to an end. As Neil Clark outlines:

But if vaccine passports are introduced, even for the most limited circumstances, we can be sure of two things. The scheme won’t be ‘limited’ but will be expanded over time into a full-scale digitalised Chinese-style social credit restricted access system, AND it won’t be ‘temporary’.

Without linking up in order to fight against all forms of capitalist state tyranny I can only feel that this movement will be a failure. It’s high time the majority of the left admitted they got it wrong on Covid 19, and work to actually correct their mistake by opposing lockdowns, mandatory masks, and vaccine passports. I am forced to stick with the original conclusion of my OffGuardian piece:

Focusing entirely on this one bill is a distraction that precludes a true recognition of the biosecurity state being foisted on us through lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing and vaccine passports.  

The Modern Left is Out of Touch With Reality: Part 3 – Universal Basic Income

As argued in the first two parts of this series, the modern left has lost touch with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it consists of those who agree with many left-wing economic policies and share the critique of imperialism with the traditional socialist left, but who have a heavy focus on identity politics. Examples would be outlets such as The Canary and Novara Media. For a more detailed explanation, see the first article in these series.

The first two parts of this article addressed two ways in which the modern left has lost touch with material reality. The first of these, the left-wing support for lockdowns, shows their detachment from the reality of working-class job losses, income losses, and mental well being. The second of these, their support for transgender ideology, shows their detachment from the material reality of biological sex.

The third part in this series will address the issue of Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

What is UBI?

First, we need a definition of Universal Basic Income. Investopedia defines the term as such:

Universal basic income (UBI) is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money on a regular basis. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.

UBI is a popular position among many people on the left, including many who could not be considered part of the modern left. In the US, the idea has gained more traction due to the Democratic primary challenger Andrew Yang running as a largely one-issue candidate focusing on UBI.

While there are right-wing cases for UBI, made by individuals such as Milton Friedman, I will not take these into consideration in this article. Nor will I attempt to use the fact that some right wingers support UBI as prima facie discrediting the idea.

The Left Case For UBI

An article published in Novara Media by Andrew Dolan brings up 7 reasons as to why he supports UBI. In short, his reasons are: 1) that wages are too low, 2) full employment is not possible, 3) that it is unconditional, 4) makes working less necessary, 5) It is becoming a mainstream idea, 6) it provides and opportunity to move beyond capitalism, 7) potential to create a unified movement.

At first glance, these seem to offer some good reasons to support UBI. The fact that UBI supplements wages, for example, seems like a good way to reduce poverty, as does the fact that it is paid to everybody, including the unemployed. The fact that it takes the emphasis from paid work could also appear as a positive benefit as it could reconfigure life to be more focused on other aspects of the human condition such as family.

So where is the snag in the argument?

The Biosecurity Context

There are many people who object to UBI on economic grounds, such as that the policy would lead to high levels of inflation, or that it would lead to large levels of government debt. Another objection is that the taxes used to pay for the policy would end up being taken from the poor, particularly if it is funded via VAT (which was a suggestion made by Andrew Yang). However, these kinds of arguments do not concern me, and are not the reason for my objections to UBI. Even if all of these arguments could convincingly be debunked, I would still oppose UBI.

This is because of the capitalist biosecurity state context in which the UBI policy would exist.

We cannot abstract UBI from this context, which is the major flaw in the left case for UBI. So what is a biosecurity state context and why is it problematic for the case for UBI?

We live in societies where the state already has a large amount of control over people’s lives. While the 1940s creation of a welfare state could be said to have had some benefits for working class people, such as improving access to healthcare, it also acted as a control mechanism over the working class, particularly in terms of unemployment benefits.

The working class under capitalism have had the choice of the ‘friendly societies’ that were common in the nineteenth century or state provision of unemployment benefits. Friendly societies were organisations set up by workers as a kind of insurance policy that they paid into and would receive stipends from if they were made unemployed or injured at work. This was a form of self-organisation, but often proved inadequate when capitalist crises happened. On the other hand, workers accessing state-based solutions have been subjected to the long-standing idea of the ‘deserving’ vs. the ‘undeserving’ poor.

The amount of state control over the lives of ordinary people has increased over time and is reaching the stage where alleged Western ‘democracies’ are teetering on full-blown authoritarianism. In the UK, this can be seen in the increase in mass surveillance, and the increasing control over free speech, including the persecution of Julian Assange and coordination between state and social media platforms to remove dissenting opinions. A significant step towards this was the 9/11 event, sold to the public as being caused by ‘terrorists that are trying to destroy our way of life’. This meant that the government was able to pass a range of ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation, aimed at the public. Similar trends exist in the US and some other ‘Western democracies’.

The measures imposed over the past year – allegedly in response to the virus Sars-Cov-2 – are the next stage in this growing authoritarianism. The first step was the ‘lockdowns’, forcing people to ‘stay at home’ and banning them from social interaction. Following on from this policy came the forced masks, used to maintain the image of fear while no-one was dying in July and August. Then came more lockdowns, and now the government is making their play for permanent tyranny – the vaccine passport.

The government is currently attempting to soft pedal the passport by suggesting the idea that it will be temporary, or that it will not be needed for certain businesses, such as ‘non-essential’ shops and pubs. However, once the passport is introduced, it will be impossible to get rid of it without a massive effort, and it will become slowly more draconian over time. Such a mechanism may begin only with international travel, theatres and sports, but will expand to shops and every other possible organisation.

This is the context we need to understand when looking at the reality of UBI as a policy. While fighting for UBI may seem like a good response to lockdowns due to the destruction of jobs caused by this policy, in reality UBI will strengthen this control matrix.

One of the desires of the elite is to create universal digital IDs for the entirety of humanity. There is a campaign group set up to advocate for this called ID2020. This group is associated with Microsoft and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance and thus has ties to Bill Gates. While the ID2020 website tries to portray its strategy of giving every human being on earth a digital identity as empowering people through the promotion of more choice and control, in reality such a system would lead to more elite control over humanity. The ID2020 website links to another site called the Good Health Pass Collaborative, designed to promote the vaccine passport.

The aim of any UBI that is introduced – and the government could use the mechanism of furlough to do so – would be to tie it into this digital identity matrix. UBI would then be used as a control mechanism. It would be ‘universal’ in the sense that anyone could have access to it, but it would require compliance – for example, having all the latest vaccines that Big Pharma demand, or not resisting or opposing the government in any way.

Critics of this argument may object that what I am criticising is not UBI, since that would be without preconditions. However, this argument shows that what would happen in practise when this policy is implemented by a capitalist state. In order to combat this argument, it would need to be demonstrate that this would not be how such a stipend would work in practise.

Conclusion

Universal Basic Income is a distraction for the left, and if any similar policy was implemented by a capitalist state, it would merely enhance the control mechanisms of such a state. The left should forget about demanding this policy and instead focus upon organising to end the draconian ‘Covid measures’ and other signs of an emerging biosecurity state.

The Modern Left Has Lost Touch With Reality: Part 2 – Transgender Ideology

In the first part of this series, I discussed the pro-lockdown stance of the modern left and how that indicated a break with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it is those that claim to be independent from the mainstream media, advocate for left wing policies on the economy and criticise US/UK foreign policy but have a large proportion of their focus on identity politics. For an expanded definition, see the original article.

The second part of this series will discuss the modern left’s belief in transgender ideology, and how that indicates that their break with reality came earlier than the Covid Narrative.

What is Transgender Ideology?

People who support transgender ideology will claim that there is no such thing as transgender ideology (or alternatively, Gender Identity Ideology).

Transgender ideologists believe that each human being has an innate gender identity. This can either match the biological sex of the person (‘cis’) or not match the biological sex of the person (‘trans’). This gender identity does not have to be male or female; the most popular alternative to male or female identities is ‘non-binary’ meaning not identifying as either male or female. This identity is considered to override biological sex, so if a man ‘identifies as’ a woman, he is a woman, if a woman identifies as non binary then she is non binary.

This ideology seeks to change the way that society is constructed, to change the point of reference from sex to gender identity. So female toilets should be those for a female gender identity and not for the female biological sex. This applies to all other things segregated by sex – they should become segregated by identity (or not segregated at all). Pronouns are also another key part of this ideology. Rather than pronouns simply being used to shorten communication and to avoid contorted sentences, they are used as a form of validation of the individual’s gender identity. It is common nowadays in ‘queer’ spaces to state the pronouns ‘you use’ (i.e. that other people use about you) while introducing yourself to the group. She/her if you identify as a woman, they/them if you identify as non-binary etc. Some use multiple pronouns like she/they or ‘neopronouns’ (new words) like zie/zim.

The Left and Transgender Ideology

The modern left is heavily invested in supporting and defending this ideology and protecting it from criticism. Many of the individuals that I identified in my previous post, such as Kerry Ann Mendoza, Ash Sarkar, and Owen Jones, put a lot of energy into defending gender identity ideology. Here’s a few examples of how that applies in practise.

Sarkar and Jones, in particular, have criticised the High Court ruling in Bell/A. vs. Tavistock. This legal case was brought by Keira Bell, a detransitioned woman, and Mrs. A., the mother of a teenager with rapid onset gender dysphoria. It regarded the issue of whether children can consent to puberty blockers – drugs that prevent natural puberty which are the first step towards medical transition. The High Court declared that children under 16 were very unlikely to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers.

Both Jones and Sarkar support the notion of the ‘trans child’. Of course, this follows from the notion of an ‘innate gender identity’ which children are capable of ‘just knowing’ by magic whether they are a boy or a girl (I would suggest that anyone who believes this try interacting with some children.) They believe that saying that children cannot consent to puberty blockers is discrimination against the ‘trans child’.

This isn’t the only position that these left wing activists take that is completely out of touch with reality. They also consider the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be ‘transphobic’ because it requires a waiting time of two years before ‘gender’ can be changed and the presentation of medical evidence of gender dysphoria. Instead, they want this system to be operated on the principle of ‘self-ID’ – anyone can change their ‘gender’ at any time for any reason.

This article criticising Liz Truss for rejecting reforms along these lines from the Canary is a good example. One sentence of this article – talking about the fact that the GRA does not mention ‘non binary’ identities – is particularly revealing:

“Right now, non-binary individuals have nowhere to turn to legitimise their gender.”

The idea that the state and government legislation exists to legitimise an individual’s belief about themselves is of course, absurd and extremely narcissistic. The article does not answer the question as to why the state should consider ‘gender’ to be a valid category at all to include in law, other than that people’s feelings will be hurt if it is not.

Meanwhile, women’s concerns about men in their spaces are dismissed as transphobic. Women are perceived as the oppressors of those poor trans-identified males because we don’t consider them women and don’t want their male bodies in our spaces. This of course is a complete inversion of reality, where patriarchy oppresses women through male violence and the threat of such.

Transgender ideology has become a key plank of the modern left, and one which brooks no dissent, similar to the Covid narrative. The publications that are part of this milieu would refuse to publish any woman talking about the harms of this ideology (even publishing an article by her on a completely different topic) because in their view she is a ‘transphobe’ and a ‘terf’. The mantras are – ‘No Debate’ and ‘Trans Women are Women’. Anything other than full belief is transphobia.

What’s wrong with Gender Identity Ideology?

What’s the problem? Someone might ask. After all, isn’t this just about being kind to people who are suffering from mental distress? Isn’t this just about alleviating an individual’s dysphoria by being polite and kind? Well, no.

It should go without saying that criticising an ideology is not the same thing as expressing hatred towards a person. If one criticises Christianity or Islam, because they disagree with those religions, that is not the same as hating individuals that profess belief in those faiths. Whereas say, abuse towards someone for wearing a religious symbol would be an example of hatred towards the person believing in that religion. It should go without saying, except for the fact that transgender ideologists frame any disagreement with the concept of ‘gender identity’ as personal hatred and denial of their existence. They often abuse women for criticising their beliefs as ‘terfs’ and ‘transphobic’. So what are the problems with this belief? I am going to outline the fact that gender identity ideology is both misogynistic and homophobic.

Misogyny

Gender identity ideology is misogynistic.

How can one ‘identify’ as a woman? Women (and in general, non-gender identity believers) would say that female is a biological sex which is defined by the body type designed to produce eggs (large gametes). Women generally develop certain primary and secondary sex characteristics (womb, vagina, breasts) etc. That said because female is the type of body that is designed to develop large gametes, women who have certain disorders with regards to hormones or differences of sex development are still female, despite some transgender ideology claims that sex is a spectrum.

It’s clear that males cannot identify as having female biology, because that does not make any sense. Males by definition cannot have female biology (and vice versa). So, if a male identifies as female, what is he identifying with? Males who claim they are female claim to have some sort of inner female essence. What this amounts to in reality, however, is that they consider this female essence to be feminine stereotypes. Obviously, reducing women to feminine stereotypes is misogynistic.

The sexism is also very notable in the discussion around ‘trans kids’. ‘Affirmative’ parents – those who accept their child is the opposite sex – generally make comments about how their male child always liked dresses and dolls or their female child always liked trucks and climbing trees. The implication of this logic being that if a boy likes dresses he must really be a girl inside. This is regressive and encourages medicalisation of children who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Gender identity ideology implies that women can identify out of their own oppression, as if ‘gender identity’ is the cause of women’s oppression, then women could escape this by identifying as men. This is obviously wrong, as women and girls cannot avoid FGM, forced marriage, rape, domestic violence and prostitution simply by identifying as male. Gender ideology also believes that men who identify as women are more oppressed than women because of their ‘identity’, and because of the fact that women refuse to ‘respect’ this identity. This ignores the male violence that women face, and also equates the oppression of trans identified homosexual males in prostitution in South America – a form of homophobic male violence – with the alleged oppression of middle class white trans-identified males in the West.

This ideology also reduces women’s safety, by allowing men who identify as women into spaces designed for women such as female toilets and changing rooms. It reduces the ability of women to be able to say no to men in these spaces for fear of being accused of transphobia. It also leads to dangerous situations where males are placed in female prisons and attack women.

Homophobia

Gender identity ideology is homophobic.

A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women and a gay man is a man attracted to other men. These terms are defined on the basis of biological sex. Gender identity ideology redefines these terms by stating that ‘woman’ is anyone who says they are a woman and ‘man’ is anyone who says they are a man. It follows that lesbians must include trans women in their dating pool and gay men must include trans men in their dating pool. This is imposing compulsory heterosexuality on gays and lesbians, which is homophobic.

Lesbians and gay men are subjected to abuse if they define their orientation as same sex attraction. There are endless amounts of twitter comments that state that if a lesbian refuses to sleep with trans women she is a ‘terf’, a ‘transphobe’ and that she is ‘denying that a trans women is a real woman’. There is even a term used by trans activists for this, the ‘cotton ceiling’, in other words framing lesbian sexuality as a barrier to be overcome by trans women. The same applies to gay men in reverse.

Trans ideology is also homophobic because it encourages children to ‘transition’. Gender dysphoria in children is more likely than not to resolve or decrease if a child is allowed to go through puberty and the number of these children that grow up LGB is higher than statistical average. There are also cases – revealed by whistleblowers at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK – that many parents who do not want a gay child will seek their child’s transition as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality.

Where did Transgender Ideology Come From?

How did the absurd idea that men are actually women if they say so become so popular? After all, it is a laughable idea, or would be, if it wasn’t being used as a basis to undermine women’s rights and give harmful drugs to children.

Transgender ideology would not have been able to have become so dominant in society without a large amount of money behind it. Unlike Civil Rights and Gay Rights, transgender ideology has completely captured society in a small period of time without any real input from the broader society and without any attempts by activists to build public support for their position. The powerful men behind this ideology have captured institutions from the top down.

Stonewall, for example, used to be an organisation for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. It was designed to combat discrimination and to abolish homophobic laws such as Section 28. In 2015, Stonewall added the T to the previous Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual activism that it had been doing. Stonewall started pushing for extreme claims such as that biological sex does not matter and that same sex attraction is actually same gender attraction. The amount of funding that Stonewall has increased since they started promoting transgender ideology.

This idea was able to capture many large institutions in the UK through the mechanism of the ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions’ scheme. This scheme involves organisations paying Stonewall money to have a label placed on their website that shows that they are affiliated with Stonewall. This is then used to push their ideology and silence dissent, as has been seen with the case of Allison Bailey, a barrister who disagrees with gender identity ideology.

It is far more than just Stonewall, of course. Stonewall is merely a footsoldier in this war, the main drivers of this ideology are certain billionaires invested in pharmaceutical companies, and those who seek to change humanity through the mechanism of transhumanism. Big Pharma has an incentive to promote transgender hormones and surgeries as these make a large amount of money as opposite sex imitation requires a lifelong hormone regimen. Trans-identified male Martine Rothblatt has been the most vocal in promoting the intersection between transgenderism and transhumanism. The idea of transgenderism, in the words of Jennifer Bilek, is the “normalisation of disembodiment”, which opens up a path to lead to transhumanism as transhumanism is based on rejecting human embodiment and seeking to upload human beings to the cloud and other similar projects.

So How did the Left Become Duped by this Big Pharma based Ideology?

This ideology is another case – similarly to the Official Covid Narrative – where a detachment from material reality has led to the left supporting something destructive and dangerous, that benefits the billionaires that they claim to oppose. In the case of transgender ideology it also leads to the left promoting ideas that it claims to be opposed to such as misogyny and homophobia.

Both the Covid Narrative and Transgender ideology are able to manipulate the idea of compassion. The left considers itself to be compassionate and caring, so the idea that they could possibly be a ‘bigot’ for criticising transgender ideology is extremely upsetting to them. In fact, many on the left spend a lot of energy on calling other people bigots. When a large part of your identity is wrapped up in not seeming to be bigoted, and you are automatically the ‘kind’ one because you are on the left, the idea of being called phobic is a possible psychological harm to you.

Misogyny also likely plays a role, because trans activism inherently privileges the opinions of men over women. Learned misogyny makes people turning to the left more likely to take men’s claims that they are women seriously. There has been a significant history of misoogyny on the left, and one of the reasons that women created their own movements was because of the lack of support for women’s rights within broader movements. Thus I don’t think implicit misogyny can be ruled out as an influence on the left – as although the left has adopted more women’s rights positions over time, it cannot be expected that they would be immune to misogyny. Misogyny also means that they dismiss women’s counterarguments to transgender ideology as being bigoted and hateful.

The detachment from the reality of biological sex means they fail to see how the ideology harms women. Their detachment from material reality in terms of class and economics means that they fail to examine the massive amounts of money behind this agenda, and fail to see that the more people ‘being their true self’ by taking hormones and having surgery, the more money for Big Pharma.

The left also fails to understand the concept of autogynephilia. If you understand this concept, the behaviour of trans-identified males makes perfect sense. Combine this with big pharma based ‘activism’ for the acceptance of this fetish and the mixture is truly toxic, but the left fails to understand this.

Many trans-identified males, and former trans identified males, have admitted that autogynephilia is or was their motivation to ‘transition’ from male to female. Autogynephilia can be defined as a fetish in which a man is sexually aroused by the idea of thinking of himself as a woman. This fetish can involve being aroused by female clothing, female biology (such as breastfeeding or pregnancy) etc.

The concept of autogynephilia explains male trans activist behaviour exceedingly well. It explains the obsession with entering female spaces (as this involves being validated as a ‘real woman’ and not a man claiming to be a woman and this is a crucial part of the fetish), why they desire to sleep with lesbians, etc. It also explains the anger they show if they do not get their fetish validated – the anger of male entitlement.  When men get sexually rejected by women, they often get angry.

People find it hard to believe that there could be men out there that are so sexually obsessed and motivated by their fetish that they could go to the extremes of transitioning. However, there are many cases of men murdering women because of sexual rejection. The idea that there is a subset of men that would take hormones and have surgery for their fetish is really not so extreme.

Conclusion

Transgender Ideology is another sign of the left’s detachment from material reality. In particular, the material reality of biological sex, which is undermined and in some cases outright denied by transgender activists. But also the reality of the fact that this ideology is promoted by Big Pharma as a means to create profit, and has nothing to do with ‘being your true self.’