Prison Guards Protected Trans Paedophile
Who Molested Female Inmates
17:58 GMT 24.07.2021
by James Tweedie,
The Daily Mail
The Ministry of Justice adopted a policy in 2016 of allowing convicts declaring themselves transgender to be housed in prisons for their assumed sex, not their biological one, whether or not they hold an official Gender Recognition Certificate. It later emerged that one in 50 men being sent to prison was self-identifying as a trans woman.
This decision was made with absolutely no scientific data to support it. It is one of the most spectacularly stupid policies man has ever devised.
UK prison officers allowed a transgender convicted child rapist in a woman's prison to sexually harass and assault other inmates for fear of being branded "transphobic", a victim has revealed.
Feminist lesbian writer Julie Bindel interviewed 'Amy', a former female inmate at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, for Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail. The former convict said the prisoner referred to only as 'J' grabbed her breasts in one attack.
"The look in her eyes was frightening," Amy said. "She leered at me before lunging forward and grabbing my breasts hard. She squeezed them and I cried out in pain. I was terrified she would rape me."
38-year-old mother of one Amy said J, who was serving time for the rape of a 13-year-old girl, manipulated officials with claims prison rules infringed 'her' rights — and intimidated female prisoners by exposing her penis to them.
"When J went for a shower, the prison put a sign on the door saying that no one else should enter, because they knew it could upset the women if they saw her naked, but J objected to this and said it was an infringement of her human rights," Amy said.
"She said, 'I am a woman and I want to shower with other women.' Just before she assaulted me, she was seen with the shower curtain open, her genitals in full view of the other women."
Amy, who was raped at 13 — the same age as J's victim — and became a drug addict by 15, said the women's prison was at least a safe haven from the abuse she had long suffered from male sexual predators.
She worked in the prison's gym, but was appalled when J was given a job cleaning the toilets there — where the assault eventually took place.
"It was supposed to be my sanctuary," Amy said. "I felt so distressed. Prison is an awful place to be under any circumstances, and this just made it 100 times worse."
Another woman complained to guards that J had rubbed her erect penis against her buttocks while they queued for food in the prison canteen — which Amy said was not an isolated incident — but no action was taken.
"She would wear very tight trousers which made it obvious she had male genitals," Amy recalled. "The prison officers protected her more than they did us. They were terrified of being accused of transphobia."
The former prisoner, now trying to rebuild her life on the outside, likened the policy to putting a drunk in charge of a bar.
“What were the officers even thinking, letting her clean toilets in which women would be in a state of undress and alone? Why was there a child sex offender with a penis cleaning the toilets of the gym in a women's prison?" Amy asked.
“If a trans woman is in for violence against women, or sex offences against women or children, you should not be in prison with women. It's like putting a crack addict in a crack house, or an alcoholic in a pub," she stressed.
“Sex offenders should never be in prison with women. Most women in there have gone through child abuse and domestic violence and rape. What if someone is raped?”
Amy took action against the prison service to force them to transfer her to another jail. Eventually, she was moved to HMP Downview in Banstead, Surrey — only to find to her horror later that J had also been transferred to a new 15-place transgender wing at the same prison.
"The reception officer told me and I felt like I had been punched in the stomach," Amy said. "They moved me for my own protection, and then I ended up back in the same prison as this person who had sexually assaulted me."
'Self-Identification' Policy
The Ministry of Justice adopted a policy in 2016 of allowing convicts declaring themselves transgender to be housed in prisons for their assumed sex, not their biological one, whether or not they hold an official Gender Recognition Certificate. It later emerged that one in 50 men being sent to prison was self-identifying as a trans woman.
In 2018 trans woman Karen White was convicted of the rape of two women prisoners at a prison where she was being held on remand for another sexual offence. The judge who sentenced White called her "highly manipulative".
Amy recently brought an unsuccessful judicial review case against the ministry in a bid to that policy, and a civil action for compensation against the prison and the ministry.
In his judicial review judgement, Lord Justice Holroyde conceded that many women prisoners would "suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with transgender women with male genitalia and convictions for sexual and violent offences against women".
Minnesota Student Says Teacher Told Her to Hide
‘Equity Survey’ Questions From Parents
July 24, 2021
A Sartell-St. Stephen School District student is speaking out after the school required grade-school children to take an equity survey.
Some students didn’t understand some of the surveys questions, but were told by a teacher they couldn’t repeat the survey questions to their parents, according to a video uploaded by Alphanews.
The survey asked questions that some students didn’t understand. Even after hearing an explanation from their teacher, some still couldn’t comprehend the survey questions.
But a teacher told the students they couldn’t ask their parents for help, according to student Haylee Yasgar.
“My teacher said that I could not skip any questions even when I didn’t understand them. One question asked us what gender we identify with. I was very confused along with a lot of other classmates,” Yasgar said during Monday night’s meeting.
She said students were told they could not “repeat any of the questions to our parents.”
Hayley Yasgar spoke to her school board about how 'uncomfortable and nervous' she felt when her teacher told her not to discuss the questions of the equity survey with her parents
It would appear that the students were too young for that particular survey. Either that or the survey just makes no sense to normal people.
“Being asked to hide this from my mom made me very uncomfortable, like I was doing something wrong,” she told the school board.
School teachers should never be teaching children to lie to, or hide something from their parents. This is a form of moral abuse. Lying to a parent is often the cause of teenage rebellion and loss of communication between parents and teens.
The equity survey is part of a reckoning of how school systems nationwide should teach issues related not only to sexuality but as well as race in a state where George Floyd died in police custody last year.
Now that the city settled a lawsuit for $27 million and former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for third-degree murder and manslaughter, the question now remains how school systems should explain similar events to children.
Some parents call the curriculum divisive while supporters say it’s teaching history and showing how racist attitudes and activities such as redlining are embedded into daily life.
Despite being more than 40 years old, Critical Race Theory (CRT) has evolved to a flashpoint between political parties over the past year.
CRT holds that “the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans,” according to Britannica.
CRT scholars allege many societal problems are rooted in the country’s white majority using laws and other power to suppress the non-white population, whether consciously or subconsciously.
CRT opponents claim its conclusions rely on anecdotes and storytelling, rather than a comprehensive examination of evidence. They say its supporters focus on disproportionate outcomes from those individual stories, incorrectly drawing conclusions about institutional racism and white privilege and failing to take into account strides that the nation has made toward racial equality.
Critics say CRT employs heavy use of the Marxist “struggle” ideology and tactic that advocates for the destruction of history, traditions, and culture of a society.
Around the United States, there has been a growing movement of parents who have become increasingly dissatisfied with the CRT-derived curriculum being taught in their children’s classrooms.
It's disappointing to me that the only question referred to in this piece was one of gender identity, but the writer of this article goes off on the Critical Race Theory completely ignoring the gender issue which is probably far more important.
The instructions to keep parents in the dark came from Equity Alliance of Minnesota and school admin. It appears that Equity Alliance diverted questions from media to the Critical Race Theory avoiding any discussion of gender fluidity.
World Health Organization Prepares to Escalate Attack
on Pro-Life Laws
By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. |
July 29, 2021
WASHINGTON, D.C. July 30 (C-Fam) The World Health Organization (WHO) is updating its technical and policy guidance on “safe abortion.” A recent publication strongly suggests that the forthcoming guidance will increase pressure on countries to remove legal protections from unborn children and health workers who object to participating in abortions.
A paper published in BMJ Global Health presents a method for linking abortion laws and policies with health outcomes in order to help policymakers “produce stronger guidance related to abortion” and potentially other areas of law.
The paper was commissioned as part of WHO’s process of updating its 2012 guidance on “safe abortion,” which was notable for promoting as “safe” methods of abortion in developing regions what would be unacceptable in more developed countries. This trend in WHO guidance has only increased in recent years, from delegating the provision of abortion to lower-tier health workers to promoting abortion as a “self-care” intervention without involving health professionals at all.
The WHO is working to remove legal as well as medical safeguards around abortion. In 2017, it launched a legal and policy database on abortion intended to “eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe abortion services.” The BMJ Global Health paper seeks to build on that database to draw causal links between pro-life laws and adverse health outcomes from “unsafe” abortions.
For data on health outcomes, the WHO often looks to the work of pro-abortion research groups like the Guttmacher Institute and others who explicitly advocate for liberalized abortion laws.
Specifically, the paper focuses on laws mandating waiting periods, parental or spousal involvement, gestational limits, criminalization, provider restrictions and conscientious objection by health care providers. According to the authors, “[c]urrently, WHO guidelines make no recommendations related to these legal interventions, but describe them as regulatory and policy barriers that may influence access to timely, safe abortion care.”
This may be about to change. The updated WHO “safe abortion” guidance has not yet been published, but the WHO pledged to “disseminat[e] updated guidelines on safe abortion” as one of its commitments at the recent Generation Equality Forum in Paris.
In June, the organization She Decides, which was founded to oppose former U.S. President Donald Trump’s pro-life foreign policies, published an open letter stating that “every woman everywhere has the right to safe, legal abortion.” The letter goes on to say, “[w]e want to see the upcoming revised WHO guidelines on safe abortion implemented,” strongly implying that the guidelines will represent a more aggressive attack on pro-life laws in countries around the world.
The WHO has a long and well-documented history of promoting abortion, asserting that “[a]ccess to safe abortion protects women’s and girls’ health and human rights.”
Abortion has never been accepted as a human right by any global agreement, nor in any binding global human rights treaty. At the landmark International Conference on Population and Development, the consensus position was that abortion laws are solely for countries to determine—a standard that remains in place after a quarter of a century of UN debates.
The WHO justifies its position based on the non-binding opinions of members of treaty monitoring bodies and other experts within the UN’s human rights bodies. These groups and individuals have long been criticized for exceeding their mandates on abortion and other social issues, but little has been done to meaningfully hold them to account.
=====================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment