UK’s Starmer Discovers What a Woman Is, Because a Court Tells Him So
New in PJ Media:
Keir Starmer identifies as prime minister of Britain, and no one is challenging his self-identification, so it could well be more or less accurate. Nevertheless, it is clear that whatever else he may be, Starmer is a typical early twenty-first-century leftist. For such people, if that is indeed what they identify as being, truth is an entirely subjective matter, based more upon how someone is feeling and what he or she or xe desires rather than upon objective reality. And so Starmer has just announced that a woman is indeed an adult female, but not because every human being since there have been human beings has known this, but because a British court has just said so.
It’s quintessential leftism. Remember the famous scene in Orwell’s “1984” when the torturer O’Brien forces the incipient independent thinker, Winston Smith, to affirm that two plus two equals five? The idea was to impress upon Winston the principle that reality was not what one sees with one’s own eyes, but what the rulers say it is. It’s the apex of totalitarian control, and it’s today’s shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain.
Sky News reported Tuesday that Starmer was “asked if he believed a transwoman should be considered a woman,” and Starmer gave the perfect response of a man who is convinced that two plus two equals five if his socialist masters say it is: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”
What Starmer, and every sentient human being who has ever been asked this question, should have said is that men are men and women are women, and everyone knows what the differences between them are, and no one needs a court to say so. He could even have added that men can’t become women, and women can’t become men, and no amount of surgery and cosmetics will change that fact.
Instead, Starmer made it clear that if the court had said that a woman was a table or a head of lettuce or an alarm clock, he would have accepted it just as readily as he is now prepared to accept that a woman is an adult human female. His own perceptions don’t matter in the slightest degree; all that matters is what the relevant authority has declared.
If Britain were remotely a sane society today, this would cost Starmer the prime minister’s office, but he is in no electoral danger. His answer likely didn’t differ in any substantial way from the answer that the leaders of the other parties would have given. What is needed to restore sane rule to Britain and so many Western European states is not a new prime minister or president or chancellor or whatever, but a wholesale repudiation of the entire political class, which has uncritically embraced the left’s guiding fantasies and delusions.
There is more. Read the rest here.
====================================================================================
ECHR rules France failed to protect victims who were sexually assaulted as minors
April 24 (UPI) -- The European Court of Human Rights announced Thursday it has determined that French law and practice failed to protect three minors from sexual assault.
In court documents released by the ECHR, each of the three plaintiffs alleged that "investigating authorities and the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants, who had complained of acts of rape and had been aged only 13, 14 and 16 at the relevant dates, in an adequate manner."
The ECHR found the "French State had failed to fulfil its duty to apply, in practice, a criminal-law system capable of punishing non-consensual sexual acts," and that it "was not called upon to rule on the criminal liability of those who had perpetrated those acts and that its findings could not therefore be interpreted as an opinion on the guilt of the accused in the respective cases."
The applicants filed their suit in order to move France to "enact and apply criminal law provisions that effectively punish rape reported by teenage girls below the age of majority."
Related
All three plaintiffs allege that their "status as minors and their situation of vulnerability at the time of the events were not adequately taken into account."
Two of the applicants further purport that "authorities did not promptly comply with their obligation to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the offenses they had complained of," one of whom also alleges she was "subjected to secondary victimization and discriminatory treatment" during criminal proceedings.
The ruling found that France failed to meet its obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, which relate to "prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment" and the "right to respect for private life." The ECHR also ruled that France has failed to meet its obligation under Article 14, which is "prohibition of discrimination."
Each of the plaintiffs will receive financial compensation as part of the judgment, with the remainder of the claims dismissed.
===================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment