In 2010 of the Labour government made cuts to legal aid with deeper cuts by the coalition government in 2012. The deepest cuts coming after 2013 when LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act was passed by Parliament. The cuts meant many people facing family, civil and criminal cases were defined limits imposed on their legal rights in aid. It would be fair to say those mostly affected were from poorer households. Cuts were accentuated in a time of austerity where the coalition government imposed huge cuts to disability entitlements, which saw thousands commit suicide. Into thousand 17 the Crown Prosecution Service declared they would be cracking down on social media hate speech.
Freedom of Expression guidelines broadly define hate speech as “forms of expression which incite violence, hatred or discrimination against other persons and groups, the tick Lily by reference to vet ethnicity, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation...” The guidelines make no reference at all to disability either mental or physical. The guidelines also acknowledge there is no universally accepted definition. This leaves interpretation open and vague, which could cause more problems than solve, as interpretation could be manipulated to fit an ideology or narrative. It would therefore not take into consideration other factors such as mental health.
As mentioned in M.L. Perlin’s book: The Hidden Prejudice Mental Disability on Trial, in chapter 12 Exposing the Prejudice, Perlin touches upon the law prioritising focus groups such as feminist jurisprudence, economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies, ensuring deep research, great funding and plenty of attention. These groups have been involved in criticising freedom of speech and demanding crackdowns on hate speech over the Internet. They argue that free speech can be offensive and runs the risk of causing psychological harm to otherwise healthy people.
However, what their arguments do not consider is whether the person causing offence is doing so intentionally. It is frequently assumed that offence is often done with intent. But what if the person who has caused offence does not understand this? What if a person who was caused offence is struggling with mental illness? Perhaps the person speaking undesirable fort suffers with depression, bipolar, personality disorder? Maybe they have suffered a traumatic crime at the hands of a person belonging to a marginalised group and are speaking publicly about that event. Speaking of such an experience will inevitably be offensive to some.
Perlin, who wrote this book in 2000 notes the extensive research provided to these various focus groups regarding law in comparison to mental illness which received its last research investigation in the 1980s. A two-decade timespan. Furthermore, research has been non-existent since the year 2000 and seems only to be done in America. Perlin discusses therapeutic jurisprudence and defines it as recognising rules, legal procedures and roles with consideration of those with mental health disabilities with anti-therapeutic jurisprudence providing a negative impact on that group. The CPS crackdown could be considered reflective of anti-therapeutic jurisprudence regarding mentally ill people using social media. It is not Perlin’s intention to create a therapeutic state but instead consider mental health with regards to legislation. This is not believed to be taking place.
It is also Perlin’s concerned that research will be limited to academic circles preventing necessary changes in the legal system or within the fast-evolving society. Despite the extensive literature over the decades regarding mental illness it has continued to be ignored by the judicial system. In Europe under article 14 of the European Convention on human rights individuals have protection against discrimination. However, the freedom of speech guidelines proves this to be wrong, displaying discrimination towards disabled. Perlin provided with research almost 2 decades ago identifying very little research in Western society is provided or considered regarding mental health and the legal system.
So why is this?
Perlin identifies sanism as a dominant psychological force which distorts rational decision-making, encourages pre-textuality and teleology, and prevents focusing on questions are meaningful to therapeutic jurisprudence enquiries. Sanist decisions operate in an anti-therapeutic world. Until this system sanist biases are confronted and social science data is intelligently weighed and assessed, mental health will lack consideration in this way. Perlin has also criticised sloppily drafted law as further evidence to the problem facing therapeutic jurisprudence, which highlights the lack of care and attention legislators devote to mental disability. Also identified is the age of legislation still used in action today as sometimes decades, even centuries old. Apathy towards and disinterest in precision and accuracy in terminology reflects the sanist ways that both legislators and judges subordinate mental disability law issues. So why does this matter?
Is history repeating itself?
Mark P. Mostert wrote “useless eaters: disability as genocidal marker in Nazi Germany” in 2002. Mostert’s chilling first sentence states, “the methods used for mass extermination in the Nazi death camps originated and were perfected in earlier used against people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities.” Mostert observed the focus remaining on the extermination of Jews with little attention paid to precipitating events serving as a catalyst to the Holocaust. Societal and scientific perceptions of difference extended to state policy, which was intensified and codified with the rise of national socialism and Hitler's assumption of power in 1933. Notions of difference were first expressed in state sanctioned killings of children and adults with a wide range of physical, emotional and intellectual disabilities. Mostert examines the manipulation of key variables which allowed a highly sophisticated Western society manipulate via state law and policy to sanction and eventually murdered phase with disabilities.
The outbreak of World War I caused social and economic repercussions for Germany. With the need to ration food and provide care and medicine for those injured in the war effort, facilities became overcrowded with high-levels of neglect and deprivation on such ill funded institutes. Today, in a time of austerity the consequences are noticeable on our public services including our National Health Service and the prison services. The reallocation of resources saw a divide between those who were healthy and able to contribute and those who were not. That has been notable with the Conservative government review of disability entitlements in the UK in recent years, which sadly saw many suicides as a result to austerity cuts. In Germany it was seen that extensive and expensive care could not aid Germans economic recovery.
Therefore, inappropriate or undesirable behaviour by those who were disabled were often considered a threat to public decency and social order. Today, we have seen a remarkable compassion for most people of marginalised groups, but still notably reject compassion or empathy towards those with mental illness. This acknowledges that physical differences are frequently met with compassion in today’s public sphere, but hidden illness receives less empathy. Mostert states, inappropriate public behaviour by people with disabilities was often dealt with through legal action and the criminal justice system melding disability and criminality in the public mind. Even in today's society many people go undiagnosed with mental illness due to fear of stigmatisation. Furthermore, in today's society there is huge pressure on the public to conform with social ideologies and with this huge pressure anyone who does not conform is targeted and labelled negatively. Labels such as Nazi, Islamophobic, racist homophobic are often thrown out to shame and ridicule those who do not follow the social order. However, there is currently no label for those who lack empathy for those with disability or mental illness. Why is this?
It is rarely argued in today's society that those who are not conforming to social order might be emotionally incapable of empathising or intellectually ill-equipped to understand these new social orders. Why is this not a consideration? As someone who has suffered a traumatic experience by someone of a different race, I wish to speak publicly about this and warn others. In doing so I risk offending many other people and the law, in its discriminatory, sanist way does not cover me for the trauma which I have suffered and the offence which I might cause.
As discussed in a previous blog post, in his 2014 speech “What’s in a name? Privacy and anonymous speech on the internet.” Lord Neuberger reflects on history, observing the benefits of offensive speech actioned by a political critic who wrote under the pseudonym of Junius. It is important to question whether governments are ordering these crackdowns for their own narcissistic fears of being criticised, or whether it is sincerely concerned for marginalised groups. If it is for concern for these marginalised groups, why have they chosen to discriminate against one particular group? If governments fear history repeating itself, then why are they repeating history? John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism and came up with the harm principle. The basis of the harm principle was considered that as long as no one is harmed, the only justification for interference with other people's freedom would be to prevent harm to others. It is the marginalised groups who argue this and claim that freedom of speech can cause psychological harm.
But as it is raised in this post, it would be harmful to segregate those with mental illness and mental disability from others for fear that their freedom of speech may offend others with the possibility of causing psychological harm. As seen in history, to target and identify marginalised groups, such as those with mental disabilities would be far more harmful than the words they express. In today's society we see more discrimination against those with mental disabilities than any other marginalised group. What is distinctly disturbing, is that this marginalised group receives little protection under the law as it currently stands. This group is once again at the highest risk of being imprisoned for unintentionally offending others and therefore institutionalised.
Governments across the world tell us they are concerned that history is repeating itself. They are right to be concerned, for it is. But as has been seen in the past where governments have been responsible for the discrimination of the mentally ill, today's governments are repeating the exact same patterns. Governments claim to be concerned that history is repeating itself and yet they are ensuring that it does. It is up to us to question why.
the I wrote a blog post regarding Western pornography and its effects on African men, here. And here I would like to further the debate on Western pornography and discuss whether it should be considered freedom of expression, noting the limitations on freedom of expression including harm which may be caused. I would like to then consider the possible harm caused through pornography using the conservative argument, the feminist argument and compare it to the meaning of freedom of expression.
Speech should be context dependent a point illustrated by the judgement by the US Supreme Court in Schenck v Hodges , a case whether defendants were prosecuted for distributing pamphlets arguing against the drafting of soldiers to fight in World War I. “Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and of such nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent... If an actual obstruction of recruiting service were approved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.” Proving that freedom of speech would be limited where a real danger or harm could be caused, the law will seek to limit it. But what accounts for freedom of expression?
Article 10 the European Convention of human rights states; everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. Article 10 seeks to expand on speech by including the use of symbols, cartoons, plays, a particular type of dress et cetera in its use of freedom of expression. The first Amendment to the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a readdress of grievances. The ECHR expands its understanding of freedom of expression but limits it with responsibility and duty, where as the first amendment concentrate solely on speech with no acknowledgement of limits to that freedom.
It is therefore fair to say that pornography falls under freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR. However, Ronald Dworkin an American philosopher and jurist, questioned whether pornography should count as free speech, thus benefit from free-speech protections and whether it could cause harm to individuals of a wider society. In 1981, he wrote “the majority of people in both countries would prefer substantial censorship if not outright prohibition of ‘sexually explicit’ material with many of that majority themselves consumers of what ever pornography is on offer, who would strongly prefer that their children, not follow them in that taste.” However, since Dworkin made this statement the accessibility of pornography has progressed.
To define what pornography is, Justice Stewart a US judge famously said in 1964, “I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it”. The Oxford English dictionary defines pornography as “the explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, et cetera in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings.” However, feminist thinkers Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Macakinnon (1988) defined it as “the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or words,” further explaining the representations dehumanising women as sexual objects or commodities, or as experiencing sexual pleasure in being raped. The problem with this definition however, is it excludes gay and child pornography and also assumes wrong morality with no evidence to prove this. Therefore igniting controversy surrounding the definition of pornography.
Should the law restrict pornography? With this question comes the moral, harm and feminist arguments. So we should explore the Conservative argument first. In 2012, West stated the main opposition to pornography from moral and religious conservatives, was due to its sexually explicit, obscene and morally corrupting content. He explained that according to conservatives, “pornography is deeply offensive to decent family and religious values and citizens who hold these values. Consumption is bad for society, undermining and is stabilising the moral fabric of decent and stable society. It encourages sexual promiscuity, deviant sexual practices that threaten traditional family and religious institutions. It corrupts the character of those who consume it preventing them from leading a good family life... The state is justified in using it is coerces power to uphold and enforce a community's moral convictions understood as ‘legal moralism’, to prevent citizens from harming themselves. Conservatives believe it is legitimate for the state to prohibit consenting adults from publishing and viewing pornography, even in private.” It will also be argued that not all conservatives feel this way about pornography or the prohibition of pornography.
With West’s argument in mind, it is necessary to explore the harmfulness of pornography. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University created a survey of 20,000 young people of which 75% were men. It was observed young men, who played videogames to excess, excess being about five or more hours a day, and their average viewing time of pornography. That viewing time equated to around two hours per week, but Zimbardo, recorded the psychological change in mindset through excessive use of video games and pornography. He noted how rather than concentrating on work in class boys minds drifted to wishing they were playing computer games. And when in the presence of girls, boys would rather be watching pornography due to never getting rejected. Zimbardo, therefore claimed that this was leading and had already led to a crisis. He noted the change in brain function, the change to the reward centre in the brain and the evidence that it happens more in boys brains than girls brains. He claimed that boy’s brains were becoming digitally rewired.
It was argued that we currently see young men of today drink less than they once did, take less drugs than they once did, they are less violent than they once were, and in other words the picture is not as bleak as what Philip Zimbardo was claiming. Zimbardo argued the less violence is due to their not leaving their room. They are not drinking alcohol because they are drinking Coke and addicted to sugar. He argued young boys are becoming ‘fat arses’. With the increase in obesity, that also increases the likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes a consequence of which is reduced libido. Kids are getting turned on by watching video but physiologically they are less aroused. It is called PIED, porn induced erectile dysfunction. The solution offered by Zimbardo, is for parents to become aware of a number of hours the child spends doing these things. He recommends using a time journal and listing how much time children spend with friends, spend exercising, spend reading and writing. The point which will become realised is that the parents will be alarmed when they do this and therefore set more stringent rules, such as don't do play videos until you finish your homework. Zimbardo, believes media especially American media is to blame providing negative images of men being slobs, or being undesirable. Here Zimbardo has provided mental and physical harm created by pornography.
And now we arrive at the feminist argument. As previously mentioned some feminist writers argue pornography should be censored due to the detrimental impact it can have on the women within society. One such author is Prof Rae Langton. Rae Langton uses the feminist definition of pornography explaining the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women portraying women as sexual objects, as things, or commodities, enjoying pain or humiliation or rape. She goes on to clarify she is concerned only with the type of pornography that does subordinate women and acknowledges not all pornography does that. Rae Langton believes the solution lies in certain material being justified in censorship but prefers an opt in system rather than an opt out system within obtaining pornography through the Internet if you really wanted it. Her concern is not so much that it turns men into rapists but that it dehumanises women and changes the views towards women within society.
As Zimbardo’s study acknowledges, men have become more fearful, not of women but of rejection and therefore avoid them out of preference to their own psychological needs. However, my concern raised in my previous blog post regarding the impact of Western porn on Third World men does reinstate the fear feminists raise with regards to men turning violent having watched pornography. The problem here in lies that those proven to act violently having watched pornography are those who we are deliberately inviting into our society. It would infringe on human rights for studies to take place on particular segments of society to reach a more clear perspective with regards to the effects of pornography on particular societal demographics. With these men now being invited into our Western culture but political correctness suppressing freedom of speech, to dispute this action or discussion the feminist concern with pornography has now become legitimate.
With Mills argument in mind, that is the state should only limit individual freedom if harm is caused to others and having considered all the arguments raised, I now handover this information to you for you to reflect upon and come to your own conclusions as to what should happen with regards to pornography and censorship.
When I received grief for speaking out about what has happened to me, there are moments when I wonder if that person who is calling me a racist is in fact a family member. I have not spoken to any of my family members about what is happening to me since I revealed the incident to one friends and didn’t feel I got the support I should have. So, knowing my family's political leanings and where they stand on immigration, refugees and migrants and knowing how infuriated they become by those who oppose it, I am sometimes left wondering if perhaps it is my family members who give me grief from behind a computer screen. Which then leads me to wonder, how would they feel if they found out that it was myself their own family member and a genuine rape attack, who they were verbally attacking? Is it therefore better to assume that someone who tells such a story about rape is being genuine? And if that person who alleges such a crime is clearly of a similar racial background to yourself and from the same continent or country as yourself is it not wise to try to be empathetic towards what they are alleging whether it fits your own political beliefs or not?
How would you feel if someone confided in you as a stranger searching for help something that contradicted your political beliefs? And on that basis you condemned them rightly or wrongly. With condemning them you ultimately shame, humiliate, and belittle the trauma which they may or may not have faced in reality. The fact of the matter is you may never know whether it was fact or fiction. But what if having handed out that type of abuse you learned sometime later not only that the person, the stranger on the Internet has not only been telling the truth but unbeknown to you and unbeknown of them you were actually related. Try to consider all of the times which you have kept significant secrets from your relatives and immediate family. Now consider why you kept such significant secrets from your relatives and immediate family. And finally now contemplate why a relative or immediate family member might keep something secret from you. It is usually those with strong belief systems we fear exposing to our own truths on the basis that we are unable to predict their response.
It is not unheard of that people are under the misconception that their belief system is a moderate one. This might be particularly so politically in those who are lacking in any religious beliefs. It may not. It is these groups who may consider that because they are open-minded from a religious perspective that they are open minded on the political front. So, consider whether you follow a political pattern and follow particular political beliefs or whether you are also politically open-minded. Do you scorn those with opposing political ideologies on the television or YouTube? Are you unwilling to listen to their thoughts and opinions? I suspect that in the same way I fear telling my left-leaning family that I was raped by a migrant man, I would also fear telling a white nationalist family member of rape by a white man or a Muslim family member about a rape, had it have been the case.
On this basis it could very much be considered the case that it is politics as well as religion which is divisive within our society as well as our families. Referendums such as the Scottish referendum and the UK referendum as well as the Catalonian referendum all show how divisive a yes, no question can be in such a politically passionate climate that we currently have. This political passion and climate has without a doubt been devised by multiculturalism, a feeling of being overprotective towards certain groups and minorities and a yearning to enforce that overprotective feeling onto others. In fact it could be regarded as a cultural and a societal passion as opposed to a political one, but simply dressed up as that. So if you have a deep passion for particular groups in society or specific religions or political movements then you might be someone who is unapproachable to others.
So how can we become indifferent not only to politics but to the experiment of multiculturalism and religion when we live all side-by-side? For myself I have lacked any interest in mainstream media, I have kept out of politics and I have distanced myself from religion in an effort to prevent any of those becoming my identity and surrounding myself with similar like-minded people. The difficulty which I have come across is when I am sharing something so personal such as the rape with somebody and speaking of his different racial background. His race is his identity. As is my racial identity. It is part of his description. He was a stranger to me. How else do I describe a stranger than to note their appearance. If that appearance is different to mine, does that observation of such difference make me racist? He spoke with broken English. Does that observation to describe him make me xenophobic? I’m sure a stranger would describe me as a Caucasian female with green eyes and brown hair. And that would not be offensive to me or anyone else.
It therefore becomes questionable whether in situations like this where many people have distanced themselves from politics, religion and societal confrontations in an effort to integrate into this new diverse world how unreasonable is it for a person of a certain race who is treated cruelly by a person of another race to speak of that cruelty? At the end of the day we could abandon all our possible belief systems, but our different skin colours will always indicate to us all our different identities. Not only that but it will always indicate similarities therefore if someone similar to yourself has experienced significant cruelty at the hands of another, rather than disbelieve and accuse it might be in your interest to be helpful and empathetic without criticism. This is by no means an easy task to take on. It could even be considered unachievable but let's try to be positive and make it our aim.
I had watched a documentary which reported on the effects of Western pornography on society. It included a section regarding the effects on the African continent. It documented how in African hut villages, men and young boys would watch pornography on the Internet or phones in a hut and found that in an effort to relieve themselves, the men would find a woman or a child to rape. The village women had reported also that the men's behaviour had changed over the last few years by a severe degree whereby they felt afraid of the men. In these types of African villages, it would be questionable whether rape would be seen as a criminal offence and if there were any consequences for such behaviours. In the one-hour documentary about Western pornography, this element of it only received approximately 10 minutes of insight.
Having been a victim of the migrant rape crisis however, not an African migrant I felt the need to investigate this further. Since I had found the documentary on YouTube I decided to investigate further documentaries on that same platform. With typing in “effects of Western pornography in Africa” search results pulled up various African amateur pornography. Despite having a no pornography rule on YouTube these clips still came up. Perhaps that is the liberal side of YouTube? Not only this, but it is important for us to recognise that those in Third World cultures who watch Western pornography, will have a distorted view of white European women which would likely encourage uncivilised behaviours. Such behaviours can be observed within African villages where rape has been recognised as relief for men who have watched this pornography. With acknowledging this it is therefore important to consider how we ensure the safety of white European women and prevent this from happening knowing that these Third World cultures may observe all Western women as a collective i.e. porn stars. However, further research on this subject is not easily found on this subject, not even on the internet.
Along with the mass rapes within the African villages a steady increase in the those contracting HIV has been observed. This is something which has been controlled for now but is a concern that it could get out of control. Not only is there an increase in HIV and rape, but with no criminal action against the rapist those men are now coming over to Europe and acting in the same manner. Indeed, it is found that when migrants do rape white European women they appear to face little to no consequences in legal terms as they argue they did not understand. It is fair to say that the authorities even empathise more with the migrant than the rape victims. If these people are coming to our continent not understanding our rule of law and therefore risking our health and safety, then surely that is negligence on the part of the European Union? It is not as though they do not know what is going on and taking place against European women, children and men by these migrants. Of course, another way to look at this is the future possibility of an AIDS epidemic in Europe.
It likely is unknown how many innocent women and children and men have contracted the HIV virus having been raped by a migrant. The test was something which I had to go through myself, and to my great relief I was free of any such virus. But I didn't recollect what had happened to me for a year. Apparently, this is very usual and a way for the brain to bubble wrap the mind. However, in that time the virus could have spread onto other people. Perhaps to a partner of the victim? Maybe a new lover? And perhaps those people would spread the virus onto others unknowingly? Well, at least there would be pharmaceuticals to make a profit out of such a catastrophe. So it seems there is a winner out of all of this devastation and sadness.
It would be discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights to educate these men from Third World cultures on their behaviours in a civilised society when they feel the need for sexual relief. It would be discrimination because they could claim it was a racist or they were being discriminated against because of their religion. Therefore it is very difficult for European countries to educate migrants from Third World countries specifically. It should not be taken lightly that rapes such as what have been happening in Europe will continue. In educating women and men about what has been documented in these different cultures it would certainly add to the safety of many and the prevention of sexual assault however, it would act as segregation within our society. Segregation has been happening for decades now, whereby many people have arrived from opposing cultures in the hopes of making money, but with no desire to integrate. This lack of desire to integrate, has seen those migrants unable to speak the native language and therefore be completely reliant on the welfare state. It could also be assumed that the lack of desire to integrate is from this prejudged idea that all Westerners are like porn stars or just a general disliking of Western society, despite the opes to profit from it.
But is it fair to lay the burden of these misconceptions on Western men and Western women and relieve those of Third World cultures of any crime or wrongdoing? With there appearing to be no end to the migrant crisis, this element of Third World misconception of Western women through Western pornography has to be looked at seriously and in greater detail to ensure our safety. It would be fair to assume not all migrants will presume and judge in this way, but it is also fair to assume that many will. It is important now that we recognise that talking about our differences, our obvious differences has now become a necessity. We have to stop pretending that these men arriving from Third World countries are civilised men understanding our laws and our culture, all for the sake of appearing empathetic, understanding and rejecting racism. We have to now accept that some of these people are not civilised and there is masses of evidence to prove that.
With the Internet being a globalised utility currently, and Western porn now being free entertainment to the masses worldwide it is important we consider the psychology of how it affects different cultures who our political elite are inviting in. It is also up to our political elite to consider these elements and review their laws and legislation. Surely, we can only all be equal under the law if we have all been educated under the same rules and laws. If we have been educated in a very different manner or at least some of us have within our society, then surely it is better and safer to acknowledge that those in particular might be a greater risk to society as a whole. Rather than assuming this to be racist or anti-religious we must focus on it being about very different cultures, opposing cultures being thrown together and the requirement for adjustment, teaching and intolerance for bad behaviour by all, no exceptions.
There has been an influx of concern for transgender and transsexual people. It has become an incentive for many academics, journalists and governments to parade their progressive mindset for others to see by devoting themselves to providing safe spaces for marginalised groups. LGBTQ is one of those groups, specifically trans people. One of the several “problems” SJW's want to resolve is changing areas for trans people.
It is believed by SJW's that providing unisex changing areas will create inclusivity for the 0.8% of our population who happened to be trans. This is quite an upheaval for such a tiny minority within society but I question it sincerity. Rates within Europe have increased dramatically with the influx of refugees and migrants through the migrant crisis, I for one being one of those victims. There has been a noticeable and alarming rate of molestation, sodomy and rape particularly within changing areas of leisure centers towards young children. These sexual assaults have taken place predominantly by those from different cultural backgrounds.
We’ve also noticed girls in schools are now required to wear trousers in the name of transgender equality, however there is no invitation for ALL children to wear skirts. Is this really about transgenderism? Could the authorities really be so naïve and discriminatory as to not invite boys who wish to wear skirts to do so? Or is there another reason to insist girls wear trousers? Perhaps so as to not offend opposing cultures? Or, maybe to ensure the safety of girls who bare their legs in this new society forced upon us by our governments and bureaucrats?
I have started to question whether the use of transgender inclusivity has been adopted in an effort to prevent more attacks on innocent people, and therefore hide fears of what crimes of migrants and those from opposing cultural backgrounds have been committing. It is no secret that the authorities, mainstream media and government have been actively hiding and ignoring the crimes committed by migrants in our society and continue to do so for the sake of diversity.
So let's assume that my concern is true and that governments, the mainstream media and authorities are disingenuously focusing attention on these minorities as a way of distraction but also a secret application of protection. So now I put it to you, do you believe these huge changes have been put in place for the inclusivity of 0.8% of the population or do you believe that there is hidden motivation through the prevention of crime and the intention of diversity being integrated within our society?