The Widdecombe punishment beating: When Choice becomes hate to the closed minded!
The Widdecombe punishment beating:
When Choice becomes hate to the closed minded!
RETWEET THIS ARTICLE HERE: https://twitter.com/JohnTheWhite1/status/1135543760429944833
PLEASE "Like" AT THE BOTTOM TO SUPPORT ME ON STEEMIT
Ann Widdecombe is a British Politician who served the public as an MP from 1987 to her initial retirement in 2010. Since then she has been a media figure, had the love of the public for her game showing on “Strictly Come Dancing”, and been a commentator for a conservative Christian perspective. In many ways, she has (or had) attainted “national treasure” status: at least in the days before the EU referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Widdecombe
But, Ann has been a very naughty girl in the eyes of the UK media establishment, and done the most atrocious thing in the eyes of rabid pro-Eu Remoaners: on the 24th April she announced she was standing for the brand new BREXIT PARTY, led by Nigel Farage.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ann-widdecombe-joins-brexit-party-after-leaving-tories-to-stand-in-european-elections-a4124566.html
For this she was immediately expelled from the Conservative Party, but this didn’t slow her down at all, and on 23rd of May 2019 she was elected as an MEP to the European Parliament. You can see her speak at a Brexit Party Rally here (the last big Rally before the vote at London Olympia):
All very well and good. A popular politician of conviction has gained the publics support and will be a key part of pushing for final delivery of Brexit now the ghastly ex-PM Theresa “Treason” May and her stalling & timewasting has been swept out of office.
But playing fair is not the UK Fake News Media’s style. They hate the electorate who want Britain to be a free nation making her own laws and her own way in the world, and will now use any and every dirty trick they can to throw mud and further radicalise the extremist Remain rump, the worst of which is in a state of pathological rage and hate against the verdict of Democracy.
On Sunday 2nd June 2019, Widdecombe was interviewed on Sky News on the Sophy Ridge show. You can see the interview here
And its at 7 minutes in that Sky goes for the kill with its ambush about Widdecombes social views…
You see Ann is a Christian. Originally an Anglican, she converted to Roman Catholicism in 1993 because “The Catholic Church doesn't care if something is unpopular” which demonstrates that agree with her or not, she is a woman of conviction who doesn’t change her views chasing trendy popularity.
Sky dug into everything Widdecombe has ever said about anything, and went for attacking her, and by extension smearing the Brexit Party, with a comment she made 7 years ago regarding whether science may one day offer options for people to change not just their sex, but their sexuality.
Ann certainly had no intention of talking about this topic: Sky pushed the point to make an issue out of it. But on the spot on national television, she said the following in response to being challenged on her views:
“The fact that we think it is now quite impossible for people to switch sexuality doesn't mean that science might not be able to produce an answer at some stage.”
'I also pointed out that there was a time when we thought it was quite impossible for men to become women and vice versa and the fact that we now think it is quite impossible for people to switch sexuality doesn't mean that science may not be able to produce an answer at some stage.'
'I don't know and I've never claimed - and this is where I am misrepresented quite often - I've never claimed that such science already exists, I've never claimed that.
'I've merely said that if you simply rule out the possibility of it, you are denying people who are confused about their sexuality or discontented with it, the chances that you do give to people who want to change gender.
'Now that's all I've said. I do not imagine for one moment that the Brexit Party will be putting forward a policy on gay sex changes in its manifesto.'
The response to this answer have been howls of hatred across social media, with countless “tolerant loving caring diverse liberals” screaming their hate at Widdecombe, wishing her dead or never born and so forth. Nasty unsavoury stuff.
While professional politicians have also rushed to put the boot in:
London Mayor Sadiq Khan (REMAIN) said: “She may have changed her party, but she hasn't changed her stripes. Ann Widdecombe is still peddling homophobic, bigoted, anti-LGBT and anti-science nonsense.”
Anti-Brexit Rebel Nick Boles MP (REMAIN) wrote: “If only science could produce an answer to the blight of poisonous bigotry that is Ann Widdecombe.”
And Labour MP Luke Pollard (REMIAIN) opined: “Utterly ashamed to be represented by this vile woman. Being gay isn't a disease to be cured. Ann Widdecombe is continuing her sick anti-LGBT campaign.”
And all of this was magnified across the whole UK media, with its ongoing campaign to smear anyone who believes in self government as a “bigoted racist fascist”, blah blah blah, ad nauseum.
BUT: is any of this justified? Where these comments truly an outrage? Is freedom of thought still permitted in the UK? And what’s an objective view of this situation?
These questions are not simple, none-the-less they are answerable, and I’m going to set out my take on this.
Firstly, lets be clear: I am a long term Veteran Brexit campaigner. I am NOT a member (supporter) of the Brexit Party, I have not donated to the Brexit Party. I cannot speak for the Brexit Party and nothing I write can be taken as doing so. I am INDEPENDENT. I did however VOTE for the Brexit Party, as a private citizen, and expect I will do again.
This is a choice I made years ago. Philosophers diving into the depths of truth and reality do not do well chained to a party line, or unable to explore freedom of thought for risk of how that may be used to attack a political movement by its mortal enemies.
I’m also a heterosexual male, who has never had Gay feelings for someone of my own sex, and can therefore only imagine and empathise as best I can.
However, I have many Gay friends, the Brexit Party itself is open and inclusive and has elected Gay candidates, and have a genuinely libertarian “live and let live attitude”: so all can be clear on where I personally am coming from…
To start with, from the top: I understand the fear.
History tells us Homosexuality has been victimised and repressed, and we all know monsters like Hitler sent Gays into the Gas Chambers. We also know decriminalisation and equality legislation was a long legal battle, with civil rights hard won after being hard fought for. And eugenicists have attacked homosexuals and subjected them to horrific abuse to “cure them” in those dark days of the 20th century. So, the knee jerk reaction to be sensitive to anything that even hints at an increase in intolerance is easy to understand.
Unfortunately, it also represents an emotional reaction manipulated by media propaganda, which is coming from the constant obsession of globalist owned media to hate Brexit, Democracy, and by extension, find any excuse to attack the Brexit party.
The very notion that anyone wants any of that to return is hysterical bullshit of the first order, and represents a fascist manipulation of public opinion in and of itself: its certainly not justified by Widdecombe’s comments.
The intersectional identity politics of the LGBTQ movement, or at least the hard left faction within “pride”, has created a system of victim status worn as badges of privilege, and seen different “identity groups” war with each other for the most “victim woke points”. Frankly it doesn’t take much to set them off, and the hate poured against Widdecombe is entirely unacceptable. No-one deserves to be wished dead for expressing any opinion, if tolerance and getting along with good will is TRULY what people stand for.
As a Christian, and a Roman Catholic, Ann Widdecombe is absolutely entitled to adopt the tenants of her faith. Equally, in the modern world, politicians with strong religious faith all understand the need to balance the ideals of faith against the social desires of secular society.
This means balancing religious views against societies wishes and best interests, and it’s the British Culture for religion to be a private matter.
On this basis, while I don’t share Ann’s faith, I can empathise where she is informing her world view from: and its legitimacy. Roman Catholic politicians have encountered vitriolic responses to their views on more than one occasion whenever it violates the demands of Identity Politics.
But this is true not only of Roman Catholics, but other religions. In recent weeks, ongoing protests from mainly Muslim parents against the teaching of LGBTQ lessons to primary school children have grabbed headlines, and made difficulties for politicians who like to claim they speak for that community.
And this relates to the use of science, surgery and medical procedures to effect “sex changes”, where people born male transition to female and visa versa.
In this, we already have a situation where society is accepting just the sort of scientific intervention to change someone physically from their natural development to a preferred alternative development, as Widdecombe speculates may one day be available to treat internal feelings of identity and sexuality.
Parents protesting against these lessons in schools are also reacting against this use of science and a message being given to children that they can use science to change nature. In the case of trans, being one sex but feeling another, and using medical science to resolve the sense of being conflicted about identity, is now a socially acceptable action, indeed is demanded as a right, by the ideas of Identity Politics.
Its certainly people who support that who have been screaming condemnations at Ann Widdecombe and accusing her of being all sorts of horrible things: simply for defending herself with an honest answer after being ambushed on this question by Sky News.
A full critique of the Trans movement is outside this article, indeed, has become legally perilous to write or speak about if not fully in lock-step with the demands of ideology.
But let’s attempt an objective and rational look at this, and relate the ethics of what is actually happening now to the hypothetical possibility Ann Widdecombe has given an opinion about.
Its an awful thing to be beset by inner conflict. My heart goes out to those genuinely tormented about their sense of identity, whether its to do with their bodies or their feelings.
However, if we took the example of a young boy, who’s not fitting in with other boys in his peer group, feels more like traditionally girl type activities and play… what might the implications be?
Isn’t the trans movement suggesting that child transitions into the opposite sex ALSO saying that such a child growing to adulthood, and (if that is how they ultimately develop) becoming Gay, is less preferential than changing into a female and having heterosexual relations with what is now the opposite sex to themselves?
How is the one proposition being presented as an offensive “cure” to Gayness, when what is actually going on to defacto do just that is acceptable, usually to the same people?
I hear no voices criticising the Trans movement for imposing hetro-normative values…
Furthermore, there is concern about the unknown impacts of making these choices. Certainly, it seems doubtful that the negatives of the realities of sex change are clearly explained to the child being asked to take powerful hormones, ideally before and to delay puberty.
Whether male becoming female, or female becoming male, such treatment involves committing to a lifetime of taking hormonal drugs and the loss of fertility, making natural reproduction impossible. While this can be offset in certain ways and adoption is always honourable, these consequences are not part of social debate. In addition, concerns are rising that such choices are not being offered in a fully objective fashion. This article from late last year raises some of these concerns:
“Investigation as number of girls seeking gender transition treatment rises 4,515 percent
THE NUMBER of girls seeking “transitioning” gender treatment has skyrocketed in the last eight years, with some girls as young as four wanting to change their gender – and social media may be partly to blame.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018407/gender-transition-treatment-investigation-penny-mordaunt
This inside view from a young person who has been through this process also gives food for thought:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/7/11162180/gender-affirming-surgery-transition
Now I am not at all arguing that Gender Dysphoria is not real, and that people should be denied solutions science offers.
But it is clear the social adoption of science is difficult, imperfect, creates unforeseen problems and presents social challenges.
The default seems to be towards permissiveness: if an individual wants it, they should have it, and anyone standing in the way is intolerant and bigoted.
How is it that we are told we must be tolerant of doing a thing: but not of NOT doing a thing?
How is it children are told the scientific application of hormones and surgery can be used to change them to be the opposite sex to which they currently are: but not that the same science, or a development of it, could *potentially *be used to enable them to be happy and contented as who they ALREADY are? After all the LGBTQ community itself is reporting Trans Gender Therapy can change sexual orientation, so there is some real effect here that could be studied and, presumably, used to develop a purposeful therapy to that end:
https://www.them.us/story/sexual-attraction-after-transition
Why the double standard?
And isn’t it an expression of the same double standard being used to pour hate and vitriol onto Ann Widdicombe for advocating freedom and choice?
There is no such recognised scientific treatment to change someone’s sense of sexual identity. But if powerful hormones can change someone to effectively feel more feminine, or more masculine, as those having Trans therapy regularly report:
Then it doesn’t seem beyond imagination there very well could be...
It should not need to be said, but let it be said again anyway, that any attempt to FORCE or MANIPULATE people to change themselves in anyway, especially for the sake of pressure to fit in with society, is WRONG.
But it seems tolerance is easier to claim than to achieve, if only SOME choices are permitted from the rational possibilities, and others are NOT.
At the heart of this is a psychological fear driven by a desire to be accepted. To even consider, to someone who is Gay and happy and proud of that identity, that there could be a different choice NOT to have that way of life using medicine and science to effect a change, is a threat to feeling accepted as that identity.
But when so many people who are Gay also talk about the pain and difficulties of their upbringing and the difficulties “coming out”, is it really fair to be against all potential options available being on the table? If we are really about FREEDOM and CHOICE, how is this rational?
For now, the issue is moot: but one everybody would do well to think about.
This article is about a sordid piece of ambush journalism being talked into what it is not. And its got nothing at all to do with Brexit and the rational choice for self-government, or the Brexit Party, that’s both modern, inclusive and diverse. Indeed, in a single stroke, the Brexit party MEP’s will be DOUBLING the BAME inclusiveness of the European Parliament, which represents a white male monoculture significantly under-representing women, before we even consider LGBT inclusiveness.
For society to really deal with these issues, and more beyond our current imagining sure to come (Cyborg TransHUMANISM anyone?), is a constant evolution of feedback and response. Its sad to see Globalist corporations like Sky, primarily concerned with their own profits, weaponize social issues like this for cheap clicks and easy outrage mongering.
Free thinkers like myself try to expand our perspectives to approach these questions in the most proactive and intellectually inclusive way possible. Emotion clouds far too much of social discourse these days, with the polarisation and radicalisation around the very simple issue of whether Britain should govern itself or be administered on behalf of a government abroad being a simple choice, turned into ever greater social intolerance and radicalised extremism by the cynical media, and the politicians who refuse to accept the verdict of the highest turnout in any vote for anything in the entire of British History.
To cynically manipulate the LGBT communities’ fears for the sake of political point scoring seems a disgraceful way to behave to me, and clouds the real social debate of real issues that needs to occur.
Either the focus is on the individual, their choice, their freedom, and what they decide is best for them...
Or we are just substituting one imposed social norm with another. In a world where Freedom and self determination are the highest ideals, NO option can ever be "taken off the table": as long as nothing is imposed, all choices are valid, and we should embrace them ALL: without prejudice.
We all live on the same planet rotating around the same Sun, and literally, “Where We Go One We Go All” #WWG1WGA
Together, we will find the way forward in the years ahead, and history teaches us again and again that the impossible becoming possible is a series of achieved milestones in human history. In time, British Society will even recover from the shock of Brexit!
Against this, the opinions of Ann Widdecombe are neither bigoted, hateful, or anything more than a small part of a far bigger tapestry: but a part with as much right to be carefully and thoughtfully expressed and considered as any other.
It’s those whose immediate response is emotional outrage and an outpouring of hatred against a middle-aged woman who really need to reflect and think again…
Ann Widdecombe certainly didn’t deserve the social and establishment Media “punishment beating”, or to be condemned as hateful by the closed minded.
John The White