Should a bloke be allowed to know if his “girlfriend” (or “bride”) is also a bloke?
This post is about a 2005 “Allman v UK” court case you probably haven’t read about yet.
Transgenderism is gender fraud. Fraud always has victims.
The pope had ruled that the “trans” doctrine “lacked substantiation“. (Or so I quipped, in a punning tweet that I sent out when Pink News reported the story.)
The “trans” doctrine is a doubly-dualistic doctrine. Not only does it make the commonplace distinction between body and soul. Even more metaphysically than that, it distinguishes between “sex” and “gender”. The doctrine, you ought by now to have noticed, teaches that some people have a valid grievance, because they were conceived as babies who grew bodies that were of the wrong sexes for the purpose of housing human souls of the particular genders which the aggrieved now feel they want to be.
As a society, we are encouraging the aggrieved to pretend to be men when really they are women, and vice versa. But such gender fraud, like any fraud, has victims.
Please don’t say you weren’t warned.
I know someone who was sectioned for three days in January 2000. This short spell of loss of liberty, in a self-described “hospital”, did no good at all to this chap’s then flourishing career. He is now likely to die on benefits. (But don’t worry. His mental health, the doctors nowadays all say, is tickety-boo.)
Wanna know why he was sectioned?
A significant aspect of this anecdote is that the psychiatrist who sectioned him (seventeen and a half years ago now) considered a prediction that he had made before the said “shrink” had even met the “patient” concerned, to be delusional.
What was that “delusional” prediction?
Well, this fellow had insinuated that there was a conspiracy afoot, which (he predicted) would wreak havoc in maybe five to ten years time, or maybe in up to twenty years time. A conspiracy, he said, to force people, by law, to accept men as women if those men said they wanted to be accepted as women, and vice versa.
Where did he get that outlandish idea from?
In 2004, whilst listening in bed to the News Quiz con Radio 4 (as you do), with my then wife Mpumi Allman (nee Maqungo), I learnt of a so-called Gender Recognition Bill. This (I felt at the time) marked the public unveiling of the no-longer-clandestine conspiracy about which the former mental patient (briefly) had theorised four years earlier, getting himself sectioned.
I reckoned I knew then what my duty was. I did what I believed I had to do, in the light of this development. I went into activist mode, and opposed the Gender Recognition Bill.
Baroness O’Cathain and Lord Tebbit led the valiant opposition to the Gender Recognition Bill in the Lords. I thank both for their courtesy to me. I regret that my warnings only came to their attention too late for them to argue against the bill in the most effective way possible, as Lord Tebbit admitted afterwards. It was “a pity”, he wrote, that “nobody” had thought of my argument against the Bill, during the debate in the Lords. After the final division was lost in the Lords, I was honoured that Lady O’Cathain phoned me whilst I was in a bible study as the Church of God of Prophecy, in Leeds, before she went off to meet with Simon Calvert in a hotel.
Once the Act had been passed, I sued the government (as you do, if you are an activist), hoping for publicity, if not actually to prevent the Act’s implementation:
It is now 2017. Recently, there appears to have been some fresh stirrings of interest in the unsuccessful court case that I brought way back in 2005, to challenge the Gender Recognition Act, as the bill soon became. This recent flurry of renewed interest in a past escapade of mine, has prompted me, twelve years on, to bring relevant court papers (including the judgment of Sullivan J) and contemporary press releases together, concatenated into one document, for the curious to read, here:
Last Tuesday, I learnt of a recent article, which, rather strikingly, draws attention to the mentality that is gradually becoming compulsory, as predicted in that chap’s conspiracy theory of 2000, which led to his being sectioned for three days, losing his job, and (later) to the court case that I brought myself, when that person’s year 2000 nightmare began to come true, in 2005.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that my application was “inadmissible”. That was because I was already married, and therefore not at immediate risk myself, of marrying another bloke unawares, deceived into believing that my “bride” was a woman, by the use of a falsified birth certificate provided by the queen. Ironically, my wife died on 26th May 2006, two days after I had opened that letter from Strasbourg.
What do you think? Was the bloke who was sectioned in 2000 right after all? Should my arguments have won, in court, in 2005 (London) and 2006 (Strasbourg)? Or do you agree with Mr Justice Sullivan, and the ECHR?
Why do you think whatever you do think?
Have you read the papers I have linked to in this post? What did you think of them?