Lobbying ‘Behind the veil’(19 Posts)
A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the change
I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet, but there is an excellent article in The Spectator about the tactics of this lobby group. Datun cited it in another thread, but some might have missed that, so I am posting it here. It highlights the profoundly undemocratic strategy of forcing the implementation of radical policies without public consent or scrutiny.
the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force
Cheers for the link Nonny. It’s good to see that The Spectator et al are reporting this issue. Many people are completely unaware of how much influence this lobby group is exerting ‘behind the veil’ Good to see some forensic reporting
It's quite disturbing how much power and influence "the most oppressed minority group ever" has.
Yes I hope there's some serious investigative journalism carried out soon. There's lots of curious links between various groups and individuals behind the scenes. I'm glad this report is being publicised now.
The key thing here is the plan to hide what's being done from the public until it's too late for them to fight it. That's sinister and not at all how human rights groups typically operate. It's also an attempt to undermine democracy.
I'm glad this report is being publicised now
I think it’s fortuitous that both Maya and Harry’s cases hit the courts simultaneously and both are such shocking examples of the assault on freedom of speech that the media has started digging. It is quite sinister that a lobby group has got a vice like grip on the apparatus of the state while remaining invisible to most of the country
It's worth noting that a main proposal is to remove parental responsibility / rights in favour of giving children (below the age of being able to give informed consent) the "right" to embark on transitioning. In other words, parental alienation. Every responsible parent should be terrified as this means that a 12 year old child can insist on transitioning and the state would punish a parent who tried to intervene in any way.
We need to keep asking this question:
Which groups of adults repeatedly try to remove safeguarding from children and why ?
It's worth noting that a main proposal is to remove parental responsibility / rights in favour of giving children (below the age of being able to give informed consent) the "right" to embark on transitioning In other words, parental alienation
It’s quite incredible, isn’t it? The instruction to deliberately obscure the lobbying from any public or media scrutiny is an acknowledgment that these policies will be unpopular. It’s sinister and profoundly undemocratic
It is quite sinister that a lobby group has got a vice like grip on the apparatus of the state while remaining invisible to most of the country
That’s really perfectly put, BovaryX, thank you for that.
It's nothing to do with 'gender' and everything to do with weakening the ability of parents to protect children.
Which groups of adults repeatedly try to remove safeguarding from children and why?
Indeed. It’s shocking that more of those who are aware aren’t asking this question, in this era of supposed safeguarding culture.
I suspect many of those who don't ask have their own motivations for wanting safeguarding weakened. Trans is just a trojan horse.
James Kirkup often brings up the “why/which group wants this” angle which is very helpful to bring it to the attention to those who aren’t immersed in this, to see the wider ramifications.
Did anyone see Sheila Jeffrey’s WPUK speech in Leeds earlier this year?
She spoke about the formation of the Yogyakarta Principles of sexual orientation and gender identity being the start of this wave of transgender ideology. Since that speech I’ve often thought of how did some unnamed experts manage to bolt gender identity to sexual orientation within the UN. They were smart. Again the T was linked to LGB and given a veil. And once established within the UN, there’s a clear pathway to people at the very top of governments and international agencies.
Who are these people? What do they have to gain?
It suddenly makes sense of how and why the fraudulent EA2010 protected characteristics lists that deleted sex were distributed throughout the country. They were "getting out in front of the law" by breaking it.
Indeed, and they’ve been very successful. How many times do we see gender replacing sex in policies from local governments to sport organisations? Loads. Plenty of us have written to said institutions to point it out. It seemed reasonable innocent at the time.
Who are these people?
The list of people involved in the original Yogyakarta principles in 2006 is at the end of this document. The only ones that I immediately recognise are Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Stephen Whittle.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.