Bea Campbell on Challenors, Greens and more

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Superb
www.byline.com/column/85/article/2300

Thank you Bea Campbell

That is a good read from Bea Campbell.

I learned something useful about "conducive context".

The party should ask itself whether the party’s hard-line pro-trans policies and associated bullying provided what sexual violence scholar Prof Liz Kelly calls a ‘conducive context’ that shielded the Challenors from scrutiny.

It might also ask itself whether it lost its marbles about gender and sexual politics, so much so that this proudly open and democratic party sometimes behaved like the Inquisition, hunting and harassing trans heretics and feminists.

Her closing lines are interesting tho' I have to wonder if she'd ever have spoken up if there were not, now, a permissive attitude that allows her to say these things.

Some of us will give evidence to the Parliamentary committee on the Gender Recognition Act. Given the fate of others, and aside from my own decisions about whether I remain in the Green Party, we need to know whether this will this result in disciplinary action, and whether the Green Party is prepared to forfeit seasoned and intelligent activists because of misogyny and cultish trans dogma.

Members of other organisations should be asking themselves the same questions.

THANK YOU Bea! 💐

Brilliant,thank you Bea

sometimes behaved like the Inquisition, hunting and harassing trans heretics and feminists.

That's rich, coming from one of the prime movers in the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' hoax.

I don't see Campbell as an ally.

The SRA hoax has many of the same elements we are seeing the TRAs use. In fact it seems to have set the template.

There is the unchallenged belief in anything children say, even when it flies in the face of physical reality; the bogus psychology (recovered memories and multiple personality disorder) and promotion of crank medical 'science'; the quasi-religious denunciations and persecution of unbelievers; the manipulation and collaboration of social services, schools and the media; the way the whole issue went global overnight; and the way everyone now looks back and thinks, what the hell where we thinking? just the way we will when society wakes up from this current wave of bullshit.

There were hundreds of claims that children were impregnated to provide babies for cannibalistic rites just as there are equally outrageous claims about murders of transwomen and suicide rates.

Thousands of children where taken from their parents, just as they would if TRAs get there way and children are snatched from their 'unsupporting' and therefore 'abusive' parents.

Campbell helped destroy families and made it more difficult to prove genuine cases of (non-Satanic) abuse. It doesn't do us credit to have her in our corner.

I must say that I don't know much about Bea Campbell, but it is interesting what you say AspieandProud and I have just done a bit of reading up.

I think though that the template you speak of in the opposite though.

As someone who knows that MPD/DID is not bogus, and has known and heard and read enough of the horrific abuse that happens to too many children, I do not find it a leap to think that men organised in 'clubs' to sexually abuse children and torture in ways that seem almost unbelievable.

Is it so hard to imagine that a man like David Challenor wouldn't be able to find, or would not want to find other men with similar habits? That a ring of adult nappy wearing, baby clothed and/or furry fetishists could not gather and organise to abuse and torture children? It would sound absurd and 'hysterical' except that we have the internet proof that tells us this adult nappy wearing and furry fetish exists, and not in small numbers, as do gangs of depraved men operating to abuse children.

Do we have to believe that what appeared as or is described as SRA was a sincere religion when perhaps it was more a shared guise that shaped and facilitated the expression of depraved ideas and behaviours? An expression of identity even, that reveals something of the warped psychology and inner world of the abusers.

With Saville we know that conducive contexts and the like existed.

We also know that abusers routinely seek to discredit their victims, to mock and ridicule and ostracise them and any whistleblowers or investigators, and have the power to do that, having carefully built up their veneer of respectability, and a web of power and contacts.

Were there issues with the way SRA claims were investigated? Very probably. But also women and children suffer every day from he said, she said situations where they cannot prove what happened to them, and societal structures that put them at the disadvantage . Do I automatically disbelieve their accounts? No of course not. Experience tells me that it is only too plausible.

But obviously there is a harmful backlash if the discrediting succeeds - but that is the point of attempting it. To protect the abusers and enable them to continue. To put us back in our box and make it harder to speak out.

I saw how the Greens handled the Challenors and how concerns for safeguarding and the failures to learn from Saville etc., proved justified right before our eyes. We have seen how the network of the trans ideology is organised and works behind the scenes with people in power, to avoid the public gaze - they admitted it. I have seen some very questionable figures involved in it.

I have no problem with what Bea Campbell has written, the opposite, and am glad she wrote it.

If anyone is interested in SRA I recommend Satan’s Silence which is a comprehensive look at the origins of Satanic Panic in the US.

Aspie is right, there are clear parallels with that madness and what is going on today.

The fact that Beatrix Campbell was (very) wrong on Satanic ritual abuse doesn't invalidate her views on an entirely different matter 30 years later.

It's a good piece by Campbell. Like Aspie I do remember her role in the Satanic ritual abuse story, but I don't know enough about it to know whether that was just some ridiculous panic or, as seafret suggests, whether it had some basis in fact.

But I have never really like Campbell since she wrote a piece about the Shannon Matthews case (while Shannon was still missing) and used it as an excuse to attack the McCanns. I don't want to start an argument about the McCanns, but it was, in my view, a shameful piece of journalism:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/mar/14/whodoweblame

It was a ridiculous panic and I had forgotten that Bea Campbell was involved in it. Private Eye was coruscating on that issue. I wish Ian Hislop and his staff would be a bit more direct about challenging trans ideology, which is just as bonkers.

Regardless of the events of 30 years ago, that is a very good article by Bea Campbell.

freedom of choice that synchronises marvellously with neo-liberal erasure of oppression, exploitation and power

I am grateful for any commentator who actually names genderism as a neoliberal, right wing policy that, like all neoliberal policies, defaults to extant power structures - in this case middle aged, middle class white men.

With Saville we know that conducive contexts and the like existed.

Yes. This is important. And not only do we still have conducive contexts today, we are watching new ones being deliberately created in real time: Guides, gymnastics, Swim England, prisons, etc.

Incorrect Panic over one sort of (not proven and apparently unevidenced) child abuse DOESN'T mean a person should be ignored where some people in plain sight are advocating for the demolition of safeguarding.

The fact that Beatrix Campbell was (very) wrong on Satanic ritual abuse doesn't invalidate her views on an entirely different matter 30 years later.

Incorrect Panic over one sort of (not proven and apparently unevidenced) child abuse DOESN'T mean a person should be ignored where some people in plain sight are advocating for the demolition of safeguarding.

I've been using the SRA hoax as an example of when the establishment lost its mind ever since trans became such an issue so I'm not going to downplay it now.

I'm very wary of who we ally ourselves with. James Kirkup seems like a decent person, albeit a conservative I'd disagree with on many issues. But he keeps his trans-activism posts 'clean'. He doesn't use them to take potshots at feminism or, say, the NHS.

Melanie McDougal I'm a little more wary of. An ally, yes, but she still manages to sneak in a dig about abortion in her last post.

Brendan O'Neill. Not a feminist. Supports free speech. Reluctant ally on trans-issues and free speech but anti-feminist and wouldn't trust him an inch.

Rob Liddell. Total bell-end.

Noam Chomsky distinguished between 'conspiracy theory' and 'institutional analysis'. Conspiracy theory can't, in theory, be disproven since even a total lack of evidence is 'proof' of how widespread the conspiracy is. Institutional analysis sticks to known facts and treats institutions as rational, if dishonest. We have to be clear that when we are talking about the 'trans' lobby we stick to the facts.

Allying ourselves with conspiracy theorists makes us all look like nuts. I wouldn't set aside David Icke's belief the Royal family are baby-eating lizards if he suddenly came out gender-critical.

Aspie I understand your point but if we only accept the words of sufficiently feminist sufficiently liberal people with sparkling clean slates we won't have many allies at all. We can't purity test everyone on everything. This issue affects ALL women, also those we disagree with.

There was a huge element of social contagion in the SRA. It effected groups of children just like ROGD does now. A quiet kid comes to the attention of a therapist and, after weeks of therapy 'recovers' memories of secret tunnels and baby sacrifice just as they now find the child has always been of the opposite sex.

Then his/her friends too - and all this is kept from their parents.

If they are adults decades of memories are 'recovered' during hypnosis sessions and copious amounts of drugs.

Then 'alters' appear. Recovered memories and multiple personalities are 'iatrogenic' - they are caused by the 'treatment' like drug side-effects or hospital MRSA. Nobody ever rolls up to a therapist suffering from DPD or repressed memories - those appear when the therapist has their claws in. At present we have suggestible children having every natural gender-non-conforming attribute being interpreted as evidence of gender dysphoria. ROGD is iatrogenic in much the same way.

Not everyone regards Rod Liddle as a bell-end. He reaches a different (and large) demographic and I'm grateful for his input into this debate.

I'm not trying to castigate Campbell and hopefully she'd learned from what happened in the Satanic Panic to make her leery of falling into a similar trap on this.

As for David Icke, obviously I'm not giving his 8 foot lizard monster theories any credibility, but he was right about Saville.

Where does it say that agreeing with somebody's argument on a particular topic is the same as becoming their ally?

I'm grateful for David Davies' support of women's freedom of speech even though I disagree passionately with him on pretty much every other political issue and would vote him out of office in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. I applauded Rob Liddle's defence of Linda Bellos even though I think in general the man is a perfect example of crass white male privilege. I am not these men's ally and they are not mine. I can agree with them and even amplify their arguments without for one second agreeing with or legitimising their other positions.

If public discourse proceeded by critical thinking rather than by tribalist ideological purge it would be in a much better state.

The thing is Aspie, we are the side being accused of suffering from, and causing a moral panic now* by not capitualting affirming that TWAW and instead raising safeguarding and women's rights concerns.

Then 'alters' appear. Recovered memories and multiple personalities are 'iatrogenic' - they are caused by the 'treatment' like drug side-effects or hospital MRSA. Nobody ever rolls up to a therapist suffering from DPD or repressed memories - those appear when the therapist has their claws in. At present we have suggestible children having every natural gender-non-conforming attribute being interpreted as evidence of gender dysphoria. ROGD is iatrogenic in much the same way.

With respect AspieAndProud what you have stated is not true at all. Everything you have stated is based on myth and attempts to discredit. And it is no surprise if mentally disordered and traumatised people sometimes prove their diagnosis of mental disorder and trauma, when they display symptoms of that mental disorder and transference etc toward their therapist. It does not invalidate anything, but it something to address appropriately.

Though I quite agree that many therapists are problematic, but that goes for their treatment of 'simple' mental illnesses like depression and anxiety too.

Dissociative Identity Disorder describes an unconscious psychological process that aims to deny overwhelming traumatic experience in order to allow a young child's mind to carry on functioning to an extent. Other disorders and disruptions of identity/self also exist.

I think many girls are presenting as having ROGD without having ever seen doctor, but what they have seen and heard of all the trans ideology propaganda on social media which is put about by very few real doctors but by plenty of lay people with vested interests and is in contravention of all known biological and medical facts. But yes by all means we should blame the likes of Harrop.

Re the other names, politically and ideologically I don't have much in common with them generally but that doesn't prevent them knowing what a male and a female is and from me agreeing with them. or vice versa.

This debate over human biological sex and gender identity politics such a deeply fundamental issue - in some ways more so than religion or economics I think.

And yes, exactly WhatTheWatersShowedMe Icke was right about Saville. I think quite often there is a lot of truth hidden inside 'madness', if only we can understand it properly.

If public discourse proceeded by critical thinking rather than by tribalist ideological purge it would be in a much better state.

100% hitting the nail on the head Tallulah

And not only do we still have conducive contexts today, we are watching new ones being deliberately created in real time: Guides, gymnastics, Swim England, prisons, etc.

Deliberately Yes LangCleg Frightening :(

The conducive context idea is a really really useful one

*The conducive context idea is a really really useful one8

Isn't it - I was doing some further reading during the regular insomnia episodes and shall continue.

I've been thinking of this as the 'halo' effect which protected Oxfam and others for so long and is currently the defence shield for Stonewall. It was what protected Kids Company for so long when Civil Servants were warning about them for so long and so deeply concerned that they were conducting investigations in their own time because they could see the financial irregularities etc. but no-one wanted to listen to them.

But reading Kelly about its influence in considering sexual violence is eye-opening. It's tying together with my current concerns (mentioned elsewhere) about making birth certificates modifiable and subject to revision when birth certificates are one of the few universal protections for everyone but especially women and children.

discoversociety.org/2016/03/01/theorising-violence-against-women-and-girls/

Healey was not allowed to address the party conference, whilst David Challenor was given a platform to propose motions despite his impending trial on the most serious child sexual abuse charges.

What is being done about this? It’s truly shocking that Challenor was allowed to do this. Is the veritas investigation going ahead?

SRA is an interesting comparison. I think we are very, very naive if we think that CSA is not in some cases persued in an organised manner. The scale of what’s known about in the uk is stretching the police to their limits as it is.

Where does it say that agreeing with somebody's argument on a particular topic is the same as becoming their ally?

It's not about agreeing with someone absolutely, it's about supporting a crackpot who helped destroy families. There may be valid criticisms of some aspects of #BlackLivesMatter but I'm not going to promote David Duke.

Do people not remember the sheer scale of the SRA hoax? Or the anti-Semitic claims that a global Satanic baby-sacrificing cult was orchestrated by a Jewish Holocaust survivor who collaborated with the Nazis? (There is a very large overlap between TRAs and the Corbynist anti-Semitic Left).

A few weeks ago I am sure I read here that Aimee Challenor was involved in the production of some kind of equality policy document that mentioned 'women' a certain number of times and every single time it was preceded with 'trans'.

Having cancelled my GP direct debit a few weeks ago I still haven't got round to emailing them to formally cancel membership and tell them why.

Can anyone tell me anymore about this document or where I can find it? Is it also true that GP policy is to allow men who identify as women (ie. people who don't have a GRC) into women's prisons as a matter of course no matter what the crime? I also gather that Caroline Lucas wrote to the MoJ in support of Tara Hudson being moved to a women's prison, and that the prison service changed their procedures after the Tara Hudson case, which essentially led to the situation that allowed Karen White to slip through the net.

I want to mention these things in my email to them.

On the subject of Caroline Lucas, she was denounced as a TERF by AC and friends, and placed on TERF blocker after saying she was going to meet up with WPUK. Anyone know what became of that meeting, or here anything else about it at all?