Lord Keen disputing the language of the spousal 'veto'

[midclegs]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-minister-who-politely-refused-to-play-the-trans-language-game/

I have to admit to struggling to get my head around this, Lord Keen is that there is no such thing as the veto.

James Kirkup writes;

"Mary marries Paul; Paul decides that he will transition to become Pauline. To complete that process, he will either require the consent of Mary or he will have to secure a declarator of nullity of marriage—so there is no actual veto. [James Kirkup's bold] The point of the present situation is this: Mary who married Paul should not find herself married to Pauline without her consent.’

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?

James Kirkup addresses this. It's about the deliberately manipulative use of language. This lobby uses repetitive, simplistic slogans which are designed to silence debate before it starts The narrative is an assault on rational argument and external reality. This is just another example of it.

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?

Because they need to get rid of it because it stands in the way of self ID. A man can't self ID his way to a GRC if his wife still has a say.

Also male entitlement .

Also, the few activists who are been pushing this for years are trans women who are still married and have a vested interest.

Exactly Tinsel

Helen Belcher has been a Lib Dem activist for years & funnily enough they have pushed it hardest

Imagine a trans widow standing on a platform at a party conference and arguing for other trans widow's rights to be taken away? How would a woman end up in that position? Makes you think.

Imagine a trans widow standing on a platform at a party conference and arguing for other trans widow's rights to be taken away? How would a woman end up in that position? Makes you think.

The short video on Helen Belcher's website, where Joanna Belcher talks about her marriage to Helen tells you all you need to know. Joanna talks of "walking on eggshells" and how Helen had "a very short fuse".

I’m really struggling with this. (I mean, not just this specific aspect but the way this whole massive lobby remains so influential) In my day Parliamentarians who were misled or lied to by a campaigning lobby group would just not deal with them ever again. MPs and Peers are quoted forever in Hansard and they did not want to be wrong or untruthful when supporting a cause, even if it was through no fault of their own. Campaigning groups and lobbyists would lose all credibility for being ‘economical with the truth’. Of course people often dealt with it by leaving out inconvenient facts and that kind of omission was kind of accepted- I’m not saying there was once some kind of upright moral Golden Age. But actively misleading the house used to be a serious thing. Making up lies- like claiming a veto which doesn’t exist- used to be a one strike and you’re out type of thing. Why are these groups not completely discredited by now?

I'm bewildered that there is anybody on MN who is surprised to hear it's not a veto given the amount I've banged on about it.

I think this just illustrates what an effective job the trans lobby have done and how hard it is to push back against their misinformation.

. Why are these groups not completely discredited by now?

In my view it's because politicians see this as a very easy way to virtue signal. Also they're frightened that the activists will witch hunt them next, if they don't comply.

It might be a case of me not thoroughly paying attention to things not directly relevant to me though

To be fair, James Kirkup is a respected journalist and I'm a randomer on the Internet!

I agree Tinsel MPs must feel there would be worse consequences for not complying and promoting the cause even via dodgy arguments and statistics. Its shocking.

The article was great. Kirkup's a good writer, and he's exactly right to show how this thing is being played out in the realm of language. It's a really interesting (but scary) aspect of this whole thing. They have captured a language & v few people question it, and that means they don't question the world view. The words used seem innocent but they always have a particular world view embedded in them, so you can't actually express some opinions (or facts) at all using the the prescribed language. It's not possible because each word contains meanings, or implies a certain way of looking at the world, which you don't subscribe to - cis is a good example, assigned is another.

Also, this is what Ruth Hunt is going to do for the rest of her days. Genderwoo legislation through the Lords.