Fresh horrors for Scotland

[HirplesWithHaggis]

wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/#more-134015

"Gender expression, of course, is simply how a person presents themselves in terms of dress and general appearance. So under this law, if your 13-year-old son is meeting some friends for a movie and comes down the stairs wearing only a nappy, a ball gag and an adult bib with “CUM SLUT” printed on it, and you say “You’re not bloody going out dressed like that!”, you’ll be committing a crime for which he can have you arrested as long as he claims it’s part of his gender expression."

There's more, so much more.
😥

The determination of most of the MSM not to look at this nonsense, and report on it objectively, is bordering on the criminal IMO.

I know papers will follow an editorial ‘shape,’ but how can so many of them be THIS captured? Do the journalists not have kids of their own?

www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/scottish-government-announces-3m-boost-for-newspapers/

<whistles innocently>

Did I just read that 3m for newspapers ?

While we have teachers, nurses, out on strike along with the train & bus drivers, the posties, the Jr Docs are thinking about it.
Anyone else I've failed to mention.

Pay the teachers and nurses with that 3m.

Tbf, the article is dated May 2020.

I don't get why this shit keeps happening in Scotland. Historically, it's always been such a grounded, skeptical country, where most people have limited patience with bullshit.

Is it about the desire of the SNP to constantly be as McDifferent as possible - like, Westminster is moving against the TRA/Stonewall line, so we in Scotland need to double down and push the TRA/Stonewall line as aggressively as possible, just to show that we don't like Westminster?

I have a feeling most actual Scots are pretty dismayed by all this. Why can't Labour see the light on this issue, and take advantage of this to engineer a comeback in Scotland.

It must be just that. The only "benefit" of this course of action is to get the GRA binned by Westminster, cue wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It's totally about Scotland trying to be McDifferent.

Labour are just useless but could totally domineer if they stood up against it. So much of this is flying under the radar.

So much of this is about distortion of language and speech. They say banning conversion therapy - when they are the ones championing the ‘transitioning’ of one thing to a pastiche of another. That is the true conversion, one that they’re driving to become irreversible.

Fuck ing hell.

Oh, well that's just fucking brilliant. Honestly, Scotgov.

'The Group advises that ending conversion practices will not lead to the
unlawful restriction of existing freedoms – including freedoms of speech,
religion, and belief. The Group’s position is that where expression
creates the potential of significant harm to others, a prohibition of a
practice is justified and necessary as a proportionate way of protecting
the interests of the victims, and does not unlawfully interfere with the
human rights of the providers of conversion practices.'

I'm starting to think it's quite possible that there are people working hard to destroy Scotland from within.

It's quite a head-scratcher, isn't it?

It’s notable - and troublesome - how the Scottish government seems to be determined to alienate children from their parents. Parental influence seems to be something they’ve made attempts from multiple directions to control and curtail - and remove.

All while claiming this is all ‘progressive’ and ‘on the right side of history’.

Thing is, if you look historically at this kind of behaviour… erm… it’s right out of the imperialist handbook. Removing children from their ‘savage’ parents (and communities) to be raised by the state is a truly lamentable feature of how the British empire dealt with many indigenous communities - with long lasting effects. As was couching this in claims that this was in the children’s best interests.

The specific virtues have shifted from a language of ‘civilising’ and such like. But the logic that parental rights must be severed to protect children from the harmful cultures and practices of their parents are very similar indeed.

Apparently, the Scottish government needs to correct the cultural problems of indigenous Scots to fit with what’s popular on twitter, and sees taking their children away as the best means of controlling the population. There’s a great deal of irony there. Tragically.

1. Exceptions

The Group has decided not to include exceptions in the definition of conversion practices. Exceptions carry the danger of limiting the protective scope of the definition and of facilitating the addition of grounds that permit conversion practices. The Group therefore recommends that exceptions do not form part of the law against conversion practices and that this is possible through using an appropriate definition.

In this regard, the Group notes that it is not necessary to provide an exception for affirmative care, as defined below (i.e., approaches to healthcare delivery in which the providers recognise, validate and/or support a person's gender identity, sexual orientation and/or gender expression).

These approaches would not fall within the definition of conversion practices because they do not seek to change, suppress and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression.

Background Note: Considerations regarding healthcare provision and other care and support

In considering and developing the definition of conversion practices, the Group discussed the question of ‘affirmative care’ and how this would relate to the definition.

“Affirmative care” within health care refers to an approach that validates and supports the identity and lived experience expressed and stated by an individual. It is non-directive – a healthcare professional will take an unobtrusive role so that free expression is encouraged.

The Group recognises the value and important role of affirmative support, healthcare provision and familial or pastoral care.

Facilitating, enabling or encouraging efforts which take place in a supportive and affirmative environment, and are led by the other person’s autonomous decisions, are not conversion practices in accordance with our definition as they do not seek to change, suppress or inhibit that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

This would include, for example, providing a safe space for someone to explore their sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression in a safe and non-judgmental way; providing support and understanding in helping with self-acceptance; facilitating coping skills and social support or assisting someone who was undergoing or considering undergoing gender reassignment.

my bold

——. ——- —-

I am just pulling this out.

It is clear isn’t it? No exceptions. No clarity. Just a blanket policy demand.

And so, I also read it that any clinician that says… “mmm, I think you don’t suffer from gender dysphoria but are [insert medical condition].” Could be taken to court.

Basically, the demand is only full affirmation with no exceptions . Unless a patient “leads” the treatment it could be that clinicians are exposed.

When can a clinician say - no this person is clearly very vulnerable and needs significant help here but I don’t believe their situation will be assisted by medical transition ?

'The Group recommends that the definition of conversion practices must
apply equally to sexual orientation, expression of sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression, must be wide enough to
encompass any treatment, practice or effort that aims to change,
suppress, and/or eliminate a person's sexual orientation, expression of
sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression'

While the Wings article uses an example of a child wearing fetish gear to describe the issue with 'gender expression', I'd say the issue is that virtually any mundane or prosaic everyday act - wearing any item of clothing or accessory or haircut or make up and pretty much any type of behaviour could (according to this document) be claimed to be 'gender expression'. So any parent who tries to change any aspect of their child's 'gender expression' could be guilty of a crime.

And the accusation doesn't need to come from the child. As with the Hate Crime Bill, and the wider UK Non-crime Hate legislation, anyone can make an accusation.

So your neighbour could feasibly claim that you told your child to wear a different jacket, or refused to allow them to wear a miniskirt, and this would be a crime of attempting to change their gender expression.

Helleofabore, worth remembering in this context that the Scotgov have explicitly said they will be ignoring the Cass Report.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/14/nhs-scotland-plans-fast-track-irreversible-surgery-trans-patients/

Sturgeon pardoned all the witches from 400 years ago, a few years ago, so now they need more to fill the gap on the "persecute" shelf.

Parents and women it it, it seems.

At a time when NHS is experiencing the highest pressure on services! Waiting times for imaging, surgery etc are through the roof. But this is a priority?? I am ashamed of my country right now!

Scotgov makes sure dreadful legislation. The lack of a second chamber means it ends up in a court.

The SNP only listen to yes men, even within their ranks they don't listen to any dissent. In fact they have actively prohibited any dissent.

And any criticism from outside is shouted down as anti Scottish by the nat cultists.

I've really had enough.

'The inability to consent to conversion practices should form part of the
definition of conversion practices by not requiring an absence of consent
or providing an exception for consent, including people who experience
coercion, which can lead to a perception of consent to conversion
practices.'

So even if someone consents, that can still count as non-consent. Gotcha.

Removing someone from Scotland to be subject to conversion practices
anywhere else in the world should be considered a criminal offence.

Shopping trip to Paris a no-no, then.

I’m not in Scotland but I think NS allowed herself to be walked down this path and had NO IDEA what a Pandora’s box she was opening up. I honestly believe she is now being swept along as she has no way of stopping it now.

I agree with this. The continued and determined efforts from Scotgov to cast parents as villains is deeply, deeply troubling.

This latest move isn't a surprise but it's shocking to see it written down. There aren't enough of these to go round:

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

It also just does not make sense in relation to the rest of the ideology.

either it’s not medical at all and nothing to do with your physiology or it requires immediate medical and surgical intervention. Similarly, the weird ambivalence around mental health which results in suicide being used rhetorically to prevent discussion or scrutiny while claiming it’s discriminatory to treat it as a mental health issue or explore the gaps between an individual’s perception and reality (that’s conversion therapy you evil people!)

It’s both a ridiculously rigid ideology and extremely flexible to fit the argument at any given point. Which is, actually, a common feature of ideologies. The bible is literal truth unless you’re talking about an inconsistency or something that seems at odds with the behavioural norms you want to promote. All animals are equal, but some are more equal (when it suits those in power to modify the narrative).

'The Group recommends that the Scottish Government establish a
Commission or task a relevant body or bodies to be responsible for
various civil measures and other functions relating to conversion
practices. The Commission ought to have a role as the interface
between the criminal justice system and survivors, potential victims or
those reporting conversion practices'

Hm, gosh, I wonder what they could call this Commission? It's like a sort of Revolution in the Culture of Scotland, isnt it? Presumably they'd ask questions, or make Inquiries in an Inquisitory way.

'It’s both a ridiculously rigid ideology and extremely flexible to fit the argument at any given point. Which is, actually, a common feature of ideologies'

Yes. The absence of internal logic is a useful way of keeping everyone in a state of fearful confusion.