A roundup of news from around the interwebs.
One of Trudeau’s MPs—a doctor—is breaking ranks on the new assisted suicide expansion, despite the justice minister’s calls to ramrod it through. From the CBC:
A Liberal MP and medical doctor says he will vote against his government’s contentious medical assistance in dying (MAID) bill, warning that it could allow people suffering from deep but temporary despair to end their lives.
Marcus Powlowski, who represents the Ontario riding of Thunder Bay-Rainy River, already voted against Bill C-7 at the report stage in the legislative process — the only member of the government caucus to do so. He told CBC News he will “regrettably” do so again unless it’s amended.
“I don’t like voting against my party, but as someone with a medical background and somebody who has dealt with this issue over the years a lot, I think morally it’s incumbent upon me to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death,” he said.
It is bewildering to me that the Trudeau Liberals are so resolutely unwilling to temper the radicalism of their bill to listen to disability advocates and experts. At this stage, it is obvious that they simply do not care.
Today’s misogyny comes dressed up as pro-transgender sentiment, but it has bizarre to see the attacks on women who wish to maintain their hard-fought right to their own spaces by male politicians who somehow get a pass for this. From the Irish media outlet Gript:
A Donegal TD, Thomas Pringle, is being heavily criticised after he posted a Twitter message saying he “hates terfs” – a term feminists say is used to attack women who speak up against extremism from transgender activists. Deputy Pringle posted a tweet saying he “Loves Twitter. Hates Terfs”, and also included the hashtag #TransRightsAreHumanRights.
His tweet caused a furore online, with strong reactions from women some of whom claimed that the TD’s tweet contained a “misogynistic hate slur”. Women say that trans extremism is erasing women and removing safe spaces which women have fought for.
“You’ll never get another vote from me. I gave you my number one last time round. I’m a left woman from umpteen generations of Donegal women and I’ll make it my business to make sure as many as possible won’t give you a single one either, starting with an assurance from family.” said one furious woman.
Women are out, “trans women”—biological men—are in. Live by intersectionality, die by intersectionality. The Oppression Olympics are the Wild West.
Al Mohler has an interesting piece on where all these insane ideologies are taking us, with a special mention of my home province of British Columbia:
I want to take us to British Columbia in Canada with a major policy report, entitled, “Trans-Inclusive Abortion Services.” The subhead in the report, A manual for providers on operationalizing trans-inclusive policies and practices in an abortion setting. And once again, this is coming from British Columbia. The author of the report is, A. J. Lowik, identified as PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia with the Institute for gender, race, sexuality and social justice. Now, that’s a lot to say, but it basically tells you almost everything you need to know. You’re talking here about social justice being tied to sexuality, gender and race. It’s hard to imagine a more explosive combination, but let’s just say, this is increasingly what makes sense on the cultural left. A. J. Lowik, by the way, wrote a master’s thesis focused on, quote, “Trans-Inclusive Abortion Services.” And, this is exactly how the text reads in the report, “Their PhD dissertation explores trans people’s reproductive decision making processes. They would like to acknowledge the work of the promoting Trans Literacies Workshop series.”
Read the whole thing (or listen to it.) It’s worth your time.
Abigail Shrier, author of the essential new book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, has a great column in Newsweek about the recent British court decision condemning underage trans treatments. An excerpt:
Each time it lifted an evidentiary rock, the court appears to have sprung back in alarm. The gender clinic could not provide a single instance in which an adolescent had been denied puberty blockers on the grounds that she was not competent to give consent. Rather than finding puberty blockers to be a mere “pause button” on deciding whether to transition, the court noted that “the evidence we have on this issue clearly shows that practically all children/young people who start [puberty blockers] progress on to [Cross Sex Hormones].” A drug that is sold to parents as a neutral intervention “in practice puts a young person on a virtually inexorable path to taking cross-sex hormones,” eliminating her future fertility. And according to the clinic’s own internal report, “there was no overall improvement in mood or psychological wellbeing” of the surveyed 44 young people put on blockers.
As for the farce of asking for a minor’s “informed consent,” the court noted: “There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.” The court ended on a note of British understatement that no physician who practices in this area could easily miss: for patients aged 16 and 17, it might be a good idea for “authorization of the court” to be “sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.”
Read the whole thing. It is devastating—and this court decision is the first truly hopeful news on the transgender front in a long time.
Finally—finally—there is some good news on the free speech front. From the BBC:
A vote on free speech at Cambridge University has strongly rejected guidelines requiring opinions to be “respectful” – after warnings this could limit freedom of expression. Instead the policy on free speech will support “tolerance” of differing views. The proposed rules would have required staff, students and visiting speakers to remain “respectful” of the views and “identities” of others. But there were claims this would block controversial ideas and debates.
The university’s governing body, the Regent House, has voted by a big majority in support of amendments from those worried about a threat to academic freedom, introducing a commitment to “tolerance” rather than “respect”.
The wokelings wanted free speech restricted so they don’t have to defend their shoddy ideas. In this case, the adults prevailed.