As the debate rages in the United States over parental notification and authority in cases involving transgender children, the United Kingdom is embroiled in a controversy over a law that would not only limit parental authority in such cases but affirmatively require parents to pay for such transitioning. Under the interpretation put forward by police, parents who refuse to use the alternative pronouns for their children or refuse to pay for their transitioning could be criminally prosecuted.
According to the UK’s Code for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), abusive conduct now includes “withholding money for transitioning [and] refusing to use their preferred name or pronoun.” So a parent with familial or religious objections to the transitioning of a child would be required under the law to fund operations or treatments.
According to the guidance material, this is not even “an exhausted list,” but some of the first “examples” of potentially criminal conduct that comes to mind.
The guideline would suggest that parents with deep-seated religious convictions against transgender status would either have to fund an operation that they consider immoral or face arrest for failing to do so.
To potentially prosecute a parent for refusing to use an adopted pronoun of their child is chilling and wrong. Nevertheless, a CPS spokesperson doubled down with a comment to Fox News that “domestic abuse is a severe crime and leaves victims with a lasting impact . . . This assists prosecutors to ensure that any victim, regardless of who they are, can get justice for the abuse they have faced.”
This follows the erosion of free speech and religious rights in Britain, including English courts upholding the criminalization “toxic ideologies.”
It was Sir Edward Coke in The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628 who declared “For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].” William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham later added:
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”
That no longer appears the case when misusing pronouns or failing to write a check for a child’s transitioning, which will now be treated as the same as physical child abuse. As the definition of abuse is broadened, the state derives greater control and direction over family affairs and relations. Moreover, leaving enforcement to the discretion of police in this “nonexhaustive” list only further undermines this long-standing protection over internal family matters. The question is what the limiting principle will be as the state defines a wider array of conduct to be child abuse. The default assumption of Pitt appears to have flipped in the United Kingdom.
Meanwhile I have been following the cries of the kids who were encouraged to mutilate themselves while still underage and it’s absolutely heartbreaking. The word consent comes from two roots: con (with) + sent (awareness, wisdom, same root as sentient, senses, common sense, etc). The age of consent refers to the fact that minors do not have the intellectual wherewithal to make life altering decisions. They can’t buy cigarettes or cars, they can’t get tattoos, they can’t HAVE sex, but somehow they are being encouraged to CHANGE sex, which is far more damaging and not possible anyway. You can chop and change but chromosomes are unalterable. In America, insurance pays for everything, which is why this is happening. It’s a great big giant fraud with America’s children as the sacrificial lambs. This will be known as the greatest stain on our nation after slavery and the slaughter of native Americans. In the UK, we’ll see what happens. Nobody has the money for this.
Same is already happening in CA and State of Washington. Where they can also take your child and charge you with abuse if you don’t let them chop off their body parts.
My 16 year old daughter needs breast enhancements to reaffirm her gender.Do I need to pay?
Time to start thinning the herd. Starting at the top.
Great Britain great no more. It’s turned its back on freedom and has embraced tyranny.
Let them eat a double portion of “Spotted Dick”.
A useful fact to know about British law: Everything should be judged according to what a reasonable person would think. So, since currently no reasonable person would agree that forcing parents to pay for the transition of their children when they are against it would be reasonable, there is no case to answer. A reasonable person would interpret that “withholding money for transitioning” applies to the case of people who have control over the finances of their partner in some way, and it’s an adult who is being discussed. So have a debate about that possibility, if you like, not about the unreasonable one.
By the way, the USA is by now well-known for its lack of reasonableness. So I would advise to exercise a lot of care when visiting the UK, in case you find yourselves inadvertently breaking the law by assuming that it means things it actually doesn’t.
Dolores doesn’t know what the heck she is talking about. Wow, what a bad take. Dolores, please cite common law or statutory authority that says all laws are subject to reasonable person standard. That is false. Moreover, reasonableness standards are notoriously subjective and so what is reasonable to one person is not necessarily the same as what is reasonable to another person, even when they both live in Britain. Thus saying “no reasonable person would agree that forcing parents to pay for the transition of their childern when they are against it would be reasonable” is not only clumsy and redundant prose, but simply not true.
Some claim that they cannot pass judgment on this law, because it is “merely” an abstraction. That they need an actual, concrete case to evaluate it.
Here’s an “abstract law:”
“[I]f any servant ran away from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdictions [. . .] the said servant shall be delivered, either to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof . . .” (A fugitive slave law)
So you need to wait until you see an actual black person hauled off in chains, before you can evaluate that “abstract law” as unjust and evil?! You seriously cannot see that what starts as an abstraction, ends in practical action?
Incidentally, all law starts as “abstract law.” A thinker can evaluate its meaning and see its consequences. Those who do not think, cannot.
On a related note, the movie “Sound of Freedom” that addresses the horrific plague of human trafficking of children is the number one movie in theaters, beating out Disney’s Indiana Jones.
The movie (based on a true story) is directed by Mexican actor Eduardo Verastegui, stars Jim Caviezel and produced by a tiny but innovative, growing independent studio. A relatively unknown indie movie is beating big budget, high production cost Hollywood. Apparently, Hollywood doesn’t like bringing light to the horrific sex trafficking of children, so the people who made this movie went around the Hollywood machine.
Nice
Anybody remember the difference between the Auto De Fey and the Age of Enlightenment? Well, that’s what We The People are up against. Our blueprint of a Perfect Union built on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was the acme of disruption of the Old World. Nobody had made a government out of those ideas. Ever. Is our representative democracy messy? You bet your tocus it is. But it works. And it works because of natural rights embedded in the Bill of Rights. We’ll sort out this UK glitch, and find our own equilibrium. We’ll do it with unfettered freedom of expression, like right here on Res Ipsa Loquitur.
This clearly contradicts the concept that parents’ primary role is to look out for the welfare of their children and guide them through the difficulties of life.
Can hardly wait for the leftists to fall under the same rules they are forcing upon everyone else. I escaped. Coming to a town near you. I have my popcorn.
A spice recipe for anyone interested:
Italian Seasoning
1 part dried basil
3 parts dried oregano
3 parts dried rosemary
3 parts dried thyme
3 parts dried marjoram
Grind the rosemary to a course powder using a mortar and pestle
Pour ingredients into a jar, close lid and shake vigorously until blended
The recipe is better with organic spices.
Note: the rosemary is measured prior to grinding.
Thank you, Darren. Sounds good! Would be great on homemade croutons.
Thank you, Darren.
Grind the rosemary to a course powder using a mortar and pestle
Be careful to not “cut to dickens your finger” as Dan Ackroyd/Julia Child said, when SNL was funny
😉
estovir…..I had completely forgotten about that skit! what a riot! Thank you for posting.
Next Up: NAMBLA
North American Man/Boy Love Association
___________________________________
“If they don’t stand for something, they will fall for anything.”
– Gordon Eadie, 1945
__________________
“If not us, who?
And if not now, when?”
– Ronald Reagan
Thumbs up!!
On this great site we have Dennis McIntyre and I guess that makes “Anonymous” our BONUS HOLE.
LOL! Good one.