MISTAKEN PRESUMPTION of 'FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION', without 'RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND'. All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') ancestors & 1st Nations here, guaranteed a right & responsibility to COUNCIL-PROCESS or the right & obligation to call-for & receive: Both-Sides-Now, Equal-time, Recorded & Published DIALOGUE aka 'DEBATE' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') on any issue by which one is affected or impacted.
SOCIETY OF MONOLOGUE
Perverted Example: The US Constitution 'RIGHT-of-FREE-SPEECH', in which invading colonists failed to understand or honour the deeper Turtle-Island (N. America) 1st Nation indigenous system of laws including Council Process, which also requires RESPONSIBILITY for what one says & does.
MANIPULABLE DESIGN
USA's hierarchal issued FAKE: metal-coin 'MONEY' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory') Oligarch designed 'revolution' & half-baked Constitution was designed to be manipulated, 'behind-the-scenes'. Few are aware of how much Oligarch money went to finance Washington et al. leaving the so-called Revolutionaries in-the-pockets of 'Exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') foreign-debt & decision-making. In order to understand 'Memory' as the heart of human association, one must know about all humanity's worldwide time-based equivalency accounting upon the STRING-SHELL VALUE SYSTEMS (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island (N. America), Quipu in S. America, Cowrie in indigenous Celtic-Slavic Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all islands). As systems of 'memory' these bottom up 'moneys' were issued in each ~100 person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex Domestic Economy (mostly women) as well as the subset Commerce & Industry Economies (mostly men). String-shell integrates: 'Capital' (L 'cap' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence'), 'Currency' ('flow' trade for goods & services), 'Condolence' ('Social-security'), Collegial mentored-apprenticeship 'education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), time-math Communication, professional Costume & much more into one accounting cycle. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
Across Turtle-Island were ~110 nations organized into about 25 Confederacies, each honouring the continental system described in the CIRCLE-of-LIFE, which provided checks & balances among Life functions over many 10s of 1000s of years of vibrant, abundant, distributed wealth in loving societies. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
All humanity's worldwide indigenous culture is Bottom-up 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole'), so Council Process starts in the intimate setting of the ~100 (50-150) person intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village).
COUNCIL-PROCESS: When people wish to positively understand, make formal agreement, contracts or for Conflict-Resolution, such as in the case of a Marriage-Contract, they formally organized a Circle-Process of intimate Witnesses to observe & mentally record the desires or reservations expressed & agreements reached. Each witness, unless in agreed confidence could then communicate these agreements-contracts with family & the community.
FREE-SPEECH requires reciprocal RESPONSIBLE-SPEECH to respond to all affected in formal 'dialogue', when so called. Under Common Law when formal public dialogue is openly offered, this is considered a 'LEGAL-REMEDY', whereby all have been given opportunity to redress issues of such as Slander, Libel, Reputation Damage, Defamation, Misrepresentation etc. at the outset or in follow-up public communication. Free-Speech standing on its own is disingenuous, designed to be legally & reputationally thwarted in the public eye. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
FROM MONO-TO-DIALOGUE: Colonial Oligarch owners have for 7000 years since Babylon, set up systems of divide & conquer, with people treated as subject individuals, thus indoctrinated in MONOLOGUE expression, without dialogue. Socrates tried but failed in Athens 'Garden-of-Academus' to create indigenous Council-Process as 'Academia' in response to the war-monger 'Sophist' schools 2500 years ago. Academia was to be based in 'debate' but this disappeared upon Socrates state execution & has never been upheld by fake academia since. Mohandas Gandhi as a 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'Indigenous' = 'Self-sufficiency') animator, implemented India's Council-Process as 'Satyagraha' (H. 'Truth-search'), bringing together India's vast diversity of religious, economic, political & social leaders into formal Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogues as well as promoting such 'Dialectics' in media & worldwide as a partial solution to such as WW2. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-converting-social-media-from-monologue-to-dialogue-libya
COLLABORATIVE LANGUAGE
With Captured fake: 1) 'Media' (L. 'medium' = 'middle' = 'balanced reporting with both-sides presented'). 2) 'Medicine' (L. 'medium' = 'middle' = 'balanced human health'), 3) 'Education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), 4) 'Economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), 5) 'Money' (Gk 'mnemosis' = 'memory') & other oligarch led planned, perverted distortions of language, we are quite disoriented as to all humanity's ancient humane 'indigenous' practices. Oligarchy has insidiously constructed fake: Finance, Media, Religion, Education, Military-Industrial, Legislative, Judicial, Pharma-med, Agri-business COMPLEX to keep honest people subjected. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/5-collaborative-language
Ok, here's a more legal answer. I did this with the Scottish hate speech law introduced recently, which seemed to get the entire 'truth movement' up in arms - notably agitated into it by the likes of (arguably) shills (or useful idiots) like C. J. Hopkins. I decided to take down my post about his trial possibly being a scripted farce. Not that many people read my stuff but you have to tread carefully when you're dealing with the spook handlers, as they're often anxious about being exposed.
Anyway - just to assert my sufficient expertise on the matter, I should point out that I have studied enough law in my time to know what I'm talking about.
Specifically, I've actually bothered to take a look at the wording of this law. In particular the permitted 'defences' or 'exemptions' - which is the important bit. The Canadian bill has pretty similar wording in that respect to the Scottish bill, so we can effectively treat them with the same legal arguments. The Scots bill is somewhat more specific, however, and allows for so many defences that it's actually a meaningless piece of legislation other than, somewhat sinisterly, to be a 'propaganda enabling' piece of legislation.
The Scots bill specifically does not differentiate between 'true statements' and 'false statements' - legally it is only necessary for the defendant/accused to say something like 'I thought it was true' - i.e. it's an 'opinion' - and this is a defence under the law. Furthermore, it's also a defence to say it was in the context of a 'discussion' and 'criticism' (of the protected characteristics). (likewise in the Scots case, which was relevant to Hopkins - he really didn't like me pointing this out - it creates exemptions for 'artistic expression' - so you're fine with all that punk stuff). Also - worryingly - it allows a defence of 'proselytising' - this, perhaps more than anything else, renders the bill utterly absurd. The Canadian bill does exactly the same thing without using the word 'proselytising'. What I mean here is if you say 'it was my religious belief' then you have a defence under the law.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the Canadian bill:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Notice in all of those defences that you simply need to look the jury/judge in the eye and say 'I thought such and such' Like 'I thought it was in the public interest'.
Here is an example, which you would be legally entitled to say under this bill. "I think that all trans people are perverts and potential child abusers with a serious disorder of sexuality. Men are men and women are women and there's no such thing as a trans person. It's a psychological disorder and we need to deal with it. They only want to pass as women to get into women's only spaces so they can sexually assault them. And children in schools. I think they have an evil agenda to brainwash children into thinking they're trans. I think they have a secret transhumanist agenda."
Even though every word of that is demonstrably bullshit, you are legally entitled to say it. You can use the following defences under the bill: 3 (b) 'your religious opinion' - you can say you based your statement on a 'religious text' or your own interpretation of a religious text (see Deuteronomy, for example). In other words, people can use 'religion' and 'the bible' as a cover for hate speech. Notice this explicitly protects Zionists.
3 (c) 'relevant to public interest' and 'on reasonable grounds you believed the statement to be true'.
You could possibly also try 3 (a) in fact, which allows for a statement based on 'truth'. I.e. if you can establish it's true. But there is nothing in the bill that defines how to establish truth. This is the bit that enables and provides a defence for propaganda. You could cite any 'epistemic authority' and say it's true. So if you found some academic paper that said 'trans people are dangerous perverts with a sexuality disorder' (such papers do exist, by the way - cf. Blanchard & his 'autogynephilia') then you could legitimately claim 'truth' under this law (or at least a belief in it). The reason is simple 'differences of academic opinion' which of course the bill can't legislate against.
The court, in other words, cannot legislate on matters of fact/truth or otherwise. This is what specifically enables the dissemination of propaganda and cynical opinions which they know perfectly well are going to agitate people - like you using the word 'trans ideologue' - you're allowed to say that, whether it's true or not, regardless of how obviously hurtful it might be.
This, though, does raise a potentially interesting defence against their 'holocaust denialism' law, which is contained within this bill. If you were a historian who could disprove the accepted definition of the holocaust then you would have a legitimate defence according to that law.
In other words, the entire bill is ludicrous. It is not designed to prevent hate speech, it is designed to enable incessant propaganda dressed up to look like 'reasoned opinion', whilst at the same time it will be abused by using it against genuine activists who are ignorant of the law. They can also be prosecuted maliciously even if the Establishment knows they'll be found not guilty in the end. It can be used as an excuse for bad publicity, which is often all they really want. They can also threaten internet platforms to self-censor, of course. But don't think this has anything to do with protection against hate speech.
So - here's the main takeaway from all this: know your rights!
You can do whatever hate speech you like, so long as you say it's your religion, or you thought what you said was true, or in the public interest.
One bit I do approve of though is the protection of children from child (sex) abuse and pornography, which is contained in this bill. That should go without saying. Of course if you're a powerful person you won't get prosecuted, unfortunately. And that's not really what the bill's about - that's just the cover. The idea that they care about children is absurd. Otherwise they would have stopped the child abuse network by now.
This has been a public information broadcast. No charge. Have a nice day.
Obviously you're doing your provocative thing again. I'm going to let that pass over me, absorb the burning hatred of bigotry, condense it into a flaming ball of energy in my palm, and then hurl it back at you - but with finesse, and intelligence, and learning.
It's ironic, actually, because I was thinking only the other day about the limits of my tolerance, and the idea of 'giving people a second chance' - of exhausting my attempts to get through to people and educate them before I designate them as 'pathetic' and 'beyond redemption' and go beyond even 'pity' - just as Nietzsche said 'pity in a man of knowledge is almost ludicrous, like sensitive hands on a cyclops'. And once I get to that stage, weigh up the extent of loss I would perceive by abandoning a friendship compared to the liberty I would perceive in no longer having to perceive bigotry and ignorance. Maybe, I thought to myself, I'd do a kind of 'three strikes and you're out' type thing.
Thus - yes - three strikes and you're out from now on. That's far more self-beneficial and self-loving than putting myself through the immisery of banging my head against brick walls in my somewhat vain attempts to educate.
Thus, consider your mention of 'trans ideologues' strike one.
If this is because you are simply in denial of biological reality - despite your apparent studying of evolution, the fact that it tends towards variation, and produces 'defects' or 'developmental disorders' as a rule rather than the exception - you seem to assume that it tends towards homogeneity, that 'gender incongruence' is a natural impossibility. If this belief/opinion of yours is simply out of ignorance (as opposed to prejudice), then it must logically be possible to provide you with some facts and then you will happily change your opinion, out of empathy and love (for others' suffering) as much as anything else. If this is not possible, then we get to the third strike. I have, after all, had a fairly long life already, amounting to 51 years so far, and during that time I have met many, many people who turned out to be irredeemable in some way, bad for me to know on both a spiritual and mental level.
If, on the other paw, your hatred of 'trans ideologues' is capable of intellectually distinguishing between the innocent sufferers of gender incongruence (especially the children) and those who are cynically using it to sow discord, then you really, really need to make that clear EVERY time you mention it. I would refer you to the bit in Graeber's essay where he suggested that the likes of Hitler didn't actually give a shit about Jews, but 'cynically' manipulated the (passions of) the 'mob' against them. I think he's correct on that front actually with regards to 'politicians' - personally I don't think the likes of J. K. Rowling give a flying fuck about 'trans people' or their supporters. That's the cynicism right there and that's what fundamentally underlies the entire 'culture war' shit.
And that needs to be remembered - you need to be mindful of that. Hate the being manipulated into hate, not the object of that hate.
MISTAKEN PRESUMPTION of 'FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION', without 'RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND'. All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') ancestors & 1st Nations here, guaranteed a right & responsibility to COUNCIL-PROCESS or the right & obligation to call-for & receive: Both-Sides-Now, Equal-time, Recorded & Published DIALOGUE aka 'DEBATE' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') on any issue by which one is affected or impacted.
SOCIETY OF MONOLOGUE
Perverted Example: The US Constitution 'RIGHT-of-FREE-SPEECH', in which invading colonists failed to understand or honour the deeper Turtle-Island (N. America) 1st Nation indigenous system of laws including Council Process, which also requires RESPONSIBILITY for what one says & does.
MANIPULABLE DESIGN
USA's hierarchal issued FAKE: metal-coin 'MONEY' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory') Oligarch designed 'revolution' & half-baked Constitution was designed to be manipulated, 'behind-the-scenes'. Few are aware of how much Oligarch money went to finance Washington et al. leaving the so-called Revolutionaries in-the-pockets of 'Exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') foreign-debt & decision-making. In order to understand 'Memory' as the heart of human association, one must know about all humanity's worldwide time-based equivalency accounting upon the STRING-SHELL VALUE SYSTEMS (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island (N. America), Quipu in S. America, Cowrie in indigenous Celtic-Slavic Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all islands). As systems of 'memory' these bottom up 'moneys' were issued in each ~100 person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex Domestic Economy (mostly women) as well as the subset Commerce & Industry Economies (mostly men). String-shell integrates: 'Capital' (L 'cap' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence'), 'Currency' ('flow' trade for goods & services), 'Condolence' ('Social-security'), Collegial mentored-apprenticeship 'education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), time-math Communication, professional Costume & much more into one accounting cycle. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
Across Turtle-Island were ~110 nations organized into about 25 Confederacies, each honouring the continental system described in the CIRCLE-of-LIFE, which provided checks & balances among Life functions over many 10s of 1000s of years of vibrant, abundant, distributed wealth in loving societies. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
All humanity's worldwide indigenous culture is Bottom-up 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole'), so Council Process starts in the intimate setting of the ~100 (50-150) person intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village).
Because Multihomes are local, our Terrain relations within ourselves & with local people, plants & ecology are strengthened. In mutual-aid, we share, grow & process fresh vibrant food. In multiple ways, we begin to talk & work together as teams for health & livelihood. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/C-relational-economy/1-extending-our-welcome-participatory-multihome-cohousing
COUNCIL-PROCESS: When people wish to positively understand, make formal agreement, contracts or for Conflict-Resolution, such as in the case of a Marriage-Contract, they formally organized a Circle-Process of intimate Witnesses to observe & mentally record the desires or reservations expressed & agreements reached. Each witness, unless in agreed confidence could then communicate these agreements-contracts with family & the community.
FREE-SPEECH requires reciprocal RESPONSIBLE-SPEECH to respond to all affected in formal 'dialogue', when so called. Under Common Law when formal public dialogue is openly offered, this is considered a 'LEGAL-REMEDY', whereby all have been given opportunity to redress issues of such as Slander, Libel, Reputation Damage, Defamation, Misrepresentation etc. at the outset or in follow-up public communication. Free-Speech standing on its own is disingenuous, designed to be legally & reputationally thwarted in the public eye. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
FROM MONO-TO-DIALOGUE: Colonial Oligarch owners have for 7000 years since Babylon, set up systems of divide & conquer, with people treated as subject individuals, thus indoctrinated in MONOLOGUE expression, without dialogue. Socrates tried but failed in Athens 'Garden-of-Academus' to create indigenous Council-Process as 'Academia' in response to the war-monger 'Sophist' schools 2500 years ago. Academia was to be based in 'debate' but this disappeared upon Socrates state execution & has never been upheld by fake academia since. Mohandas Gandhi as a 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'Indigenous' = 'Self-sufficiency') animator, implemented India's Council-Process as 'Satyagraha' (H. 'Truth-search'), bringing together India's vast diversity of religious, economic, political & social leaders into formal Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogues as well as promoting such 'Dialectics' in media & worldwide as a partial solution to such as WW2. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-converting-social-media-from-monologue-to-dialogue-libya
COLLABORATIVE LANGUAGE
With Captured fake: 1) 'Media' (L. 'medium' = 'middle' = 'balanced reporting with both-sides presented'). 2) 'Medicine' (L. 'medium' = 'middle' = 'balanced human health'), 3) 'Education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), 4) 'Economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), 5) 'Money' (Gk 'mnemosis' = 'memory') & other oligarch led planned, perverted distortions of language, we are quite disoriented as to all humanity's ancient humane 'indigenous' practices. Oligarchy has insidiously constructed fake: Finance, Media, Religion, Education, Military-Industrial, Legislative, Judicial, Pharma-med, Agri-business COMPLEX to keep honest people subjected. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/5-collaborative-language
APPRENTICESHIP EDUCATION: Complementary elder expertise, matched with youthful inquiry & innovation. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/4-apprenticeship-education
VISION-QUEST of each person. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-paricipatory-structure/8-vision-quest-education
Ok, here's a more legal answer. I did this with the Scottish hate speech law introduced recently, which seemed to get the entire 'truth movement' up in arms - notably agitated into it by the likes of (arguably) shills (or useful idiots) like C. J. Hopkins. I decided to take down my post about his trial possibly being a scripted farce. Not that many people read my stuff but you have to tread carefully when you're dealing with the spook handlers, as they're often anxious about being exposed.
Anyway - just to assert my sufficient expertise on the matter, I should point out that I have studied enough law in my time to know what I'm talking about.
Specifically, I've actually bothered to take a look at the wording of this law. In particular the permitted 'defences' or 'exemptions' - which is the important bit. The Canadian bill has pretty similar wording in that respect to the Scottish bill, so we can effectively treat them with the same legal arguments. The Scots bill is somewhat more specific, however, and allows for so many defences that it's actually a meaningless piece of legislation other than, somewhat sinisterly, to be a 'propaganda enabling' piece of legislation.
The Scots bill specifically does not differentiate between 'true statements' and 'false statements' - legally it is only necessary for the defendant/accused to say something like 'I thought it was true' - i.e. it's an 'opinion' - and this is a defence under the law. Furthermore, it's also a defence to say it was in the context of a 'discussion' and 'criticism' (of the protected characteristics). (likewise in the Scots case, which was relevant to Hopkins - he really didn't like me pointing this out - it creates exemptions for 'artistic expression' - so you're fine with all that punk stuff). Also - worryingly - it allows a defence of 'proselytising' - this, perhaps more than anything else, renders the bill utterly absurd. The Canadian bill does exactly the same thing without using the word 'proselytising'. What I mean here is if you say 'it was my religious belief' then you have a defence under the law.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the Canadian bill:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
The legislation can be found here by the way: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-45.html#h-121176
Notice in all of those defences that you simply need to look the jury/judge in the eye and say 'I thought such and such' Like 'I thought it was in the public interest'.
Here is an example, which you would be legally entitled to say under this bill. "I think that all trans people are perverts and potential child abusers with a serious disorder of sexuality. Men are men and women are women and there's no such thing as a trans person. It's a psychological disorder and we need to deal with it. They only want to pass as women to get into women's only spaces so they can sexually assault them. And children in schools. I think they have an evil agenda to brainwash children into thinking they're trans. I think they have a secret transhumanist agenda."
Even though every word of that is demonstrably bullshit, you are legally entitled to say it. You can use the following defences under the bill: 3 (b) 'your religious opinion' - you can say you based your statement on a 'religious text' or your own interpretation of a religious text (see Deuteronomy, for example). In other words, people can use 'religion' and 'the bible' as a cover for hate speech. Notice this explicitly protects Zionists.
3 (c) 'relevant to public interest' and 'on reasonable grounds you believed the statement to be true'.
You could possibly also try 3 (a) in fact, which allows for a statement based on 'truth'. I.e. if you can establish it's true. But there is nothing in the bill that defines how to establish truth. This is the bit that enables and provides a defence for propaganda. You could cite any 'epistemic authority' and say it's true. So if you found some academic paper that said 'trans people are dangerous perverts with a sexuality disorder' (such papers do exist, by the way - cf. Blanchard & his 'autogynephilia') then you could legitimately claim 'truth' under this law (or at least a belief in it). The reason is simple 'differences of academic opinion' which of course the bill can't legislate against.
The court, in other words, cannot legislate on matters of fact/truth or otherwise. This is what specifically enables the dissemination of propaganda and cynical opinions which they know perfectly well are going to agitate people - like you using the word 'trans ideologue' - you're allowed to say that, whether it's true or not, regardless of how obviously hurtful it might be.
This, though, does raise a potentially interesting defence against their 'holocaust denialism' law, which is contained within this bill. If you were a historian who could disprove the accepted definition of the holocaust then you would have a legitimate defence according to that law.
In other words, the entire bill is ludicrous. It is not designed to prevent hate speech, it is designed to enable incessant propaganda dressed up to look like 'reasoned opinion', whilst at the same time it will be abused by using it against genuine activists who are ignorant of the law. They can also be prosecuted maliciously even if the Establishment knows they'll be found not guilty in the end. It can be used as an excuse for bad publicity, which is often all they really want. They can also threaten internet platforms to self-censor, of course. But don't think this has anything to do with protection against hate speech.
So - here's the main takeaway from all this: know your rights!
You can do whatever hate speech you like, so long as you say it's your religion, or you thought what you said was true, or in the public interest.
One bit I do approve of though is the protection of children from child (sex) abuse and pornography, which is contained in this bill. That should go without saying. Of course if you're a powerful person you won't get prosecuted, unfortunately. And that's not really what the bill's about - that's just the cover. The idea that they care about children is absurd. Otherwise they would have stopped the child abuse network by now.
This has been a public information broadcast. No charge. Have a nice day.
Obviously you're doing your provocative thing again. I'm going to let that pass over me, absorb the burning hatred of bigotry, condense it into a flaming ball of energy in my palm, and then hurl it back at you - but with finesse, and intelligence, and learning.
It's ironic, actually, because I was thinking only the other day about the limits of my tolerance, and the idea of 'giving people a second chance' - of exhausting my attempts to get through to people and educate them before I designate them as 'pathetic' and 'beyond redemption' and go beyond even 'pity' - just as Nietzsche said 'pity in a man of knowledge is almost ludicrous, like sensitive hands on a cyclops'. And once I get to that stage, weigh up the extent of loss I would perceive by abandoning a friendship compared to the liberty I would perceive in no longer having to perceive bigotry and ignorance. Maybe, I thought to myself, I'd do a kind of 'three strikes and you're out' type thing.
Thus - yes - three strikes and you're out from now on. That's far more self-beneficial and self-loving than putting myself through the immisery of banging my head against brick walls in my somewhat vain attempts to educate.
Thus, consider your mention of 'trans ideologues' strike one.
If this is because you are simply in denial of biological reality - despite your apparent studying of evolution, the fact that it tends towards variation, and produces 'defects' or 'developmental disorders' as a rule rather than the exception - you seem to assume that it tends towards homogeneity, that 'gender incongruence' is a natural impossibility. If this belief/opinion of yours is simply out of ignorance (as opposed to prejudice), then it must logically be possible to provide you with some facts and then you will happily change your opinion, out of empathy and love (for others' suffering) as much as anything else. If this is not possible, then we get to the third strike. I have, after all, had a fairly long life already, amounting to 51 years so far, and during that time I have met many, many people who turned out to be irredeemable in some way, bad for me to know on both a spiritual and mental level.
If, on the other paw, your hatred of 'trans ideologues' is capable of intellectually distinguishing between the innocent sufferers of gender incongruence (especially the children) and those who are cynically using it to sow discord, then you really, really need to make that clear EVERY time you mention it. I would refer you to the bit in Graeber's essay where he suggested that the likes of Hitler didn't actually give a shit about Jews, but 'cynically' manipulated the (passions of) the 'mob' against them. I think he's correct on that front actually with regards to 'politicians' - personally I don't think the likes of J. K. Rowling give a flying fuck about 'trans people' or their supporters. That's the cynicism right there and that's what fundamentally underlies the entire 'culture war' shit.
And that needs to be remembered - you need to be mindful of that. Hate the being manipulated into hate, not the object of that hate.