Green for Danger

It’s not often I read something really sickening; I wilfully ignore items about cruelty of any kind which flash up on-line. But the Sunday Times this week, had a truly astonishing and repulsive story; a man tortured and raped a ten-year-old girl in the attic of his small house while his family were living apparently oblivious to her screams. One of those was transgendered activist Aimee Challenor, who stood down yesterday, under extreme pressure, from running as deputy leader of the Green party.

Until the evening after the newspaper story, Aimee, former parliamentary candidate for Coventry South, and the party’s equality spokes-being, remained determined to represent the party. She said she’d been unaware of his activities and the Green Party was offering her its full support.

Not her fault her Dad, who’s Twitter name was, An Old Arch Devil, was up to no good in the attic, but in the last local and national elections she appointed him as her election agent, latterly though he’d been charged and a trial date set.

He also worked for the Green Party’s LGBT campaign and they saw no problem with any of this, and went on supporting Aimee, as someone on Twitter put it, ‘falling over themselves because they had a transwoman applying for a senior position and let every other consideration slide.’

One may feel sorry for Aimee, who is only twenty. She turned from a boy into a girl four years ago at the time her father, now in prison for twenty- two years, was busy torturing a child. In 2013 she and two siblings were taken into care, but the ‘Old Devil’ was media savvy and set up a successful Facebook campaign to get his children back.

The Green Party is up to its vegan neck in identity politics and victim’s rights. It does not question the current attraction, particularly among young girls, for changing sex.

Figures released by the Tavistock Clinic, which specialises in gender issues, show 2,519 referrals for its youth gender identity service in 2017/18, a quarter more than the previous year. American psychologist Lisa Littman, who calls this craze for rejecting one’s own sex, ‘peer contagion’ similar to anorexia, recently studied 250 parents whose teenagers, 83% girls, had shown signs of ‘body dysmorphia.’ Sixty three percent had pre-existing mental health problems, half had self-harmed, half, like Aimee had suffered a traumatic event in childhood.

It’s not just the Greens who refuse to look analytically at this phenomenon. Doctors may be in serious trouble if they question the authenticity of the condition. Journalists and politicians who do so will face vicious attack.

‘We need to get down to the reasons why this is happening,’ said Women’s Minister, Victoria Atkins recently, and was immediately condemned in The Guardian and by transgender campaigners. LGBT groups such as Stonewall are lobbying hard to expedite hormone treatment for the very young, and want an end to any other questioning.

Even women on the extreme left, such as Linda Bellos, 67, a friend of Corbyn, are falling foul of them. She has recently been interviewed by the police under caution after being reported over remarks she made to feminists about her willingness to take on pro-transgender activists who threaten non-trans women, or Terfs as the abusive term goes.

Those antagonistic groups have a truly scary grip on social media, including Twitter, and even the BBC which has refused to report the story of Aimee and the Green Party although it has been covered by most newspapers. Social media here plays into the hands of those who threaten the safety of women and children, and free speech.

Aimee and her father are both IT whizzes. They created the Terfblocker a Twitter list ‘made by transpeople to stay safe from transphobia’ i.e. to silence women on social media who were worried about men identifying as women entering normally women only areas, such as changing rooms.

Aimee boasted she had 50,000 names on her list of women she’d blocked, and is said to have consistently campaigned to remove sex-segregated spaces protecting women and girls. Some now attribute that to the influence of her father. She and her father also ‘woke’ in the new parlance, or alerted local firms to the blocking. Recommending they use it to keep ‘undesirables’ away. Their aim was always to silence public discussion.

As parliamentary and local government candidates the Challenors also had the names and addresses of every registered voter in Coventry Wards. Aimee and her mother stood and her father was an election agent at Coventry City Council. Despite Data Protection and proliferating privacy laws, idiotic levels of political correctness mean that the way is open for perverts to gain information and block questions and public debate about their activities.

We have seen nothing as crazy as this since 1975, when the campaign group, The National Council for Civil Liberties, (NCCL) now Liberty, became affiliated to the Paedophile Information Exchange, (PIE) which lobbied openly for child sex and began to gain support from left wing groups.

It argued that children enjoyed sex with adults and photographs of undressed children should not be considered indecent and therefore illegal – unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or harm could have been caused by the images. The NCCL tried to defend paedophiles against ‘hysterical and inaccurate’ newspaper attacks, while Harriet Harman, later deputy leader of the Labour Party, argued that banning such images would ‘increase censorship.’

Other less sophisticated people didn’t agree. Union affiliates were queasy. Guests of the hotel where a PIE public meeting was to be held cancelled their room reservations and physically threatened the manager, who was also faced with a walkout by the angry staff. PIE members were also pelted with rotten fruit by angry mothers, and picketed by the National Front.

In March 2014, evidence emerged that PIE had received grants totalling £70,000 from the Home Office, after a whistle-blower told police he witnessed a successful three-year grant renewal application for £35,000 in 1980, implying that a similar grant had been made in 1977.

Dangerous levels of silliness are nothing new in politics. It’s sad though as many of us would like to vote Green, if that meant supporting conservation, rural life, animal rights and opposing global warming. No such party exists and I certainly won’t be voting ‘Green,’ but then neither will anyone else, at least if they’re sane.

Free speech isn’t free – subscribe to the Salisbury Review


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

6 Comments on Green for Danger

  1. When David Cameron’s coalition government forced the legalisation of gay marriage through parliament that must have provided a tremendous incentive to fringe pressure groups. The legislation was passed in defiance of wider public opinion and without any mandate from the electorate. In fact the opinions of the “unenlightened” majority were viewed with barely concealed contempt.

    It became obvious that there was no need to win over public opinion. Democratic society or not, public opinion could be bipassed. The best strategy was to use moral bullying to put pressure on important influential groups in public life. Eager to be seen working to make the world a better place (according to the progressive agenda) they could be persuaded to make changes to laws, regulations and practises in response to demands for “social justice”.

    To general disbelief, we are told that transgender issues are suddenly of major importance. We, it seems, have been treating people of uncertain sexual identity with outrageous injustice. Many things must change so that these people do not feel bad about themselves. We must mend our ways without delay.

    So the cultural revolutionaries win another battle in their ongoing war against a conservative public who lack leaders with authority and conviction.

  2. …We have seen nothing as crazy as this since 1975, when the campaign group, The National Council for Civil Liberties, (NCCL) now Liberty, became affiliated to the Paedophile Information Exchange, (PIE) which lobbied openly for child sex…

    Surely this is much worse?

    Lobbying openly is an example of free speech. You may not like what is proposed, but people should have the right to make their proposals openly. If those proposals are disgusting, then listeners can reject them openly.

    By contrast, Aimee and her friends are trying to silence any discussion and enforce their views as a default. A much worse action…

  3. Interesting piece, Jane. The most salient point, in my opinion, is the degree to which the hard left has taken over the governing institutions of this country, regardless of who is actually elected to office. The assault on free speech is a direct consequence of this take-over and with it an underlying attack on free enquiry. The hysterical – one might almost say “fascist” – response to “sex-change-scepticism” is just the latest case in point. Beneath this, we have to understand what the left actually believes and it is nowadays unashamedly Orwellian. They reject the notions of truth and objectivity, putting the party line in their place. Beliefs popularly and historically regarded as true, such as sexual differences, are seen as “ideological impositions” ripe for destruction. That there is nothing to justify this destruction in the absence of any objective truth doesn’t seem to matter. Therefore, when a child claims to “feel male” or “female” despite the evidence of their eyes, the left rejoices, seizing an opportunity for “revolutionary change” in a single individual – or victim. This is a peculiarly vile and sadistic branch of “revolution” in that it remains – of course – impossible to “change sex”. The most that can happen to a boy is to become a painted eunuch with various cosmetic-surgical enhancements. A comment on Spiked the other day detailed the differences between one of these sad, mutilated creatures and a real girl in stomach churning detail. I shall not repeat it. But perhaps we will, as a society, have to regard such matters directly in order to restore some sort of humane control.

    • Well put, Percy. The trouble is that a few people, Jan Morris being a prominent example, ARE born into the wrong body, and, although humans are dimorphic and reproduce sexually, there is clearly limited scope for mixups in a few cases.

      For instance, there is the tragedy of the various forms of intersex, which is a matter for the individual, the family and their medical advisers (not schools and SJW). Then there are those who may present with a divergence between their genetic and gonadic sex and their perception of themselves, perhaps because of excessive exposure to hormones of the opposite sex due to epigenetic effects, now recognized as real (cf. the “feminization” of alligators in Florida due to hormone disruptors).

      That said, Germaine Greer was probably right to point out that man who had sex changes were not “real” women. Real women have shorter urethras, wider and shallower hips (to permit childbirth), have Mullerian ducts, and are bathed in different hormones etc. Perhaps the post-op swappers are a third way.

      Nonetheless, the matter relates to quite a small percentage of a population.
      The problem is that the loonie Left has taken a predominantly medical and psychiatric matter affecting a small number of people and has used soi-disant discrimination against them (most conservatives are actually sympathetic towards them, I suspect) to challenge the whole basis of dimorphism and sexual reproduction, the evolutionary destiny (so far) of Mankind. It has also managed to persuade many of the UK’s most venerated institutions (e.g. the RNLI and the National Trust) to back them politically (despite their supposed charitable status).

      Could this change? Perhaps over millions of years (although some experts believe that some mutations can act very quickly in evolutionary terms, say, within a few generations). I wouldn’t bet on it, given that asexual reproduction is often a loser in evolutionary terms, and given that heterosexual sex (i.e. the precedent condition for survival of the species) is overwhelmingly predominant, and very appealing to most!

  4. I do not wish to imply in this piece that Aimee suffered rape, only that she suffered trauma aged 16, when her father was arrested for terrible crimes.