Why Do British Authoritarians Suddenly Care About Female Genitals?

1
845

I mean, they never cared about them before?

Nurses and doctors working in the NHS have reported seeing hundreds of cases a female genital mutilation every year for the last thirty years since we outlawed it in 1987, and yet the first successful prosecution only happened a few weeks ago.

And now having tried to amend the law on FGM and been stymied, they are going after the man who prevented them.

One wonders why it has suddenly become an issue they care about? What has changed?

Well…………I suggest this is not about FGM, but the lawmaking process.

And with Brexit looming, they care about that a great deal. Oh yes.

Getting laws through Parliament without the need for debate is the fondest hope of the authoritarians currently clogging our highest chamber like the fatbergs in our sewers.

Without that ability, many of the appalling authoritarian rules they would like to bring crashing down on us would need to be publicly debated. We might wake up to what they are attempting to do. A fuss might be made.

Can’t have that.

So for a while now, they have been trying to bring through some laws without debate, in order to establish a nice little precedent that they can cite when they bring through the important stuff, the stuff they really care about.

So here we have poor old Sir Christopher Chope again, objecting to the passage of yet another law to which all right-thinking people would agree.

This time it’s female genital mutilation he’s apparently supporting. Last time it was upskirting.

What a misogynist.

Not so fast.

He is not objecting to FGM laws, but their passage without debate. He is objecting to the railroading of laws through Parliament without discussion. Just as he did with upskirting laws.

Those backing the passage of these laws are furious that Sir Christopher is objecting, and believe his petty concern over process should be subordinate to their more weighty concerns over harm to young girls.

They think it is so self-evidently a good amendment that no discussion is needed.

Do they genuinely not understand the issue here, or are they useful idiots for authoritarians?

Once you have established a bill or amendment you wish to pass, you wouldn’t do so by making the process subordinate to it. Not if you cared about democracy.

Claiming that THIS law is so good that some unknown future proposed law should be free from discussion too is insane, and yet that’s what is happening here.

Because once our politicians get to decide that laws can be railroaded through without discussion, those wishing to railroad through bad laws will claim precedent to get theirs through. Indeed it might be suggested that those who are eagerly waiting to railroad through their bad laws will support those whose laws are good IN ORDER to get such a precedent established, just so they can use it to force through the bad stuff.

Hard cases make bad laws, and good cases can be used to establish bad precedent.

Chope is merely trying to ensure all proposed laws and amendments get debated.

He thinks that the process by which we make laws is more important than the unimpeded passage of any individual law, no matter how laudable.

In this, all freedom-loving people should agree, because if we allow the process of lawmaking to be deformed in order to make the passage of a good law easier, we will also inadvertently make the passage of bad laws easier.

And I’m worried that’s the real goal here.

They have managed to reduce opposition to this to just one man – Chris Chope.

And so now they are bringing through amendments that get him demonised when he objects. They are trying to make his principled objections to railroading look petty and even immoral by linking them to well-supported causes.

This is how authoritarians work.

First it was upskirting – his objection to that paints him as supporting perverts.

Now it’s FGM (which they haven’t cared about for thirty years remember!) – his objection to that makes him look like he doesn’t care about little girls being mutilated.

What’s next? A law about people screwing corpses so his objection to that being waved through can be used to portray him as a friend to necrophiliacs?

Ironically, once the amendment against FGM is discussed and in place, you will see by their total disregard how little they care about this issue – the law will then exclusively be used by our politically-correct social workers to make interim care orders against the daughters of owners of vajazzle bars in Essex, or extreme piercing parlours in Devon.

If we look superficially at the way authoritarians are trying to modify our lawmaking processes to their own advantage, we will sleepwalk further into an Orwellian society.

The only question is whether Liz Truss and her friends simply ARE that superficial and genuinely think this is about FGM, or whether they are actively working to make an Orwellian society easier?

Useful idiots, or authoritarians?

My bet is on a third option – just virtue-signalling bobbleheads, who have been manipulated into taking a stand on this issue by true authoritarians in the shadows who needs a more relaxed process so they can railroad through their own post-BRINO agendas.

With his seemingly petty protestations about process, Sir Christopher Chope is actually defending our country alone while useful idiots like Liz Truss peck at him at the whim of europhile authoritarians who wish to weaken our lawmaking tools.

Don’t expect them to stop trying.

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Pat Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pat
Guest
Pat

FGM is already illegal, and there has been a successful prosecution. Why duplicate a law whose main weakness is lack of prosecution? Some man in Essex is awaiting sentence for upskirting. That’s not the specific charge but it is what he did and obviously the existing law is adequate. Why duplicate it? Manslaughter has been a crime forever, but we now have a law against causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter covered causing death by dangerous driving and still covers causing death by other means. The separate offence is superfluous. What all this indicates is a lack of seriousness amongst… Read more »