from Unity News Network
Nurses and the nursing profession largely caved in disgracefully over Covid-19 and, moreover, turned on anyone—like yours truly and the remarkable Dr Niall McCrae—who dared to speak out against the prevailing narrative. Probably the profession saw its chance to bask in the ‘Save the NHS’ limelight, milk the sympathy of the public and seek a substantial pay rise. Anyone who questioned the severity of the coronavirus, or the efficacy of the measures enforced in its wake was considered to be p1$$ng on their parade. While many nurses worked very hard during the so-called pandemic, and some even died; others found time to make Tik-Tok videos. As a Registered Nurse and Fellow of the Royal College of Nursing I largely despaired of my nursing colleagues.
But there may be hope on the horizon. Nurses seem to be taking a stand on the issue of transgender activism and, specifically, the issue of gender critical feminism. Sadly, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), of which I remain a member, seems to have been won over by the trans Taliban. Last year, Lisa Mackenzie, who was a part-time policy officer for the Royal College of Nursing, was ‘hounded out’ due to her research into transgender issues, specifically, the issue of the apparent confusion over and conflation of sex and gender.
The chief executive of the RCN, Pat Cullen, recently made her views on the transgender issue clear in a blog post. She said: “the ability to self-identify cannot be underestimated by those who have never faced these personal challenges” which seems fair to me and then a piece of nursing motherhood and apple pie: “It is a fundamental principle of the nursing and midwifery code that people are treated as individuals and their dignity upheld, including avoiding making assumptions and the recognition of diversity and individual choice.” But then: “debate is usually healthy…but division – intentionally propagating hate, fears and even smears – should never be tolerated”. Clearly, she does not, in fact, consider that debate is ‘healthy’; it is only “usually healthy”. But she seems to think that “division” is wrong without seeing the irony that without division, there can be no debate. She just wants everyone to think the same thing; in other words, the same as her. Expressing a contrary view is to be: “intentionally propagating hate, fears and even smears.”
But gender critical members of the RCN have made it clear that they do not want to put up with this
and clearly fear that, as a result of expressing their views, this will
lead to persecution and lack of support from the RCN if they should
find themselves in a corner over transgender issues. And, in addition to
the case of Lisa Mackenzie referred to above, such nurses have plenty
of precedent to which they can refer. Witness the disgraceful hounding of Kathleen Stock from her job at Sussex University
over her gender critical writing and the range of authors no longer
able to publish with mainstream publishers for expressing the radical
opinion that a woman cannot have a penis. ... Continue reading >>>
Politically Correct Catalogue
[Daily Stirrer] ... [ Our Page on on Substack ]... [Boggart Aboad] ... [ < a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Thorpe-6">Ian Thorpe at Quora ] ... [ Greenteeth Home ] ... [ Greenteeth on Minds.com ] ... [ Here Come The Russians ] ... [ Latest Posts ] *************************************************************************************************************
UK Government says NO to referendum on WHO Pandemic Treaty!
by David Clewes, Unity News Network
The following has just been sent out to signatories of the petition demanding a referendum on the WHO Pandemic Treaty. As you can see it is a case of the Government knows best and the people do not have the right to have a say in it!
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum”.
To protect lives, the economy and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally-binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
COVID-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until we are all safe, and that effective global cooperation is needed to better protect the UK and other countries around the world from the detrimental health, social and economic impacts of pandemics and other health threats. The UK supports a new international legally-binding instrument as part of a cooperative and comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
At a World Health Assembly Special Session in late 2021, the 194 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to launch a process to draft and negotiate a new instrument, through the auspices of WHO, to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The negotiating process will be led by member states, including the UK.
The instrument aims to improve how the world prevents, better prepares for, and responds to future disease outbreaks of pandemic potential at national, regional and global level. It would complement the existing international instruments which the UK has already agreed, such as the International Health Regulations. It would promote greater collective action and accountability.
A treaty is an international agreement concluded between States or with international organisations in written form and governed by international law. The UK is party to a large number of multilateral treaties, including many through the United Nations (UN) and its specialised agencies such as the WHO. These instruments reflect obligations states have agreed to enter into to further common goals.
The current target date for agreeing the text of the new instrument is at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Over the next two years the UK aims to work towards building a consensus on how the global community can better prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics and will actively shape, develop and negotiate the text. The new instrument would only be adopted by the World Health Assembly if the text achieves a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly (Article 19 of the WHO Constitution). The Health Assembly is made up of representatives of WHO Member States.
Once adopted, the instrument would only become binding on the UK if and when the UK accepts (ratifies) it in accordance with its constitutional process. In the UK this requires the treaty to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before the Government can ratify it on behalf of the UK.
The Government always carefully considers whether domestic legislation will be required to implement the UK’s international obligations when negotiating a treaty. Not every treaty requires implementing legislation and it is too early to say if that would apply here. However, in all circumstances, the UK’s ability to exercise its sovereignty would remain unchanged and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national restrictions or other measures.
If changes to UK law were considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the treaty, proposals for domestic legislation would go through the usual Parliamentary process and the UK would not ratify the treaty until domestic measures, agreed by Parliament, were in place.
This process of ratification allows scrutiny by elected representatives of both the treaty and any appropriate domestic legislation in accordance with the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The Government does not consider a referendum is necessary, appropriate or in keeping with precedent for such an agreement.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Click this link to view the response online:
This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.
Continue reading >>>
[Daily Stirrer] ... [ Our Page on on Substack ]... [Boggart Aboad] ... [ < a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Thorpe-6">Ian Thorpe at Quora