Archives‎ > ‎

Peter Myers Digest: Mark Latham's bill to restore Parents' Rights at Schools

(1) Kill Covid with h2o2 Hydrogen Peroxide - no need for Lockdown(2) Don't have a nebulizer? Use a nose spray instead(3) Rapid Virus Recovery - free ebook byThomas E. Levy, MD, JD(4) Mark Latham's bill to restore Parents' Rights at School(5) Gay lobby calls for Latham's bill to be blocked(6) Latham's bill would remove discussion of Gender Fluidity from schools(7) 261  California Prison Inmates have requested "gender-based housing" transfers(8) Gender studies professor faces cancel mob after writing blog post about trans ideology(9) My Experience With 'Woke' Corporations - Dinesh D'Souza(10) Former CDC Director Robert Redfield: COVID-19 Escaped From Wuhan Virology Lab(1) Kill Covid with h2o2 Hydrogen Peroxide - no need for Lockdown How Can I Cure Thee? Let Me Count the WaysDr. Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD  December 3, 2020(2) Don't have a nebulizer? Use a nose spray instead Sullivan's Peroxide Inhalation TherapyUse 3% h2o2, not food grade, just as you get from Drug Store.Pour into a sprayer. Exhale all the air in your lungs.6 pumps into mouth, with deep breathe-in, twice a day; if symptoms of cold/flu/covid: 6 pumps into mouth, 6 times a dayIt decreases the bacterial & viral count in your body.(3) Rapid Virus Recovery - free ebook by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JDMedfox Publishing Mark Latham's bill to restore Parents' Rights at Schools - parents (not schools) are primarily responsible for children's moral education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 SubmissionFreedom for FaithFreedom for FaithSubmissionsMar 16, 2021About Freedom for FaithFreedom for Faith is a Christian legal think tank that exists to see religious freedom protected and promoted in Australia and beyond.It is led by people drawn from a range of denominational churches including the Australian Christian Churches, Australian Baptist Churches, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia, and the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney. It has strong links with, and works co-operatively with, a range of other Churches and Christian organisations in Australia.Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020This Bill addresses important issues about the rights of parents to have their views about morality (and sexual morality and issues of sexual identity in particular) respected and not undermined by the education system of NSW. Freedom for Faith has been greatly assisted in its consideration of the proposed Bill by comments provided by the Institute for Civil Society. We adopt and support that submission's recommendations for refinement and narrowing of certain provisions of the proposed Bill to make it more workable. The remainder of this submission addresses the general policy issues behind the Bill and why international religious freedom obligations support the enactment of legislation of this nature.International Human Rights Obligations and Parental RightsThis Bill seeks to ensure NSW honours Australia's various international human rights obligations, in relation to the role and authority of parents in the ethical and moral formation of their children.The Bill's intentions align with articles from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:Article 18(4): This Article provides that parties to the Covenant undertake "to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions". The Bill is clearly consistent with this Article, as it seeks to clarify that parents (and not schools) are primarily responsible for the development and formation of their children in relation to core convictions such as moral standards. It also practically implements mechanisms by which teaching in relation to core virtues must not be inconsistent with the convictions of parents.<>Article 23(1): This Article provides that the family "is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State". The Bill is clearly consistent with this Article, as it protects the rights of families and parents in respect of the development and formation of children.The Bill aligns with fundamental rights set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):Article 16(3): That the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by the society and state. The Bill will give parents greater recognition as primarily responsible for the ethical and moral formation of their children.Article 26(3): That parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The Bill recognises parents' rights in respect of matters of parental primacy and aligns well with Article 26(3).The Bill is also consistent with the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. For example, Article 5(2) provides that:"Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle."The Bill is clearly consistent with this Article, as it provides for the education of children in conformity with the core convictions and wishes of parents. It also allows parents to withdraw students from instruction where parents object to particular teaching.Further, it is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For example:The preamble to the Convention, recognises that "the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community."Article 5: This Article provides that States Parties "shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents". The Bill is consistent with this Article, as it seeks to respect the rights of parents in relation to matters of parental primacy.Article 14: This Article provides that "States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child." The Bill is consistent with this Article, as it provides for parents to be primarily responsible for the development and formation of their children in relation to core convictions.Where there is conflict between parents and educators in the formation of children, Australia's treaty obligations are clear. The NSW Government should prioritise the liberty of parents to determine the ethical and moral education of their children.These guarantees are undermined where parents are required to tacitly compete with educators and bureaucracies. This is a source of great confusion for children whose parents wish to locate their development in ethical frameworks, faith traditions and community standards reflecting their own.Several international legal developments have clarified that instruction of children in religious and moral education must respect parental convictions, and be conducted objectively and neutrally.The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has set out the following standard in the provision of religious and sex education:[The State] must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that must not be exceeded.This limit was further defined by the courts to include 'exalting sex or inciting pupils to indulge precociously in practices that are dangerous for their stability, health or future or that many parents consider reprehensible', and that they should not 'put into question the parents' sexual education of their children based on their religious convictions or [influence] the children … to approve of or reject specific sexual behaviour contrary to their parents' religious and philosophical convictions.Further clarity is provided by the Toledo Guiding Principles, a statement by the Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who have been cited by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief as providing 'practical guidance' for interpretation of the content of Article 18(4) rights.These principles were developed as a tool to enhance understanding of religious freedom, religious diversity, and the growing presence of religion in the public sphere. Relevant statements from the Principles include:[R]egardless how objective and unoffending state officials may think their programme is, parents and children with diverse religious and non-religious beliefs may see things differently… there are likely to be some cases in which parents identify problems that school officials have not foreseen. Various kinds of malfeasance may be occurring that have not come to the attention of the officials. The content of the curriculum may have a proselytizing or indoctrinating character that was not envisioned or anticipated, or it may be offensive or misleading in ways that only believers in a particular tradition would recognize. The teacher responsible for providing the instruction may not be sufficiently sensitive.[A]s important as the state's interest in promoting education is, education per se is not one of the permissible grounds for limiting the right to manifest one's religion or belief. Thus, the state's interest in carrying out its educational programme is not, in and of itself, a ground for limiting rights asserted by pupils, parents or others under international human rights provisions.Principles of this kind should guide best practice within NSW classrooms, ensuring information remains neutral, and educators and schools demonstrate a sensitivity to diverse backgrounds and religious freedom. The proposed Bill will fill an important gap in explicitly addressing these matters, bringing NSW education laws in line with Australia's human rights obligations and developments in international law.Gender fluidity Instruction and Parental RightsOther provisions in this Bill address concerns that gender fluidity ideas are being presented as factually true, rather than as theoretical or ideological views. Where children in NSW schools are subject to elements of the now-defunct Safe Schools program, it ostensibly undermines NSW Parliament's decision to abolish it in 2017. The Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning at the time, Rob Stokes, advanced the view that it is the role of parents, not schools, to form the ethical and political convictions of their children. This view received bi-partisan support, with the leader of the NSW opposition (ALP), pledging the program 'would not return' if he was elected.The NSW Government considered Safe Schools to be inappropriate material on ethical and political matters, one reason being its promotion of gender fluidity beliefs as fact (i.e. without objectivity and neutrality). It would usurp the wishes of parents if bi-partisan assurances from their political representatives were ignored by:The presence of objectionable teaching materials from Safe Schools, such as gender fluidity taught as factA failure to regulate schools and educators continuing to teach controversial gender fluidity theories as factWhile theology and political ideologies may be considered dogmatic or polemical, it is also the case that some sex and gender ideologies may also be dogmatic or polemical.International jurisprudence acknowledges that parents' moral and religious convictions may be asserted in respect of the entire curriculum, including sexual education, in public schools (not just in relation to religious instruction). Those rights require the State to ensure that all education is 'neutral and objective' and does not 'pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions.'As Langlaude has clarified, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR) 'States are forbidden from pursuing an aim of indoctrination that does not respect the religious convictions of the parents.' This reflects the stated aim of the Bill.The occasions on which the United Nations Human Rights Committee have had opportunity to consider Article 18(4) of the ICCPR have been limited. No decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has yet considered the interaction of Article 18(4) in the context of sex education, or in respect of education about sexual orientation or gender identity.However, as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the parental rights extend to the entirety of the public curriculum, including the provision of sex education. The strict application of the parental right to religious instruction, as developed within the jurisprudence of the UNHRC (as applied to NSW) is then informative of the appropriate protections that are to be afforded in respect of sex education and teaching on sexual orientation or gender identity that may conflict with the religious and moral convictions of parents whose children are being educated in public schools.Although various judgements of the ECHR have left untouched the content of curriculum on sex education, within ECHR law it remains within the permissible margin of appreciation for States to determine their own acceptable regimes (subject to the proviso that any teaching must be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and not comprise indoctrination).This would extend to teaching on matters such as sexual orientation and gender fluidity. Thus, according to the principles of international human rights law developed by the ECHR, it is open to New South Wales to adopt the form of protections enshrined within the Bill (noting the margin of appreciation doctrine is not applicable under the ICCPR).The Bill, through its prohibition on teaching 'gender fluidity' seeks to prevent the State from pursuing (in the words of the ECHR) 'an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions … the limit that must not be exceeded'.Relying on the conflict of loyalty analysis adopted in Folgerø and Hasan and Zengin v Turkey, it can be asserted that that the Bill seeks to ensure that (again in the words of the ECHR) 'the education provided [does not] put into question the parents' sexual education of their children based on their religious convictions' and to ensure that 'children [are not] influenced to approve of or reject specific sexual behaviour contrary to their parents' religious and philosophical convictions'.Failure to recognize the rights of parents to protect their children from teaching that detrimentally impacts upon the religious and moral education of their children would be a form of discrimination that is not reasonable and objective within the terms of the ICCPR.This is because the detriment placed upon such parents arises because of their religious or moral convictions and in a way that does not occur comparably for other parents.Contemporary Court DecisionsRecent international court decisions illustrate the cost of accelerating the adoption of gender ideologies into school curriculums, viz. the 2020 judgement of the United Kingdom High Court in Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and ors. The Court gave consideration to a complaint by a biological female who had undergone gender transitioning to become a trans male under the advice of the Tavistock NHS GIDS Gender Clinic from the age of 16.Although the judgement concerned the ability of a minor to consent to the administration of puberty blockers [PB], a selection of primary findings from the judgement of the Court is illustrative of the concerns that may be held in respect of the teaching of what the Bill terms 'gender fluidity' to minors, including a lack of evidence, the possibly harmful effects, and the sudden explosion of diagnoses of gender dysphoria:The Court expressed surprise that data on the administration of puberty blockers [(PB)] to children was not collated 'given the young age of the patient group, the experimental nature of the treatment and the profound impact it has.'There is a concern with an unexplained recent growth in children reporting to professionals with gender identity issues:in 2011 the gender split was roughly 50/50 between natal girls and boys. However, in 2019 the split had changed so that 76 per cent of referrals were natal females. That change in the proportion of natal girls to boys is reflected in the statistics from the Netherlands (Brik et al "Trajectories of Adolescents Treated with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogues for Gender Dysphoria" 2018). The defendant did not put forward any clinical explanation as to why there had been this significant change in the patient group over a relatively short time.There is a significant correlation with gender dysphoria and autistic spectrum disorder, with the Court finding 'the apparent lack of investigation of this issue [on the part of the Tavistock clinic] – surprising':It is recorded in the GIDS Service Specification and the wider literature that a significant proportion of those presenting with GD have a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The Service Specification says:"There seems to be a higher prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) conditions in clinically referred, gender dysphoric adolescents than in the general adolescent population. Holt, Skagerberg & Dunsford (2014) found that 13.3% of referrals to the service in 2012 mentioned comorbid ASD (although this is likely to be an underestimate). This compares with 9.4% in the Dutch service; whereas in the Finnish service, 26% of adolescents were diagnosed to be on the autism spectrum (Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2015)."The court asked for statistics on the number or proportion of young people referred by GIDS for PBs who had a diagnosis of ASD. Ms Morris said that such data was not available, although it would have been recorded on individual patient records. We therefore do not know the proportion of those who were found by GIDS to be Gillick competent who had ASD, or indeed a mental health diagnosis.Again, we have found this lack of data analysis – and the apparent lack of investigation of this issue – surprising.'For young people on PB that maturing process is stopped or delayed with potential social and psychological impacts which could be described as non-reversible.''the lack of a firm evidence base for their PB use is evident from the very limited published material as to the effectiveness of the treatment, however it is measured.''the degree to which the treatment is experimental and has, as yet, an unknown impact, does go to the critical issue of whether a young person can have sufficient understanding of the risks and benefits to be able lawfully to consent to that treatment.''the nature of this issue highlights the highly complex and unusual nature of this treatment and the great difficulty there is in fully understanding its implications for the individual young person. In short, the treatment may be supporting the persistence of GD in circumstances in which it is at least possible that without that treatment, the GD would resolve itself.''in deciding what facts are salient and what level of understanding is sufficient, it is necessary to have regard to matters which are those which objectively ought to be given weight in the future although the child might be unconcerned about them now. On the facts of this case there are some obvious examples, including the impact on fertility and on future sexual functioning.'In respect of the administration of puberty blockers the Court concluded:The starting point is to consider the nature of the treatment proposed. The administration of PBs to people going through puberty is a very unusual treatment for the following reasons. Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity over the purpose of the treatment: in particular, whether it provides a "pause to think" in a "hormone neutral" state or is a treatment to limit the effects of puberty, and thus the need for greater surgical and chemical intervention later, as referred to in the Health Research Authority report. Thirdly, the consequences of the treatment are highly complex and potentially lifelong and life changing in the most fundamental way imaginable. The treatment goes to the heart of an individual's identity, and is thus, quite possibly, unique as a medical treatment.The Court also expressed concern with the irreversible effects of the treatment: 'The condition being treated, GD, has no direct physical manifestation. In contrast, the treatment provided for that condition has direct physical consequences, as the medication is intended to and does prevent the physical changes that would otherwise occur within the body, in particular by stopping the biological and physical development that would otherwise take place at that age.'The above is relevant to the Bill, to the extent that the Court was concerned with the novel and untested propositions made in respect of gender fluidity, particularly as pertains to minors. It demonstrates that there are legitimate grounds on which the Parliament may act to ensure that ideological teaching in respect of gender fluidity should be avoided in all public schools.ConclusionIt is clear from international human rights guarantees, legal precedents and unintended consequences (via Tavistock) that NSW is failing to rightly order or supervise their education standards. The undue certainties about gender fluidity material, in concert with the pace of their incorporation into school curriculums, should alarm legislators and educators. Parental primacy must be prioritised in the ethical, moral, religious and political formation of children.(5) Gay lobby calls for Latham's bill to be blocked Stop The Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020Mark Latham has introduced another piece of legislation that directly attacks LGBTIQ+ people. The Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 harms trans and gender diverse students by denying their existence and preventing teachers and counsellors from supporting them. It allows parents to withdraw their child from a class or program which tells them LGBTIQ+ people are just like everyone else.The bill threatens a quality education system that provides an inclusive and supportive environment for ALL children.  Learning to understand and accept others who are different is a core part of the school years.We need your help to stop this harmful Bill.The NSW Parliament has allowed One Nation NSW Leader Mark Latham to chair an inquiry into his own Bill! The inquiry is now accepting submissions through this online questionnaire.While you can complete the questionnaire as you wish we suggest answering question 1, saying you oppose the Bill in question 2 and then share a story about a teacher who made a difference to you or someone you love in question 8.Have your say nowRainbow Families has been invited to make a submission into this bill and our wonderful volunteer equality team are busy working on this to make sure our voices are heard.If you would like to share your story for us to use in our submission you can here.Every student in NSW should have the opportunity to reach their potential, to learn with their peers, and feel a sense of belonging in their school.In the last few months especially, we have seen the level of care that teachers put into their jobs. Our teachers often go above and beyond to make sure their students feel included and cared for in their school. This Bill explicitly threatens to punish teachers that welcome and support trans and gender diverse students.This Bill:prohibits schools from teaching that trans and gender diverse people exist and should be treated with respect;prohibits school counsellors from affirming a trans or gender diverse student or providing them with any support or referrals to gender affirming support;puts teachers at risk of losing their job when they support a trans or gender diverse student in affirming their identity;eshrines biological fallacies, describing intersex people as disordered;allows parents to deny their children access to lessons in public schools which may contradict their political, social or personal values, including their views about LGBTIQ+ people;requires schools to present discredited counter narratives when teaching classes like science or history.  For example, discussing creationism when teaching evolution, raising anti-vaccination theories when teaching about immunisation, or raising racist ideologies to explain the over representation of First Nations people in prison.(6) Latham's bill would remove discussion of Gender Fluidity from schools 29 2020 - 5:00AMMark Latham's Parental Rights Bill 2020 seeks to remove any discussion of gender fluidity from schoolsLegislation introduced into NSW parliament that would seek to minimise discussion of gender fluidity in schools has been labelled as "dangerous" and potentially "devastating".Spearheaded by One Nation MP Mark Latham, the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 seeks to amend the Education Act 1990 and "prohibit the teaching of the ideology of gender fluidity to children in schools".It would also prevent the discussion of gender fluidity among teaching and non-teaching staff, including school counsellors.Instead, it places the onus on parents to instruct their children in all areas "in relation to core values".The amendment is not expected to be voted on until next year, but it has already attracted a lot of attention. Earlier in October, protesters in Sydney defied COVID-19 gathering restrictions to march against the bill.Wagga-based LGBTQI activist and law graduate, Kat van der Wijngaart described the legislation as "dangerously naive" to expect that all families would provide a safe place for sensitive discussions."As parents, we don't always get to choose when our kids as us questions that floor us," Ms van de Wijngaart said."I imagine teachers get those kinds of questions all the time because their students trust them to give education answers."I don't think it's fair for the teacher to say, 'I can't talk to you about that, you'll have to ask your parents'. It's not fair on the student."During discussions in Legislative Council last Thursday, Mr Latham questioned the minister for education, Sarah Mitchell, on why parents were not always informed of their children's school-based discussions."In the vast majority of cases the parents provide the love, attention and care that is the foundation stone of the development and well-being of children," Mr Latham said."I have heard many lectures about family values and I cannot believe that it has now got to the point, in defining this essential function in schools, that parents would be left out of the equation of 'trusted adults'. It is just phenomenal."Ms van de Wijngaart explained that in her opinion, teachers should be better equipped to respond to questions from their students rather than be "punished and prevented"."Our schools aren't there just to teach reading and writing," she said."That's foundational but schools also socialise our children. They teach students how to treat people and how to respect other people, to interact appropriately with people who are different from them."This story Latham looks to remove gender fluidity discussion from schools first appeared on The Daily Email(7) 261 California Prison Inmates have requested "gender-based housing" transfers'Men Are Coming': 255 California Prison Inmates Have Requested Transfer to Women's Prisons Since JanuaryBY THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATIONApril 6, 2021 Updated: April 6, 2021Since January, 261 California prison inmates have requested transfers to prisons aligning with their gender identity, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation told the Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday.Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed S.B. 132 into law in January, a bill that requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to ask every individual entering the department's custody to specify their pronouns, their gender identity, and whether they identify as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex.The law prevents CDCR from disciplining the individual if that individual refuses to give this information, allows for the information to be updated later on, and requires staff to use the gender pronouns that the individual requested.It also requires that CDCR house the individual in a "correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual's preference." Similar legislation has been passed in Connecticut and Massachusetts.Since the bill went into effect in January, 261 inmates have requested "gender-based housing" transfers, the CDCR told the DCNF Tuesday. The vast majority of these requests were from inmates requesting to be transferred to female facilities, and only six inmates did not request to be in a women's facility."255 are from transgender women and non-binary incarcerated people who are requesting to be housed in a female institution and six are from transgender men and non-binary incarcerated people who are requesting to be housed in a male institution," Deputy Press Secretary Terry Thornton told the DCNF.CDCR has not denied a single gender-based housing request, the spokesman confirmed.The CDCR has approved 21 of the requests, and four of these 21 have been transferred to Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla."Two of the 21 have changed their minds," Thornton said. The spokesman said that as of April 2, 1,129 incarcerated people self-identify as transgender, non-binary, and intersex.Prison inmates at Chowchilla told the Los Angeles Times that "men are coming" and that the prisoners should anticipate sexual violence."That if we think it's bad now, be prepared for the worst. That it's going to be off the hook, it's going to be jumping," 41-year-old Tomiekia Johnson told the publication that staffers said. "They say we're going to need a facility that's going to be like a maternity ward. They say we're going to have an inmate program where inmates become nannies."Prisoners fear that inmates requesting transfers are lying about their gender identity in order to be transferred to women's prisons, the LA Times reported. This has slowed down the transfer process, according to the publication.Thornton told the LA Times that meetings and discussions "have helped to dispel any fears" and that "a person's gender identity is self-reported and CDCR will evaluate any request submitted by an incarcerated person for gender-based housing."The prison system requested several million dollars from California for implementing the law, Thornton said.By Mary Margaret Olohan From The Daily Caller News Foundation(8) Gender studies professor faces cancel mob after writing blog post about trans ideology 30, 2021Gender studies professor faces cancel mob after writing blog post about trans ideologyHughes is facing calls to resign.By Naga PramodPosted 7:39 amProfessor Donna Hughes, the director of graduate studies in the Gender & Women's Studies program at the University of Rhode Island, is now facing backlash and calls to resign for a blog post she wrote about the transgender movement.Professor Hughes published an opinion column on 4W, an "explicitly radical feminist website," titled: "Fantasy Worlds on the Political Right and Left: QAnon and Trans-Sex Beliefs."Hughes argues that "trans-sex fantasy has imagined–and is enacting–a world in which how a man feels is more real than his actual reality. And now the fantasy has the weight of the federal government behind it."The gender studies professor says that the "American political left" is getting seeped into its world of "lies and fantasy."Hughes said that the trans-sex movement is not like the "imaginary world of QAnon" and that "real children are becoming actual victims."Professor Hughes also stated that the biological category of women's sex was being "smashed.""Women and girls are expected to give up their places of privacy such as restrooms, locker rooms, and even prison cells," wrote Hughes.Naturally, Hughes' article became the seat of a huge controversy, with several individuals pressuring the university and filing complaints against her. That said, Hughes isn't backing down from her stance."I'm known as someone who expresses my opinion and have been willing in the past to advocate for the rights and protection of women and girls and to oppose laws and policies that result in their harm and exploitation," Hughes said, in response to the ongoing backlash against her opinions expressed.Her lawyer, Samantha Harris, in an email to The College Fix said that Hughes was being targeted by a "coordinated online campaign by people soliciting students to file complaints about her with the university and, in the words of one Twitter user, to 'take her down.'"The University of Rhode Island, in response to the raging controversies and backlash, released a statement saying that it does not support "statements and publications by Professor Donna Hughes" that "espouse anti-transgender perspectives."Although the University defended free speech, it also said that faculty members' rights and freedom are not "boundless" and "should be exercised responsibly with due regard for the faculty member's other obligations."Hughes' lawyer said that the article written by her client was protected by The First Amendment as she was "expressing her views as a citizen on a matter of public concern."(9) My Experience With 'Woke' Corporations - Dinesh D'Souza Experience With 'Woke' CorporationsDinesh D'SouzaMarch 29, 2021 Updated: March 30, 2021The notification, when it arrived, seemed innocuous enough. It appeared, on first glance, to be an email notification of some change of status regarding my credit card, obtained many years ago through the Chase Bank. Normally, I don't even read such notifications. Life is too short.But I happened to glance over this one, and I realized that this one I should read. Basically, it said Chase was cancelling my card. This was not my personal credit card but my business credit card through my company D'Souza Media. No reason was given for the cancellation.I realized right away that this might be a politically motivated decision. After all, I have had the card for years. I pay my bills every month, so chronic lateness was not an issue. (Besides, credit card companies prefer people to pay late, so that they can charge them usurious rates of interest.) Moreover, my company has a stellar credit history, having been in operation for many years.But it's possible there was a good reason to cancel my card that I couldn't think of. So I called Chase, and the representative informed me that she was puzzled, too. She could find no reason listed in the internal records. All she could say was that the direction had come from senior management in the bank's main office.The plot thickens. Several years ago, during my campaign finance case in which I was accused of exceeding the allowable contribution limit, I had my personal banking relationship with Chase abruptly terminated. This was in 2014 or 2015, and the manner of the cancellation was equally abrupt.I lived at the time in La Jolla, California. I moseyed into my local Chase bank, where the manager knew me well. She summoned me almost conspiratorially to her cubicle, where she said that, to her complete surprise, the bank had closed my account. No, it wasn't some sort of mistake. The head office of Chase had directed the local branch to terminate my ability to do business with Chase.How, I wondered, could something like this happen? Again, it had nothing to do with me bouncing checks or engaging in other eyebrow-raising banking behavior. I suggested to the manager—who knew about my case—that since the FBI had obtained my banking records, maybe the Chase management became freaked out. I noted, of course, that I also had accounts at two other banks and my relationships with them continued unchanged.I forgot about the earlier episode until this latest cancellation. What makes the new one even more surprising and disturbing is that, almost three years ago, I got a presidential pardon. I no longer have a stain on my record. My slate has been wiped clean. So the bank has no new justification to cancel me. Yet it did.In the past year, I've experienced a few other cases of cancel culture in the movie business. This is not the normal intolerance that I have come to expect from Hollywood. I knew about that before I went into making movies, and therefore I set up my operation outside of Hollywood and largely independent of Hollywood, precisely so that I wasn't subject to the pressures and threats I might get for not toeing the left-wing party line.At the same time, I did maintain some Hollywood connections. Several of my films, for instance, have been distributed by Lionsgate. In some cases, the DVD and home box office sales have been through Universal Pictures. These are standard deals, involving standard commissions, and because my films have continued to do well, these companies were quite happy to do business with me.Until I did my latest documentary film, "Trump Card." Suddenly, Lionsgate passed on distribution. Universal initially said yes, but subsequently changed its mind. The unofficial word was that several people working at the company flatly refused to work on any film that might help Trump's reelection. Interestingly, I, along with my wife Debbie, also released a feature film last year, "Infidel." That one Universal agreed to sell on DVD. It was a political thriller, with a definite religious angle, yet it was evidently acceptable because it wasn't going to further Trump's reelection.I don't contest the right of these companies to choose their projects. Nor do I deny Chase its right to choose its customers. My concern is a larger one. These companies, by becoming hyper-political, are essentially discriminating against a significant portion of Americans who don't share their political views.What are the implications of this? If "woke" banks won't do business with us, then people like me—political conservatives, mainstream Republicans—will have to have our own banks. If "woke" companies won't sell to us, we'll have to have our own merchandizing sector. If "woke" digital platforms won't carry our views, we'll have to make our own, and if—as in the case of Parler—there is a coordinated strike to take them down, we'll have to restore our networks in a manner completely secure from such dangers.This past weekend, my wife and I watched the movie "The Green Book." In it, we saw a white and black man driving through the segregated South, where blacks basically lived in their own world—their own banks, restaurants, barbershops, and public lavatories and water fountains—and all because the whites flatly refused to do business with them.It struck Debbie and me with the force of epiphany that this is where we seem to be heading. De facto segregation, not de jure segregation. And segregation not based on race but based on political viewpoint. It might seem overdramatic to say that Republicans and conservatives are the new blacks, but Republicans and conservatives are now treated in "woke" America with the same derision, contempt, and second-class citizenship that blacks were in the first part of the previous century.I should be able to bank where I want, fly on any airline I want, and share my views on social media platforms that were set up precisely to foster communication and debate. We might need a new type of civil rights movement to combat the new political discrimination and restore equality of rights for all citizens.Dinesh D'Souza has had a prominent career as a writer, scholar, and public intellectual, and has also become an award-winning filmmaker. His latest book is "United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why It's Evil. How to Stop It."(10) Former CDC Director Robert Redfield: COVID-19 Escaped From Wuhan Virology Lab CDC Director: COVID-19 Escaped From Wuhan Virology LabBY JACK PHILLIPS March 26, 2021 Updated: March 30, 2021Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said he believes the CCP virus, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, originated from a Chinese laboratory."It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect a laboratory worker," Redfield said in an interview with CNN on Friday before adding that his comments are "my opinion.""Normally, when a pathogen goes from a zoonot to human," he added, "it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human to human transmission."As a result, Redfield said he believes the virus most likely "was from a laboratory" in Wuhan, China, that "escaped." The former CDC director, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to head the agency, said he believes the pandemic began as a localized outbreak in Wuhan in either September 2019 or October 2019, months earlier than the official timeline.Chinese officials have claimed the virus was first discovered in December 2019 and emerged at a wet market in Wuhan, about 10 miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a top-level lab where researchers studied how coronaviruses can transmit from animals to humans."I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory—you know, escaped," Redfield further elaborated. "Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out."He added, "I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology," while saying his claims are "not implying any intentionality."It comes after a World Health Organization (WHO) team in early February claimed that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus likely did not originate in a laboratory."The findings suggest that the laboratory incidents hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain the introduction of the virus to the human population," Peter Ben Embarek, a WHO food safety and animal disease expert, said at the time, reported The Associated Press.  Embarek further stated that lab leaks are quite rare.But the AP said that it conducted an investigation and found the Chinese regime "put limits on research into the outbreak and ordered scientists not to speak to reporters" during the WHO team’s probe. Meanwhile, the CCP only agreed to the investigation in Wuhan following international pressure from the United States and other countries. Beijing has also resisted calls for a totally independent investigation.Several weeks ago, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted there is "enormous evidence" supporting the Wuhan laboratory leak claim."These are not the first times that we’ve had a world exposed to viruses as a result of failures in a Chinese lab," he told ABC News in early March. Pompeo, like Redfield, did not imply whether he believed the virus was intentionally released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.He added, "Remember, China has a history of infecting the world," likely referring to the CCP’s cover-up of the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s.