I wrote this post a few months ago, and left it in my drafts folder. For some reason I didn’t post it. Some articles have come along since which show conclusively that this agenda is ongoing. It’s not about tolerance – they won’t tolerate your right to know when or if that time comes. Marx wanted to take as many people as possible to hell with him – and now many years after his death, his communist minions are doing the very same bidding. Homosexuality is a sin. Transgender sex is homosexual by nature. Read on….
I warned recently of the risk that the transgender community, once they have got our ‘tolerance’ would demand more. In fact some of them want to rape us. That’s outrageous, Lis! You can’t say things like that! Yes, I can:
Because although they do not want to use violence against us (well, unless that ‘floats our boat’), they do want to redefine ‘rape’ and ‘consent’ to allow them to have sex with members of their previous sex, without telling them that they are engaging in a homosexual act. And a homosexual act is what it is.
If you don’t need someone’s consent because you’ve changed ‘gender’, that doesn’t change your chromosomes, nor does it make you biologically of your chosen gender (whatever flavour you have chosen this week, even). It’s rape, because it’s sex without consent, if the person you are having sex with doesn’t know that you have changed gender.
I said this before, and now it’s clear that the media are right behind it. I say this because just yesterday I saw the first headline excusing homosexual rape. Because, let me reiterate, it is rape, because you didn’t have consent for the homosexual nature of the sex.
She needs ‘help’? In her case, she has committed numerous acts of fraud, as you can read in the article here: Link. The worst of which was to dupe another woman into allowing her to have sex with her, blindfolded, using a strap-on penis. Now you or I might think the victim very, very naive, but that is not the point. She believed the perpetrator was a man, and believed that she was having sex with the opposite sex, not having a pervert getting her jollies from using a strap-on on her.
But the agenda behind the article is very clear when you get deep into the apparent legal confusion this case has caused. Members of the legal profession feel her sentence is harsh: [emphasis added]
They say that a number of similar recent cases show that young men and women — often gay or transgender — are being unfairly treated by the criminal justice system purely because of confusion about their sexuality and gender.
‘I can’t help thinking that it doesn’t feel right to me to describe these cases in the same way as what you might think of classic sexual offending,’ says Matthew Graham, head of criminal law at law firm Mowbray Woodwards.
‘Because it isn’t the same. You can do a hell of a lot and get a similar sentence: wearing a balaclava, you can walk up to someone on the street, drag them down an alleyway and sexually assault them. And to say that matches this case feels to me completely wrong.
‘The gravity of the offending is that Newland lied. She told a lie. And that seems to be the seriousness of it, rather than the heart of the sexual assault.’
The article continues:
Under section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a person consents to sexual activity ‘if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.’
In the Newland case, the prosecution had to prove that the victim had not freely chosen to have sex; that the deception meant she had not made a free choice. She believed she was sleeping with a male, not a female, and had chosen to have sex on that basis.
But legal experts point out that when it comes to sex, deceptions are not uncommon. Some may exaggerate their wealth or social standing to improve their appeal, or claim to be single when in fact they are married. Others might choose to lie about their religion. But lies of this nature are not seen in law as sufficient to damage fatally the ability to consent freely.
Gender deception, it seems, is.
In recent years a number of cases similar to that of Newland have reached the courts. Yet none has resulted in such a lengthy sentence.
‘Normally, with the criminal law, you know that something is criminal; you don’t need to be a lawyer to know something is criminal, that it is wrong,’ says lawyer Matthew Graham.
‘I should imagine with the Gayle Newland case you could ask 20 different people and get 20 different answers as to whether it is criminal or not, and what sentence it deserves.’
And while the legal profession (an offshoot of the Roman system which still rules today, and filled with Talmudists determined to continually re-define what is right and wrong) are in disarray, the public is absolutely CLEAR on what this case constitutes:
The public, however, have not considered where this, and other cases like it are designed to lead. They won’t know what’s hit them until they or someone they love is duped into a homosexual encounter by a trans person who believes that their right to privacy (to not reveal the truth about themselves) trumps their lovers right to know the truth – that the encounter is homosexual.
The only reason why you would withhold that information from your intended lover is because you deep-down know the person you are about to sleep with would NOT consent to sex with you if they knew you used to be the same sex as them.
There are no words for the awfulness of the deception being wrought in our society today. That our leaders are encouraging children to believe they are the wrong gender, to be complicit in evil like this will naturally invite the wrath of God.
God Bless you