Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

male female equality

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

Why is this idea important?

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

Restore my civil liberty to not be discriminated against on the grounds of sex or race – which was eroded by parts of the ‘Equality Bill’.

Parts of the 'Equality Bill' made it legal to engage in sex and race discimination. This is typicaly used to discriminate against white male job applicants, though females and blacks could also occasionally fall foul of it. This is clearly an violation of the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens. 

These rights and civil liberties can be restored by repealing the relevant parts of the Equalities Bill.

Why is this idea important?

Parts of the 'Equality Bill' made it legal to engage in sex and race discimination. This is typicaly used to discriminate against white male job applicants, though females and blacks could also occasionally fall foul of it. This is clearly an violation of the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens. 

These rights and civil liberties can be restored by repealing the relevant parts of the Equalities Bill.

Allow Illegitimate Children Citizenship Through Their British Fathers

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Equal Pay with men

for many years women have and are doing the same work as men, yet in the 21st century they are still NOT being paid the same.  Employers still think it is the mans place to provide for the family hence the hight wage, well what about a person that is single and have to pay for everything on there own.  A law needs to be made so that it is an easy procedure to proof that a male person doing the same job as a woman should be paid the same, I my self do the same as a male person, approached the boss, who said it was not the same, but I checked all the facts and it is.  so a quick and easy law for women to access to ensure they do get the same pay.

Why is this idea important?

for many years women have and are doing the same work as men, yet in the 21st century they are still NOT being paid the same.  Employers still think it is the mans place to provide for the family hence the hight wage, well what about a person that is single and have to pay for everything on there own.  A law needs to be made so that it is an easy procedure to proof that a male person doing the same job as a woman should be paid the same, I my self do the same as a male person, approached the boss, who said it was not the same, but I checked all the facts and it is.  so a quick and easy law for women to access to ensure they do get the same pay.

Nationality via British mother

Amend unfair law so that nationality via British mothers is the same as via British fathers.

How can the Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Act – with its obvious gender and age discrimination – be legal? It blatantly discriminates against children born abroad before 1961 to British mothers.
 
I was born in the USA to a British mother and should therfore be eligible for automatic British citizenship by descent. However, the Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Act does not allow British mothers to pass on their citizenship to their children regardless of where or when they were born.
 
As of 13 Jan, 2010, I finally have the right to claim my British citizenship (via my British mother) however I don't consider the path to British citizenship an entitlement since it is dependent on specific conditions.
 
Because I was born before 1961, I (and others in the same situation) am required to register and pay £540. However, if my father was British (or if I was younger), I could claim British Citizenship by descent without registration, without a fee and without the required citizenship ceremony.

Why is this idea important?

Amend unfair law so that nationality via British mothers is the same as via British fathers.

How can the Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Act – with its obvious gender and age discrimination – be legal? It blatantly discriminates against children born abroad before 1961 to British mothers.
 
I was born in the USA to a British mother and should therfore be eligible for automatic British citizenship by descent. However, the Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Act does not allow British mothers to pass on their citizenship to their children regardless of where or when they were born.
 
As of 13 Jan, 2010, I finally have the right to claim my British citizenship (via my British mother) however I don't consider the path to British citizenship an entitlement since it is dependent on specific conditions.
 
Because I was born before 1961, I (and others in the same situation) am required to register and pay £540. However, if my father was British (or if I was younger), I could claim British Citizenship by descent without registration, without a fee and without the required citizenship ceremony.

Equality in Citizenship & Nationality

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

Why is this idea important?

As you are well aware of the West Lothian Question that has been a thorn in the side of Parliament for decades, there is also the Michael Turberville Question that has not been fully satisfied in over 60 years! The Question / or Problem-Issue as it should be called is:
Averil, a British Woman born in 1927 in Lincolnshire married Phillip, in 1944 an American Man born in 1919 in London. They have Six children.

David born in Sleaford in 1945 – Full British Nationality – and can pass on his nationality to his children.
Freda born in 1946 in England – under the amendment 2002 can now register her children as British.
Sandra – born in USA in 1949 – can register as British as of Jan 2010, but NOT her children..
Maryann born in USA in 1952 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT her children.
Phillip born in USA in 1957 – can register as British as of Jan 2010 but NOT his children.
Michael born in USA in 1967 – registered in 2003 and Only his children born in the UK are British.

The amendment and my bill that was in the Queens speech 2006 and 2007 and became an Act in 2008 was suppose to end all sex discrimination in Nationality.

Pre1983 all children of British Men are automatically British and all they have to do is apply for a UK passport showing their birth certificate, their father’s UK birth certificate and the parent’s marriage certificate and pay the Passport Application Fee.

That is it…

BUT if you are the child of a British Mother (pre83) – we have to apply for registration, pay £520 fee, have a criminal back ground check, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, etc. Then pay £100? for a passport – because you are about to do away with the more economic identification method of the National ID card (only £30) and NO longer a viable option with it being removed and those of us who bought one in good faith now having to soon have to take a class action legal case against HM.Gov for breach of terms of condition of sale.

This is still sex discrimination!! I had in 2006 all party support in both Houses of Parliament that All Sex Discrimination in Nationality would end.  

If you check with the Home Office you will see that between 2003 and Q3 2009 that 16,555 people statistically registered who were born in the time frame of 1961 to 1983. I would expect that this number would be higher if we did not have to pay the Citizenship TAX!

But the Michael Turberville Question that will be an issue for you as it has been for every Home Secretary since my mother was first told  in 1950 that she could not come to the UK with her children born in the USA because she was Not our Father!

How can a married couple, have Six Children and have 3 different situations with regards to British Nationality? My oldest Brother can pass on his nationality to his children with out fees or charges, My oldest Sister, is considered a British Mother under the 1981 Nationality Act section 4C.

The next 3, can register as British but not their children.

And finally me – I am registered and my son born here is British, but IF I had children born abroad to a non British Mother, they would also NOT be British.

If this is to be the new progressive modernisation Parliamentary Government, then it is time that the Michael Turberville Question is resolved once and for all. This Issue is called the last great wrong of the past that Parliament has not resolved fully.

I suggest a simple change to the Nationality Act to state: any person with one (1) British born and bred grandparent is automatically entitled to British Nationality – no fees, no charges, under the same auspices as the children of British Fathers have always had. It should be noted that in certain countries it could be a person’s Father’s Father who was British and they are automatically entitled to British Nationality – So expand this to a British Grandparent and not restrict it to commonwealth countries!

I look forward to your reply and what action you intend on taking on the Michael Turberville Question. My mother and I have gone through over a dozen Home Secretaries and I hope that you will grasp the nettle and resolve this once and for all.

Repeal of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002

The basis of this idea is to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which exempts the selection of candidates by political parties from sex discrimination laws.  Repealing this law would restore full sex discrimination legsialtion to the selection of candidates for elections by political parties.

Why is this idea important?

The basis of this idea is to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which exempts the selection of candidates by political parties from sex discrimination laws.  Repealing this law would restore full sex discrimination legsialtion to the selection of candidates for elections by political parties.

Repeal laws on drawn pornography

Repeal the laws on drawn pornography as it is a victimless crime.

The government only this year had the absurd idea that drawings can be underage, now the criminal justice system will not only have to waste money enforcing this law but also discuss whether a drawing is sexually explicit.

These laws not only restricts freedom of expression by many artists but it also means a step toward the government dictating the sexual practices of the general public.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the laws on drawn pornography as it is a victimless crime.

The government only this year had the absurd idea that drawings can be underage, now the criminal justice system will not only have to waste money enforcing this law but also discuss whether a drawing is sexually explicit.

These laws not only restricts freedom of expression by many artists but it also means a step toward the government dictating the sexual practices of the general public.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults. 

Why is this idea important?

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults.