Any news report that deals with sexuality these days must be at least politically correct, if not trying to lead unsuspecting readers towards 'progressive' conclusions. Some reporters treat readers as if we had no mind of our own. How ridiculously prejudiced a report can be, is exemplified by an article on the Vancouver Province by Wendy McLellan, (June 9 2000), that reports of a BC court decision regarding a man who, after being mutilated and treated with hormones considers himself a woman.
For several paragraphs the article goes on like this:
- 'The precedent-setting ruling by Mr. Justice William Davies states that existing sex discrimination provisions in the humans rights code cover transgendered men and women.
- "This is a very significant decision because it's the first court ruling in Canada that says transgendered individuals are protected by human rights legislation," said Barbara Findlay, the lawyer for the Vancouver woman who has now won the right to a human rights hearing. '
Does she believe her readers are bunch of idiots? Of course human rights apply to ALL humans, because they ARE humans. Not because a judge comes to that conclusion.
Ms. McLellan and Ms. Findlay mislead people by calling this a precedent setting ruling on human rights, but just like in the case of people who engage in homosexual acts, they NEED to do so.
What is precedent setting is that a judge is saying that a mutilated, hormone-jammed man should have the privilege to be treated like a woman (e.g.: to use women's changing rooms and washrooms, to get married to a man, or, in this case, to work as a woman councilor in a women center.).
That is indeed shocking! But would the reporter ever mention it? Not once. Instead she swallows the story hook, line and sinker, and reports the viewpoint of the lawyer about 'human rights', without question. She NEEDS to be politically correct, or otherwise, who knows, the truth about perverse self-damaging sexual habits might come out!
Posts
