As daily readers still sit shocked due to a recent story that showed how filing a perfectly legal FOIA request can get a person visited by goons from a threat fusion center, a new story has been revealed that is even worse. A stay-at-home mom who dared to voice her opinion of transgenderism is the subject of a police investigation for it, according to Life Site News.
It was noted that the parent was contacted by authorities “for making comments critical of transgender ideology on Twitter,” which is protected free speech no matter what a person’s stance is since no threats were made. The left is starting to consume their own because Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, the tweeting mother, is not a conservative! She is a pro-choice feminist!
The fact that she is no right-winger means nothing to those who demand total submission by everyone in society, particularly “their own,” as it were.
Susie Green, the CEO of a UK organization called Mermaids, leads a group that “supports transgender persons.” Here again, it is clear to see how the language is being toyed with since not agreeing with someone now is said to imply that they are not supported. It was this group who reported the mother to local police.
In a set of facts that sound as if they come out of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, “the officer told her she was a ‘test case’ in a new ‘human rights’ fight they were undertaking.” If it had been said with a Russian accent, the implications could not have been any more chilling, as the Christian Post observed.
In Thailand, a boy decided to “have his genitals removed when he was 16,” and Minshull felt that this was a bit young for such nonsense. The policeman who phoned started to preach about how the gay agenda today is comparable to the human rights struggle of the 1960’s.
This is an insult, of course, to that movement since anyone (unless they are being raped) can choose to sleep with anyone of any gender who they wish, but a person of color has no choice in the matter.
The mother was told that a face to face interview was needed and that if she failed to show up for the meeting, she would become a “wanted” person. When she asked what “wanted” meant, she was informed that “should she attempt to leave the country she would be arrested, and that if she happened to be pulled over while driving she would be arrested.”
Speaking of “wanted,” this is certainly not what the founders wanted when they wrote the First Amendment.
Also, if this is but a “test case,” what is the full implementation going to entail? Already, science has proven by DNA evidence that a man is a man and woman is a woman, no matter what body parts they choose to get hacked off (or sewed on). Is voicing that fact or one’s opinion about it soon to be against the law?
One mother is wondering if it isn’t already.