As Voltaire apparently didn’t say –

I have recently found myself in a situation where what I view as a truly Punk attitude has found itself stretched to near breaking.

As a Punk – and this is by my definition – every one has the right to say, believe and do what they wish so long as it does not harm another.

We all know, well I hope we do the classic miss assigned quote of Voltaire

If you want further info visit – https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall#:~:text=In%20The%20Friends%20of%20Voltaire,principle%20of%20freedom%20of%20speech

the concept that all individuals attitudes are valid and none sh0uld be censored or limited. As a punk I want you to acknowledge that my thoughts and attitudes are as valid as yours, I don’t need you to like or agree with them in the same way as I don’t have to like or agree with yours, but I want you to accept that they are mine and solely on that basis I am allowed to have them.

To me this is a true part of being punk – that is everyone has the right to their beliefs and the right to expound them. I believe I must defend their right to expound them. However this doesn’t mean that I believe them, agree with them or encourage them. The minute they try to force them on others as proven truth, without scientific proof. I will oppose them ,point out their errors and do my best to correct them, as would be my right under the same rules.

Thus for me – being punk means that everyone has the right to believe anything whether it is true or not, and also everyone has the right to agree with it or not. In my definition of punk you can’t have one without the other, thus all beliefs are acceptable and everyone can either agree or disagree, and there are no if’s, no buts and no excuses.

Now the interesting point here is that this actually allows hateful speech. Saying that you like or hate a person or group of people is not in itself against what I have to accept/allow. Physically encouraging and guiding/instructing people to undertake actions against another for any reason is. I accept that this is a very thin line, and recently I have been struggling with it.

I cannot object or stand against anyone who says they hate or fear a specific group or believe, as I have to accept that it is their right to say that, I and everyone else however must also have the right to disagree and if needs be ignore their comments.

Further to this, for a thought to be truly Punk for me it needs to be backed by evidence under the scientific basis, but that is solely for me to accept a thought not for someone to have the right to expound it.

I have often said to my daughter that being punk means never believing, you either know something is true or think it may be, you never believe it is true. Belief does not require proof, where as for me the basis of Punk belief is proof. Also a basis of punk is to not object to something without proof, as such you cannot oppose religion as it is solely based on belief and this cannot be disproved. Certain points, facts within a specific religion can be proven/disproven but that does not disprove the belief.

Just not being able to prove something is not the same as disproving it. The level of evidence to truly disprove a theory/belief must be equal and repeatable in the same way that the evidence to prove one is, this is the definition of scientific proof. Scientific experiments are designed to disprove an assumption or belief, not to prove one and that is the same basis I hold all other ideas up to.

As such just because I can’t prove there isn’t a god doesn’t give me the right to object to those who believe that there is one, as I can’t disprove it either. However there is plenty of scientific proof that the world is round and travels around the sun, and as such I can vocally object to anyone who tries to say that the world is flat and that the sun orbits the earth

In the same way there is plenty of scientific proof that all humans share the same origination, and as such no race is biologically superior to any other. However it is debatable if a specific method of government is better than any other, unless you agree the basis and indices of comparison.

As such under my interpretation of what being punk is – I can object to racist speech but can’t to political speech.

Now back to why I felt the need to write this – from my understanding, reading and investigations there are no biological difference or scientific difference between the multitude of sexual orientations/presentations, and excluding specific laws targeting sexual orientation there is no evidence of variance in criminality due to sexual orientation or presentation.

As such I have to take the opinion that it is perfectly ok for someone to state that they would rather not share facilities with transgender people because it makes them feel uncomfortable – but it is not ok for them to state that transgender people should not be allowed to use the facilities of the sex they present as because they represent a danger to other users. These two statements are not the same, they are very different, one is a person belief or statement of feeling and the other is a statement that discriminates against a subsection of society without proof. I have no problem with the person who holds the first belief running an establishment so long as they provide separate facilities for trans/non-bigoted people to use as well as Cis facilities, what I do object to is them forcing their belief/bigotry on others and excluding portions of society that do not present a risk to others..

Lets quickly look at the definition of bigotry thanks to Merriam-Webster

So stopping a Trans person from entering a facility for the sex they present as, when they have never committed a crime against that sex and there is no evidence that the individual would commit a crime against that sex (Yes I know this is a difficult point). Is like not letting more than one person into a single CIS sex location at any time because of the risk that the next person to enter will commit a criminal act against the current occupant. The truth is that crime does occur in public places, both property crime and crimes against the person regardless of the sexual orientation, race or any other physical characteristic of the occupants.

Ok lets take this to a new level, if I was to say that the idea of convicted sex offenders being able to enter public locations for the sex they offended against, or even that convicted/diagnosed paedophiles (and even here I feel uncomfortable because being diagnosed does not prove risk) being able to use facilities targeted at children of their preferable type should not be a problem – I would expect everyone to disagree with me.

This is because these groups have been proven to be a danger to others and these situations put them in places where they potentially would put others and/or themselves at risk. Ok I can hear people yelling, you are discriminating based on the chance of an offence, no I am discriminating based on proven risks. In the same way, allowing people to drop a lighted match into preheated oil in a public location should not be allowed, unless the relevant precautions are taken, putting a know offender/risk in a victim rich environment without precautions should not be allowed.

The truth is that a sexual predator who choses to disguise their sexuality in order to enter a location and commit an offence will proceed with their plan regardless of the law, as their intention is to break the law and unless there is some complex biological door entry system to keep them out, they will not be kept out. This is an unpleasant truth but still a truth, excluding trans people would not stop these crimes happening nor minimise the chance that they would occur.

I believe that I don’t have Obstinate opinions, the definition of which is “stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion; obstinate resistance to change”.

Given scientific reason, argument and persuasion I will happily change my opinions, that is why they are not beliefs.

As a punk and through my understanding/definition of punk I cannot have any believes, I either have opinions or facts.

So I appreciate this has rambled but I hope that the basic concept has been clearly communicated.

Let’s Rethink Population Growth – Someone else agrees

Lets’ Rethink Housing – I’m not alone

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Unbundling The Lords

Let’s Rethink The Lords: The Impossible Trade-off

Let’s Rethink The Lords: The Experts Bench

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Parliament’s Memory Bank

Let’s Rethink The Lords: The Unspoken Burden

Let’s Rethink The Lords: International Models

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Testing Ethical Guardians

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Refining the house.

Let’s Rethink The Lords: An Ethical Chamber

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Ethical Scrutiny

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Home for Parliamentary Ethics

Let’s Rethink The Lords: The Accidental Conscience

Let’s Rethink Parliament: Petition to force new elections.

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Parliaments Nuclear Option

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Medieval Conscience

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Power to Purpose

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Commons vs Lords

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Logic of the Lords.

Let’s Rethink The Lords: Grandparent of Parliament

Let’s Rethink Parliament: The One Term Manifesto

Let’s Rethink Parliament: Social Care Paradox.

Let’s Rethink Parliament: Cost of Political Amnesia.

Let’s Rethink Parliament: How Boring Mechanics Break Deadlock