Gazette letters: Rough sleeping, Trans community and GM food
PUBLISHED: 08:30 02 March 2019
At last common sense prevails (Gazette), write Paul and Sarah Martin, Stroud Green, Islington.
The idea to get an injunction to stop rough sleeping under Stroud Green bridge was way out of line and off course with local public opinion.
These people need our help and support not criminalisation at every turn.
It goes without saying that drug dealing and anti-social behaviour should be addressed by the police and council.
But do you need an injunction to stop street drug dealers? In my day you would arrest, charge and give them a day in court with a stern message that if it happens again they face prison.
The constant targeting of homeless people in society as a whole needs to stop.
Many of us live on the cusp. It could be me or you facing homelessness in the coming months if a relationship breaks down or employment is lost.
Having read the article on page 15 of a recent edition of the Islington Gazette titled “Protest against ‘anti-transgender’ Hornsey Rise meeting that was barred from Crouch End school”, I felt insulted by these people, writes Mr J E Kirby, Clissold Crescent, Stoke Newington.
As a person who identifies at being on the trans spectrum (male to female), I ask why the people who organised this meeting feel that women and children need keeping safe from “transgender ideology”.
Why do women and children need protecting? Are we in her eyes some sort of pervert or paedophile? It’s like saying that all gay or lesbian men and women are perverts.Unfortunately the vast majority of perverts and paedophiles are so-called straight heterosexuals.
I accept that she has a right to have and express her views but like Jason Waters, who complained to the church concerned (St Mary’s) about this meeting, I agree with him that it does isolate the transgender community of which I am happy to be a member, although I would not consider having gender realignment surgery (GRS) myself.
I would also like to know where Ms Allan and her cohorts get the figure from that some 80 per cent grow out of being transgender. Also, she (Ms Allan) says that she disagrees with people having surgery.
As an analogy, would Ms Allan also say that a person suffering from acute appendicitis for instance should not have life-saving surgery for this condition? It is a case that for a lot of transgender people having GRS is actually saving their lives. Also, how can she say that people are being able to identify as being transgender at too young an age?
I just hope that if Ms Allan and disciples have children, and that if one or some of their children identified as transgender from whatever age, whether from male to female or female to male, that they would not treat them in such a manner.
Also, I fully support what Stonewall said in the same article. I know that if I was responsible for bringing a child into this world and they came to me at an early age and said that they felt born in the wrong body, I would support them and help them be who they are, help them get the support they needed and when the time was right, and if GRS was what they needed, I would help them.
After all, for a lot of trans people GRS is not an option, it can really mean the difference between life and death.
Too many trans people have been hounded to death and even been killed for this. Surely in the 21st century we should treat people better.
Or should we go back to the dark ages between 1939-45 in a certain European country where people who didn’t fit the criteria of being a blue-eyed blond, ie being Jewish, mentally or physically handicapped, communists other lefties, gays etc, etc, were sent to the concentration camp and murdered?
It was interesting to see children being harnessed in a PR exercise in relation to climate change, however, children can be easily fooled when they are young and naive, a perfect example would be Santa exists, doesn’t he? writes Michael McElligott, Amwell Street, Islington
Now as an adult if you trawl the internet for independent information climate change could be a red herring.
It’s certainly set to become massive business. Now the big polluters can purchase carbon certificates so don’t expect any changes from them.
The people who promote climate change are set to make massive money for themselves, with lots of new business ideas, bless them.
So if children or those who manipulate them in PR are concerned about the quality of life in the future then tackle genetically modified foods. Some are blamed for increasing infertility rates.
I would describe that as a definite threat to life or the privatisation or poisoning of water from whatever chemicals are dumped into it, not to mention the costs of it ever rising.
Remember that if farmers have to pay through the nose for privatised water those prices get transferred to the shops, food prices from farmers go up so less people can afford a good diet which is a threat to health and wellbeing.
This all adds to the burden of the taxpayer because of people getting ill.