ginevra

⚠️ 'They brought me here to kill me... This is the end': Dr. Hussam Abu Safia fears he will not survive Israeli detention — Dr. Hussam Abu Safia, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, is in immediate danger after his lawyer, Nasser Odeh, found him bearing severe injuries during a visit to the brutal, underground Rakefet interrogation facility inside Nitzan Prison. Odeh said the Palestinian physician was so badly beaten that he initially struggled to recognize him. Shackled hand and foot and escorted by masked guards, Dr. Abu Safia struggled to breathe and speak, could not sit upright, and repeatedly appeared close to losing consciousness. According to Dr. Abu Safia, four or five guards entered his solitary cell at Ganot Prison after his Supreme Court appeal was heard on 10 June and beat him with a hammer and batons. Since his transfer to Rakefet on 24 June, he said he has been beaten daily, has lost consciousness several times, and has received no medical treatment. "This is the last time you will see me. They brought me here to kill me. I don't see myself surviving. This is the end." Physicians for Human Rights Israel said the escalation in torture began after Dr. Abu Safia challenged his detention in court. The organization has appealed to Israel's attorney general and prison service, demanding his immediate transfer, an independent medical examination, and an urgent judicial visit "before it is too late." Israeli occupation forces abducted Dr. Abu Safia from Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia on 27 December 2024, after he refused to abandon one of northern Gaza's last functioning hospitals during Israel's assault. He has remained imprisoned without charge under Israel's Unlawful Combatants Law. Earlier visits had already documented severe weight loss from starvation and visible bruising, but his lawyer said his condition has now deteriorated dramatically.

When Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister, what's the very first thing you think he should do?

J.K. Rowling raises an important question: if adult gender clinics have long-term outcome data, why wasn’t it made available to inform the Cass Review? Before exposing another generation of vulnerable young people to experimental interventions, we should fully examine the evidence we already have.

Has he been thinking 'over the years' that women have penises?? I don't believe that. He was *pretending* to believe it....he knows fine well that it's NOT TRUE! WTF is going on in this century!!

'He has a point, but he's too blunt.' From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture with devastating consequences to freedom of speech and belief. Huge swathes of liberal media, the arts, academia and publishing have thrown themselves with gusto into the defence of a quasi-religious belief causing provable real world harm, and in their arrogance they've been outraged when people they assumed were part of their In Group have refused to march meekly along in lock step. Time and again, I've seen and heard well-educated people who consider themselves critical thinkers and bold truth-tellers squirm when put on the spot. 'Well, yes, maybe there's something in what you're saying, but it's hateful/provocative/rude not to use the approved language/pretend people can literally change sex/keep drawing attention to medical malpractice or opportunistic sexual predators. Why can't you be nice? Why won't you pretend? We thought you were one of us! Don't you realise we have sophisticated new words and phrases these days that obviate the necessity of thinking any of this through?' As the vibe shifts, and a lot of people in the elite professions start trying to reposition themselves, the obvious place to start is, 'it's not that I couldn't see your point, but did you have to say it that way?' We dissenters were supposed to find a way of questioning the chemical castration of children while calling it 'gender affirming care.' We were meant to defend the rights of vulnerable women while also using female pronouns for male rapists. We should have found a way to discuss fairness for women and girls in sport, while pretending that the ineradicable physical advantage men have over women doesn't exist. Either a man can be a woman, or he can't. Either women deserve rights, or they don't. Either there's a provable medical benefit to transitioning children, or there isn't. Either you're on the side of a totalitarian ideology that seeks to impose falsehoods on society through the threat of ostracisation, shaming and violence, or you're not. The alternative to being 'blunt' - using accurate, factual language to describe what was going on - was to surrender freedom of speech and espouse ideological jargon that obfuscated the issues and the harms caused. We've always needed blunt people, but we need them most of all when being asked to bow down to a naked emperor.

🤯 Listen to this extraordinary exchange between Camilla Tominey and Labour’s Health Secretary James Murray. It is genuinely jaw-dropping. Camilla: “You’re quite pro-trans, aren’t you? Do you think a woman can have a penis? Because you did previously?” Murray: “No, I don’t.” Camilla: “So you’ve changed your mind?” Murray: “Yes.” Camilla: “Why?” Murray stumbles. He says he’s been thinking about the issue over recent years and would not now say trans women are women. Camilla hits back: “You must have known that before. You are very well educated. How on earth can you have previously thought that a woman can have a penis?” He had no real answer. Because there isn’t one. This is not some backbench MP. This is the Secretary of State for Health, the man responsible for the entire NHS, puberty blocker policy, women’s health services, and child safeguarding. He spent years either believing or pretending to believe that biological sex is fluid and that women can have penises. Only now, when the Cass Review, court rulings, and public opinion have made that position politically toxic, has he magically “changed his mind”. Think about the damage done while he held that view. The eroded women’s rights. The confused children fast-tracked toward hormones and surgery. The female prisoners and athletes forced to share spaces with biological males. All enabled or ignored by senior Labour figures like him. This level of ideological delusion at the very top of government is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. Basic biology should never have been up for debate, let alone something a Health Secretary had to “evolve” on.