Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

UK Minister: Amesbury Poisoning ‘not targeted’ or ‘linked to Skripals’

Does the UK expect people to believe a couple was accidentally poisoned with military-grade nerve agent?

Published

on

1,420 Views

The latest reports from the Amesbury alleged “Novichok poisoning” have taken a turn for the weirder. According to several reports, UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace has said that the Amesbury “poisonings” were neither targetted, nor linked to the Skripals. He said that instead, he believes it is a “contamination by Novichok”.

So far, the optics seemed like it could be an obvious Skripal 2.0 scenario, which was honestly ridiculous that they would bother to invent the same baseless and insane accusations against Russia twice. Yet instead, the latest reports seem to indicate a totally different spin is being taken. For example, the BBC has reported:

The victims of the nerve agent emergency in Wiltshire were not directly targeted, the security minister has said.

[UK Minister of State for Security] Ben Wallace disclosed that the “working assumption” is that the pair were exposed to Novichok either as a result of the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Hulia in Salisbury earlier this year, or “something else”.

It must be clear however, this does not mean the U.K. isn’t pointing the finger at Russia, as the report continues:

Mr Wallace told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think what we said at the time was that this was a brazen and reckless attack in the heart of a very peaceful part of the United Kingdom, and that is part of the anger I feel about the Russian state is that they chose to use clearly a very, very toxic, highly dangerous weapon.”

In another report, the BBC, writes that:

[UK] Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire. “It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison,” he told MPs.

The oddest aspect about the latest round of accusations, and what is potentially very dangerous, is how the U.K. is implying Russia allegedly accidentally poisoned their citizens with military grade nerve agent. Sputnik quotes UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace as saying:

“These people weren’t linked to the Skripals… It wasn’t an attack, it was, I think, a contamination by a Novichok,” Wallace said on Monday.

This is what is particularly bizarre, that the language the UK is using implies they are currently alleging an unintentional Novichok poisoning. We must remember, however, that these are still preliminary reports. There will be plenty of time for the UK to change their story, and of course, they are still blaming Russia, now it just seems they are saying Russia unintentionally poisoned their citizens.

This brings me to the heart of what makes these accusations so bizarre. If we apply basic common sense, how many people do you know, who were accidentally poisoned with military-grade nerve agent? Is nerve agent a common cause of death among common suburban folk? We remind our readers that neither the Skripals nor this Amesbury couple has yet died.

This contradicts basic logic, what we know about Novichok, as well as the narrative about the seemingly dangerous Russian bear, the way the West makes Russia out to be.

Novichok has been acknowledged by many reports, as being the world’s most deadly known nerve agent, with Gary Stephens, a pharmacology expert at the University of Reading, saying that Novichok “is a more dangerous and sophisticated agent than sarin or VX and is harder to identify”. A Financial Times report says that:

It has been reported that Novichok agents are five to eight times more lethal than VX, which was previously thought to be the world’s deadliest nerve agent.

New Scientist reports that:

Novichoks can be eight times as deadly as VX, the V-series agent that was used to kill North Korean exile Kim Jong-nam last year. Just 10 milligrams of VX on the skin can be lethal.

Still, despite the well-known lethality of Novichok, the UK is claiming Russia contaminated Sergei and Yulia Skripal with this incredibly lethal poisoning, which can kill in tiny droplets, and yet they survived?

They are claiming Russia, a nuclear superpower which builds the rockets American astronauts use to travel to space, and which put the first man in space, does not possess the capability to assassinate a target with a more lethal nerve agent, then one used by the weaker state of North Korea? North Korea is indescribably weaker than Russia in basically every way that matters, yet a known to be weaker nerve agent allegedly kills a man when Russia allegedly fails with an agent eight times more deadly?

Of course, Russia did not kill anyone, neither the Skripals, nor this couple, yet the accusations are now becoming even more absurd. Skripal was an ex-spy, and a traitor to Russia and the Russian people, and while Russia did not kill him, there is no evidence, Russia has always been known to defend her people and her interests. It is not illogical, to imagine that a spy who betrays any superpower, such as the US, Russia, China, etc. could theoretically face dangerous repercussions.

The idea of a spy being killed by a nerve agent is not a stretch, but Skripal was no threat to Russia, and he was not killed, even after the most deadly substance in the world was allegedly administered.

This couple, however, were not even spies. By all accounts, they are completely random people, unconnected to the Skripals, in the words of UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace. How they did they get contaminated by Novichok? Are we to believe military-grade nerve agent was just casually misplaced in a UK neighborhood? Military-grade nerve agent which kills instantly for all intents and purposes. Does the UK wish to imply Russia is not a great power, with the ability to attack its enemies, but one which is incapable of assassinations, and haplessly misplaces their nerve agents in little shires throughout Merry Olde England.

It seems like the UK wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I have written about this before, primarily the illogical and inconsistent way the Western Media slanders Russia and her President Vladimir Putin.

In the article, I said:

The split personality complex in the west has given rise to the two heads of the western establishment: The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals. Together they form the Diarchy (rule of two) present in western governments, though perhaps the Latin synonym Duumvirate better describes it.

This split personality influences how they view reality.

Take for example their portrayal of Russia. There are two primary ways in which Russia is misrepresented in the west:

  1. As a toothless bear, a weak, anemic regional power nostalgic for old glory, incapable of letting go. A nation overall not unlike a destitute widow after the death of a great and powerful man, as Gogol described the Cossack lands of what we call Ukraine in Taras Bulba.

This is simply not reality.

  1. The dangerous bear, an Empire terrible and strong, ready to subject the world beneath the boot of an Imperialist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Communist, Soviet, Russian Orthodox Czar. If the West does not “do something” [the most terrifying words any third world country can hear] there will not be a free power in the world that will not kneel to the Czar of Moscow.

That statement is contradictory, primarily with the first image, but also with itself. You can not be a Communist or a Fascist, nor an Orthodox Tsarist for that matter all at once.

While the above examples are mutable to a degree, those are the prevailing stereotypes about Russia. They each serve two primary purposes:

  1. The portrayal of Russia as a declining power reduces panic when undesirable, for example when the Deep State feels comfortable with their position in society, and wish to promote their leadership as strong and stabilizing. It also reinforces overall pride and morale in the west. This is the favored personality of the Neo-Liberals.
  2. The portrayal of Russia as a resurgent, terrifying eastern horde on the verge of world dominance provides for the Military Industrial Complex, allows for increased military spending, and justifies both sabre rattling and adventurism, satisfying the warmongers. The portrayal of the Neo-Cons.

That split view of Russia is what we are seeing here again.

  1. First, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, Russia is this great dangerous threat to the world, which poisoned the Skripals with her dangerous omnipotent power. This extends to other things they claim about Russia. For example, Russia is so powerful, she rigged the US Election, masterfully manipulating the simple minded Americans, proving Russia is so powerful, that she can determine the result of the US election. This is what they imply, when they talk about the Russian threat – the Great Russian Bear.
  2. Secondly, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, that Russia is so weak, so incompetent, so incapable of executing her goals, that not only did she fail to assassinate the Skripals, but she misplaced some of her deadly dangerous nerve agent which is now hopelessly infecting innocent UK civilians. They claim Russia is so weak, and she is a declining power, and her leadership feels threatened, and so they lashed out at enemies, but because of weakness, she was not able to assassinate people with a more deadly nerve agent than the North Koreans used. The Mighty Czardom of Russia which stretches from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean failed where the puny hermit Kingdom succeeded?

Which one, you can’t have both

These are both ridiculous ideas. The first idea, that of Russia is this dangerous all-powerful superpower, is a reflection of the inferiority complex of the impotent West, the UK in particular.

After Brexit, the UK elite feels particularly insecure, and lacking allies, and so they wish to increase support or sympathy for themselves, by using the Russian Bear as a dangerous threat. This existed in racist Russophobic propaganda in the UK since the Crimean War in the mid 19th century. Since then, many UK publications portray Russia in a racist way.

Despite the SJW world the West lives in, in a tragic and disgusting way, racism against Russians is accepted by the West to this day. Russians are among the only groups Westerners are allowed to slander. This was touched on brilliantly by the Duran’s Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris.

Western racism and the stereotyping of Russians

Likewise, the idea that Russia somehow accidentally infected people with nerve agent (really, how do you do that) reflects the arrogance of the West. They want to portray Russia as this big dangerous country, yet their arrogance does not allow it to go so far.

Therefore, they produce an inconsistent narrative where Russia at one time, is the destroyer of worlds, and at another time, accidentally misplaces nerve agent because she is a toothless bear.

The Morning in a Pine Forest is a painting by Russian artists Ivan Shishkin and Konstantin Savitsky

The reality is, Russia is truly a mighty bear, but she only protects her young, and she will not stray too far from her Taiga.

If Russia is threatened, she will defend herself, but she never meant any harm to the world. It should be blatantly obvious Rusia had nothing to do with this, but facts don’t matter in the West. Russia can be blamed for anything by propagandists. What did Russia ever do to the West, aside from save them from Nazism, and putting the first human in space?

And the idea of military grade nerve agent accidentally poisoning a suburban couple is just ridiculous. Some reports have went as far as to say:

One of the victims is believed to be a registered heroin user and local media speculated that the poison came from a contaminated syringe.

It must be said, at this moment, that is not confirmed. Victim blaming in any case, is also not appropriate, however, neither is Russia blaming, which is all the West does. There is no proof of any Russia involvement, and it is dangerous to provoke and accuse a Nuclear Superpower constantly.

In all, it must be remembered, that Russia is neither a toothless bear, nor a scary bear. By long-standing tradition, the Bears of Russian folk legend live in their taiga. They are not dangerous beasts, nor do they attack the homes of other animals, but if you attack the Taiga, retribution is inevitable.

The baisc rule of thumb, don’t threaten the Russian people with a campaign of dominance and extermination, and likewise, Russia will not be forced to defend herself and her young.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
11 Comments

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
AM HantsIsabella JonescolumGoogle IsEvilVeeNarian (Yerevan) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

How long does it take for toxicology reports to come through? When did they fall ill? With all the Forces cleaning up Salsibury, how come they missed the syringe? Owing to the strength of the military grade nerve agent, how long would it remain in am syringe without harming the container? Go back to the Skripals, ‘novochok’ on the doorknob, of a house soon to be demolished. Father plus daughter touch door knob, go for a drive into town. Then for a drink in a pub, followed by lunch, then a walk in the park. How many people did they… Read more »

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

I’d like to repeat – I keep seeing all this “novichok” being repeated as though it were an incontrovertible fact. It isn’t. All we have that these people have been exposed to a narco-paralytic of the same family as the so – called “Novichok” is the word of an increasingly discredited Government. It could be anything or nothing. Russia has repeatedly asked for access to the investigation – to be refused. Why? Why purpose does that serve, except to keep the truth hidden?. The Hospital spokesman inthe Skripals case said that [a] nobody had been admitted having suffered the symptoms… Read more »

colum
Guest
colum

It makes a funny sense. While 2.0 is a relative non-story it does revive (kind of) the Skripal case. The latest victims are actors (accidents) there to play to the cynicism and throw things back onto the skripals by closing the circle that there was a rogue agent at play who messed up. It permits the forces to pick a target and set up an actual scapegoat that will play the whole Russia narrative. We all know it’s a fit up but what of the floaters and the disinterested?This’ll possibly nail things down and set a new platform to lie… Read more »

Google IsEvil
Guest
Google IsEvil

Upon seeing the picture you chose to headline this article with, my first thought was “Why is Theresa May” wearing a suit & tie”? Then I noticed the Amerikunt flag on her lapel. Then I realized it was a PHOTO-SHOPPED photograph. Then I realized you people lost all credibility and that I’ll NEVER read The Duran ever again.

I ALREADY get enough fake news as it is.

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

I feel I must again apologise for the disgraceful, deceitful and pathetic conduct of our LYING and incompetent so called British government. Their ancestors ran a world-wide empire while this lot could not organise a “piss-up at the brewery”.
Just ignore this bunch of LYING sh…. bags and bring a fumigation kit when your are near them.

fartytowels
Guest
fartytowels

IF there was a syringe… who the heck touches a dirty syringe lying in a park. To suggest they used it to shoot up with is beyond ridiculous. As he was a registered heroin addict he gets free sterile syringes on the NHS. D’oh! There goes another stupid theory…

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

a more lethal nerve agent, then one used by the weaker state of North Korea?

That makes lots of sense. How about using THAN??? Or is it too difficult?

Ger
Guest
Ger

The mysterious ‘syringe’ …. a prop in this bizarre saga? Perhaps next week with Putin’s fingerprints on it! Until recently I believed we Americans had a lock on morons. Thanks to the Brits, we have lost another important position on the world stage.

Jack
Guest
Jack

A lots of words but not necessarily convincing. Let me tell you about Scripal. He is a Russian. traitor who sold for a very little their former friends and coops who seems to got what he deserved but who did it is rather very vage and uncertain and most likely he fell victim from quite different side and from other reason as a scores for his new activities rather than his old job therefore not connected to Moscow as depicted by UK officials aiming to achieve their own end but the true story is yet to unfold and this most… Read more »

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

comment image

comment image comment image

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

Remember in Skripal 1 the UK delayed forever calling in the OPCW, and now AFTER they have been successful in adding to the OPCW the power to “assign blame”, the UK has called in the OPCW.

You cant make this s$it up!

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending