If a Jehovah’s Witness wants to refuse a blood transfusion that would potentially save their life, I find that sad but it has little to do with me.

If a Jehovah’s Witness wants to refuse consent for a child to have a potentially life-saving blood transfusion, medical staff have the option of seeking a court order to over-ride parental objections.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses as an organisation campaigned to have the law changed so that it is illegal for anyone to be given a blood transfusion, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that ‘Jesus Christ is God’s firstborn son, is inferior to God, and was created by God’, then I don’t agree but it has little to do with me.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted to make it the law that I had to affirm that ‘Jesus Christ is God’s firstborn son, is inferior to God, and was created by God’, it would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
So if a person who identifies as trans wishes to believe they have actually changed sex, I don’t agree but their belief is little to do with me.
If organisations representing people who identify as trans seek to change the law so that someone who identifies as trans can access spaces and services reserved for the sex they believe they have become, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
If these organisations wanted to make it the law that I had to affirm that TWAW, TMAM and NBPANB, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
In any of these situations, I would not be arguing for the death, ill-treatment or removal of existing rights from people. I would be arguing for the protection of my rights.
If a Jehovah’s Witness comes to my door and I tell them I don’t believe in their ideology and have no wish to convert, they don’t vanish in a puff of smoke because they have been invalidated. If a trans identifying person wants me to chant TWAW and I don’t, they still exist.
If someone needs to believe a particular belief, to subscribe to a particular ideology, that is their business. It becomes mine when it impacts on my rights, when it seeks to compel.

More from Society

Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+

You May Also Like