Last week, a British tribunal ruled on the case of doctor who told his boss, in the midst of a conversation about how to interact with transsexual patients, that he would refuse to address “any six-foot-tall bearded man” as “madam.” The doctor was then told that, if so, he would have to leave his position, which he did. But, writes, Dan Hitchens, the most disturbing part of the story is the text of the legal decision against the doctor:

Much of the tribunal’s judgment is barely readable, . . . but it puts its central point clearly enough: a “lack of belief in transgenderism” is “incompatible with human dignity and”—yes—”conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.”

Dr. Mackereth’s bosses might easily have sought a compromise: for instance, people who identify as trans could be passed on to a different doctor. Unfortunately—the tribunal judgment tells us—such a policy might have caused “offense or the potential for offense.” Just imagine! . . . The doctor . . . argued at the employment tribunal that he had suffered discrimination, prompting [the tribunal] to rule that, if you don’t think a man can become a woman—as rather a lot of us don’t—then your view is “incompatible with human dignity.”

First, if this judgment is correct, then presumably anyone can be forced out of a public-sector job on the off chance that he might, at some unspecified point, “offend” some unspecified trans person. Second, the judgment’s expansive wording tells everyone who doesn’t buy [into current orthodoxies] that their views—not even their actions—are against “human dignity.”

Stephen Daisley writes about the slaying of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim:

Yaron and Sarah were murdered in a climate of lies and vilification and hatred. . . . The more institutions participate in this collective madness, the more madness there will be. The more elected officials and NGOs misrepresent the predictable consequences of asymmetric warfare in densely populated territories, where much of the infrastructure of everyday life has a dual civilian/terrorist purpose, the more the citizenries of North America and Europe will come to regard Israelis and Jews as a people who lust unquenchably after blood.

The most intolerant anti-Zionism is becoming a mainstream view, indulged by liberal societies, more concerned with not conflating irrational hatred of Israel with irrational hatred of Jews—as though the distinction between the two is all that well defined anymore.

For years now, and especially after the October 7 massacre, the call has gone up from the pro-Palestinian movement to put Palestine at the heart of Western politics. To pursue the struggle against Zionism in every country, on every platform, and in every setting. To wage worldwide resistance to Israel, not only in Wadi al-Far’a but in Washington, DC. “Globalize the intifada,” they chanted. This is what it looks like.