Green Party Depravity

From here:

A Green Party politician has withdrawn from the deputy leadership race after it emerged her father was her election agent despite being charged with child rape. Aimee Challenor’s father David was jailed for 22 years last week for torturing and raping a ten-year-old girl. The 20-year-old was tipped for great success in the party, but pulled out of the race on Sunday.

Aimee, who is transgender, was the party’s equality spokesman and a former parliamentary candidate.

As well as rape, Challenor, 50, was found guilty of of false imprisonment, gross indecency, assault by penetration, assault causing actual bodily harm, making indecent images or children by downloading them and possessing prohibited images. The former Green Party member used to dress in a nappy and an adult-sized baby costume when he raped his victim.

Aimee and her father lived together in a house in Coventry and he was her election agent even after his trial date had been sent.

So the trans equality spokesman essentially hired David Challenor as the trans’ election agent even after the trans knew about the accusations and trial.  Is this queer theory in action?

You can more details about David Challenor’s identity here.


This entry was posted in activism, Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Green Party Depravity

  1. Dhay says:

    If I read the articles correctly, the ten-year old girl horribly abused multiple times in the attic wasn’t Aimee Challenor when a young girl (or when a pre-trans boy of ten?) but some other girl, more recently.

    Aimee Challenor kept her father on as election agent even after the charges were brought and made known to her. Why was she not bothered?

    There’s a whole raft of questions raised by the articles which don’t get answered, including the level of knowledge and involvement of Challenor’s wife:

    Challenor described in court the supposedly legitimate uses of each of the items found in the attic, as did his wife – but their accounts of what they were for did not always tally.

    And how did Challenor get his hands on the child, not once but multiple times?

    Then there’s the question of the level of knowledge and involvement of Aimee Challenor — are we expected to believe his psychologically deranged behaviour appeared suddenly, without warning, fully-fledged?

    There definitely was something seriously wrong at that home, as evidenced by:

    In a statement announcing her withdrawal from the deputy leadership contest the 20-year-old said she was horrified and saddened by her father’s crimes, and only learned the full details of them very recently, despite living at the family home.

    “That might be hard for you to understand, or to believe, but it is the truth,” she said. “I was taken into care a few years ago and have also lived in independent supported housing. There were sustained periods where I did not live in the family home.”

    Care? Independent supported housing? That doesn’t happen in Britain unless the family home is a place hostile to the child thriving. So I judge there’s a lot of back-story.

  2. unclesporkums says:

    Meanwhile, in the US, the latest Green Party candidate claimed he was descended from aliens.

  3. Dhay says:

    Jerry Coyne would say that the child torturer and rapist, David Challenor, had no choice but to do what he did, everything was predetermined inescapably by his genes and his environment. And that accepting hard determinism somehow makes a huge difference to how we should re-structure the justice system. Coyne tells us this is important:

    When it comes to the judicial system, any social improvements will come from determinism, not from pretending that a miscreant could have done otherwise.

    Then he continues:

    Even incompatibilists like myself realize that punishment is needed to deterrence, for rehabilitation, and for keeping society safe. It adds nothing to say that the criminal couldn’t have “chosen” not to commit a crime; in fact, that corrupts our judgment. Does it improve our justice system if we say, falsely, that someone who pulled the trigger couldn’t have chosen not to do so at that moment? I don’t think so. And this means the implications for the concept of “moral responsibility” are also profound.

    Are you puzzled? OK, I admit it, I changed each “could” in Coyne’s original to “couldn’t“, while leaving the rest unchanged.

    The “implications for the concept of “moral responsibility”” which Coyne seems to draw, and to want others to draw, seem to be that whether the criminal has the moral responsibility many would say he has, is irrelevant. I agree, it’s irrelevant whether the criminal does or doesn’t have moral responsibility; so just get on with deciding whether they did it or not, and if they did, give the appropriate sentence: in the case of the child torturer and rapist, David Challenor, to 22 years in prison and a lifetime on the child protection register as a sex offender.

    Coyne recognises that punishment is needed for deterrence, for rehabilitation, and for keeping society safe; thus far, he differs from most people not a jot; that is, Coyne’s sense of moral responsibility is the same as anybody else’s, even while denying there an be a valid “concept of “moral responsibility””.

    Have you noticed that Coyne only ever waffles vaguely: he never tells us what he and other free-will-deniers would actually do differently (if allowed.)


    If you followed the link above you will have realised that Coyne has just been again triggered on the subject of (no) free will; it’s his friend Sean Carroll this time:

    Carroll says this with a chuckle:

    “The most hard-cord deterministic free will denier is constantly talking about choices. They try to persuade you not to believe in free will. Why would they be doing that if everything is determined?“

    So Carroll’s spotted it too: free-will-deniers constantly use the language of free will and choice and should — and the concept of moral responsibility, too.

  4. Dhay says:

    I see that ‘Verbose Stoic’ has looked at the same blog post of Jerry Coyne’s that I just looked at, and has come up with a critique partly on the same lines — eg judicial/prison reform just doesn’t need hard determinism, it’s available if you want it and want to pay for it under any theory of free will or absence thereof — but more wide-ranging and much more thoughtful; as usual, he’s well worth a read:


    OP > So the trans equality spokesman essentially hired David Challenor as the trans’ election agent even after the trans knew about the accusations and trial. Is this queer theory in action? … David Challenor’s identity …

    I’m afraid the case itself was so intriguing, I snored over this, the key question and point of the OP.

    There’s few facts given, but enough to surmise a history of abuse, and of co-dependency. I suspect Aimee Challenor already knew from her — I’ll use the preferred pronoun — her own experience, or had good reason to suspect, what her father was like and was capable of.

    It might be that when she heard of the charges and prosecution she hoped it would all blow over quietly,with political career intact and election agent pay still coming into the family, with a not-guilty verdict; it might be nothing to do with adhering to Queer Theory, the, er, theory that any and every sexual practice or identity is OK, however weird to many.

    Or it might have been Queer Theory in action — we don’t know her mind and motives — if she was consciously following Queer Theory principles and making a statement that it’s perfectly OK to have a David Challenor type pervert alleged non-pervert as an election agent.

  5. Dhay says:

    Spotted in a Salon article entitled “Can the Satanic Temple survive its “civil war”?”:

    [The Satanic Temple have] also conducted high-profile actions in support of pro-choice causes, including staging a protest in Michigan where baby-themed fetish gear was worn …

  6. Dhay says:

    Jerry Coyne would say that the child torturer and rapist, David Challenor, had no choice but to do what he did, everything was predetermined inescapably by his genes and his environment. And that accepting hard determinism somehow makes a huge difference to how we should re-structure the justice system. Coyne tells us this is important:

    When it comes to the judicial system, any social improvements will come from determinism, not from pretending that a miscreant could have done otherwise.

    Ah yes, once we all acknowledge that everybody is entirely determined in every way throughout their lives by their genes and their environment, the justice system will be magically transformed for the better.

    Um, no. Coyne’s wishful thinking is at least half wrong: I have no idea what effect people’s recognising that people are affected by their environment will have, but when people recognise that people behave as they do because of their genes they become more harsh, more judgmental, not less.

    I am indebted to Ben Goldacre, of Bad Science and Bad Pharma book fame, who has published a hundred short Guardian newspaper column articles of his as the book, I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That. One such essay, “The Stigma Gene” (Pp.40-42), first published in 2010, looked at, and criticised a researcher’s claim “with confidence that ADHD is a genetic disease … We hope that these findings will help overcome the stigma associated with ADHD.”

    To summarise Goldacre, no it won’t, the available evidence says otherwise. In a 2001 attitudes survey of first-year psychology undergraduate students probing beliefs about the causes of mental health problems, those who believed more in a biological or genetic cause were more likely to believe that people with mental health problems are unpredictable and dangerous, more likely to fear them, and more likely to avoid interacting with them. A 1999 study had similar results.

    Research in 2002 showed young adults a video portraying a man with psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions, then gave them either biogenetic or psychosocial explanations; yet again, the ‘medical model’ approach significantly increased perceptions of dangerousness and unpredictability.

    2004 research using structured interviews with representative population samples in Germany, Russia and Mongolia found that endorsing biological factors as the root cause for schizophrenia was associated with a greater desire for social distance.

    And lastly, and more compelling than any individual study, a review of the literature up to 2006 found that biogenetic causal theories, and labelling something as an ‘illness’, are both positively correlated to perceptions of dangerousness and unpredictaility, and to fear and desire for social distance. Of nineteen studies addressing the issue, eighteen found that belief in a genetic or biological cause was associated with more negative attitudes to people with mental health problems (and one found the contrary.)

    Goldacre quotes how a story about genetic causes may lead to people being conceived of as ‘defective’ or ‘physically distinct’. It can also stigmatise by association the ‘at risk’ and ‘carrier’ family.

    Much of the above is, or is close to, direct quotation of Goldacre. I’ll finish with a quotation:

    … before reading this research I think I also assumed, unthinkingly, like many people, that a “biological cause” story about mental health problems was inherently valuable for combating stigma. Now I’m not so sure.

    So is Coyne right? Will storylining criminals as puppets of their dangerously defective genes and/or their dangerously defective upbringing or environment, will it lead to better treatment of them, kinder attitudes towards them? Or not?

    From the above it looks like Coyne’s wrong, badly wrong. Scientific research says so.

  7. unclesporkums says:

    Right. And again, the politburo mindset shows its ugly face.

  8. Dhay says:

    In his blog post dated 16 September 2018 entitled “Is belief in free will dangerous? Yuval Harari’s take”, Jerry Coyne returns to a favourite theme, determinism and (no) free will, and of course how wonderful the justice system will be if only everybody would believe in incompatibilist determinism.

    My view, which I’ve amply espoused here, is that the dangers lie mainly in how we punish people—in the retributive and brutal justice system that, in many countries, is predicated on the view that criminals could have chosen to behave differently. My view is that embracing determinism will breed a kindler, gentler, and socially more useful system of justice.

    Turning that around, it’s plain that Coyne considers that the benefits of incompatibilist determinism will lie mainly in how we will punish people. Evidently he doesn’t read the ‘Verbose Stoic’ blog, where VS has pointed out that Norway’s example shows that a reformed justice system is also possible when people do not embrace hard determinism, so it’s hardly necessary to first have Coyne’s hard determinism before introducing “a kindlier, gentler, and socially more useful system of justice”; embracing hard determinism is just one of a number of ways of reaching that end.

    That is, it is if a way of reaching that end at all: Coyne’s “my view” that it is, is irrational, irrational in the sense that whether or not a rational case can be made that the widespread embracing of hard determinism leads to “a kindlier, gentler, and socially more useful system of justice”, Coyne never actually seems to make the rational case that it will, that it must; time and again his case is a sentence or two merely insinuating or asserting that it will, that it must.

    Always, always, always, Coyne has but vague promises for the future; all will be wonderful, albeit “mainly in how we punish people—in the retributive and brutal justice system”, which sounds like only wonderful in just one small corner of our lives; he’s so vague I have no idea (after years) what his recipe for reform will be and what the finished product will look like (or perhaps it just looks like a platitude.) So it’s jam tomorrow: it’s jam made Coyne’s unproven way tomorrow, little of it at that, there’s other ways of successfully making jam which don’t need Coyne’s starting point; he’s got no recipe; he doesn’t even seem to know what jam looks and tastes like, if he cannot – or doesn’t – describe it to his readers, is he able to recognise jam himself? Probably not.


    Coyne’s view is that embracing determinism will breed a kindlier, gentler, and socially more useful system of justice. My own view, based on the scientific research conclusions outlined by Ben Goldacre – see my previous response – is that it will probably have the opposite effect, a nastier, less caring system of justice.


    One reason why thinking of people as the puppets of their genes and environment, as mere automata, as humanoid machines, is illustrated by Richard Dawkins’ version of Coyne’s storyline. Dawkins likens punishing people to Basil Fawlty’s thrashing his car because it wouldn’t start – for those who don’t understand British humour, the joke is that he’s treating a machine as if it were human: what’s not a joke is treating humans as automata, as machines.

    If a car becomes defective you can do what you like with it: if the car is economically repairable (or if to choose to) you can get it to the garage for a bit of tender loving care so it will start reliably; or you can take it for scrap and spare parts; or burn it; and there’s no reason why Fawlty shouldn’t thrash every inch of paintwork from the car – it’s his car and it’s only a machine.

    I’m sure to see where I’m going with this: incarcerating dangerous criminals for life – serial killers, terrorists etc – is very costly and (I expect) economically unviable, so if people are “really” just machines it’s far cheaper and more sensible to destroy them and to “cannibalise” (recycle) their body parts to save probably several other lives; don’t waste the rest, send the rest of the carcass to be recycled in the sausage factory; or thrash every inch of skin off of them – why not, they’re only automata, their screams are of no more significance than the car alarm being triggered.

    A good part of Coyne’s vision is that the wife and kids shouldn’t be at all upset by this, not if they embrace Coyne’s enlightened vision that people are just machines, so Daddy’s just a machine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.