I am
XYchromosomeGuy
formerly known as
James (Jim) Orwin
I am content, and covet nothing others may have acquired. I believe I am principled, and I value my integrity. I can be stubborn, insular, unsociable, unforgiving, tender. When, as an adult, I returned to education and completed a GCSE English course, one of my two tutors had a bet with the other that I would comment on (and try to explain away) the remarks in his final report that identified in me a tendency towards arrogance—he won the bet.
I don’t engage with social media platforms such as ‘X’, Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok. I’m sure there are others, but I couldn’t name many more.
I take people as I find them. It’s of no particular interest to me if you are (or claim to be): Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh, American, Canadian, Australian, Chinese, Ukrainian, Russian, or any other nationality; Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Mormon, Amish, or a different religion altogether; an atheist, agnostic, apostate, or religious devotee; a poet, pauper, priest, or king (or queen); black, white, or minority ethnic; same-sex attracted, straight, or bisexual; male, female, or transsexual.
I don’t care.
If you expect me to care, then I find that very suspicious, but also extremely sad that you’re not inclined to navigate your only life by the content of your character.
I try to be honest, forthright, and courteous with everyone I meet or have dealings with, and I would like others to treat me the same way; but I am aware that some have neither the inclination nor the capacity—I can deal with that. I have always taken responsibility for my own actions and decisions.
I agree with Marxist theorist Rosa Luxemburg’s view, as stated in a posthumously published pamphlet in 1922:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous they may be—is no freedom at all. Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently
I believe in the principles of free speech, including (though it appears to be increasingly unpopular amongst the UK judiciary) free speech as expressed by Lord Justice Stephen Sedley in the case of Redmond-Bate vs DPP in 1999:
Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having
I believe that it would be difficult for any reasonable person to argue that any regime, judiciary, or court of law (anywhere in the world) that conspires in any way to avoid upholding these principles, is not ideologically captured, motivated, or compromised.