• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
My main interest at the moment is finding why the west is abandoning the teaching of those subjects to children
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: "the west" is doing no such thing. The teaching is broadening to encompass relevant parts that you don't like.

Samson said:
in favour of critical race, gender, and so on.
Click to expand...
Again, these are additions. You may not want to understand why you notions of race, gender and sexuality are deeply offensive and injurious to others, but it's important

Samson said:
That is a political matter,
Click to expand...
No, it's social and cultural matter

Samson said:
and this Scottish Law is fundamentally opposed to those sub forums existing.
Click to expand...
Utter drivel.

Samson said:
JK Rowling is sometimes described as a skilled writer,
Click to expand...
So?

Samson said:
but Junkshop wants her jailed if you follow the logic of the thread.
Click to expand...
So being a "skilled writer" should mean that her offensive comments should be forgiven? That the harassment carried out at her encouragement, by her followers, should be ignored?

Samson said:
The fact we could be discussing this enrages many ex lefties.
Click to expand...
No. What "enrages many ex lefties" is your tolerance for harassment and attacks on homosexuals, transfolk, Muslims and all the other 'out groups' you don't like.
 
Samson said:
Her "bigotry" was main stream when you were raised.
Click to expand...
So ******* what? Some of us at least have progressed beyond:
  • legally preventing married woman working
  • allowing husbands to rape and beat their wives
  • beating up homosexuals for fun
and many, many, many more things. Some of us, at least, have progressed while others are still mired in the prejudices of decades ago.

Samson said:
If I have that wrong tell me how.
Click to expand...
Bigotry, harassment, assault, rape, murder of people because their existence makes you uncomfortable is wrong.
 
A general discussion must embrace the law being enacted.
I will not countenance the polis taking into custody those who misunderstand the law.
 
Samson said:
She has a non crime hate incident logged by India Willougby for misgendering, I am sure you are over this one. The new law supposedly goes further, or people would not advise she leaves Scotland.
Click to expand...

No one will be arrested for misgendering anyone. Anyone can report anything they like to the police, the police have a duty to "investigate" reports.
 
Samson said:
Her "bigotry" is exclusively trans related, and to their demands in sport, changing rooms, refuges and prisons. She presumably opposes medicating minors.
It is not bigotry against gays. My point to Junkshop is they were raised when transphobia did not exist. That is my bet. Homophobia may have depending on age.
Click to expand...

Transphobia has always existed, it is why there has been a T in LGBT for decades, homosexuals and trans folk found commonality in the shared experiences. "Gay" venues pubs etc, were pretty much the only public places they could even dress as they wanted. It was not uncommon for trans folk to enter a gay pub as their biological sex with their opposite gender clothing to change into after arriving at the pub, they would swap back to leave the pub. Just because you only became aware of trans issues a couple or so years ago does not mean there was no history before that. As ever you are wilfully ignorant.
 
Samson said:
The Scottish law curiously catches so called transphobes.This is all paradoxical in a muslim context, since trans is fine, but homosexual is not. The reality is homophobia has no legitimacy, but transphobia does. It is all about who can be harmed.
I think of public facing people like Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle. All same sex attracted, and all "transphobes" by designation of Trans activists. All are endangered by the first ministers law.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It will catch people that fall under its remit so being a transphobe alone will not cause you any issues with the police or prosecutors. Trying to whip up a mob to descend on a trans person's home would fall under the law.
 
Darat said:
Transphobia has always existed, it is why there has been a T in LGBT for decades, homosexuals and trans folk found commonality in the shared experiences. "Gay" venues pubs etc, were pretty much the only public places they could even dress as they wanted. It was not uncommon for trans folk to enter a gay pub as their biological sex with their opposite gender clothing to change into after arriving at the pub, they would swap back to leave the pub. Just because you only became aware of trans issues a couple or so years ago does not mean there was no history before that. As ever you are wilfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
I am almost certainly less wilfully ignorant than the common plebiscite. My mother had a gay brother who lived in London most of his life, and a son who was an autogynephile.
 
Samson said:
I am almost certainly less wilfully ignorant than the common plebiscite. My mother had a gay brother who lived in London most of his life, and a son who was an autogynephile.
Click to expand...

No, you're more wilfully ignorant. You deliberately choose to not actually understand the issues and instead lap up comments by people you listen to because they already agree with you.

I don't understand why you're here. You outright refuse to listen to sources that don't tell you what you want to hear and your posts are almost all asanine regurgitation of half baked ideas spoonfed to you by the racist, transphobic sources you cherrypick. Any attempts by you to make a point of your own are always either laughably naive, just straight up wrong or so lacking in context that you don't even realise your argument is wrong.

Take again the post about Muslims you made where you used what you thought was a shocking statistic about Muslims in the UK having strong influence over politics. You quoted a single statistic about how there are 20 constituencies with a Muslim population of 30%+ and presented it as if the number of Muslims voting in the uk was a massive block that had major influence over politics. You provided no context for this statistic, you just presented it as evidence for your claim that Muslims were "gerrymandering British politics" whatever that means.

When I pointed out that was 3% of the uk constituencies and that Muslims are less than 5% of the uk population you had nothing. Absolutely nothing.
 
Samson said:
The Scottish law curiously catches so called transphobes.
This is all paradoxical in a muslim context, since trans is fine, but homosexual is not. The reality is homophobia has no legitimacy, but transphobia does. It is all about who can be harmed.
I think of public facing people like Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle. All same sex attracted, and all "transphobes" by designation of Trans activists. All are endangered by the first ministers law.
Click to expand...

I think you should start to make reference to the Scots Law you are discussing.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4

Section 4 "(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—
(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and

(b)either—
(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group."

There are two main parts, behaviour AND intent to stir up hatred/would reasonably cause hatred. It will be the courts that decide what is unreasonable behaviour and constitutes intent or is reasonably likely to cause. The courts will look at past case law to determine that.

It is worth noting that section does not include sex. That comes under Section 4(2),
"The characteristics are—
(a)age,
(b)disability,
(c)religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(d)sexual orientation,
(e)transgender identity,
(f)variations in sex characteristics."

Why the act has been split and what consequences that will have are not yet clear.

What is happening at the moment is that opponents of the Act are predicting doom and gloom and lots of innocent people going to prison as free speech ends. What is more likely to happen is Scotland will continue as before, with reasonable behaviour and hate already defined by;

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conte...df/00535892-pdf/govscot:document/00535892.pdf

S18 to 22 of the Public Order Act 1986
S96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
S74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003
S127 of the Communications Act 2003
Gender Recognition Act 2004
S2 of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009
Equality Act 2010
S38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010

and Human Rights legislation. That review of hate laws in Scotland states "...many parts of the current hate crime legislation work well..." and since the new law repeats the wording of past laws, it is hard to see how it will be radically different in its application.
 
It is starting now. I listened to a podcast discussing the law in which it is stated both that when correctly interpreted there is no restraint on free speech, but that the police will not correctly interpret it.

Searching in my view history, it is a detailed analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom