Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Cosmic Yak]

The part where citizens are interviewed by the police for saying what they believe about transgender issues.

Oh, so we're not talking about priests condemning sodomy any more? OK.
Moving to your new tangent, then:
Farrow was investigated because a complaint had been made: the police are obliged to do this. However, the complaint was withdrawn and the case dropped. It is curious that you were able to dig up this incident from 2019, but not able to uncover the resolution.
Misgendering someone is not a hate crime in the UK.
The case you cite, then, is actually an attempt by TRAs to silence free speech where it pertains to trans issues. That attempt failed- something I applaud.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh, so we're not talking about priests condemning sodomy any more? OK.
Moving to your new tangent, then:
Farrow was investigated because a complaint had been made: the police are obliged to do this. However, the complaint was withdrawn and the case dropped.
Misgendering someone is not a hate crime in the UK.
The case you cite, then, is actually an attempt by TRAs to silence free speech where it pertains to trans issues. That attempt failed- something I applaud.

And interestingly, the idiot that made the complaint against Farrow (Sue Green) didn't withdraw it because she thought she was wrong. Oh no, she withdrew it because she didn't want continue to give Farrow a platform.

Translation: The complaint backfired on her, badly, and she didn't want the publicity showing what a complete and utter moron she is.

....It is curious that you were able to dig up this incident from 2019, but not able to uncover the resolution.

Unfortunately, while this specific case is five years old, this sort of crap is still going on

2019: Laura Tanner, an American doctoral candidate and teaching assistant in the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Because of her intellectual and political position of being critical of transgender ideology she has been insulted, intimidated and threatened by transactivists on social media. The campaign against her includes public incitement, defamation and harassment.

2020: Selina Todd, a professor of modern history at Oxford University, was invited to speak at the 50th-anniversary celebration of the 1970 National Women's Liberation Conference. She was going to speak about the importance of sex-segregated safe spaces for biological women. Her invitation was revoked when trans activists complained about her affiliation with Woman's Place UK.

2020: Kathleen Lowrey, an associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta. Eight months into what was supposed to be a three-year term as associate chair of undergraduate studies, she was dismissed from her administrative role because students had complained that she created an “unsafe” learning environment by expressing gender-critical feminist views.

2021: Kathleen Stock, a British Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. Since she started writing about her concerns about the idea of gender identity and its effects on women, lesbians and children, she has been the subject of protests on her campus, articles in the press accusing her of transphobia, petitions to have her de-platformed, and orchestrated attempts to have her sacked. Her office door has been defaced and her lectures protested. Fellow academics have described her work as “transphobic”, “dangerous” and “harmful”.

This is just a taste. There are plenty more who have been fired, de-platformed or threatened into silence by these vile, self-serving scumbags. You can look them up yourself if you want to know more.

Prof Jo Phoenix
Maya Forstater
Kevin Lister
Rachel Meade
James Orwin
Holly Lawford-Smith
Helen Joyce
Germaine Greer (Yes, her)
Dr Shahrar Ali
Bea Jaspert

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Editing

Sorry, what?

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry, what?

I had an addition and changes I wanted to make before anyone read my post.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I had an addition and changes I wanted to make before anyone read my post.

Ah, I see! All good.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, so we're not talking about priests condemning sodomy any more?

If you can explain why that (hypothetical) example is protected and this (real world) example isn't protected that might be helpful. Police harassment in response to offensive speech isn't what we call "freedom of speech" in the rest of the Anglophone world.

 

[Darat]

If you can explain why that (hypothetical) example is protected and this (real world) example isn't protected that might be helpful. Police harassment in response to offensive speech isn't what we call "freedom of speech" in the rest of the Anglophone world.

Which real world example? And police acting on reports is not what is usually meant by “police harassment” e.g. https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/Harassment-By--Police-Officers.html

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If you can explain why that (hypothetical) example is protected and this (real world) example isn't protected that might be helpful. Police harassment in response to offensive speech isn't what we call "freedom of speech" in the rest of the Anglophone world.

Which real world example?

What police harassment?

 

[d4m10n]

Which real world example? And police acting on reports is not what is usually meant by “police harassment” e.g. https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/Harassment-By--Police-Officers.html

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

What police harassment?

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

Had the subject been literally threatening public safety, it might well be arguable that she needed to be interviewed under caution. As it stands, though, it was unwarranted harassment and the police ought to have done their homework first and realized that it was protected speech. They have at least as much access to the internet as anyone else.

 

[Elaedith]

I am 100% certain that christian beliefs would fall under the EA and be classed as protected speech.

Religious beliefs are protected under the Equality Act but specific manifestations of them are not automatically protected.

Aside from that, beliefs about sex and gender are philosophical beliefs and these have additional requirements including being 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others (the Grainger test). The judgements made in the court cases that established gender-critical beliefs as protected made it very clear that they were not equivalent to racism or homophobia and would not be protected if they were.

 

[Elaedith]

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

Had the subject been literally threatening public safety, it might well be arguable that she needed to be interviewed under caution. As it stands, though, it was unwarranted harassment and the police ought to have done their homework first and realized that it was protected speech. They have at least as much access to the internet as anyone else.

Yes, the police have engaged in highly some disgraceful biased conduct which is probably explained by organisations like Mermaid and Stonewall being involved in diversity training and 'educating' police that disagreement with their beliefs about gender is transphobia. This is a major way that the ideology has been pushed in organisations, including universities, because what is taught under the guise of diversity training is presented as something that can't be questioned and disagreement immediately brands you as unemployable.

The police abuse of power in this area goes back a long way. One of the early cases was Miranda Yardley, a transwoman with gender critical beliefs who was charged with harassing a woman with a child identifying as transgender by social media posts which 'outed' the child. The information Yardley posted was actually already in the public domain and was obtained from social media posts made by the child's mother who brought the complaint. The police knew this from the outset but still continued with the case which collapsed immediately in court.

 

[Darat]

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

Had the subject been literally threatening public safety, it might well be arguable that she needed to be interviewed under caution. As it stands, though, it was unwarranted harassment and the police ought to have done their homework first and realized that it was protected speech. They have at least as much access to the internet as anyone else.

That is not what I think anyone would consider to be “police harassment” (your original claim) nor even plain non-police harassment.

That said sadly the UK police are not known for their light touch and nuance. It took a high court judgement about 10 years ago to get the police to understand that swearing at them isn’t an offence, they tend to be rather conservative.

But there are signs that they are getting better at understanding new laws when they are passed.

 

[Darat]

Religious beliefs are protected under the Equality Act but specific manifestations of them are not automatically protected.

Aside from that, beliefs about sex and gender are philosophical beliefs and these have additional requirements including being 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others (the Grainger test). The judgements made in the court cases that established gender-critical beliefs as protected made it very clear that they were not equivalent to racism or homophobia and would not be protected if they were.

No the judgments did not make that clear For example some Christian church’s beliefs, some Islamic Inmans’ teachings are 100% homophobic but stating those beliefs would be protected by the equalities act. You cannot claim as you did that just because a belief is protected under the EA it cannot be transphobic.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Pulling in subjects for interrogation based on opinionated tweets seems like harassment to me.

That was not what happened. The police asked her to attend a voluntary interview. I haven't been able to discover whether that interview even happened. In either case, this is quite obviously not 'police harassment'.

Had the subject been literally threatening public safety, it might well be arguable that she needed to be interviewed under caution. As it stands, though, it was unwarranted harassment and the police ought to have done their homework first and realized that it was protected speech. They have at least as much access to the internet as anyone else.

Again, you are making a number of unfounded assumptions here.
The police have an obligation to investigate complaints of hate speech. The harassment did not come from them: it came from the TRAs, who were trying to weaponise the police to shut down free speech. On what grounds are you claiming that the origin of the case came from the police? Or do you think the police should simply ignore reports of hate crimes?
Then there's the timeline. The complaint was withdrawn, so no further action was taken. You seem to be assuming that, had this not happened, the police would have pursued this case, in ignorance of the actual law. I don't get this. How can they know if a crime has been committed unless they investigate? In what way is investigating a complaint 'harassment'? Have the police 'harassed' Farrow since then? If not, why do you think that is? My guess is that they haven't, because the police themselves have no agenda here. Do you disagree?
You seem eager to paint this as something it is clearly not, and I don't understand your reasons for this.

 

[Darat]

Yes, the police have engaged in highly some disgraceful biased conduct which is probably explained by organisations like Mermaid and Stonewall being involved in diversity training and 'educating' police that disagreement with their beliefs about gender is transphobia. This is a major way that the ideology has been pushed in organisations, including universities, because what is taught under the guise of diversity training is presented as something that can't be questioned and disagreement immediately brands you as unemployable.

The police abuse of power in this area goes back a long way. One of the early cases was Miranda Yardley, a transwoman with gender critical beliefs who was charged with harassing a woman with a child identifying as transgender by social media posts which 'outed' the child. The information Yardley posted was actually already in the public domain and was obtained from social media posts made by the child's mother who brought the complaint. The police knew this from the outset but still continued with the case which collapsed immediately in court.

In the UK the police do not make prosecution decisions, that is the role of various prosecuting agencies e.g. CPS in England and Wales for criminal cases. From your brief summary if accurate would indicate a failing by the CPS not the police.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes, the police have engaged in highly some disgraceful biased conduct which is probably explained by organisations like Mermaid and Stonewall being involved in diversity training and 'educating' police that disagreement with their beliefs about gender is transphobia. This is a major way that the ideology has been pushed in organisations, including universities, because what is taught under the guise of diversity training is presented as something that can't be questioned and disagreement immediately brands you as unemployable.

The police abuse of power in this area goes back a long way. One of the early cases was Miranda Yardley, a transwoman with gender critical beliefs who was charged with harassing a woman with a child identifying as transgender by social media posts which 'outed' the child. The information Yardley posted was actually already in the public domain and was obtained from social media posts made by the child's mother who brought the complaint. The police knew this from the outset but still continued with the case which collapsed immediately in court.

In the Yardley case, the complaint was brought by someone from Mermaid. The case was controversial because it was an early example of TRAs trying to shut down free speech.
https://www.2harecourt.com/2019/03/...first-prosecution-for-transgender-hate-crime/

 

[Elaedith]

In the UK the police do not make prosecution decisions, that is the role of various prosecuting agencies e.g. CPS in England and Wales for criminal cases. From your brief summary if accurate would indicate a failing by the CPS not the police.

The police investigate and decide whether to forward to CPS and they have misused this power to intimidate people. The idea that it doesn't have a chilling effect of free speech as long as people eventually get acquitted is ridiculous. They need to be held accountable if investigations and decisions are motivated by disagreement on political and social issues.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, so we're not talking about priests condemning sodomy any more? OK.
Moving to your new tangent, then:
Farrow was investigated because a complaint had been made: the police are obliged to do this. However, the complaint was withdrawn and the case dropped. It is curious that you were able to dig up this incident from 2019, but not able to uncover the resolution.
Misgendering someone is not a hate crime in the UK.
The case you cite, then, is actually an attempt by TRAs to silence free speech where it pertains to trans issues. That attempt failed- something I applaud.

I doubt that the police are obliged to interview someone under caution every time a complaint is made.

And for me the point in this example is that the interview under caution should not have happened in the first place. Either the law or the police are being an ass, here.

 

[Darat]

The police investigate and decide whether to forward to CPS and they have misused this power to intimidate people. The idea that it doesn't have a chilling effect of free speech as long as people eventually get acquitted is ridiculous. They need to be held accountable if investigations and decisions are motivated by disagreement on political and social issues.

Now you’ve gone to the general, so this is a motte and bailey fallacy. I totally agree that the police have misused their powers to intimidate people, to chill dissent etc. I’ve been a victim of such abuses and have personally known dozens of other victims.

 

[Elaedith]

No the judgments did not make that clear For example some Christian church’s beliefs, some Islamic Inmans’ teachings are 100% homophobic but stating those beliefs would be protected by the equalities act. You cannot claim as you did that just because a belief is protected under the EA it cannot be transphobic.

If you think that any of these cases would have been won if somebody had said 'trans people are revolting and should be put in prison camps' because that would pass the Grainger test for a belief that doesn't conflict with human dignity or the fundamental rights of others, I don't really care what you think. Go on thinking whatever nonsense you like.