Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Argument from incredulity.
I am not invested in defending the British police. I was merely stating that in the UK, we have freedom of expression.
The viewpoints of Americans regarding my country are of as much consequence to me as my views about America (specifically homelessness) are to you.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

The British police are well-known to be institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic. The idea that they have suddenly become TRAs is ludicrous.

 

[Elaedith]

The British police are well-known to be institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic. The idea that they have suddenly become TRAs is ludicrous.

Why? Many TRAs are homophobic and certainly sexist and some are racist too. Not sure if this is meant to be sarcasm.

 

[Darat]

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.

Again with the motte and bailey fallacy.

 

[d4m10n]

The police have an obligation to investigate complaints of hate speech.

No, they have an obligation to investigate threats to public safety. Once you get into policing hateful speech (fairly common on the internet, even here at ISF/AAH) you've given up on freedom of expression in favor of empowering the state to censor or chill speech.

I was merely stating that in the UK, we have freedom of expression.

If you really did have that, you would not be interviewed under caution for expressing protected speech.

It is possible for transphobic speech to be bad and still not make that into an issue to be solved by people in uniform, authorized to wield force.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Indeed!

In the case of Sue Green/Caroline Farrow, the latter posted a tweet that apparently misgendered Green's daughter. Green got her panties in a bunch and complained to the Surrey Police. As a result Ms Farrow was asked to subject herself to a recorded interview under caution.

In the case of Helen Islan/Miranda Yardley, this was all over a Tweet that triggered the snowflake to complain because she thought the Tweet had "outed" her transgender child. As a result, this actually went to court.

The whole idea of a law allowing Police investigations over opinions expressed online is to intimidate those with certain beliefs and views into silence by threatening to drag them through the mill and make life difficult for them. Even if there is no prosecution at the end of it, the investigatory steps by the Thought Police will have already done the required damage - others will now think twice before exercising their free speech rights to express their views.

Neither of these cases should never have even got as far as they did. The law should not even allow an investigation of something someone says online unless the complainant claims an actual and/or physical threat or incitement to violence was made. The investigation should have ended when the Police read the Tweet in question and established that no such threat was made. The Police response to both Green and Islan should have been "Get over yourself, harden up and stop wasting Police time with your inane bollocks".

Deliberate misgendering is not a threat, its an opinion!
Refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is not a threat, its a right!
Deadnaming someone is not an act of violence, its speaking the truth.
Expressing gender-critical beliefs is not transphobia, its a statement of objective, scientific reality.

 

[theprestige]

Argument from incredulity.

I'm not offering my incredulity as a rebuttal to your argument. I'm saying your naked claim that UK police are obliged to interview someone under caution any time a complaint is lodged does not a priori convince me.

I am not invested in defending the British police. I was merely stating that in the UK, we have freedom of expression.

I've long known that UKians have a much higher tolerance for state oversight and interference in the lives of its citizens than I am comfortable with. I know you sincerely believe that you enjoy an appropriate degree of freedom of expression as a UK citizen. I just find the level of freedom you're comfortable with to be offensively less free than what I think it should be.

The viewpoints of Americans regarding my country are of as much consequence to me as my views about America (specifically homelessness) are to you.

It's not so much my view of your country, as my view of certain policies that you are comfortable with but I am not.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, they have an obligation to investigate threats to public safety.

No, they have an obligation to investigate hate crimes.

Once you get into policing hateful speech (fairly common on the internet, even here at ISF/AAH) you've given up on freedom of expression in favor of empowering the state to censor or chill speech.

It's not 'hateful speech': It's hate crimes, which have a specific legal definition. This is not the state censoring free speech: it's about not allowing death threats and the like. Perhaps in America is's OK to call for homosexuals to be killed. In the UK, we don't like that sort of thing.

If you really did have that, you would not be interviewed under caution for expressing protected speech.

We still don't know whether that actually happened or not, so please stop assuming that it did.
The police need to determine whether a crime has been committed. To do this, they need to investigate. Again, I don't know how things work in the US: do the police investigate? Your police seem to prefer simply shooting people if they think they've done wrong, something we frown upon in Britain.

It is possible for transphobic speech to be bad and still not make that into an issue to be solved by people in uniform, authorized to wield force.

Yes, it is. However, in the teething stages of that legislation, the police and the CPS were still working out where the line was to be drawn between what's acceptable and what's not. This is especially true when you consider that TRAs were- and still are- trying to weaponise anti-hate crime legislation to shut down free speech. You appear to be confusing cause and effect here. The complaints came from private individuals, which led to the police taking action. The state itself is not trying to shut down free speech.

 

[smartcooky]

We still don't know whether that actually happened or not, so please stop assuming that it did.

It doesn't matter whether the interview took place or not. The request to interview under caution is enough to chill free speech. There is an implied threat if that if she refuses the request, they may decide to bring her in for questioning anyway. In the political environment as it has been in the last half-decade or so in the UK, I would not blame her for feeling intimidated by such a request.

The police need to determine whether a crime has been committed. To do this, they need to investigate.

Yes, and that investigation should start by looking at the Tweet or Social Media post in question. If that post does not contain an actual and/or physical threat or incitement to violence against anyone, then the investigation ends right there! No reason exists to proceed any further, and certainly NOT to the point of requesting the poster for an interview under caution.

The Farrow complaint investigation should have ended immediately at that point, and the Yardley complaint should never, ever have seen the inside of a court room.

If anyone should be interviewed under caution, its the people (Green and Islan) making the false complaints to the Police.

 

[Darat]

It doesn't matter whether the interview took place or not. The request to interview under caution is enough to chill free speech. There is an implied threat if that if she refuses the request, they may decide to bring her in for questioning anyway. In the political environment as it has been in the last half-decade or so in the UK, I would not blame her for feeling intimidated by such a request.



Yes, and that investigation should start by looking at the Tweet or Social Media post in question. If that post does not contain an actual and/or physical threat or incitement to violence against anyone, then the investigation ends right there! No reason exists to proceed any further, and certainly NOT to the point of requesting the poster for an interview under caution.

The Farrow complaint investigation should have ended immediately at that point, and the Yardley complaint should never, ever have seen the inside of a court room.

If anyone should be interviewed under caution, its the people (Green and Islan) making the false complaints to the Police.

That would be the police deciding which laws to police, our police are bad enough with them supposedly policing the law as it is, one of the last things I want is the police going back to their old practices of policing what they wanted, when they wanted.

 

[smartcooky]

That would be the police deciding which laws to police, our police are bad enough with them supposedly policing the law as it is, one of the last things I want is the police going back to their old practices of policing what they wanted, when they wanted.

This is totally incorrect. What it is, is police deciding whether a crime has been committed... and that is their job.

If someone reports a crime, and the first step of their investigation discovers that no crime has been committed, then there is nothing more to investigate.

If someone reports a house is on fire, and the Police and fire brigade arrive at the house to find it is not on fire, then that should be the end of the investigation into the fire. No crime has been committed. There may be an investigation of who raised the false alarm, but it ain't going to involve a burning house.

If someone reports an assault against person "A", but when the Police interview Person "A", they tell the Police they have NOT been assaulted, what is there left to investigate. No crime has been committed. There may be an investigation of who made the false Police report, but it ain't going to involve an assault.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It doesn't matter whether the interview took place or not. The request to interview under caution is enough to chill free speech. There is an implied threat if that if she refuses the request, they may decide to bring her in for questioning anyway. In the political environment as it has been in the last half-decade or so in the UK, I would not blame her for feeling intimidated by such a request.



Yes, and that investigation should start by looking at the Tweet or Social Media post in question. If that post does not contain an actual and/or physical threat or incitement to violence against anyone, then the investigation ends right there! No reason exists to proceed any further, and certainly NOT to the point of requesting the poster for an interview under caution.

The Farrow complaint investigation should have ended immediately at that point, and the Yardley complaint should never, ever have seen the inside of a court room.

If anyone should be interviewed under caution, its the people (Green and Islan) making the false complaints to the Police.

All of this is fine, but it's ignoring the fact that things have moved on from when these cases happened. It has now been established in court that gender-critical views are protected speech. That means no-one can be prosecuted for expressing such beliefs.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...d-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater
However, there is still a line between gender-critical and hate speech. I think it entirely right that the police should investigate reports and complaints, to see whether that line has been crossed.
As for the 'threat hanging over' people- OK, good. People should consider whether or not what they post on social media is going to intimidate others, stir up violence against them or otherwise harm them. If people won't think about the consequences of their actions unprompted, then the threat of legal action will make them think about this. As an example, there have been a number of recent arrests in the wake of the riots in the UK, of people who stirred up hatred against immigrants, posted demonstrable lies (about the Southport stabbings) or organised those riots. I think this is justified: presumably you, and the Americans on this site, disagree.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm not offering my incredulity as a rebuttal to your argument. I'm saying your naked claim that UK police are obliged to interview someone under caution any time a complaint is lodged does not a priori convince me.

Naughty little strawman there, theprestige. And that's still an argument from incredulity as well.
What I actually said, and what is the actual case, is that the police are obliged to investigate reports of hate crimes. The interview under caution smacks of over-zealousness to me, but they do have to ascertain the facts.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l.../how-to-report-a-hate-incident-or-hate-crime/

I'm guessing, from your opposition to this procedure, that in America, the police are under no obligation to do anything, and can cheerfully ignore any and all reports of hate crimes. You may think this makes your country better: I would have to disagree.

I've long known that UKians have a much higher tolerance for state oversight and interference in the lives of its citizens than I am comfortable with. I know you sincerely believe that you enjoy an appropriate degree of freedom of expression as a UK citizen. I just find the level of freedom you're comfortable with to be offensively less free than what I think it should be.

Nice patronising tone there, theprestige.
What freedoms do you enjoy in the States that you believe we lack in Britain?
It is ironic that, in the US Politics threads, there are numerous complaints about how the likes of Fox News are allowed to broadcast obvious and provable lies. These lies have led to deep fissures in American society, and are actually endangering democracy and the rule of law in your country. If those are the freedoms you want, you are welcome to them: I prefer truth, and a less fractured society. YMMV.

It's not so much my view of your country, as my view of certain policies that you are comfortable with but I am not.

By your own arguments, if you have not lived in the UK, you have no right whatsoever to comment on it. Housing First is a policy too, you know.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Why? Many TRAs are homophobic and certainly sexist and some are racist too. Not sure if this is meant to be sarcasm.

Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.

 

[Elaedith]

Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.

What most trans activists call 'trans rights' has nothing to do with 'prejudice' (or with rights); it's about enforcing a specific ideological belief system by framing disagreement with that belief system as transphobia.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What most trans activists call 'trans rights' has nothing to do with 'prejudice' (or with rights); it's about enforcing a specific ideological belief system by framing disagreement with that belief system as transphobia.

Absolutely. Not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with this.

 

[Aber]

Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.

Yes; in some cases they have.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118

The Court of Appeal said national rules set by the College of Policing had placed too much emphasis on the perception of transphobic hostility, despite no evidence recorded by police.

 

[Darat]

Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.

It's as if someone thought you might need a cite for your claim.

‘Treated like an animal’ - officers say Met racism getting worse

And that "getting worse" is about how the white police treat their fellow officers, but of course they are all bending over backwards to stop people even looking funny at a trans person.

(The irony in that report from the Met spokesperson is deep and wide "...We are deeply concerned to hear these accounts and we are so sorry that there are people in the Met who feel this way about working here...." yes that's exactly what your white officers feel as well.)

 

[Darat]

Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.

Yes; in some cases they have.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118

The Court of Appeal said national rules set by the College of Policing had placed too much emphasis on the perception of transphobic hostility, despite no evidence recorded by police.

They made no mention that this was specifically to do with hate-speech aimed at trans folk. It was the entirety of the guidelines that had to be reworked, and as your article states they are talking about guidelines that have been in place since the 90s.

The case you refer to shows both a weakness and a strength of the UK systems - precedents often have to be created so that people can make judgements regarding what the legislation passed by parliament means. And sometimes until such precedents are set people and organisations must use their own understanding of what the legislation means and sometimes, they get it wrong.

ETA:And I forgot to mention - the police should be defenders of trans folk's rights, as they should be for everyone's rights. Sadly as we know the police forces in the UK are very bad at defending the rights of all minorities.

 

[Elaedith]

Absolutely. Not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with this.

Because you seem to be implying that there is some sort of contradiction between police being prejudiced, racist, homophobic, sexist etc and police being avid enforcers of the demands of TRAs. There is no contradiction. Quite the contrary. Strongly supporting modern 'trans rights' rights activism (which is an elite, top-down movement supported by wealthy and powerful people and high-status institutions) is perfectly compatible with being all or any of those things (especially misogyny) and with being an authoritarian bully, narcissist and bigot.