Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Cosmic Yak said:
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.



Nice patronising tone there, theprestige. :rolleyes:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I think we are drifting from the main topic with the only similarity to the OP being that your argument is largely based on wishful thinking.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're also sometimes crap at defending the rights of majorities
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd be quite surprised to learn that any of the gendercrits mentioned upthread (e.g. Caroline Farrow, Miranda Yardley) engaged in anything even vaguely resembling that, so it's a bit odd to say they needed to be interrogated for their speech in a society that claims to embrace freedom of expression.

smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something like this, but smartcooky did it more concisely.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
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.
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
I'd be quite surprised to learn that any of the gendercrits mentioned upthread (e.g. Caroline Farrow, Miranda Yardley) engaged in anything even vaguely resembling that, so it's a bit odd to say they needed to be interrogated for their speech in a society that claims to embrace freedom of expression.

I was going to say something like this, but smartcooky did it more concisely.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered above: see the highlighted.
 
angrysoba said:
I think we are drifting from the main topic with the only similarity to the OP being that your argument is largely based on wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the ability to post gender-critical statements on social media, and the reaction of TRAs to those posts, is absolutely on-topic.
I'm not sure where you're getting 'wishful thinking' from. Care to elaborate?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Are you saying that the notoriously prejudiced British police have suddenly become defenders of trans rights?
Ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It's not PC Bastard of the Beat making the call to haul these people in, it's Chief Inspector Quotas to Fill
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Asked and answered above: see the highlighted.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed it; did you provide any examples of gendercrits crossing the notional "line between gender-critical and hate speech" to clarify where that line is drawn? If not, it seems questionable to defend police interrogation as a tool for suppression of speech in the context of this thread. Who actually needed to be interrogated based on things they actually said or did? Posey Parker, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Absolutely. Not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with this.
Click to expand...

You still have not explained your bizarre claim that the police tending to be racist, homophobic, sexist etc is inconsistent with them supporting TRAs, even though you apparently agree that the agenda of trans activists has little or nothing to do with defending actual rights.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Again, this is TRAs trying to silence free speech, and again failing, and again, this happened a few years ago when this was a new situation.
Click to expand...

Police harassment has a chilling effect on citizens exercising their rights. The fact that someone can trigger an police interview under caution just because they don't like your legal speech is already too far down the road to silencing free speech.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
No, they have an obligation to investigate hate crimes.

It's not 'hateful speech': It's hate crimes, which have a specific legal definition.
Click to expand...
You cannot have a hate crime without a crime. You first need evidence that a crime was committed, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime if it involves hostility based on specific characteristics. If an act is not a criminal offence there is no need or excuse for any further investigation into what motivated the act.

This is not the state censoring free speech: it's about not allowing death threats and the like. Perhaps in America it's OK to call for homosexuals to be killed. In the UK, we don't like that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

None of the cases of people being investigated for expressing gender critical views involved 'death threats and the like'. OTOH, there have been cases where TRAs issued threats of violence and the police refused to investigate. And threats of violence are crimes regardless of whether or not they are hate crimes; the police should not need to know what motivates them to decide whether to investigate.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
You cannot have a hate crime without having a crime. You first need evidence that a crime was committed, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime if it involves hostility based on specific characteristics. If an act is not a criminal offence there is no need or excuse for any further investigation into what motivated the act.
Click to expand...
I suspect that in the UKian context what we're talking about is literal thought policing. Expressing anti-trans ideas isn't a crime... Unless your expression is motivated by anti-trans bigotry. Hence the need for the police to interview you under caution. They need to know if you're just exercising your legal right to object to fiat self-ID as a government policy, or if you're illegally promoting hatred and discrimination against transwomen.
 
Elaedith said:
You still have not explained your bizarre claim that the police tending to be racist, homophobic, sexist etc is inconsistent with them supporting TRAs, even though you apparently agree that the agenda of trans activists has little or nothing to do with defending actual rights.
Click to expand...

You seem absolutely determined to have an argument with me, and I've no idea why, as we are broadly in agreement here.
However, I will do you the courtesy of a little more explanation.
I find it odd that people who hate transvestites support transexuals. I find it odd that people who think homosexuality is a bad thing think that gender fluidity is a good thing. I find it odd that people who are prejudiced against anything that isn't white, male and heterosexual would support people who are not male or heterosexual.
Nothing in that seems in any way bizarre to me.
Your argument is that TRAs are homophobic and sexist. That may well be, but unless you are talking about TRA police officers, I fail to see the relevance.
 
d4m10n said:
Sorry I missed it; did you provide any examples of gendercrits crossing the notional "line between gender-critical and hate speech" to clarify where that line is drawn? If not, it seems questionable to defend police interrogation as a tool for suppression of speech in the context of this thread. Who actually needed to be interrogated based on things they actually said or did? Posey Parker, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the curious thing. Several posters here are claiming that gender critical speech is a crime, subject at the very least to police harassment, or even arrest and prosecution. I have been through several pages of Google, trying to find examples of successful prosecutions for trans hate crimes. You would have thought, from the tone on this thread, that there would be hundreds, maybe even thousands. In actual fact, I was only able to find details of one.
In a transphobic hate crime case prosecuted at Swindon Magistrates’ Court, a man pleaded guilty to a public order offence after he shouted transphobic abuse at a trans-woman in the High Street. The man was sentenced to a 12-month community order with 25 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, as well as ordered to attend a drug rehabilitation programme for six months. The court said they increased his fine from £100 to £200 to reflect how serious this hate crime case was.
Click to expand...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/wessex/news/cps-wessex-successful-hate-crime-cases

Now, following people down the street, screaming abuse at them, may well be acceptable in America. Indeed, from what I've seen of that country, it's kind of the norm. Perhaps even praiseworthy. However, in the UK, we don't think it's nice to do that, so we've made it illegal.
As I said, I could only find this one example. All the others quoted so far have either been unsuccessful, or were a few years ago. Now the climate has changed significantly, and, as no-one has yet acknowledged this, I'll say it again: gender critical speech is protected in the UK under the Equality Act. You cannot be arrested, harassed by the police, lynched, shot, or flayed alive for making such comments.
 
Elaedith said:
You cannot have a hate crime without a crime. You first need evidence that a crime was committed, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime if it involves hostility based on specific characteristics. If an act is not a criminal offence there is no need or excuse for any further investigation into what motivated the act.
Click to expand...

Please provide recent examples of this happening.

Elaedith said:
None of the cases of people being investigated for expressing gender critical views involved 'death threats and the like'. OTOH, there have been cases where TRAs issued threats of violence and the police refused to investigate. And threats of violence are crimes regardless of whether or not they are hate crimes; the police should not need to know what motivates them to decide whether to investigate.
Click to expand...

Citation, please, for the highlighted.
And, again, do you have any recent examples of people being harassed or investigated for expressing gender critical views?
 
theprestige said:
I suspect that in the UKian context what we're talking about is literal thought policing. Expressing anti-trans ideas isn't a crime... Unless your expression is motivated by anti-trans bigotry. Hence the need for the police to interview you under caution. They need to know if you're just exercising your legal right to object to fiat self-ID as a government policy, or if you're illegally promoting hatred and discrimination against transwomen.
Click to expand...

I would appreciate answers to my previous questions. Is it OK in Murka to call for homosexuals to be killed? Is there any limit on the amount of hatred you can stir up in your country, or is that some kind of awful imposition on yur freedums?
Your depiction of Britain as an Orwellian dystopia is so far off the mark, it is laughable. Have you ever actually been there?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
You seem absolutely determined to have an argument with me, and I've no idea why, as we are broadly in agreement here.
However, I will do you the courtesy of a little more explanation.
I find it odd that people who hate transvestites support transexuals. I find it odd that people who think homosexuality is a bad thing think that gender fluidity is a good thing. I find it odd that people who are prejudiced against anything that isn't white, male and heterosexual would support people who are not male or heterosexual.
Nothing in that seems in any way bizarre to me.
Your argument is that TRAs are homophobic and sexist. That may well be, but unless you are talking about TRA police officers, I fail to see the relevance.
Click to expand...

I would find those things odd too, but they have nothing to do with what I said. I did not say the police support transexuals, gender fluidity, or people who are not male or heterosexual. I said the police have frequently embraced and helped to enforce the agenda of TRAs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom