The consultation on the legislation says that the protection will apply to harassment received by people because of their gender, not their sex. So women will be protected, as well as men who say they are women. Could well end up being used to prosecute women who refuse to address trans identifying men by their preferred pronouns.
The consultation on the legislation says that the protection will apply to harassment received by people because of their gender, not their sex. So women will be protected, as well as men who say they are women.
occam i know you’ve been radicalized quite far along by now but: this would be a good thing
why would you be pro-harassment of trans people fgs?
Loving the idea of crime in Scotland becoming functionally decriminalised because the entire police force is busy trying to get the ip address for BitchSlay3r8 in the incel section of reddit
why would you be pro-harassment of trans people fgs?
I wouldn’t be “pro” harassment of anyone. I’d be perfectly happy with the legislation if (a) the protected characteristic was sex, and included both sexes and so (b) it was clear that it didn’t create a criminal offence simply by gender non-believers expressing their protected beliefs.
What the hell!? I regularly tell my mates who I've hooked up with in the previous week. I have plenty of female mates who do the same - would that not be illegal?
It's obviously vile (but typical of bigots) that Tom seeks to facilitate the hate and harassment of trans women, already a highly vulnerable minority facing far higher levels of violence than non-trans women, but its probably not a problem unless the current proposal is changed.
The proposal is:
The offence of misogynistic harassment is committed where the accused person:
behaves in a manner that is threatening, sexual or abusive (or a combination of those things); and
the behaviour is directed at a particular person or group of people; and
it is so directed at that person or group of people by reason of their being, or one or more members of the group being, or presumed to be, a woman or girl; and
a reasonable person would consider that the behaviour would be likely to have the effect of causing the person or a member of the group to suffer, fear, alarm, degradation, humiliation or distress; and
the accused either intends their behaviour to have one of these effects, or else is reckless as to whether their behaviour is likely to have one or more of these effects on that person (there is no requirement that the behaviour must actually have this effect).
So in Toms case his hate would not be based on the victim being a woman or girl, but because of his irrational prejudice against a trans person who incidentally happens to be a woman or girl.
I wouldn’t be “pro” harassment of anyone. I’d be perfectly happy with the legislation if (a) the protected characteristic was sex, and included both sexes
how would offenders know the biological sex of everyone around them? surely gender is the only way to assess it
and so (b) it was clear that it didn’t create a criminal offence simply by gender non-believers expressing their protected beliefs
well i haven’t read the legislation but presumably it wouldn’t unless the gender non-believers were harassing someone
How hard can it be not to say humiliating and abusive stuff to people? I'm not saying lock them up but some sort awareness program should be available showing them where this can lead to.
i dunno what the analogy would be but if someone at work was deliberately referring to a colleague or subordinate of nigerian heritage as “the nigerian” even if they’d asked to be referred to as british, that could form the basis of a harassment claim couldn’t it?
Tom might have some trouble with the 'offence of stirring up hatred' though, because it's triggered if its directed against a particular sub-group of women or girls (underlined below). So an intention to stir up hatred against transwomen will probably be covered. Best get responding to the consultation Tom and have a whine, your freedom to be a complete c u n t about vulnerable persecuted minorities is at stake:
1 Offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or
(ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and
(b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against women and girls.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if—
(a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and
(b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case.
(4) For the purposes of subsection 1(a)(i), a person's behaviour—
(a) includes behaviour of any kind, and in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,
(b) may consist of—
(i) a single act, or
(ii) a course of conduct.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by—
(a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material,
(b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person,
(c) making the material available to another person in any other way.
(6) A person who commits an offence under this section if liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
(7) In this section—
"material" means anything that is capable of being looked at, read, watched or listened to, either directly or after conversion from data stored in another form,
"women and girls" includes women or girls (or both)—
(a) of a particular description or who are members of a particular group,
(b) who are presumed by the offender to be of a particular description or members of a particular group.
2 Protection of freedom of expression for the purposes of the offence of stirring up hatred against women and girls
For the purposes of section 1, behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of matters relating to women and girls.
Ironic of course that a measure designed to protect women, an actual and very real issue, is going to get derailed by a debate about trans women, a pretend issue driven by bigotry. Just goes to show, once again, how harmful to women it is when you are seeking to normalise exclusion, intolerance and bigotry towards minority groups.
No surprise that risky wants to use the trans angle to derail the whole measure eh! Now there's the real agenda of the kind of people who are fanning the transbigot flames
The criminalisation of factual commentary sounds horribly dystopian. I don't think that's the intention of this legislation, but it could certainly be construed that way.
Why ‘women and girls’? Why wouldn’t ‘men and boys’ benefit from the same protection? It’s just pure sexism. It’s kind of hard to believe how abysmally retrograde this proposal is.
presumably it’s fine to be a khunt to trans men under this new law as they have elected to fall into the pariah group with the male untermench
Rarely, I totally agree with you Hotnow. I don’t see how this legislation would survive a challenge based on it not protecting men from exactly the same detriment based on their sex. Have said so on previous threads. Just because misandry is much less prevalent than misogyny doesn’t mean victims should be denied the same legal protections.
While preaching on 8 June 2021 in Briggate, Leeds, a pedestrianised area of the city, Mr McConnell was asked, while speaking about a range of topics, by a biological male that self-identified as a ‘trans woman’ whether God accepted the LGBT community.
Responding to the question, Mr McConnell, who encourages members of the public to ask him questions while preaching, said: “No, God hates sin. So, this gentleman asked a question…”
Members of the crowd screamed at him:“She’s a woman!”
Mr McConnell replied: “No, this is a man”, to which a female member of the crowd shouted: “She’s just as much a woman as me!”
Continuing to calmly preach about what the Bible says about sexual sin and homosexuality, Mr McConnell referred to the individual as ‘this gentleman’ and a ‘man in women’s clothes.’
The senior judiciary are doing a good job of pushing back on this madness thankfully but I wonder how long that will last.
The overreach of the police here is an utter disgrace. Free speech matters. More than that the idea that by government fiat you can change the meaning of a word as common place as man or woman that has been in place for a thousand years is just so insanely Orwellian that I don’t know where to begin with it.
One of the main problems is the ridiculous nature of the public order offence of causing "offence", enforced by often not very bright rozzers.
I'm "offended" by the sh1t that comes out of Chill's and Warren's mouths, and if they said it in public I'd be just as the trans-identfiying man in this story. Enforcement is totally subjective, and given the Police's capture by Stonewall it isn't surprising they get over-zealous protecting the hurty feelz over men with special identities when they should be doing something better with their time.
CPS has leave to appeal. Although everyone should be doing something better with their time I hope the CPS do appeal - it’s important that magical thinking is again banished from the law.
Lol, you morons are still opposing legislation designed to directly combat misogyny on the grounds it interferes with your right to express your bigotry towards trans people?
Nice to see how far your dishonest nonsense about the trans stuff being motivated by 'concern for women's safety & rights' actually goes in practice.
but he wasn’t arrested for misgendering anyone - he was arrested for his homophobia - and he wasn’t charged with terrorism offences as occam said earlier in this thread
More than that the idea that by government fiat you can change the meaning of a word as common place as man or woman that has been in place for a thousand years is just so insanely Orwellian that I don’t know where to begin with it.
Funny that Donny, I'm old enough to recall misogynysts and homophobes saying exactly the same thing about all sorts of words, labels, practices being changed to accommidate women's rights, and later gay people. They still run exactly that laughable argument about marriage and the 'thousands of years' it meant man and women as some sort of retarded justification for why it shouldn't change. Pretty standard bigots argument, seems little reason not to treat the current TERF employment of it with the same contempt, yes?
Asked what the allegations were against Dave, the officer said: “Homophobic hate crime. Officers say that there are a lot of members of the crowd who are ‘harassed, alarmed and distressed’
as well as repeatedly calling the trans woman a man, he also said homosexuality was an abomination
Pretty standard bigots argument, seems little reason not to treat the current TERF employment of it with the same contempt, yes?
It would be a shame if you got prosecuted for using a misogynistic slur, Warren, I imagine you’d be less ok with sweeping “hate crime” legislation then.
It's a fair point about marriage, and it was in large part out of respect for that, that the UK initially took the less controversial step of adopting civil partnerships for same sex couples. I think that was the right approach at the time. My closest friend at the time was a gay man and a firm supporter of that approach precisely because he understood that if you move faster than your society is ready for, it causes problems.
Crucially, the UK also allowed people to express their disquiet about same sex unions. Over time those people have lost the argument and now gay marriage is largely supported.
What the UK did NOT do was try to bang people up for saying in public that a same sex union wasn't the same as marriage.
A hell of a lot of people in this world still believe homosexuality is somewhere between a disease and an abomination. I believe they are absolutely wrong. I don't think we should try to lock them all up for expressing their beliefs though. Even if they say it loudly in public.
People believe all sorts of daft sh1t and that is their right. Calvinists think I am highly likely to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity regardless of what I do in this world because as I am a non-believer who likes to sing (very badly) dance (equally badly) and on occasion wear fancy clothes it is very, very likely I am not one of those predestined to be saved and am therefore dammed. I think that is, you know, a bit daft like. Were one of them to shout it at me in the street I would walk on. If he was rude and I was in a bad mood I might give them the finger and tell them to fook off (hoping, perhaps in vain these days that our judges are as sensible and robust as those in Canada). What I would not do is call the po po and ask that they be arrested.
What Donny says. The courts and prisons and police are barely coping with crime as it is without being filled up with this. These suggested amendments are rarely by lawyers or anyone else who works in the field but tend to be the work of the ego of NGOs and politicians. This is extremist legislation imo.
Would Warren and Chill agree, then, is misgendering someone deliberately and loudly in public should lead to a criminal conviction, that everyone repeatedly calling someone either a TERF in public, or calling them "cisgender" when a person has said they are not "cisgender" should be treated similarly?
We have nil growth, unprecedented debt, sustained inflation, truly shite trading terms with the rest of the world, and a government of token representation.
Bertha - all of those things will get worse if we revert to law based on ephemeral theory propagated by an outlier minority of zealots. Societies in thrall to ideological fantasists never thrive. “This issue” is a keystone (lower case k!) issue. Everyone’s time could be better spent but here we are.
Chill, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you never thought you'd be "fighting alongside" people who would routinely and loudly wish rape / sexual assault / violence / death on women they disagree with, but there you are...
(Although, of course, some might say that your defining RoF quote - "it's not great, Clive" - could suggest that you don't find it too much of a hardship after all).
Bullace where we are is lunatic and should be rejected out of hand. What’s needed is clear enforcement of current law not halfarsed knee jerk new ones.
fwiw occam i don’t think the chap should have been arrested for standing on a street corner and saying homosexuality is an abomination - he should be allowed to say it and the crowd should be allowed to tell him to fvck off (and again, well done to the people of leeds)
now tbf there needs to be some sort of “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” limits and the police need to be able to move him on if it looks like there’s going to be violence involved, but i don’t think he should have been arrested (and certainly not charged)
i do think the whole “oh he didn’t intend to cause distress because he honestly holds those beliefs” is a bit of a cop out tbh (of course you can intend distress or harassment with honestly held beliefs!) but it might be the only way in practice to get around locking him up for essentially speaking his piece in public
at a guess, I think I'd be in favour of repealing all the new crimes for saying things that have made it onto the statute book since say the year 2000. Like donny D, I think people should be free to say offensive things - and we can laugh at them.
But I can't be bothered to learn about all the new offences
I expect most people would want finite police resource to focus on knife and other violent crimes, rapes, other sex crimes, burglary and vandalism.
lots of homophobic people might “honestly believe” that homosexuality is wrong, should they all be let off the hook for shouting their belief in public?
Whether someone honestly believes what they say or not is completely irrelevant ffs (or at least it should be). There is no general crime of lying or (despite what millennials seem to think) 'not being true to yourself'.
Aside from that I am pleased to see you agree that the police were ludicrously out of line here in arresting him and the appeal was correctly decided.
Warren: "trans women, already a highly vulnerable minority facing far higher levels of violence than non-trans women"
The risk to females is males
The risk to males is males
---
375 transgender people were killed this year (2021), a figure that has risen since last year's total of 350.
The report authors say this makes 2021 the 'deadliest year' of violence against gender diverse people since records began.
The annual global list is released for Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR), held on November 20 each year.
The majority of the murders happened in Central and South America (70%). But like last few years, the most deaths in a single country occurred in Brazil, totalling 33% of global deaths.
Over half (58%) of those murdered were sex workers.
Globally 81,000 women and girls were killed in 2020. This is an average of one death every 11 minutes.
It has been estimated that one in three women over the age of 16 in Great Britain were subjected to at least one form of harassment in the year to November 2021. This increases to two in three for women aged 16 to 34.
Meanwhile, an estimated 1.6 million women aged 16 to 74 experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the 12 months to November 2021.
Around 5.1 million women aged 18 to 74 experienced some form of abuse when they were children.
In the 12 months to March 2020, 81 women in the UK were killed in a domestic homicide.
---
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
Females:
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
Males:
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
---
Here you can filter crimes by those stating they're trans by type of crime and year:
well not really gloria - rumple posted the statistics above
(rumpole doesn’t understand statistics so you have to compare the number of women in the world - about 3.9 billion - with the number of trans people - which is maybe 15 million (if you take the 2% figure which tbh may be toppy))
so warren’s claim can make sense
but look all these figures are impossible to actually accurately claim
the point is you can’t compare “trans people” to “women” on a global scale by real figures
As long as you're debunking any claims that it's impossible to properly assert that trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than any other groups then. Sure you are, just at a different school.
agreed i think it’s impossible to assert trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than any other groups
the stats aren’t going to be reliable enough because there’s no way to record “trans” reliably in death certs (eg what if they’re closeted or enby - i think we’ve had this chat before?)
In what ways does Warren's claim make sense, Chill? I'm not asking for your opinion. I am asking for data showing his claim makes sense.
It's also becoming increasingly hard to identify stat's on females, given people like you Warren and Chill advocate for measures which mean males get included in the stat's, whis is, for obvious reasons, to the detriment of females.
Presumably, if they are "closeted" to the extent that their death could not "reliably" be included in the statistics, then it is probably unlikely that their trans status had a bearing on their death, isn't it?
Presumably, if they are "closeted" to the extent that their death could not "reliably" be included in the statistics, then it is probably unlikely that their trans status had a bearing on their death, isn't it?
Eh? If their identity was closeted to the extent that no-one knew about it, how could it have been a reason for their assault / death? I mean, if I were to get into a fight in a bar, punch someone, later discover they were gay, would you say that it was a homophobic assault?
No, i'm talking about the point (I thought) you were making about the inherent unreliability of trans related stats because some trans people might have been in the closet at the time of their assault or death. What am I missing?
0
1
seems reasonable. surprised it’s not already an offence 2bh
3
0
The consultation on the legislation says that the protection will apply to harassment received by people because of their gender, not their sex. So women will be protected, as well as men who say they are women. Could well end up being used to prosecute women who refuse to address trans identifying men by their preferred pronouns.
https://www.gov.scot/news/misogyny-law-consultation/
0
1
(Oh and the law does already exist, it’s just being expanded)
0
0
The porn one is definitely already capable of prosecution. I am deeply suspicious of approaching problems in this way
4
0
And yes am pretty sure it will be used to prosecute those who don't use preferred pronouns if it goes ahead in current form
2
0
occam i know you’ve been radicalized quite far along by now but: this would be a good thing
why would you be pro-harassment of trans people fgs?
1
0
Would it also cover discussion of past conquests on orange internet forums?
5
0
Loving the idea of crime in Scotland becoming functionally decriminalised because the entire police force is busy trying to get the ip address for BitchSlay3r8 in the incel section of reddit
5
1
I wouldn’t be “pro” harassment of anyone. I’d be perfectly happy with the legislation if (a) the protected characteristic was sex, and included both sexes and so (b) it was clear that it didn’t create a criminal offence simply by gender non-believers expressing their protected beliefs.
6
0
What the hell!? I regularly tell my mates who I've hooked up with in the previous week. I have plenty of female mates who do the same - would that not be illegal?
The world has gone woke mad.
0
0
It's obviously vile (but typical of bigots) that Tom seeks to facilitate the hate and harassment of trans women, already a highly vulnerable minority facing far higher levels of violence than non-trans women, but its probably not a problem unless the current proposal is changed.
The proposal is:
So in Toms case his hate would not be based on the victim being a woman or girl, but because of his irrational prejudice against a trans person who incidentally happens to be a woman or girl.
8
0
Facts are never hateful. Criminalising the statement of facts is not a good idea.
0
0
how would offenders know the biological sex of everyone around them? surely gender is the only way to assess it
well i haven’t read the legislation but presumably it wouldn’t unless the gender non-believers were harassing someone
0
0
How hard can it be not to say humiliating and abusive stuff to people? I'm not saying lock them up but some sort awareness program should be available showing them where this can lead to.
0
0
eh? this is clearly not true
i dunno what the analogy would be but if someone at work was deliberately referring to a colleague or subordinate of nigerian heritage as “the nigerian” even if they’d asked to be referred to as british, that could form the basis of a harassment claim couldn’t it?
will defer to you on that one
0
0
Tom might have some trouble with the 'offence of stirring up hatred' though, because it's triggered if its directed against a particular sub-group of women or girls (underlined below). So an intention to stir up hatred against transwomen will probably be covered. Best get responding to the consultation Tom and have a whine, your freedom to be a complete c u n t about vulnerable persecuted minorities is at stake:
3
1
This seems prime for all manner of unintended consequences
2
0
Ironic of course that a measure designed to protect women, an actual and very real issue, is going to get derailed by a debate about trans women, a pretend issue driven by bigotry. Just goes to show, once again, how harmful to women it is when you are seeking to normalise exclusion, intolerance and bigotry towards minority groups.
No surprise that risky wants to use the trans angle to derail the whole measure eh! Now there's the real agenda of the kind of people who are fanning the transbigot flames
0
0
this is very true tbf
0
1
Seems a sensible law tbh.
3
0
The criminalisation of factual commentary sounds horribly dystopian. I don't think that's the intention of this legislation, but it could certainly be construed that way.
3
0
I agree with Tom, IMO it’s a Trojan horse for getting a legal definition of woman that includes all males who identify as women.
2
0
It’s hilarious that anyone would look to the SNP to tackle misogyny.
3
1
Might catch reading the Bible or Koran even - every church near you at risk in Scotland.
0
1
ah, the sinister cabal of queer anarcho-marxists controlling the scottish government have struck again!
2
1
Even without this law there is a bloke who is being charged with terrorism offences for saying a man was a man. Absolutely mental.
0
1
https://christianconcern.com/news/street-preacher-appeals-conviction-fo…
Never thought I’d sympathise with a Christian estate agent. It’s a funny old world.
3
1
1
0
Why ‘women and girls’? Why wouldn’t ‘men and boys’ benefit from the same protection? It’s just pure sexism. It’s kind of hard to believe how abysmally retrograde this proposal is.
presumably it’s fine to be a khunt to trans men under this new law as they have elected to fall into the pariah group with the male untermench
3
1
Rarely, I totally agree with you Hotnow. I don’t see how this legislation would survive a challenge based on it not protecting men from exactly the same detriment based on their sex. Have said so on previous threads. Just because misandry is much less prevalent than misogyny doesn’t mean victims should be denied the same legal protections.
0
1
lol @ “continuing to calmly preach”
well done to the people of leeds tbf
3
0
"Sophistication? I've been to Leeds"
0
1
Looks like the news report fails to accurately represent the effect of the proposed legislation. Quelle surprise.
2
0
Hehsome wording. How would a state that passes such a law know what a "reasonable person" thinks.
0
0
Unwalt. Take the Myers Brigg test.
0
0
I have taken a proper commercial one. Result checked out.
0
0
update on the story:
https://twitter.com/CConcern/status/1633893251122855936?s=20
6
1
The senior judiciary are doing a good job of pushing back on this madness thankfully but I wonder how long that will last.
The overreach of the police here is an utter disgrace. Free speech matters. More than that the idea that by government fiat you can change the meaning of a word as common place as man or woman that has been in place for a thousand years is just so insanely Orwellian that I don’t know where to begin with it.
2
0
"update on the story:
https://twitter.com/CConcern/status/1633893251122855936?s=20"
They need to start following this up with prosecution of the people who carry out these arrests in the first place for abusing their powers.
7
1
One of the main problems is the ridiculous nature of the public order offence of causing "offence", enforced by often not very bright rozzers.
I'm "offended" by the sh1t that comes out of Chill's and Warren's mouths, and if they said it in public I'd be just as the trans-identfiying man in this story. Enforcement is totally subjective, and given the Police's capture by Stonewall it isn't surprising they get over-zealous protecting the hurty feelz over men with special identities when they should be doing something better with their time.
1
0
CPS has leave to appeal. Although everyone should be doing something better with their time I hope the CPS do appeal - it’s important that magical thinking is again banished from the law.
0
0
Imagine being a copper and told this was part of your job ffs.
0
1
thanks goodness for the not proven verdict
0
1
It’s hilarious that anyone would look to the checks notes evangelical religious right to tackle misogyny.
1
0
so schools won't modify behaviour
it's illegal to smack your kid even if you find them committing some heinous act
there's no mental health or social welfare support for many vulnerable kids
which means you grow up a dick and suddenly the police are your da?
fck off
2
1
criminal law has no role in training people not to be w**kers
1
1
That would be a great title for a dissertation.
2
0
Who’s doing that then?
0
0
https://christianconcern.com/news/win-for-street-preacher-as-misgenderi…
0
1
I do like the detail about the arresting officer’s “pentagram tattoos”.
0
0
Lol, you morons are still opposing legislation designed to directly combat misogyny on the grounds it interferes with your right to express your bigotry towards trans people?
Nice to see how far your dishonest nonsense about the trans stuff being motivated by 'concern for women's safety & rights' actually goes in practice.
0
1
but he wasn’t arrested for misgendering anyone - he was arrested for his homophobia - and he wasn’t charged with terrorism offences as occam said earlier in this thread
0
0
Funny that Donny, I'm old enough to recall misogynysts and homophobes saying exactly the same thing about all sorts of words, labels, practices being changed to accommidate women's rights, and later gay people. They still run exactly that laughable argument about marriage and the 'thousands of years' it meant man and women as some sort of retarded justification for why it shouldn't change. Pretty standard bigots argument, seems little reason not to treat the current TERF employment of it with the same contempt, yes?
0
1
as well as repeatedly calling the trans woman a man, he also said homosexuality was an abomination
2
1
It would be a shame if you got prosecuted for using a misogynistic slur, Warren, I imagine you’d be less ok with sweeping “hate crime” legislation then.
0
1
Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
im an atheist so no skin off my teeth but it’s interesting to note that quoting the bible is now a criminal offence
6
1
It's a fair point about marriage, and it was in large part out of respect for that, that the UK initially took the less controversial step of adopting civil partnerships for same sex couples. I think that was the right approach at the time. My closest friend at the time was a gay man and a firm supporter of that approach precisely because he understood that if you move faster than your society is ready for, it causes problems.
Crucially, the UK also allowed people to express their disquiet about same sex unions. Over time those people have lost the argument and now gay marriage is largely supported.
What the UK did NOT do was try to bang people up for saying in public that a same sex union wasn't the same as marriage.
A hell of a lot of people in this world still believe homosexuality is somewhere between a disease and an abomination. I believe they are absolutely wrong. I don't think we should try to lock them all up for expressing their beliefs though. Even if they say it loudly in public.
People believe all sorts of daft sh1t and that is their right. Calvinists think I am highly likely to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity regardless of what I do in this world because as I am a non-believer who likes to sing (very badly) dance (equally badly) and on occasion wear fancy clothes it is very, very likely I am not one of those predestined to be saved and am therefore dammed. I think that is, you know, a bit daft like. Were one of them to shout it at me in the street I would walk on. If he was rude and I was in a bad mood I might give them the finger and tell them to fook off (hoping, perhaps in vain these days that our judges are as sensible and robust as those in Canada). What I would not do is call the po po and ask that they be arrested.
4
1
What Donny says. The courts and prisons and police are barely coping with crime as it is without being filled up with this. These suggested amendments are rarely by lawyers or anyone else who works in the field but tend to be the work of the ego of NGOs and politicians. This is extremist legislation imo.
2
1
Quite right, I saw that tweeted and it isn't right. He was referred to the anti-terrorism programme, Prevent, by the Probation Service.
4
1
Would Warren and Chill agree, then, is misgendering someone deliberately and loudly in public should lead to a criminal conviction, that everyone repeatedly calling someone either a TERF in public, or calling them "cisgender" when a person has said they are not "cisgender" should be treated similarly?
0
1
If this is the issue of the day then the country is fvcked fyi
0
1
We have nil growth, unprecedented debt, sustained inflation, truly shite trading terms with the rest of the world, and a government of token representation.
0
1
And people are excited by the definitions of men and women for the purposes of shouting at others in the street.
3
0
cookie
your understanding of the equality act is a bit limited
a thought for your next cpd
0
1
not that I think it should be a priority issue in the way it is (but you gotta move with the times)
1
0
Bertha - all of those things will get worse if we revert to law based on ephemeral theory propagated by an outlier minority of zealots. Societies in thrall to ideological fantasists never thrive. “This issue” is a keystone (lower case k!) issue. Everyone’s time could be better spent but here we are.
0
0
Clergs your understanding of anything is a bit limited. You might want to work on that for your next ‘intervention’ waste of taxpayers money.
3
0
Re Chill's little gem further up the thread:-
Chill, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you never thought you'd be "fighting alongside" people who would routinely and loudly wish rape / sexual assault / violence / death on women they disagree with, but there you are...
(Although, of course, some might say that your defining RoF quote - "it's not great, Clive" - could suggest that you don't find it too much of a hardship after all).
1
0
Bullace where we are is lunatic and should be rejected out of hand. What’s needed is clear enforcement of current law not halfarsed knee jerk new ones.
0
0
I think we’re at cross purposes Bertha!
Good post from Donny - case closed.
1
1
fwiw occam i don’t think the chap should have been arrested for standing on a street corner and saying homosexuality is an abomination - he should be allowed to say it and the crowd should be allowed to tell him to fvck off (and again, well done to the people of leeds)
now tbf there needs to be some sort of “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” limits and the police need to be able to move him on if it looks like there’s going to be violence involved, but i don’t think he should have been arrested (and certainly not charged)
i do think the whole “oh he didn’t intend to cause distress because he honestly holds those beliefs” is a bit of a cop out tbh (of course you can intend distress or harassment with honestly held beliefs!) but it might be the only way in practice to get around locking him up for essentially speaking his piece in public
1
0
at a guess, I think I'd be in favour of repealing all the new crimes for saying things that have made it onto the statute book since say the year 2000. Like donny D, I think people should be free to say offensive things - and we can laugh at them.
But I can't be bothered to learn about all the new offences
I expect most people would want finite police resource to focus on knife and other violent crimes, rapes, other sex crimes, burglary and vandalism.
0
0
Sorry chill that’s ridiculous
lots of homophobic people might “honestly believe” that homosexuality is wrong, should they all be let off the hook for shouting their belief in public?
0
0
i don’t think it should be criminal to say it hotnow
that’s different from harassment against individual gay people, or inciting violence against gay people imo
3
0
Whether someone honestly believes what they say or not is completely irrelevant ffs (or at least it should be). There is no general crime of lying or (despite what millennials seem to think) 'not being true to yourself'.
Aside from that I am pleased to see you agree that the police were ludicrously out of line here in arresting him and the appeal was correctly decided.
2
0
Warren: "trans women, already a highly vulnerable minority facing far higher levels of violence than non-trans women"
The risk to females is males
The risk to males is males
---
375 transgender people were killed this year (2021), a figure that has risen since last year's total of 350.
The report authors say this makes 2021 the 'deadliest year' of violence against gender diverse people since records began.
The annual global list is released for Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR), held on November 20 each year.
The majority of the murders happened in Central and South America (70%). But like last few years, the most deaths in a single country occurred in Brazil, totalling 33% of global deaths.
Over half (58%) of those murdered were sex workers.
---
https://www.actionaid.org.uk/blog/2022/11/01/violence-against-women-sta…
Globally 81,000 women and girls were killed in 2020. This is an average of one death every 11 minutes.
It has been estimated that one in three women over the age of 16 in Great Britain were subjected to at least one form of harassment in the year to November 2021. This increases to two in three for women aged 16 to 34.
Meanwhile, an estimated 1.6 million women aged 16 to 74 experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the 12 months to November 2021.
Around 5.1 million women aged 18 to 74 experienced some form of abuse when they were children.
In the 12 months to March 2020, 81 women in the UK were killed in a domestic homicide.
---
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
Females:
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
Males:
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
---
Here you can filter crimes by those stating they're trans by type of crime and year:
https://transcrimeuk.com/category/violent-offences/
0
0
I think the diwcussion above amply demonstrates my 1430 from yestersy
5
0
Just fyi if you support laws like this you are not a centrist, you’re an authoritarian.
0
0
Ok cool Chill, I thought you were siding with the ‘lock em up for wrongthink’ brigade
my bad
You’re more liberal than I thought!
2
0
Warren: "trans women, already a highly vulnerable minority facing far higher levels of violence than non-trans women"
Only if you consider misgendering and disagreeing with gender ideology to be actual violence.
0
0
well not really gloria - rumple posted the statistics above
(rumpole doesn’t understand statistics so you have to compare the number of women in the world - about 3.9 billion - with the number of trans people - which is maybe 15 million (if you take the 2% figure which tbh may be toppy))
so warren’s claim can make sense
but look all these figures are impossible to actually accurately claim
0
0
0
0
*sorry 0.2% of course
1
0
"Rumpole doesn't understand statistics"
**Chill makes same mistake Boris did on COVID**
0
0
heh fair enough tom
murder stats for “trans people” globally are nonsense stats anyway (how would you know?)
the point is you can’t compare “trans people” to “women” on a global scale by real figures
1
1
Agree. The "trans umbrella" basically includes almost everyone in Gen Z now. It's meaningless.
1
1
As long as you're debunking any claims that it's impossible to properly assert that trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than any other groups then. Sure you are, just at a different school.
2
1
the point is you can’t compare “trans people” to “women”
Women, eh? The old-fashioned ones. With wombs.
0
0
agreed i think it’s impossible to assert trans people are more likely to be victims of violence than any other groups
the stats aren’t going to be reliable enough because there’s no way to record “trans” reliably in death certs (eg what if they’re closeted or enby - i think we’ve had this chat before?)
0
0
In what ways does Warren's claim make sense, Chill? I'm not asking for your opinion. I am asking for data showing his claim makes sense.
It's also becoming increasingly hard to identify stat's on females, given people like you Warren and Chill advocate for measures which mean males get included in the stat's, whis is, for obvious reasons, to the detriment of females.
2
1
Or what if the gender identity they had five minutes changed THE VERY SECOND they died.
Makes you think doesn’t it 🤡
2
1
Presumably, if they are "closeted" to the extent that their death could not "reliably" be included in the statistics, then it is probably unlikely that their trans status had a bearing on their death, isn't it?
0
0
What’s enby?
0
0
don’t understand this cru - why not?
2
0
Enby
”non-binary”
People who have a gender identity and where that gender identity is not male or female.
0
0
Great q guying from Bro Chill
0
1
why isn’t it just NB?
2
0
Eh? If their identity was closeted to the extent that no-one knew about it, how could it have been a reason for their assault / death? I mean, if I were to get into a fight in a bar, punch someone, later discover they were gay, would you say that it was a homophobic assault?
0
0
well as i understand it rumpole’s not talking about if it’s a homophobic (or transphobic) assault
they’re just presenting bare stats
2
1
No, i'm talking about the point (I thought) you were making about the inherent unreliability of trans related stats because some trans people might have been in the closet at the time of their assault or death. What am I missing?
Join the discussion