Woman questioned under caution and banned from leaving the country for criticising Mermaids

Maybe I've missed something, but isn't she guilty of libel?

the elevation of a crime into having an aggravated factor of hate should not be on the perception of the victim but on the evidenced motivation of the perpetrator.

For the prosecution to be successful, the evidence has to be there. It’s not just - oh, you’re guilty of assault, and because your victim felt it was racist/homophobic then it’ll
be aggravated... but for it to be considered as a hate crime, the victim’s perception is a reasonable starting point, I think. It’s difficult to see discrimination when you’re not the target of it - men often don’t ‘see’ sexism, white people don’t ‘see’ racism - not because it’s not there, but because they’re priveliged to not be the target of it. Discrimination can be insidious. So to start with the perception of the alleged victim, and then to look for the evidence to secure the prosecution (words used, context etc) is reasonable IMHO.

They certainly have Pop

If men do become women in law (based purely on their say so), then these men acquire the rights of women plus additional hate crime rights.

And, of course, they retain their male privilege to barge in to women's spaces and their male bodies to take over women's sports.

They've got everything covered.

Importantly, in that guidance, CPS states: ‘Not all racist or religious incidents are criminal offences’. The criminal offence has to have happened first.

Yes, but the elevation of a crime into having an aggravated factor of hate should not be on the perception of the victim but on the evidenced motivation of the perpetrator.

The trans issue brings this into stark clarity. Homophobic men beat up TIMs. They don't care if that TIM isn't a TIM but a drag queen. The hate element is homophobia, whatever the TIM - one of a subset of people not renowned for a good perception of reality - thinks it might have been.

Susie Green is not transgender. She is a woman and therefore cannot be a victim of hate crime.

I wonder if this "test case" business is about someone making a comment deemed to be transphobic to someone who is merely related to a transgender person. In this case Susie Green being the mother of the transgender adult Jackie Green.

Posie spoke at the War on Women event at the House of Commons last night, & #IStandWithPosieParker became literal when she got a well-deserved standing ovation.

There is no statutory definition of a homophobic or transphobic incident. However, when prosecuting such cases, and to help us to apply our policy on dealing with cases with a homophobic or transphobic element, we adopt the following definition: “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim, or by any other person

Copied the above from that CPS schools project thing.

What a load of bollocks!

Can you imagine any other crime being defined like this? Oh, there’s no legal definition of murder, burglary, rape, etc but if someone perceives that there’s been a murder, burglary or rape then that’s all that counts!

I think you misunderstand. A crime has to have happened first - the murder, rape, burglary, or in Posie’s case - allegedly - malicious communications, and then it can be defined as a ‘hate’ crime. The CPS define racist and religious crime in the same way - if the victim or any other person perceives the incident to be racist. Sadly, misogyny or sexism is not yet considered a hate crime.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-crime-cps-prosecution-policy

Importantly, in that guidance, CPS states: ‘Not all racist or religious incidents are criminal offences’. The criminal offence has to have happened first.

Thank you 🙏🏻

Here you go Beer

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Transhealth/Pages/Transrealstorymother.aspx

Please can someone point me in the direction of the URL of the NHS which mentions Mermaids???

Never mind all the scientifically incorrect bollocks about the brain tells people if they’re trans or not and trans people have brains wired differently to non trans people. Medical, biological bollocks.

“There is no statutory definition of a homophobic or transphobic incident. However, when prosecuting such cases, and to help us to apply our policy on dealing with cases with a homophobic or transphobic element, we adopt the following definition: “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim, or by any other person

Copied the above from that CPS schools project thing.

What a load of bollocks!

Can you imagine any other crime being defined like this? Oh, there’s no legal definition of murder, burglary, rape, etc but if someone perceives that there’s been a murder, burglary or rape then that’s all that counts!

Resisting Hate is calling out to it's followers to dogpile the HoC.

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2076567739037311&substory_index=0&id=1319645621396197

empress I've just read that link. It is horrifying.

Ereshkigal - I didn't know if they (CPS) had a stance. I am shocked by Empresses link.

Fucking hell. I'll have to make a good donation.
This is scandalous

I'm sure empress wouldn't mind at all if someone started a new thread about it

Yes, perhaps could be wider shared on MN, if Empress feels able? This is madness. Thank you for posting this - it is eye opening.

empress

fucking hell. the crown prosecution service endorse training from an organisation (hi gendered intelligence, you sometimes turn up when i type you!) which tells young lesbians they are transphobic and therefore at risk of being prosecuted for a hate crime if they don't much fancy penises.

"a woman is still a woman even if she enjoys getting blow jobs. A man is still a man, even if he likes getting penetrated vaginally"

empress, that’s chilling and deserves a thread of its own.

www.transgendertrend.com/cps-schools-project-the-erasure-of-sex-and-the-silencing-of-girls/

Does anyone know where the CPS stand on this ?

Do you mean on trans as a hate crime generally? They produced an awful schools pack with Gendered Intelligence which basically told young girls that if they objected to the presence of a male in female spaces it could be considered a prosecutable hate crime. So not positive.

People shouldn't be under the impression that JOB is going to allow them a voice (ie interview them) - he will in fact just use you as a mannequin to drape his prejudices over and explain to everyone why your opinion is invalid.

If he's on your side of an argument it's quite fun I suppose.

JOB is not an interviewer, he's a polemicist.