Emily Thornberry's Statement About Hate Groups/Trans Rights/Labour Pledge

I just feel a bit lost.

Im a social democrat, not a leftist. I thought Emily T's original sin of that tweet of St George's flags in her constituency was crass and snobby, and my main motivation for thinking that no sensible politician should actually tweet or have a recognisable active account.

I am just wondering what it would be like to be a woman - or, God, a man either - and read that pledge and not think 'shit that sounds extreme'? What would it be like if your antennae weren't sensitive enough to pick up that it's offensive and authoritarian in tone, even if you basically agree with it? I mean, the first two sentences are perfectly fine in their own way, but the rest of it?

What's happening that they're not telling us? Who is talking to them and saying 'ooh this is a good idea, jolly good bunch this, rainbow/smiling coppers at Pride/youth vote' about THIS pledge? This batshit outpouring of insanity?

As this would be a defamation case, and it would indeed be looking at what is commonly understood to be a hate group. You don't need to have legislation defining what a hate group is to be able to sue for defamation.

However, it's difficult to prove defamation. Because it is about the actual damage your reputation has suffered. Which is difficult to quantify in these cases. And you could have the kind of crazy outcome you saw in the Kezia Dugdale vs Stuart Campbell case, where the court found that no, he wasn't homophobic but she had her own definition of what homophobia is and therefore it wasn't defamation.

This is my inexpert summary, of course, but this case illustrates how difficult things get when the definition of what constitutes any phobia of this kind is up to the person feeling offended and not to the much more objective definition of what a reaonable person would consider it to be (like with self-defence cases) or even straight up strictly delineated, objective definitions (like what is theft).

Comment is free

War is peace, freedom is slavery...

Emily Thornberry was last night knocked out of the Labour leadership race

Ah, but will it be put that down to her questioning whether campaigning for woman’s rights is hateful rather than declaring it to be so? Will they think she wasn’t woke enough?

So Charlie if there isn't anything official (sorry, I thought there was), to define a hate group, does that mean they WPUK couldn't sue?

Or could they sue on the basis of what is generally understood to be a hate group, as you say, by think tanks, etc?

There is currently no legislation that would allow a group to be designated as a hate group anywhere in Europe. The UK has legislation in place to tackle extremist violent groups under terrorism laws. A group so designated (to which parliament must agree) is proscribed. Membership and support of and for a proscribed group is a criminal offence.

There have been discussions for a number of years now to tackle right wing extremist non-violent groups by designating them as hate groups. They would not be proscribed, but their activities extremely curtailed and related offences were suggested to be civil rather than criminal.

One thinktank defined a hate group thus:

nonviolent extremist groups that demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality

Under this proposed definition neither WPUK nor the LGB Alliance would be designated as hate groups.

Anyone who has ever attended their meetings, watched their videos or read their writings would know they do not demonise anyone. They always express the need for equal rights for all groups, including the trans community, and acknowledge that the latter must be protected. They simply adopt a different approach to doing so from those accusing them of being hate groups.

Their insistence that we can protect trans people while upholding women's sex-based rights does not constitute hate and would not see them designated a hate group.

As far as I know there is definitely official criteria applied to a group designated a 'hate group'. You can't just describe groups like that willy nilly.

Like others I am desperate for WPUK and/or LGBA to sue.

Comment is free

Don't they mean, 'valueless', if only assent is tolerated?

CBC, sorry

What/Who are the CNC?
And considering the begging for donations at the end of each Guardian article, at this point I think they’d be grateful for trolls for the clicks for ad revenue. (Although not actual trolls of course, just a readership that don’t generally agree with their editorial - it only takes a look on their Twitter feed linking to such articles on this issue where people can leave comments... and the majority are NOT in agreement with what they are saying.

Comment is free but if the comment isn’t right then you don’t have the right to comment. Does anyone else think that is a much more appropriate slogan for them?

Oh, right!

Yes, they and the CBC are the same, comments on certain subjects not allowed. Somehow they know which ones those will be - I always wonder, do they tell themselves trolls are just especially attracted to those topics?

Another plank for the pile. Labour isn’t for me anymore. Or anybody I know well. They are deluded. I’m eager to see what new labour movement emerges from the ashes.

Sorry @goosefoot I was being sarcastic. The Guardian has a whole section entitled “Comment is free” but they don’t allow users to comment on articles relating to the trans issue.

How do you see comments on stories like that?

Interesting comments on The Guardian, as usual.

Emily Thornberry said she hadn’t signed as she was worried about the term hate, according to the Guardian:

“ Thornberry said she had refused to sign it. “I have not signed it because I was was worried about it because it talks about hate,” the shadow foreign secretary told Newsnight.”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/labour-leadership-contenders-split-over-trans-group-pledge-card

I got a leaflet through the post this morning asking me to join Racists for England by signing their pledge. Their pledge is that people who are white should be elevated automatically and their views and feelings considered first against people that aren’t white.

I’m not racist and don’t agree with their views but I’m thinking about signing it anyway and expect non-racists to understand why I did and then we can all come together and discuss. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? (If it makes a difference, I’m looking to run the country).

Oh no - I didn't realise this isn't just a leadership thing but a whole new Labour Party campaign. The Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. They just haven't alienated enough voters yet, have they?

Labour seems completely signed up to the version of identity politics where groups for women or LGB people exist to control them. The smothering of the LGB Alliance shows that lesbians, gays and bisexuals who disagree with the party line - which comes from the corporate sponsored Stonewall - are simply not welcome. How many other organisations will be stamped on? Grassroots organisations are no longer required now there are charities with corporate money to look after their interests.

The pledge is based on the ideology spelled out in this article by Torr Robinson: tribunemag.co.uk/2020/02/the-labour-campaign-for-trans-rights

It's full of divisive rhetoric - "mass education", "trans power" and accuses lots of people of being bigoted transphobes, or supporting transphobes.

Very much the starting point for calm, rational debate.

I wonder if Robinson has any awareness of the position (s)he is putting Labour in, and the damage (s)he is doing.

She's not disagreeing with it. She's adding a bossy coda telling the TRAs to play nicely. This isn't a statement directed to women, it's a way of going even further than her rivals to say that she supports it, but adding her 'authority' to it. She's trying to ride the dragon.

I agree Poota.
And the brazen calculation to hold out signing until just after the leadership debate so that she could first do a bit of handwringing on tv.
Still, she has just made herself look like one of those people who will sign anything.

What they need is our support and not a debate about their existence.

Oh ffs. Those supposed 'hate groups' aren't debating the existence of trans people. Afaik they're perfectly happy for trans people to be supported. Just not at the expense of women's rights and safety, not at the expense of vulnerable children.

It occurs to me that people who these woke idiots seem to think don't exist are the trans people such as Yardley and Hayton.