MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

Yes. It's a bit 'here be dragons'.

FWIW, I find it chilling that people are suggesting that free speech and/or freedom of expression is somehow 'rightwing' or confined to the right wing.

Then again, given the upcoming grimly authoritarian Hate Crime Bill from the SNP, they may have a point.

If candidates are too concerned by their stance on their definition of what a woman is, that means that they are beginning to understand the issues in the UK right now.

For all those who are expressing concern for the group who are involved, why is this a concern really? Again, what is the issue with any group who is merely publishing the candidates answers about what a woman is?

It could well be a 'grass roots movement' that then has a wide source of backing and investment and they may be doing this completely for their very own benefit and only be piggybacking onto women's groups efforts. It could be that a consultancy group has given their time because they believe in supporting the 'grass roots movement'. It could be some groups who are still women's rights campaigners but not feminists will be involved.

There are many scenarios here.

If we assume this is the case, that the organisers are not feminists, how does this impact the end result? That we know how a candidate defines a woman.

If the women who give of their voice and their time are aware of this, what is the issue?

If women don't do their own research into who they assist, then that is their issue to deal with. So, again, if they know and understand who is involved and the end result is as advertised, that we know how candidates can define women, what is the issue?

I'm suspicious of the "No need to ask the Conservative candidates".

Of course you do! If you're really want to check and it matters to you, you ask them all. Plenty of Conservatives support the TRAs.

I'm even more interested in it, since there are a load of men turning up here to warn us how dangerous this website will be.

I'm a (slightly) left-of-centre floating voter. I have never voted tribally in my life. This means I vote based on (a) party manifesto (b) individual candidates.

Consequently, I tend to be extremely interested in what candidates think about various issues that are important to me. If my potential MP is, for example, a climate change denier or a Brexit supporter or a Stop-the-Boats activist or a TWAW-and-lady-diques-are-so-feminine believer, I want to know so I can decide whether to give them my vote. And I'm not altogether interested in the purity of the investigative source of the information, but rather in whether the candidate's opinion has been given freely and reflected accurately.

It's absolutely crucial that we are vigilant about freedom of speech and expression. This is always a balance, but the balance must be observed.

We should all be able to ask questions of politicians, and hear their answers.

I find it curious that anyone would argue that we need less free speech, less openness, and less knowledge, tbh.

"He represented those falsely accused and incorrectly investigated during Operation Midland " Representing those accused by Carl Beech during the massively incompetent police investigation is a bad thing? Really?

#OperationLetThemSpeak in action again

Grass roots? It's clearly an astroterf organisation, if you'll forgive the pun.

This is what Riverside Advisory do:

However, Gallagher’s private client work through his second business, Riverside Advisory, has also attracted attention. He represented those falsely accused and incorrectly investigated during Operation Midland – and was reportedly hired by Prince Andrew in March last year. Described as “straight-talking” and “energetic, intelligent with a great sense of humour”, Gallagher is a sought-after fixer as an industry leader in public and regulatory affairs.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8zfQPuI33YwJ:macemagazine.com/politicalconsultants/mark-gallagher/&client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=568184447&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0

We have defamation laws. And laws about inciting racial hatred. Laws about promoting terrorism. Harassment laws. Treason and obscenity laws. Various company confidentiality and non disclosure laws that individuals sign up to.
None of us have the unfettred right to say whatever we want. We are all bound by legal constraints. And I think that's right.

I agree they aren't being applied properly to GC women. Where these cases have been legally challenged (Bailey, Forstater, Stock etc) the women have won though. Their free speech is protected.

There is an element at the moment of some far right movements trying to undermine a lot of our legal frameworks under the guise of "free speech". I find it concerning. I'm sure others disagree but just worth bearing in mind with this kind of thing.

And if it means that labour and the lib dems are unable to form a government because of their oppressive bullying attitude towards the electorate who believe in women's rights & child safeguarding, then that's their fault.
We have a shitshow of a government and it's unbelievable that the opposition is so in thrall to an evidently dangerous ideology that they prioritise pandering to them rather than protecting children and women's rights.

Somewhat ironic to be told "we have free speech in this country" on this boards of all places. 😑Where we spend countless threads discussing which women (and some men) have been cancelled, bullied, threatened, abused and sacked by the very people who claim that "women can have a penis". Not to mention spending our hard earned ££ on funding women like Allison Bailey, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel Jo Phoenix and the rest to take the "women have a penis" believers to court to try to make them behave in a legal & democratic manner and stop silencing everyone who knows that no woman has a penis.

Good luck to the organisers of this. Quite right that every elected politician should be challenged about believing in fantasies and standing on the side of those actively gaslighting and harming children along with telling lies. Especially as so many women have been bullied and hounded out of Labour & the Lib Dems for disagreeing with the "women can have a penis" believers.

It will muddy the waters by asking MPs questions? What is the risk, that people hear what MPs think on a subject?

We do already have free speech laws

Kinda.

We have the HRA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

And that's it, as far as I know. Subject to lots of qualifications.

In what sense?

If you're worried that the MPs/candidates of the party you favour will lose votes by giving batshit responses to a really simple question (that everyone knows the truth of), the solution is NOT to avoid the question or smear those asking.

The candidates tell the truth, or they give their chosen batshit response. If the latter, the voters can decide if they're thick as mince or mendacious, and in either case whether they can be trusted to join the legislature.

I can't see the downside here.

I appreciate all the concern for women, I really do. But if this campaign obliges my prospective candidates to give a straight answer to a straight question then I will take the risk, thank you.

Just another muddy the waters campaign.

We do already have free speech laws, but they are not working adequately, the Telegraph reports from the weekend about how staff with GC views are treated being just one example.

I agree with @EasternStandard that on a basic level, voters deserve to know how their representatives answer this question. It's obviously an important enough question/issue for the campaign to exist in the first place.

If another group wants to set up another campaign with a different question then they are free to do so.

One of them is an ex conservative aid.

Exactly. This is just basic. I want to know which MPs actually know what a woman is, and which are brave enough to say so explicitly.

I cannot see the issue with an MP answering this question and voters having access to the answers

They will need to be upfront and answer

Good

From what I can see so far it seems to be coming out of the pro Free Speech movement
This really concerns me too.
We already have free speech in this country, subject to defamation laws and laws around inciting hatred. I am very wary of "free speech" movements as to me they appear more often than not to be right wing people wanting to erode protection to the vulnerable. The "health and safety gone mad", anti "woke agenda" people. They support people like Jeremy Clarkson, Nigel Farage, Russell Brand.

I think women should be very careful with this one.

Who is behind it really isn't relevant. It's a question to be answered. It's the contents of their statements that matters, not who is recording their statements, ffs.
That's stupid. Like blaming the camera operator for what they record.

My other problem is that a huge proportion of the electorate vote red/blue and for the leader/party regardless of their MP. That's why we have MPs with so many objectionable views on a range of topics, MPs who are proven liars, MPs who lobby etc. Most people don't actually care what their particular MP stands for.

This campaign is aiming to focus on particular MPs, for a lot of them who are in safe seats they aren't going to be particularly motivated by it.

Continuing to pressure political parties to back policies that prevent self ID and put in place a sex based definition would be a better approach. And that means targeting the leadership and the party grass roots, not individual MPs