Party of Women

'Discriminate' is not synonymous with 'be an arsehole to'.

(Which would anyway be covered by existing harassment laws).

Yep.

Didn't John Stuart Mill address this point when writing about liberty/free speech (that saying a thing in a general forum is very different from saying that thing about a specific person, while standing outside their house).

Incidentally, it seems that many people here have lost sight of what the word 'discriminate' means. It doesn't always mean 'hate' or 'prejudice' . It can simply mean 'to recognise a distinction/ difference'.

I don't believe in treating people who identify as trans less favourably. I also don't think that humans can change sex and that women need single sex spaces. That is discriminating, it's not hateful though (to any sane person).

I hope KJK and POW make the most of their rights under this and ensure those who commit these offences are convicted.

One interesting thing I noted under the Representation of the People’s Act is:

”A person who at a lawful public meeting to which this section applies acts, or incites others to act, in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together shall be guilty of an illegal practice.“

Which means any TRA disrupting a POW meeting or a meeting held by KJK in the run up to the GE are committing a criminal offence. In addition any act to intimidate those who may wish to vote for KJK is an offence of corrupt practice and it is also a criminal offence to lie about a candidate.

Importantly, police officers themselves have a duty here:

”No member of a police force shall by word, message, writing or in any other manner, endeavour to persuade any person to give, or dissuade any person from giving, his vote”

Failing to prevent disruption of a meeting and intimidation of potential voters would seem to clearly fall under ‘any other manner’ here. This would mean the police officer himself would be guilty of a criminal offence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/contents

I hope KJK condemn this absolute fuckwittery. Poor JP.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1797533058671030327

Saying someone has the right to say something about someone else is not the same as saying they have the right to walk up to them in the street and say it. If that was done in an aggressive way it may well constitute a common assault. Saying it as an opinion in a podcast, or standing on a soap box at a public meeting would be quite different. Everyone should refrain from putting words into other people's mouths that they have not said. That is just as bad as lying about them.

@BackToLurk And I'm sure she'd greet your constructive criticism with all the warm feeling it was delivered with.

What she needs is a clearer website. She can have that advice for free

So the KJK detractors are taking the text...

Kellie-Jay Keen founded Party Of Women to make sure that people can safely say
No woman has a penis
No man has a vagina
There is no such thing as "non-binary"
And "transitioning" children is abuse

...and reading it as a call to somehow exempt these phrases from existing laws on harassment. Whereas the more obvious meaning is that she wants to end the taboo on stating these things, as currently many people can't say them safely, as evidenced by the frequent need for security and/or police presence wherever KJK hosts events.

Adults actually harming dc due to gender ideology is more concerning than that wording

Thank you!

Nah. She said “I don't personally think people should be able to go round calling other people "child abusers" with impunity. That goes against our principles of basic justice and is potentially defamatory too.” It’s very clear that potential defamation refers to people going round calling other people abusers. Which by definition would be aimed at individuals

You’re right it’s not defamatory

And that is the EXTRA point you made after you'd simply said it was defamatory, which is what I responded to initially!

I don't need to read your posts again. Once is more than enough!

I can't imagine why you'd randomly walk up to a transman to say that though

Someone transphobic would most definitely love to be able to "safely" say things like that to a trans person's face.

Read what I wrote again:
"I don't personally think people should be able to go round calling other people "child abusers" with impunity. That goes against our principles of basic justice and is potentially defamatory too."

I didn't say she was defamatory. I meant she is encouraging people to potentially be defamatory to others, by saying it should be "safe" to say transitioning children is abuse.

You said it's defamatory. It's not, as it's not aimed at an individual the way she's saying it. That's the point I responded to. Now here you are, expanding your point again, as if what I said relates to all the new points you've made!

And free speech means that yes, you can say things that offend others (there is no right to not be offended). However, if this is deemed / judged to be hate speech, then there can be a problem with it.

It's also true to say that no man has a vagina, regardless of whether the transman agrees with that or not. It's biological fact. They might not like that fact, but it's true. I can't imagine why you'd randomly walk up to a transman to say that though (the only transman I know personally knows that you can't change sex, and I wouldn't initiate that type of conversation anyway!).

^Kellie Jay Keen set up Party of Women so that people could safely say.....transitioning children is abuse".

So if I'm a parent of a trans identifying child, minding my business, someone can "safely" walk up to me and tell me "transitioning children is abuse".

You don't see a problem with that?

Similarly if I was a trans man, out and about minding my own business, someone can "safely" walk up to me and tell me "no man has a vagina".

I mean,no thanks. Its hardly adding much benefit to society and that's her core message. Nothing about policy. Nothing about women's safe spaces, sports, prisons etc. Just purely "people can safely say....".

Which BTW is actually already possible in most contexts thanks to the bravery of Maya Forstater.

Not defamatory as not aimed at an individual.

Just click on 'about us' to find out. I struggle to see the bloody problem, frankly.

I was thinking this. She might use other channels and rely less on a website. She seems to do well on X for example

You can discuss what you want. I was trying to figure out if the questioning was masterfully leading us to some great gotcha moment, or whether you were literally just moaning about websites.

I would think any potential candidates KJK might enlist would be familiar with her and her aims already and not need them spelt out on the website.

Is there a reason why we shouldn't discuss whether a party that is calling for new members, candidates & donations is clear about its policies? I mean some people got quite aerated that a thread on the PoW wasn't discussing the party. Now it seems that is also frowned upon.

Is there a point to any of this other than a new party whose founder you dislike doesn't have a very fleshed out website yet?