Misgendering won't be a hate crime

'My being non-binary is not a rejection of femininity or my femininity in any way. It's sort of an embrace of that.
'I still want to play women, my experience on this earth has been a female one - and now it's sort of a very fluid one.'

A good example of want total tosh this batshittery is. 🤯

@misscockerspaniel thank you for sharing that article. This quote from it gave me a wtf moment

'My being non-binary is not a rejection of femininity or my femininity in any way. It's sort of an embrace of that.
'I still want to play women, my experience on this earth has been a female one - and now it's sort of a very fluid one.'

??

It's common here. I first became aware of it during the Drumcree riots. If you end up in the dock for anything riot related, you will be remanded.

Will that judgement stand, do you think?

''You will be refused bail even if you only watched riots from the sidelines, judge warns''
https://archive.ph/0EZTB

What happens if you are merely the reader of online WrongThink? Hopefully this isn't the Playbook, whereby observers of disorder are criminalised:

https://x.com/foxclaire/status/1822023683919290769?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

But they soon will be if Labour bring in "lawful but harmful" legislation.

I don't think that Facebook is operating within UK law.

That's crazy.

Wow. FB won't remove reported scams, abusive posts, stalking posts... yet they delete Dawkins' account?!

They're going to give themselves the tools they need to target anyone they want to shut up. We'll end up with more people in prison than outside. 🤯

Plus of course the most chilling sentence:

'Evidence of malice and ill-will is not required for a hate crime or hate incident to be recorded and thereafter investigated as a hate crime or hate incident by police'

It's highly unlikely that anyone would ever be mistakenly prosecuted under this law. But it remains a very useful one under which anyone can be investigated and threatened.

So the police guidance notes that there is no precise legal definition.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/5yagp2ye/hate-crime-national-guidance.doc

The Police Scotland national guidance went into the definitions of hate and 'malice and ill will' a wee bit:

'Malice and ill-will

Understanding malice and ill-will is important to understanding the extent of the hate. The term hate implies a high degree of animosity, whereas the definition and the legislation require that the crime must be demonstrated or motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will.

(In the absence of a precise legal definition of malice and ill-will, consideration should be given to the ordinary dictionary definition, to wish someone harm).

Perception

For recording purposes, the perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident or in recognising the malice element of a crime. The perception of the victim should always be explored, however they do not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief and police officers or staff members should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of malice and ill-will is not required for a hate crime or hate incident to be recorded and thereafter investigated as a hate crime or hate incident by police.'

Bloody hell. This is seriously unhinged. On the plus side at least they are targeting high profile men now. The more men who are affected the better imo. Not just women’s problem anymore.

Malice or ill will. Like this? Or maybe not as this seems to have moved straight into censorship, with Dawkins guessing as to why:

"My entire @facebook account has been deleted, seemingly (no reason given) because I tweeted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khalif (XY undisputed) should not fight women in Olympics. Of course my opinion is open to civilised argument. But outright censorship?"

"To clarify. I made the statement on @X, not on Facebook. Yet is it my @Facebook account which is deleted."

x.com/richarddawkins/status/1822166372819853352?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/richarddawkins/status/1822171008016457788?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Exactly. Who benefits most from vague legal terms? I guess the lawyers, certainly not us. I can think of many comments on here that would land us in court and it would only take one win, just one and free speech is toast

Wait what? You can mention XX on Facebook? Bloody hell. Women speaking really upsets the technocratic billionaires and their "lives online" woker bees

If we are being thrown breadcrumbs to disguise a crack down on free speech, I'd be very worried.

I think this might be it in a nutshell. I'm not sure them saying "we won't count misgendering" is a reason to celebrate. That position might change (remember: the GRA was Blair's second term) and we might be being used in order that other groups can be brought into line. I don't think we should accept that.

'Malice or ill will', I think. 'Ill will' is stupendously vague.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/

Criticising government policy has been recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

That really ought to be very instructive.

I'm not sure anyone has defined 'hate' in law yet. Give it a go and you'll find it almost impossible.

If we are being thrown breadcrumbs to disguise a crack down on free speech, I'd be very worried. In fact socialism functions best when free speech is inhibited and Sir K is a socialist. I think I was once (a Socialist), but I brushed aside any thought that it would happen until I started thinking, which is a bit hit and miss but.....

Or the political ramifications (see Murdo Fraser, opposition MSP, in Scotland being recorded as committing a NCHI for criticising the Scottish government)

That's before one even gets into abuse of the law and process, how the average police officer interprets the law, etc.