Taiwan Tries to Silence Fair Play For Women

I know all about DL.
But he is the Foreign Secretary and this is a case of a foreign state attempting to interfere with the rights of British citizens in Britain.

David Lammy is the person who described women as "rights hoarding dinosaurs" so I doubt there'll be much help coming from that quarter.

I doubt this Ting bloke's got evidence to prove that it isn't.

Some of the posts on this thread seem to be about the Algerian boxer IK not the Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting.

I'm surprised there has been far less scrutiny of YuTing in the UK media (is that racism?). He was the one who illegally rabbit-punched an opponent. And as medical care is better in Taiwan, there should be more awareness of DSDs etc.

Well, I look forward to the doubt being dispelled in court, then.

“Seems odd they’d go after FPFW other than seeing someone they think they can bully more than the others.“

Why do they particularly object to a campaign group called “Fair Play For Women”?

Hmmm. That's a real head scratcher isn’t it….

I’m not on Twitter/X but are FPFW more active or tweeting more about it? The Sun has published an article on it. So has the Telegraph. So are FPFW disproportionately going for it? Why isn’t the Taiwanese government telling the UK government to get the Sun to pull JHB’s article, for instance?

Seems odd they’d go after FPFW other than seeing someone they think they can bully more than the others.

I think FPFW are the only ones currently coming out fighting. It helps their campaigning to highlight this publicly rather than ignore it or take posts down.

Streisand effect and all that.

Why Fair Play for Women? Why not any of the many other organisations that have told the world Lin is male?

🤣🤣 at the idea of a libel case. As if the Taiwanese government or Lin or Khelif or anyone involved would dare, given what we know.

However awful the rest of it is, the idea that a foreign government would try to curtail free speech in the UK is worse. If the Taiwanese Government doesn’t like what FPfW is saying, they need to demonstrate that it isn’t true - that’s how democratic societies work. Trying to silence them is pretty sinister. I had been wondering why IK was taking so much more flak than LYT.

"“The fact that a foreign government is trying to strong-arm a British civil society group for not going along with its propaganda should send shivers down the spine of anyone concerned with UK autonomy and freedom of thought and speech.”"

And there I was worrying for Taiwan under the shadow of Chinese domination.
Seems they already use the same playbook.

Remember that group of CCP threatening the piano player at a London train station?
And beating up Hong Kong dissidents?
I profoundly object to these incursions on our freedom of expression by dictatorial corrupt entities.
I hope our government tells them where to go.

Nope. Your info is about a week out of date.

Fingers crossed the libel accusation against FPFW goes to court though. I love court rulings - gets everything out in the open.

They have several different lines of defence.

The first line is the government telling the Taiwanese to piss off before it goes anywhere near a court.

Not necessarily true:

In the UK, the burden of proof in a libel case is on the defendant to prove that the allegations are true, but not beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, the defendant must prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities. If the defendant fails to prove the allegations, the court may consider any evidence or media coverage the defendant used to substantiate the allegations as factors that increase the damages.

Here are some other things to consider in a UK libel case:

Truth
The defendant can use truth as a defense, but the truth must be actual. For example, the defendant can't justify a publication by pointing to another press report or allegations in a police arrest warrant.

Peer-reviewed statements
The defendant can use peer-reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals as a defense if the statement relates to a scientific or academic matter.

Other defenses
The defendant may also be able to use other defenses, such as honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, or privilege.

What we know to be true beyond reasonable doubt - Lin Yu-ting was banned due to failing a test. There wasn't an attempt to challenge this.

We don't know the exact details but there is enough that it public in terms of the nature of the tests to suggest Lin Yu-Ting is male - noting that the threshold required is lower than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar in a criminal case. This has been disclosed by official bodies not just speculation in the press, and the disclosure from Khelif's team about abnormal chromosomal results won't help the cause.

There is a lot of speculation around way, but there a fair argument that it is in the public interest to talk about this and unfairness in women's sport on the basis of sex. This alone is a reasonable defence in the UK.

There are also implications to allowing another government to silence free speech in the UK by trying to intimidate in this way. The UK government would be stupid to stand for it, on principle, because of the precidence it sets for other governments to try and do the same when they hear something they don't like.

Cracking response by Nicola Williams.

David Lammy had better be having a quiet word with the Taiwanese ambassador...

Discredited by whom?

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifies-the-facts-the-letter-to-the-ioc-regarding-two-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/

Did you participate in any of the multi-part threads that discussed the topics? If you didn't, you might find them instructive.

There is an interview with the coach, directly quoting him - available in both translation and the original French. Google - copy and paste it into a translation app. Whatever.

Do you not bother to look at other ‘sources’ than the BBfuckingC?

Edited to add: wish I could block posters on here as am fed up with seeing the same ones recycling rubbish and disinformation.

My posting the link to IBA decision is not “recycling rubbish and disinformation” - your post saying the IBA decision stated she was XY and her T levels were high was absolute rubbish and pure disinformation as proven by the IBA statement which makes no mention of XY and explicitly states that T levels were not tested.

The Govt should be calling in the Taiwan ambassador to explain himself

The BBC states that these “sources” are speculating all of that.
So it’s speculation and could be libellous.

Fair Play aren’t repeating the coach though are they? Nope the coach has never said she is a man. The coach has said the exact opposite.

Fed up of arguing this. The IBA - and his coach in the interview he gave - stated that the blood tests which did not test T, ‘showed he was not a female, as defined by XX chromosomes’ - ergo he was tested and found to have XY chromosomes. This was not stated explicitly because they were gagged by the NOCs in Tawian and Algeria but we ‘can draw our own conclusions’, as the IBA doctor suggested.

The coach stated that the T levels were high in his interview.

You can be as disingenuous as you want to but it has been stated by several sources that IK does not have XX chromosomes and that their T had to be managed to try and lower it. Repeated what the coach has said cannot be libellous.

Edited to add: wish I could block posters on here as am fed up with seeing the same ones recycling rubbish and disinformation.

I haven’t seen any report of disclosure of results.
IBA could have simply disclosed their decision to disqualify.
And IOC has overturned the IBA decision as their review found the test to be fundamentally flawed.

Not sure I’d hang my hat on an overturned test result that has been discredited.

It’s not libellous if it is true, though?

Correct, but I doubt Fair Play has the evidence to prove it true.

Disclosed to the boxers and their teams it seems.

The undisclosed IBA findings…