To think that the UK police have no right to "check our thinking"?

[HawayMan]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636383/Twitter-user-investigated-police-posting-poem-social-media-site.html

Yes, its a DM link; however, the Guardian and BBC don't seem to be covering this story yet...

From the article...

A Twitter user is planning to complain to the Home Secretary after police investigated him for retweeting a poem which suggested transgender women are still men.

Harry Miller is furious at his ‘Orwellian’ treatment by an officer who rang to check his ‘thinking’ after he had ‘liked’ a limerick

In better news, I'm planning on moving to Humberside. Clearly, there must be no actual crime there!

Also, a hate crime is something that is already a crime (e.g. robbery or criminal damage) that is deemed to be motivated by hate for a particular group.

The problem is- not always. That was the old definition and it was about increasing the prison tariff for crimes directed at vulnerable groups.

A second class of hate crimes has been created which lowers the threshold for prosecution for groups listed in the EA (except women obvs, who'd want to punish that).

I am aware of a case where a neighbour of a butch Lesbian was having a (completely unrelated and non-homophobic) argument but because he made a mean comment about her looking like a man he was arrested and cautioned.

Now he was being a dick, but I am chilled to the bone by how little it took for him to be treated as a criminal.

A second class of hate crimes has been created which lowers the threshold for prosecution for groups listed in the EA (except women obvs, who'd want to punish that).

Where have they been created? Can you point me to the statute that criminalises offensive behaviour against protected characteristics in the EA? Other than incitement to racial or religious hatred, it is not a crime to be homophobic or transphobic UNLESS you commit an actual crime that is motivated by hatred of those groups.

@worridmum attempting to point out that factual statements while true can be HIGHLY offesive.

So now we can't tell the truth because the truth is offensive.
In that case then we can suspend the idea that this country has anything like freedom of speech because people can find offence in almost any statement.

The bloke in the article can have whatever views he wishes. He just starts to look like a bit of an idiot when he likes or retweets stuff like this. This sort of poem is designed to wind up a group of people, childish really, so to then like or retweet is just pathetic. Have a sensible debate, that's fine, but to like this stuff just lowers any credibility of his views IMO.

I don't know if it's a hate crime or not but the sooner shit like this is stopped on social media, the better.

It’s the usual shite from Mumsnet - bigotry is totally intolerable, until the subject is transwomen. Then it’s just facts and science.

People used to use ‘science’ to justify racism and sexism too, you know. It’s shameful that you can’t see how precisely your behaviour replicates the intolerances of the past.

Simply insulting someone is not a crime. They even removed it from parts of the Public Order Act, so insulting words can only constitute a crime if they are " with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress"

And using the anti-gay examples upthread it's worth noting the following clarifications

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
[
F1829JAProtection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
[F19(1)]In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.]

It’s the usual shite from Mumsnet - bigotry is totally intolerable, until the subject is transwomen. Then it’s just facts and science.

To be fair, I don't buy the wide-eyed innocence of people claiming to 'simply be stating biological fact' because of course this poem was designed to offend. If you want to state biological facts, you don't tend to do it in verse. I can see why it was offensive, but it is not and should not be a crime.

There is also so much misogynistic shit on twitter on a daily basis, including rape and murder threats. Nothing gets done about that.

PC Gul is quoted as saying: "Sometimes, a woman's brain grows a man's body in the womb and that is what transgender is".

WTAF. He appears to have been brainwashed. Seriously, does he actually believe this crap?

Everyday on Twitter and Facebook I see or read about threats to women. You can bet your bottom dollar the men who made these actual threats of actual violence have not had a phone call to check their thinking.
This is weaponising the police to push a campaign and silence anyone who questions. The Gender Critics are not the ones in balaclavas using mob tactics and actual violence to create fear and silence.

Exactly. And the activists who are supporting this are trusting the Govt not to turn on them in the future. which is extremely naive; you only have to look at how fast women's rights have been eroded, and they are still protected in law.

There is also so much misogynistic shit on twitter on a daily basis, including rape and murder threats. Nothing gets done about that.

Doesn't make it ok. There's no place for any of it but I'd rather the police deal with some of it than none of it.

catspaws but nothing is done about even threats to a specific woman yet the police intervene when it’s something not directed at a specific person. I think harassment of anyone is wrong but general offensive remarks not aimed at an identified person are not criminal and should not merit police time.

This is weaponising the police to push a campaign and silence anyone who questions

He wasn't questioning though. He just liked/retweeted a poem designed to deliberately cause offence.

So he didn’t even write it. What’s the point of so many people stating that retweet doesn’t mean endorsement in their profile if it means absolutely nothing. If we have the police knocking for just liking something that is going way too far

catspaws but nothing is done about even threats to a specific woman

Isn't it ? Someone I know apparently received 'threats' from an ex on social media and called the police and they did go and speak to him. I can't say they definitely did as its not someone I'm close to but no reason to disbelieve her.

Surely the point is regardless of what was said it wasn't a crime. The police accepted it wasn't a crime.

If people (on MN, general public) think it should be a crime then they need to campaign for a change in the law. The Police should not be expanding the scope of what is/isn't a criminal offence.

Believing in souls is something not everyone believes in. How can a police force expect to control population thinking and belief?

Believing a soul and body being split or moving around from body to body is ok, forcing that on others is not ok.

What other religion in 2019 gets to be Henry VIII?

I don't know exactly the trans religious people think bouncing souls works - I guess it is like something demonstrated in books by JK Rowling, souls and parts of souls jumping into Harry, a woman/snake, and various inanimate objects - this isn't something everyone believes is actually real and true.

We have human rights and rights in the equality act which this police force are ignoring, whilst investigating non crimes, very strange times.

What you say doesn’t have to be objectively offensive. It has everything to do with the subjective feeling of someone who may read it. Doesn’t matter that you weren’t addressing them, inciting anyone to hatred or violence or said anything remotely derogatory. Their subjective feeling is what matters.

Can you point me to the statute that criminalises offensive behaviour against protected characteristics in the EA?

Not without a lot more research than I have time for today. IANAL, so I am very happy to accept (and frankly relieved) if my impression is wrong.

The story I related was told to me by the victim. She was absolutely clear that the cautioned gentleman's only 'crime' was a single comment mocking her appearance, said in anger during an unrelated dispute.

It’s the usual shite from Mumsnet - bigotry is totally intolerable, until the subject is transwomen. Then it’s just facts and science.

I don't like the original limerick. I don't support retweeting it. There is a huge difference between that and think it's OK for the police to tell people off for thoughtcrimes.

The unscientific myths about gender dysphoria being caused by having oppositely sexed brains are damaging to the cause of sexual equality and it certainly isn't bigotry to point out they are nonsense.

If people (on MN, general public) think it should be a crime then they need to campaign for a change in the law

Yes, I think laws around social media need looking at as people often interact more online than in real life now.

Criticising the belief in innate gender is no different to criticising any other belief. If we have to accept every belief without discussion (or even thinking about it!!) then where would we be?

I find the climate change deniers offensive but there is no way I would find it acceptable for the police to go around and question them about their thinking!

donquixote I suspect the caution was for harassment. She should have refused to accept it. The police sometimes push them and rely on the fact that people are scared and will just accept them. There is no crime of making a homophobic insults. Hate crimes are basically aggravating circumstances of ordinary crimes where it can be shown that the crime was motivated by hatred.

And yes often the police will investigate threats made via social media. But that’s where the accuser knows the accused. Doubt they would be interested if some random sent me a nasty message.

To clarify, I don’t like the poem but this guy didn’t write it and he didn’t aim his retweet at anyone in particular. Should this really be a crime?

I think that the police should stick to investigating crime. It was clear from the outset that this was not a crime.

Mrs AriadneOliver - their subjective feeling is what matters. That really makes the whole concept of hate speech meaningless then, if absolutely anything can be deemed hateful on the word of the person on the receiving end.