To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

No comment at all about actual behaviour meeting the threshold of the government description of extremism and how this is applicable to any cause.

There's just total blindness to the trans cause somehow making it legitimate to act unlawfully and be a dickhead.

It's magic.

It isn't a hate crime. But those evul trann#%& blah blah blah...that's what you really want to say.

It is magic

We say what we want to say. There is no need to try and put words in anyone's mouths.

As for it being a hate crime - we'll see what the Met say.

Are we going to rename all women’s rights charities as anti-men, or children’s rights as anti-adult?

If I said what I wanted to say about a bunch of brain dead hard of thinking non-entities that get so enraged about a bunch of people meeting up to share their shared experiences that have absolutely nothing to do with being trans, and go to such lengths as to spoil it because they can't handle people having different opinions from them and not being centred in pretty much everything, I'd get banned.

I have just raced through this from beginning to end so apologies if i have missed anything.

To the trans rights supporters/ activists. I think it fair to say that discussions about the impact of transgenderism, on LGB people’s lives, regarding social opportunities, visibility, and the potential for vulnerable, young gay people to be persuaded into believing they are trans (as identified by The Cass review) are all valid topics for discussions. In a pluralistic society.

And course you may feel up and offended by this democratic concept. But that does not entitle TRAs the right to behave as they do.

@Evilartsgrad your username tells me rather a lot😂

.

An assault on free speech perhaps?

I would like an animal rights counter protest

Protest is important and a democratic right.

But ‘protest’ that tries to shut down free speech, to stop people talking and listening is impeding free speech and therefore anti-democratic.

Protest: fine. Placards (non abusive) expressing your pov, leaflets, a peaceful demonstration outside: fine.

Threats, aggressive interventions (smoke bombs, insects, bottles of urine) are designed to stop free expression.

The discourse within the LGBA is legal. You might not agree with their opinions, and have every right to say so.

But not to deliberately silence them.

Yes.

I wonder how the vegan TRAs feel about the use of live insects as weapons?

I don't know what a TRA is but I don't think any vegans would like it although I suppose they aren't eating them

@ahemfem no just using them to be killed TRA means trans rights activists. Not to be confused with trans people who generally speaking as far as i am aware do not bother other people, given they area tiny tiny group.

£7,001 raised for hate crimes, intimidation and the squashing of public democratic debate

https://chuffed.org/project/115124-supporting-the-crick-kids

I'm not sure that's a criminal offence.

no Just the “bother” of redefining women so that it no longer means “adult human female” and instead means “adult human female and men with special lady feelings and no those lady feelings can’t be defined” which at a stroke removes women’s rights to single sex spaces

so just the 51% of the population affected so that some men don’t have to be told no in case they are sad

@@Theeyeballsinthesky i agree with you, i was just referring to a specific issue, of TRA and their activities, not the other wider effects on social /legal policy.

Public Order Act 1986
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3 Now repealed)

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

So, placards and peaceful protest fine.

What these muppets are up to? Not so much.

You CAN NOT just say what you like even WITHIN freedom of speech. Freedom of speech STILL requires civilised levels of respect and tolerance.

You CAN say controversial, even 'offensive' things, if there is a purpose and legitimate public interest WITHIN the law.

Thus you can question the conflict between trans rights and gay rights WITHOUT it being unlawful - the legitimate public interest is concerns that gay children and young people are having 'the gay transed away' or because lesbians feel they are being targetted and harassed to include males in their dating pools.

However holding up signs saying things like 'KILL ALL TERFS' may well fall foul of being a Public Order Offense under Section 4. This is the same thing that pro-Palestine Protesters fell foul of (with the aggravating issue of anti-semitism) when they had tshirts celebrating the Oct 7th attacks.

The LGB Alliance are 'the right side of the law' if you will. These guys, deliberately and persistently harassing the LGB exercising their democratic rights to discuss legitimate concerns (which are protected under current laws) are very much not.

But then, no one cheerleading these muppets bothers to actually have a clue what they are talking about most of the time. They just go off what they were told on social media and the latest slogan to sling at people they disagree with.

oh yeah, he's a linky for you for the above:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4

I don't see the point of all of this. The reality is that the LGB Alliance is mostly lesbian, gay or bisexual - the volunteers, the board members, the attendees at conference, and the Friends groups - with a smattering of straight allies, who are welcome and appreciated. That's easily demonstrable just by going to any LGBA event. I'm fine with that. All this survey stuff is smoke and mirrors - it's nothing new for gay and lesbian people to be told we aren't really gay, but that doesn't alter the reality of who the LGBA are.

How would you define homophobia?

Surely that's freedom of expression, not free speech? Freedom of expression is a protected right under the ECHR.

Apparently, we are to believe that they are dishonest and somehow not representative of LGB people ArcheryAnnie. Because some people have used the 7% in this way.

It is not only absurd at this point but it really shows how double standards are being applied. Because when we point out that Stonewall has a huge % of financial support from people who are heterosexual, we get this absurd pivoting to try to find something to move to next to discredit LGB Alliance.

It must be really weird for those reading who were not really up to date on all the happenings. Because the disconnected thinking is remarkable.

I've also ALREADY posted this, but I'll do it again:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024

3. Behaviour that could constitute extremism
Aim 1 (negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms): Behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence, and discrimination. Including:

• Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards a group in order to dissuade them from using their legally defined rights and freedoms.

Aim 2 (undermine, overturn or replace liberal democracy): Attempts to undermine, overturn, or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. Including:

• Advocating that the UK’s parliamentary democracy and democratic values and rights are not compatible with their ideology, and seeking to challenge, overthrow, or change our political system outside of lawful means.
• Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards citizens, in order to dissuade them from participating freely in the democratic process.
• Subverting the way public or state institutions exercise their powers, in order to further ideological goals, for example through entryism, or by misusing powers or encouraging others to do so.
• Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards public officials including our armed forces, police forces and members of local, devolved or national legislatures, in order to dissuade them from conducting their obligations freely and fearlessly, without external interference.
• Establishing parallel governance structures which, whether or not they have formal legal underpinning, seek to supersede the lawful powers of existing institutions of state.

Aim 3 (enabling the spread of extremism): Intentionally creating a permissive environment for behaviour in aim 1 or aim 2. Including:

• Providing an uncritical platform for individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.
• Facilitating activity of individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2, including through provision of endorsement, funding, or other forms of support.
• The dissemination of extremist propaganda and narratives that call for behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.
• Attempts to radicalise, indoctrinate and recruit others to an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, including young people.
• Consistent association with individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2 without providing critical challenge to their ideology or behaviour.
• If any behaviour listed in aim 1 or aim 2 has occurred previously, a refusal by the individual, group or organisation that conducted the behaviour to rescind, repudiate or distance themselves from the behaviour.

This isn't particularly 'legally'. Its fairly straightforward to understand.

Also, there are certain exceptions even under the ECHR.

(Hint: These usually relate to extremism...)