Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

Zahariel · 17/10/2024 09:03

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

MSN

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 23:50

Bannedontherun · 17/10/2024 23:19

@ArcheryAnnie hard to hide behind an invisible or fictitious brother

Easy to hide behind a screen though.

MonkeyToHeaven · 18/10/2024 00:03

When the Lords threw out the Government's proposal to equalise the age of consent, opponents said "we're not anti-gay, we just want to protect children".

People need to dial back on both their rhetoric and their wild accusations. I've seen it all before.

Bannedontherun · 18/10/2024 00:04

MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 23:50

Easy to hide behind a screen though.

and you are not.

Bannedontherun · 18/10/2024 00:24

Hmm firstly you are conflating gay rights with trans rights which are not the same thing at all.

Secondly it is perfectly acceptable to demonstrate against any legislation or public policy that affects or upsets a group of people.

I personally have a problem with legislation about restriction on certain rights to protest, or express an unpopular opinion. But i would not call it fascist. It is the misuse of a word.

What is not acceptable is to pick on a group of people who you do not agree with.

SinnerBoy · 18/10/2024 03:35

HotSource · Yesterday 20:11

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.

An excellent post, very much to the point.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 07:30

MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 23:12

I think, if you knew who my brother was and the role he played in the gay rights movement, including the equalisation of the age of consent, you'd shut your mouth.

"My brother, a completely different person to me, did something therefore I think I can ride off his coat tails pretending that my association with him makes me special too and then I try and put others down on the internet because I came from the same gene pool as him."

You know telling someone to "shut their mouth" because of who their brother is, really isn't the look you think it is.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 07:31

MonkeyToHeaven · 18/10/2024 00:03

When the Lords threw out the Government's proposal to equalise the age of consent, opponents said "we're not anti-gay, we just want to protect children".

People need to dial back on both their rhetoric and their wild accusations. I've seen it all before.

Except this isn't the same as gay rights.

That's kinda the whole problem.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 07:33

"My brother is a thug in the mafia. If you knew who he was, you'd shut your mouth."

I'm actually amused by the line about the brother.

nutmeg7 · 18/10/2024 07:38

MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 22:50

The OP's question was suggesting it was a hate crime, doesn't seem to meet the classification. Them I responded to a pp who suggested it might be an "assault on free speech" which isn't an offence.

Then somebody kept posting a deeply contentious bit of legislation, which would preclude the actions of the suffragettes, the anti-apartheid movement, the US civil rights movement etc for example, as if it were the final judgment on the matter.

That's what actually happened.

The difference I see is in the nature of the demands.
Suffragettes wanted women to be allowed to vote.
Anti-apartheid campaigners wanted the end of apartheid.

What do these protesters want?
What rights do they not have?
Their goal seems to be to shut down debate and prevent others from speaking. They are deeply intolerant of other people who do not share their beliefs that sex doesn’t matter, but gender identity does.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 07:42

nutmeg7 · 18/10/2024 07:38

The difference I see is in the nature of the demands.
Suffragettes wanted women to be allowed to vote.
Anti-apartheid campaigners wanted the end of apartheid.

What do these protesters want?
What rights do they not have?
Their goal seems to be to shut down debate and prevent others from speaking. They are deeply intolerant of other people who do not share their beliefs that sex doesn’t matter, but gender identity does.

Their goal is to intimidate.

They can't talk about rights because that involves admitting what rights they do have and the rights they want to remove from others.

It's not just like being gay. Being gay didn't instruct others to say something they knew to be untrue. It didn't put doctors at legal risk for asking what sex someone is or dosing them incorrectly because the person is in denial about their sex.

There's a whole pile more. But since my nonexistent cat has a degree in quantum physics and this means I've absorbed everything my nonexistent cat knows I think I'm above this discussion.

SinnerBoy · 18/10/2024 07:46

RedToothBrush · Today 07:42

Their goal is to intimidate.
They can't talk about rights because that involves admitting what rights they do have and the rights they want to remove from others.

That's exactly right, they have found that they have a bit of power and like all bullies, they enjoy its exercise. They don't want to talk, or discuss the situation, because not one of their claims stands up to any scrutiny, which is why they turn to threats and actual violence, because they want their way and don't want anything to stop it.

Zahariel · 18/10/2024 08:05

MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 22:40

You don't think the previous government were creeping towards fascism with some of their legislation? Interesting.

You don't know what Fascism means. Hush.

OP posts:
Zahariel · 18/10/2024 08:08

MonkeyToHeaven · 17/10/2024 23:12

I think, if you knew who my brother was and the role he played in the gay rights movement, including the equalisation of the age of consent, you'd shut your mouth.

But he goes to another school?
In canada right?

And is REALLY tough grrrr

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 18/10/2024 08:16

I have noticed in discussion that those saying it is a rights issue don’t like to acknowledge that it about the additional privileges (often described as rights) that the extreme transgender rights activists want. Because equal rights is what they already have.

what they want is additional rights. They want to be able to coerce other people to comply with their philosophical belief. Such as in the way they wish people to use language around them.

They want to receive additional rights to access spaces and opportunities set aside for the sex they are not. For instance, a male person demanding to be placed in a female prison has the right to be placed in a male prison and female prison if they want to (and are not rapists in the UK). A male demanding to be treated as a female person wants to play sports in a sports category that they should not be playing in. They are not female athletes. So again, they want to have access to the male and the female sports categories.

And then there are the gender fluid male people who demand to be female one day and male the next.

And the only commonality between people with transgender identities is philosophical belief. No medical condition needed.

What other philosophical belief gets additional privileges that no one else in the population gets?

And what other people in the population has medical treatment available at public expense where their healthy bodies are subject to extreme body modifications to suit their philosophical belief? Surgical and chemical?

I think the discussion in rights is generally avoided these days by posters who understand that the mantras around ‘trans rights’ don’t get the response they want. They don’t like the objective reality stripped of all the emotional manipulation. And they don’t seem to be able to counter the arguments pointing this out. They have nothing but the same emotionally manipulative statements that convinced them.

nutmeg7 · 18/10/2024 08:24

Zahariel · 18/10/2024 08:08

But he goes to another school?
In canada right?

And is REALLY tough grrrr

🤣🤣🤣

Helleofabore · 18/10/2024 08:29

I think, if you knew who my brother was and the role he played in the gay rights movement, including the equalisation of the age of consent, you'd shut your mouth.

Yeah? Nah! I am another who couldn’t give a fuck who your brother is.

Because you don’t get to tell anyone to shut their mouth. If you cannot support your points without posting statements such as this, and simply making other broad statements without supporting details, why the fuck should anyone shut up.

And if anyone then starts trying to using the false equivalence between homosexual and bisexual people’s rightful access to equal treatment and opportunities to heterosexual people based on sexual orientation, and the demands being made by people with a transgender identity, then surely they must expect push back.

ArcheryAnnie · 18/10/2024 08:29

nutmeg7 · 18/10/2024 07:38

The difference I see is in the nature of the demands.
Suffragettes wanted women to be allowed to vote.
Anti-apartheid campaigners wanted the end of apartheid.

What do these protesters want?
What rights do they not have?
Their goal seems to be to shut down debate and prevent others from speaking. They are deeply intolerant of other people who do not share their beliefs that sex doesn’t matter, but gender identity does.

I see it as akin to religious fundamentalism. TRAs don't just want the right to their own beliefs, they want to force everyone else to live according to their TRA beliefs.

I can't stop someone being homophobic if that's what they want to be, any more than I can stop them being a flat-earther or a creationist or whatever. That's not really my business, and they can do what they like inside their own heads, and to their own bodies. But once they demand I think and act the same as them, and that the whole world has to fall in line in accordance with their beliefs, they've overstepped. Especially when their flat-earth beliefs cause harm to children.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/10/2024 08:30

What other philosophical belief gets additional privileges that no one else in the population gets?

The only one I can think of is Sikh men having an exception from rules on motorcycle and (I think) police uniform helmets. Which has no adverse effect on anybody except the man choosing not to wear it. I can't think of a single one that gives a 'believer' in whatever philosophy an additional right that affects another person.

LadyGrinningSoul8517 · 18/10/2024 08:33

I've not read the thread, but I really wouldn't bother asking on here.
Mumsnet is the most homophobic and transphobic website I've ever been on, and Mumsnet themselves actively allow it.
I'm actually in the process of taking it further after one too many of my comments got removed and one too many hate filled comments got left to stand despite my reports.

But to answer your question, yes it is a hate crime.
Let's just hope enough people care to try to stop it.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 08:34

Helleofabore · 18/10/2024 08:16

I have noticed in discussion that those saying it is a rights issue don’t like to acknowledge that it about the additional privileges (often described as rights) that the extreme transgender rights activists want. Because equal rights is what they already have.

what they want is additional rights. They want to be able to coerce other people to comply with their philosophical belief. Such as in the way they wish people to use language around them.

They want to receive additional rights to access spaces and opportunities set aside for the sex they are not. For instance, a male person demanding to be placed in a female prison has the right to be placed in a male prison and female prison if they want to (and are not rapists in the UK). A male demanding to be treated as a female person wants to play sports in a sports category that they should not be playing in. They are not female athletes. So again, they want to have access to the male and the female sports categories.

And then there are the gender fluid male people who demand to be female one day and male the next.

And the only commonality between people with transgender identities is philosophical belief. No medical condition needed.

What other philosophical belief gets additional privileges that no one else in the population gets?

And what other people in the population has medical treatment available at public expense where their healthy bodies are subject to extreme body modifications to suit their philosophical belief? Surgical and chemical?

I think the discussion in rights is generally avoided these days by posters who understand that the mantras around ‘trans rights’ don’t get the response they want. They don’t like the objective reality stripped of all the emotional manipulation. And they don’t seem to be able to counter the arguments pointing this out. They have nothing but the same emotionally manipulative statements that convinced them.

Spot on.

People supporting others encouraging 'direct action' or harassment and public order offences as the rest of us like to call them, should be wise to remember what happened with the recent riots.

Yesterday one of those saying things on the internet encouraging the riots, got sentenced to 4 years in jail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo

Passing sentence, Judge Inman told the court that Connolly's tweet - which was read 310,000 times - was "intended to incite serious violence".
"When you published those words you were well aware how volatile the situation was," he said.
"That volatility led to serious disorder where mindless violence was used."

I'm sure that everyone is rushing to free her citing freedom of speech and her right under the ECHR. Or not.

Mugshot of Lucy Connolly face forward, wearing a pink hoodie

Politician's wife Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post

Lucy Connolly, wife of West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly, is jailed for 31 months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 08:35

LadyGrinningSoul8517 · 18/10/2024 08:33

I've not read the thread, but I really wouldn't bother asking on here.
Mumsnet is the most homophobic and transphobic website I've ever been on, and Mumsnet themselves actively allow it.
I'm actually in the process of taking it further after one too many of my comments got removed and one too many hate filled comments got left to stand despite my reports.

But to answer your question, yes it is a hate crime.
Let's just hope enough people care to try to stop it.

Thats nice dear.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2024 08:36

ArcheryAnnie · 18/10/2024 08:29

I see it as akin to religious fundamentalism. TRAs don't just want the right to their own beliefs, they want to force everyone else to live according to their TRA beliefs.

I can't stop someone being homophobic if that's what they want to be, any more than I can stop them being a flat-earther or a creationist or whatever. That's not really my business, and they can do what they like inside their own heads, and to their own bodies. But once they demand I think and act the same as them, and that the whole world has to fall in line in accordance with their beliefs, they've overstepped. Especially when their flat-earth beliefs cause harm to children.

You mean 'extremism'.

Yes we've already covered that and were told 'freedom of speech'.

That hasn't worked for religious fundamentalists in this country though.

JMSA · 18/10/2024 08:37

KizzyDora · 17/10/2024 09:30

It's such a cruel thing to do to the insects too.

Absolutely. Cruel all round.

I'd fumigate the perpetrators!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/10/2024 08:38

LadyGrinningSoul8517 · 18/10/2024 08:33

I've not read the thread, but I really wouldn't bother asking on here.
Mumsnet is the most homophobic and transphobic website I've ever been on, and Mumsnet themselves actively allow it.
I'm actually in the process of taking it further after one too many of my comments got removed and one too many hate filled comments got left to stand despite my reports.

But to answer your question, yes it is a hate crime.
Let's just hope enough people care to try to stop it.

Perhaps you should read the thread, you might learn something.

What did your posts get deleted for? Did you call someone a TERF once too often, perhaps?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/10/2024 08:39

Oh, clergy in some religions have the right to refuse to carry out same sex marriages, whereas civil registrars do not. And doctors and pharmacists can refuse to carry out abortions or provide contraceptives. Those are additional philosophical rights that affect other people.

So there are some. But very strictly limited - they can refuse to carry out the marriage/abortion themselves, but can't prevent anyone else doing so. And in the medical instances they have a duty to refer to someone else who will do it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread