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

TRA… a misogynistic group, mostly aimed towards attacking women’s rights to free speech, and same sex services.

“T” is not a sexuality, and should not have to be tagged into the end of a group, who are gathering to discuss issues around (same sex) sexuality.

.. and just to add nobody, in the history of the world, has ever changed sex.

Oh lord. I've not seen that debunked chat in a while. You want to bring out the Fausto - Sterling 'as common as redheads' argument while you're bringing up stupid talking points?

Mmm, we're so lucky to also be blessed by the presence of the sort of person who thinks shitting all over low waged cleaners is perfectly fine. Wonder what the people who had to deal with the aftermath of this thought.

Which bit was debunked? Their address or the 7%?

Back in the day I've attended classes about how best to take part in non-violent direct action. None of it involved killing insects or trying to frighten people.
What happened is far more reminiscent of a last-day-of-school muck-up day, than a legitimate protest.

Just popping a link to LGBA website here so people can look into it themselves to decide if it looks like a 'shady right wing group':

https://lgballiance.org.uk/people/

7% most definitely. Repeatedly.

An address? Do get a grip.

If you're talking about so called dodgy organisations, why not mention Mermaids? Currently (still) being investigated by the Charity Commission. Dodgy as.

They were protested against due to being GC
Not being gay
pretty simple

This is true. Gender identitarianism would not have got far if it hadn't parasitized the gay-rights movement. As far as I can work out, being gender critical means not accepting gender identitarianism as an integral part of the LGB movement. The attempts to shut down and intimidate LGB people who want to exclude gender identitarians are the sign of a parasite desperately fighting an attempt to remove it from its host.

Well, I'm not. But I do think this is a hate crime, I do think that LGB but not T groups must be able to have their own gatherings, and I do think TRA activists are helping nothing and nobody.

Slightly off topic however

It could be illegal but not for the reasons most people would think.

Im making a presumption that the crickets would have been 'feeder crickets' mainly used for feeding exotic pets.Thing is that neither of the two species used as feeder crickets are native species.

If so then releasing them could potentially be illegal under the The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to releasing alien and/or invasive species.

The link shows the relevant section of WCA for those who want to have a gander, in brief though it's illegal and punishable with either an unlimited fine or prison.

Extremely irresponsible and cruel in my personal opinion as releasing non native species is usually going to result in the death of said species. This could either be due to the environment being unsuitable for them or more likely them being exterminated/culled as a pest and/or invasive threat.

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

@Curlyboot I think you'll find that the CPS definition of hate crime is a bit different to yours.

Are there protests at every event where there's silence on trans issues? Are all other conventions or business conferences for eg. disrupted because they don't discuss trans issues?

This was a group of people meeting for their own reasons. The 'silence on trans issues' was because participants didn't feel they needed to be discussed, just like any other conference where trans rights are not the centre of discussion. They were targeted because of who they were, a group of gay people, which is the epitome of homophobia.

Maybe that poster is identifying as someone who actually understands the law on hate crime.

Depends upon why the crickets were released. If the fact that it was gay people there was merely happenstance and the offenders would have targeted any pro-Trump meeting then no.

Targeting a pro-gay rights meeting on the other hand...

I was looking at various definitions of terrorist attacks, and using a tactic designed to frighten/harm civilians in order to further your own beliefs would seem to be just that.

Some of the Suffragettes' activities would come under the same definition, tho.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

In the oppression Olympics we have a clear indication that trans beats boring old homosexuality any day of the week.

Sick of these childish so called activists, they should do some proper campaigning if they want to further their rights rather than boo hoo it's not fair that these other people don't agree with us.

I'm finding a few of the responses here really odd.
You don't have to be GC to understand that releasing insects into a conference to make a point is an attack and should be thoroughly condemned.

There wasn't silence on trans issues though. There was anti-trans rhetoric.

I think the point people are making is that it isn't a hate crime.
Yeah, releasing crickets is bad, but they weren't doing it as a homophobic act.

And if people extrapolated that out to just protesting other sub-groups of people at a conference for people who are transgender, do you think that your line of categorising this action?

Could you be specific as to what they were discussing that you, personally, class as 'anti-trans' please?

Just so everyone reading along or posting is on the same page as to what you are referring to.

Refusing to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex (regardless of how they identify) is not "transphobic". Everyone has the right to say "no" to any prospective sexual partner, for any reason or none.

Not wanting autistic children to be sterilised for same-sex attraction is not "transphobic" either.

I'd be interested in an answer to this from anyone, not just @Curlyboot - especially whether the donor who calls themselves "MolotovNextTime" would consider this an attack, and if you do insist on calling this attack a protest, at what point you think legitimate protest tips over into an attack.

I'm clear that it was an attack. It was clearly designed to cause alarm and distress, and to shut the conference down. That's an attack, not a protest. (And I think "MolotovNextTime" would agree with me on this, even if we agree on nothing else.)

Lesbians not being attracted to biological men or gay men not being attracted to biological women or wanting to engage in any form of intimacy with them is not transphobic. Biological men who identify as lesbians or biological women who identify as gay men claiming it is are being homophobic.