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

I am sorry, are you disagreeing with JKR's statement here?

How about a gay white woman (with a vagina)?
Would that be acceptable?

yup. I hope those young women are charged with making a homophobic attack. They are driven by bigotry and hatred.

Please point at the anti trans rhetoric? Please?

Not finding something amusing doesn’t make it an attack.

If I was at a pro choice rally and some pro lifers released bugs I’d be annoyed, but I wouldn’t call it an attack. Or a hate crime

Yes they were. The attackers motivation was that they hate and cannot stand the (true) definition of same sex attraction, as put forward by LGBAlliance

thats a homophobic hate crime.

You can not protect homoSEXual rights if you can't see sex. If someone identifies as the opposite sex, they don't change sex, they retain sex.

By removing sex based rights in law, you can't protect homosexual rights.

That's why the LGB Alliance was set up.

It's about the recognition that being sexually attracted to the same gender means you can still be heterosexual.

If you start making homosexual a term not identifiable in legal terms, how can you be protected from homophobic abuse?

The idea that heterosexuals who identify as trans, can not be homophobic is about as clued up as thinking that someone asian can't be racist towards someone black.

This blindness to prejudice within communities that have been lumped together for some sort of different aim, is unhelpful.

You do realise that knowingly funding future crime - is a crime?

Yeah, I read the thread after I posted.

RTFT Definitely counts here!

I can only assume it's a misunderstanding or accidental click of the wrong option.

These types of attack have been used on restaurants etc where some GC people have dined and so on. reasonable protest is one thing, these types of attack are appalling. I believe the Conservatives brought in beefed up laws to clamp down on such protests that inconvenience etc others such as this one clearly did.

@Raspberryripple11 we are waiting.

But that's because you don't want to. Not because it doesn't meet the definition of an extremist action which is unlawful.

If you read the government website guidance about what constitutes extremist behaviour (which was updated in March this year), it meets the definition because it causes interference to democratic purposes and freedom of speech designate to intimidated (noting that for the purposes of law, belief in sex not gender is legally recognised as a belief worthy of respect within a democratic society). The action taken constitute a public order offences (section 4) and arguably it's covered by criminal damage because the venue has had to take out remedial work to ensure it can carry out future events bug free. There are plans to do this again which fall foul of harassment laws. It's certainly not a peaceful protest.

But then, I've actually bothered to know, look up and understand the law. You haven't and you don't intend to.

I've been on this board for ten years, and not once have I ever seen this question answered.

TRA's are often disgusting in what they do.

Animal cruelty {Crickets} and also pouring bottles of stale piss {their own} outside ECHR.

www.vice.com/en/article/pissed-off-trannies-ehrc-protest/

Stale urine protest by TRA . The linked article above shows a security guard who looks revolted.

but ItS nOt A FeTisH.....

Yep, another example of a likely low paid worker having the environment where they have to do their job attacked. Wonder who cleaned up the entrance to the offices, and how much less privileged they were than the 'activists'.

There's a theme emerging here.

I doubt they'd be releasing crickets at a meeting where a section of the LGB community supporting trans rights were in attendance.

So you have then categorised these two examples of being 'anti-trans' and you feel confident to use that term on this thread?

Do you think that people can legitimately raise issues about these how lesbians define themselves collectively and medical treatments without you categorising those people as 'anti-trans'?

And you, personally, never heard what was said. But you consider the speakers to be 'anti-trans'?

Am I getting your thoughts here down correctly?

I can't speak for English law, but in Scotland it's not unusual for criminals to use under 16s to commit crimes because it'll be dealt with by the Children's Panel (if at all) rather than the courts.

It's cowardice.

As the LGB is very much about biological sex. Being GC is very much a part of them.

Jamie Reed worked in a gender identity clinic and is married to a transman. Do you think she's transphobic?

If the actions of these children constitute extremism, then there's other implications and potential criminal activity if it can be demonstrated that they were influenced by adults.

It has been requested that they be referred to Prevent due to the circumstances.

You might have a point, but I'm mindful of the fact they said much the same about the women's suffrage movement.

Reader's note:

LGB Alliance & the 7% misrepresentation

This is a statement released by LGB Alliance about that 7% statement made in court.

One particularly sticky myth is that only 7% of LGB Alliance supporters are lesbians. Here’s how that started:

We were delighted to be able to support Allison Bailey at her tribunal in the form of a witness statement to help prove that gender critical people are likely to be women and lesbians. As part of that we shared some numbers from our newsletter subscriber list.

We used Mailchimp to send our newsletter and when we set up our account in 2019 we added some subscriber questions which, as it turned out, provided us with ambiguous data.

We asked people whether they were lesbian, whether they were lesbian/gay or if they preferred not to say. The flaws being that we couldn’t tell whether those who ticked lesbian/gay were men or women and that none of the fields were compulsory – so many people skipped them altogether.

The result was that we had 4,502 newsletter subscribers and 316 ticked the box describing themselves as lesbian. That’s 7% of the total. A further 949 ticked the box lesbian/gay and 1,427 were unspecified or preferred not to say. Based on that data that means that between 316 (7%) and 2,376 (53%) of our subscribers were lesbian.

The 7% figure was used in court because it’s important that evidence is based on provable fact and it is a fact that, at a minimum, 7% of our subscribers were lesbians. However, common sense told us that that number was really much higher.

In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say. We are satisfied that this data is robust."

Plus, we have had at least one poster who declared that the 7% mentioned should be given high credibility due to being submitted as evidence and this statement no credence at all, because apparently that poster forgot that the numbers in this statement were also submitted to court as evidence at a later court hearing.

As can be seen here:

https://lgballiance.org.uk/tribunal-transcript/ 

The bit on membership is here:

"Yes, one of our biggest battles is to fight disinformation and on 11 August we sent out a survey, quite a complicated survey, to our 6,000 subscribers. Those are people who subscribe to LGB Alliance newsletters. There were many questions, and we’re still going through the responses, but one of the first questions was to ask people whether they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, trans, etc. These are- We got a 20% response rate, which is unusually high. We were pleased about that, and it more or less shows an 80/20 split which is 80% gay, lesbian, bisexual, 20% straight, so it could be families of LGB people, it could be supporters. So 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay, the rest of bisexual and straight. Just to clarify and to add something else. The two founders are lesbians. The management team has always been made up of lesbian, gay and bisexual and the same with our trustees. So it’s very irritating to constantly be told that we have been led by homophobic, straight, white men, which is quite a common accusation."

Page 56/57 Wednesday 14th September 2022