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

What rights are they trying to take away?

ETA I meant to quote there. One poster asserted that the speakers at the conference wanted to remove rights from trans people.

This '7%' has been constantly misrepresented by a few posters who have been on these threads before. They know how this figure was derived. However, because they have their own very deeply entrenched prejudice about the LGB Alliance, they keep trying to misrepresent the demographics of the supporters of the LGB Alliance.

That says more about them than it does the LGB Alliance.

And those posters attempting to then try to twist 20% heterosexual supporters as being somehow worthy of discrediting LGB Alliance's work seem to then forget that if Stonewall could categorise all their supporters, all their donors, what % would this end up heterosexual? And this would have to include any person who purchased any product that then contributed to Stonewall, or any work place that took donations. It is a very weak argument to discredit a LGB charity.

But some posters still think that it is a convincing argument to discredit an LGB charity they disagree with. Well, they probably don't think it is really convincing, what they think is that someone will read it and think it reliable / relevant and will have a negative view of LGB Alliance. Which is ultimately their aim in spreading what is fuckwittery. That is misinformation due to the significant misrepresentation in light of the full context and accurate facts.

And sadly, it is some people spreading these types of misrepresentions and misinformation that cause activists to then try to disrupt the events held by LGB Alliance. It never seems to sink in though, that feminists don't try to disrupt events for transgender people. And feminists don't protest at conferences for transgender people to meet at.

Could it show something about the respect for others in general that transgender rights activists have? Could it show the assymetrical tolerance levels of different groups in society?

If I understand this rather incoherent post correctly ...

TRA need to use acts of violence because they've got none of the above

This poster is calling for Trans Rights Activists to be violent?

It's a hate crime - imagine if women had done such a thing at a trans meet up. They would be hauled in by the police and "corrected"

The girls who did it were grinning and whispering like Manson brides.

And if you were at an event supporting trans people and someone released insects in the same way?

Still amusing or just annoying?

I think the poster is saying TRAs are not very bright and incapable of logical thought, so resort to violence instead.

No, she’s listed cases where they have been v women just speaking up

The poster is saying all that TRAs have in their armoury is acts of violence because they have no minds, words, facts or insight.

The poster is not calling for TRAs to be violent.

Would you like to clarify your thoughts here? Because they seem a bit confused.

You think that it is acceptable for a group to disrupt an LGB Alliance conference with the intention to silence homosexual and bisexual people from speaking and hearing about issues that impact them. Because why?

They were protested against for being openly and unrepentantly gay, instead of keeping quiet and letting people assume they might be open to opposite-sex relationships too.

This is the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" of our time. The "I don't mind what they do in private, but why do they have to rub it in our faces". The "maybe you just need a good d1ck" brand of homophobia, repackaged to make it look "progressive". And you are supporting it. Disgusting.

Note here.

The hate element is only an aggravating factor in an action that arguably breaks a number of laws.

The actual reasoning and choice of target, remains irrelevant in the wider context of those actions should they be unlawful.

We are too focused on the who v who and the hate element rather than whether the actions were in themselves unlawful.

If this was just stop oil doing the same, I am fairly confident that ultimately some kind of police or social services action would ultimately take place.

I thought this ...

Ah okay, clearly I misunderstood.

Their grasp on reality seems to be rather loose, mind you.

Yes that’s my question. I mean you can’t actually do this kind of thing regardless

I may have missed it but as action been reported?

I think you will find the poster is describing the tactics that are already used by extreme Transgender rights activists.

They are trying to point out that there is no symmetry between women who are discussing their needs and rights vs the threats, the violence, the abusive tactics of the extreme transgender rights activists.

For example, no feminist would release insects at a conference for transgender people. Feminists attend the conferences, listen and leave. They may speak up at the conference, but likely they would not. They would then discuss the conference content publicly. But they would not disrupt the conference.

sorry posted by mistake

We know some one was working to get these kids referred to Prevent.

My thoughts are, that if this is the route the police decide is the most appropriate, then we are unlikely to see any follow up.

This doesn't mean they aren't taking it seriously nor that, no action has been taken. It means it's now in the hands of an agency responsible for safeguarding minors therefore it would be inappropriate to acknowledge anything further publicly.

The issue remaining would therefore be public crowdfunders (police should act on these), liability for damage (will take the venue a while to action this and possibly would be through the civil courts anyway - and may result in a quiet non publicised out of court settlement) and follow up on any potential grooming (this is potentially a wider more complex investigation which may take some time to follow to it's conclusion).

So I'm cautious about saying the police have 'done nothing' or aren't taking it seriously. There are reasons why they may have but it's not something for the public domain.

Having said that I do think it's in the public interest for the police to say something in order to offer reassurance that this has been taken seriously and that any attempt to repeat will not just be ignored.

And their action of releasing boxes/bags of insects was to disrupt and stop a legal meeting of people whose rights are protected by the Equality Act. That's homophobic bigotry, trying to stop people from legal assembly and legal speech.

I'm referring to the OP's point about whether it should be considered a hate crime. Clearly, there are lots examples where the LGB community have been attacked because of their sexuality. I'm questioning if this latest stunt is equivalent.

Why do you think TRAs specifically targeted the LGBA? It wasn’t a random choice, what do you think their issue is with this particular organisation? And if it is targeted, then that comes under prejudice of that group.

Why do you believe it might not be?

This group sought to stop this event. They wanted to stop people discussing issues and getting information on issues that the group directly believe impacts them as homosexual and bisexual people.

Why do you think there is any doubt?

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 themselvThes from the behaviour.

Noting that believing in Sex not Gender is legally recognised as a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society and that Sex and Homosexuality are both separate catergories in the Equality Act to Gender Reassignment.

This was a meeting for LGB individuals to discuss their legal rights and protections (as detailed within the law) and was not in any way remotely outside the law.

The actions of the disrupting group concerned, do seem to fit the definition above.

Disagreeing with the purpose is not a sufficient lawful reason to behave in the manner that the disrupting group did.

It doesn't matter what I think. But I suspect they'll target anyone that they think questions their movement.

Is there anymore information about Barker’s involvement?

Credit where it's due to the Daily Mail for referring to them as "trans activists" and not "trans rights activists".

Stopping same sex attracted people from organising in their own self interest without being forced to include people with gender identities and spicy straights is not a right.

None of the things trans activists demand are actually rights, in fact.