Stephanie Hayden takes Graham Linehan to court for doxxing

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Their statement is here:

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1046792462067519489?s=19

Well people like Hayden are very good at obtaining bits of paper to wave at women. Not everyone has quite the same cunning and nous.

I suppose not everyone has enough money to pay gendergp for their documents to get a GRC. Is what they are doing legal, though?

Having the GRC and openly declaring it does add extra pressure to discussions.

This came up on the thread about Sue Pascoe's recent appointment (potential Conservative candidate and Channel 4 'Diversity & Inclusion' consultant)

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3331095-Channel-4-appoints-a-new-advisor-on-inclusion
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383926-Sue-Pascoe

So if a person has not had a GRC then it is lawful to call them a man as that is what they are in law presumably. If the GRC cert was wrongly obtained I suppose that does not nullify one so would not help in a case about disclosing a name soeone used to have. (By the way my bank for 16 years as still not changed my card from Mrs - women's naming issues as someone else said above are not of course taken very seriously at all and we are just laughed at over them half the time)

It must be quite hard to follow the law and write about trans issues if you don't know if someone has a GRC or not. So you get what often looks like a hulking great man in a dress in front of you whom everyone knows used to be or is a man and because you don't know if they have a GRC or not your speech is in effect censored and you could make an innocent mistake eg you think XYZ is really still male without a GRC (or as you know they pass as woman some days and man as others like the banker who has the two identities who won an FT woman's prize) and mention their original male name or they say they have a GRC but you know that can't be true as they live next door and see them going to work as a man every day until they bought a cert very recently. It is a minefield.

@Xenia I don't think the GRC has any bearing at all over whether we can call a particular 'AMAB' individual a man. Nor does it prevent disclosure of their 'dead name'.

What the GRC does do is give legal recognition, for official persons.

As far as the public goes, my understanding is that a 'hate incident' is anything perceived to be on the basis of gender identity. And that's true even if they are not transgender, it's still classed as a hate incident if the incident is based on perceived gender identity.

So if you called a transvestite in the ladies toilets a 'male pervert', that could potentially be a hate crime. The GRC does not have anything to do with it all. It's sufficient that it's based on perceived gender identity, whether in fact that person identifies as a man is scarcely relevant.

It is certainly not an issue I've studied. It sounds like these hate crimes are about people being nasty to others rather than calm kind stating of facts. I was thinking along the lines of if you say something that is true (but politely) then it's not a breach of the Defamation Act kind of principle. Then there is the separate issue of disclosing personal data.

'hate incident' - there doesn't need to be a crime for this, as with 'hate crime'? Isn't that a bit fascist? It's so subjective, the 'victim' could make anything up to be offended about.

Defamation also has as a defence 'fair comment'. Under defamation laws it wouldn't be defamation to suggest that a male-presenting man in a woman's change room is a man (truth) who's very possibly a predator (fair comment). Under the new totalitarianism, it could be actionable or a criminal offence?

Charlie, I agree but we are in a 1984 George Orwell type time where careless talk seems to cost people their livelihoods and if you call a spade a spade you can be hung because you did not realise it was now a trowel; whereas people's off the cuff comment to their mates in the pub in the 1970s would not have done as we have these full recorded records on twitter of what people say (one reason I stay off twitter and facebook entirely as it just seems to be very risky).

I did spend about 25 minutes filling out the current consultation on changing the gender recognition law which is probably better worth people's time than a lot of twitter posting. Even there, I was worried that my studied kind and careful answers could be some kind of hate crime simply because I want the law to stay as it is (it is a reasonable compromise and best protects women and trans people in my view).

It would be ironic indeed if responses to the consultation were branded 'hate incidents'. Maybe the whole consultation itself is just a register of people to line up against the wall afterwards.

Doesn't the logic " it's a hate crime if someone says it is " mean that we get into loops

Person a: you called me a man and I am a woman , I find that threatening and hateful
Person b: you say you are a woman but you are in a male body, I find that threatening and hateful

No loops, because gender identity is protected, sex is not. Misogyny is not a hate crime.

RealGhouls

What if it goes against your religion to lie. Because religion is a protected characteristic, isn't it?

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue,

Datun, as I understand it the courts of been quite willing to make religion subservient to other protected categories, as in the case of hate preachers, preaching about gay people. So I don't think there would necessarily be a difficulty there.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/07/transgender-lawyer-launches-uks-first-deadnaming-case-against/

Has this been linked?

This case could set a legal precedent on 'deadnaming' apparently.

We've already got someone (in Ireland?) trying not to answer charges because 'the person who committed those crimes no longer exists.' Worrying times.

I guess their lawyer is just trying the law here. I read a lawyers chat site and they were very funny about it (not swallowing it at all).

RG, hate crime seems to be about context. So I could go into a church and read out from the bible about Sodom and G and hell fire for those involved in gay sex etc and the police would not come in nor those bits of the bible that come up every year in readings in services and masses about all kinds of stuff many people would hate - women submitting to men and all sorts. Behind closed doors of your church or mosque you seem to be fine.

If instead you record the firely sermon and put it on youtube and someone takes umbrage or I suppose a journalist infiltrates the local C of E when reading from the XYZ book of Y comes up then you're in trouble.

So xenia what about those who are reading from the Bible in street?

We have a group in neighbouring town who set up pitch at different locations. I find them a lot more friendly than the chuggers who basically chase you to seek safety inside shops.

Has this been linked?
I popped in here to see if it had been. It's a good article, mentions Hayden's previous name and quotes the tweets about "con-men".
Shame it didn't go into more detail about the wind-up fraud etc.

Turph all I know details with photos can be found all over twitter, potato head currently backgrounding checking anyone who shared it to see if they got money.

Potato head blocks poor people like myself

"If instead you record the firely sermon and put it on youtube and someone takes umbrage or I suppose a journalist infiltrates the local C of E when reading from the XYZ book of Y comes up then you're in trouble."

I'm not sure that's the case. As I understand it the "hate" itself is not a crime, but it is instead treated as an aggravating factor when prosecuting an associated crime.

So you find a crime first and saying gays will burn in hell is not a crime?

No I’m of no set religion other than my own beliefs I’m just wondering about those who read from Bible in streets. I’ve never heard the burn gays shouted out from them. I’m just wondering now if now any religion that doesn’t accept trans will be criminal of hate speech

That is the problem. i suspect it often just comes down to how you say things. Personalised stuff against one individual which is nasty tends to get you into trouble eg shouting at some poor lady going into an abortion clinic whereas write on line that yo believe life begins at birth is just freedom of speech. The difficulty is where we draw the line and people tend to write very short tweets rather than long essays these days so more scope to be nasty and personalised and riskier.

If I stand on a street corner (and we get the Plymouth Bretheren doing that near us) and saying the Wages of Sin is Death or Repent or be Damned or whatever is not likely to be attacking someone personally. Then if you move into areas where you will be unpopular - eg non drinking Christian groups going round pubs going on about evils of drink or I go in a mini skrt to an orthodox jewish or muslim area it might be more provocative.

There are two separate strands here. One is what the law is supposed to say. The other is what the police and institutions are doing according to their (often wholly inadequate) understanding of the law.

We are seeing widespread examples of silencing, intimidation, abuse, sheltering of abuse, what have you, that have little to do with the law and this stuff is getting embedded into institutions and our cultural at large. This is happening at frightening speed. Even if this can be set right by some useful legal precedents and a wholesale coming to their senses of institutions, this will take years.

Shame it didn't go into more detail about the wind-up fraud etc.

Does anyone have a link to these details? Or can describe the gist of it? When I Google the one Twitter account that seemed to have them has been suspended so I can't see anything