Freedom of Expression- I never knew!

[pennydrew]

I must confess. I didn’t know this:

Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold“

Unfortunately that may merely mean the right to remain silent - the one right women have which AWA seem entirely in favour of.

Hmm. Interesting.....

Isn’t ‘misgendering’ part of the whole forcing someone to speak words that they do not believe?’ I think hate speech laws conflict with this. I shouldn’t be forced by law, or Mumsnet, to change my language to align with other peoples beliefs. I’m being forced to say words, rather than prevented from using language to incite hatred, which was the original point of hate speech laws. Not to force language but to prevent words which incited hatred against vunerable groups.

Interesting. Did that crop up in an article about the Ashers Supreme Court judgement?

Yes.

MumsNet doesn't actually force us to 'express an opinion we do not hold' - e.g. we can avoid pronouns rather than mis-sex people. Although this can be cumbersome (and very hard for some people) it is possible in a written medium.

But elsewhere, in real life, it's obviously a real problem. Maria Miller being instructed in court to use her assailants's preferred pronouns for instance.

Yes. I am just reading the Ashers case. I think it is quite interesting. I wonder whether the request for the cake in the first case was to try to take the whole thing to court, or am I being unfair and too cynical? In any case I think the Ashers case is very helpful in allowing us to retain a belief that transwomen are not women.

I have now opened the judgement rather than the press summary and realise I was wrong to be cynical. My apologies to the purchaser.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

(Apols for Guardian link)

Justice Lady Hale said this was about freedom of expression, and not anything else (like sexuality or religious belief).

'Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe'.

I wonder when the implications will sink in?

GG
It did appear to me that an activist was just looking to stick it to their opponents and to my mind the Supreme Court was right - the bakers were happy to sell the guy a cake but weren't happy to produce a political message with which they disagreed.

Still, a useful precedent is established for when Greer & Dworkin's Womyns bakery is asked to produce a TWAW cake!

But elsewhere, in real life, it's obviously a real problem. Maria Miller being instructed in court to use her assailants's preferred pronouns for instance

Surely that is in violation of Article 10?

Can you be forced to lie under oath in court? What would happen if you refused to say "she" to a man in a dress who has no GRA or who has made no real changes beyond the superficial? Does my duty to tell the truth in court trump their rights under the law to be "protected" under gender reassignment?

Any lawyers?

Did you hear the protected characteristics the judge read out?
Gender, not sex.

Tinlegs

The judge in the Maria Miller case said he reduced the fine the perpetrator had to pay because of it, I believe. It’s important to note that the TRA who punched Maria does not have a GRC.

Would welcome legal advice on what this means if your job requires you to express the belief that people can change sex and that a man is a woman and vice versa

Miller was denied compensation even after using the pronouns she was instructed to use so there’s zero reason to comply.

Maria Miller is the ex Equalities Minister who thinks TWAW and horn us into this mess.

Maria Maclachlan is the feminist who got assaulted by the thug Tara Wood and forced in court to avoid “misgendering” her violent Male assailant.

Did Justice Lady Hale use 'gender' instead of 'sex' and 'gender identity'? Awkward.

WhatTheWatersShowedMe

I realised later but darn, you can’t edit! Thanks for clarifying :)

Apologies for muddling the Marias

I am so sorry to Maria Maclachlan!

Article 10, like several other articles of the ECHR (8-11) is not an absolute right. The second section of it reads,

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

It can be limited. 'Rights of others' to identify with a gender? Article 14 on discrimination bans discrimination based on sex (no mention of gender here), but does end on "or other status" so potentially anything.

Thanks Suffragettes. I can't work out if that refers to freedom of expression or freedom from compelled speech.

So many of these European Articles hedge their offerings so broadly that they could be limited by almost anything if the case was argued strongly enough. There is balancing competing factors and then there is making the right as if it were not a right but merely a temporary loan.

What we need to rely on is that laws and actions of the law in a secular state should reflect verifiable and objective truths and facts.