For any journalists - misuse of the legal system and police

[Bowlofbabelfish]

A bit of an open letter/post/plea I suppose.

are you aware that individuals are using the court system to suppress free speech? People like Posie Parker are being pursued legally for speakibg biological truths. they will come for the press next.*

are you aware that some individuals are trying to make ‘misgendering’ a crime? theyll come for you next.*

are you aware that some individuals are trying to erase their past criminal history by using the courts to argue that crimes were committed in a deadname? how do you feel about being unable to report on crime of the perp changes their gender?*

• are you aware that the CEO of mermaids is alleged to have said in her TEDx talk that her child’s close friend during transition is now a member of the West Yorkshire police’s hate crime unit? Are you aware that in a time of stretched resources some individuals are using the police to intimidate people speaking truths about them?

Are you aware that the group TELI was set up to create legal precedents?

YOUR ability to report and speak is what they will go after next. Once they’ve dragged a few private citizens through the courts to establish precedent they will muzzle you as well.

hefzi I’m still a bit conflicted about hate crime legislation.

One the one hand I see where it. An be legitimately used. But on the other he very concept of it is being abused. there still needs to be an actual crime committed - the hate bit is the motivation. I think that’s whats got lost. Hate crime legislation is to cover actual crimes. Being mean about someone in the web isn’t a crime. Disagreeing with people isn’t a crime.

mrsmac was this the ‘medicate indoctrinate castrate’ one? That was a belter and I’m not at all surprised they went for her over it. And again, t any journalists - do you want cartooning made a crime?

Think of the long history this country has of lampooning power, often in very sharp ways. Private eye, spitting image. Hogarth. Political cartooning is a vital tool of free speech.

And when we take this idea to its limit, what do we find? When we criminalise offence? What happens? Two words. Charlie Hebdo.

Sandy has a right (heck I’d call it a duty) to use cartoons to point out abuses of power.
If she needs funds, I’ll donate to a crowdfunder. This is an assault on our society’s ability to speak freeely

I'm conflicted about hate crime legislation because of the way we've seen the mission creep when it comes to expressing disagreement.

I'm increasingly conflicted about a number of things that my younger self thought were done deals but are obviously in a parlous state with the rolling back of civil rights.

Sandy is not saying much about what exactly it was about - but her cartoon response is worth looking out for on twitter.
Don't think she's backing down.

I think, unfortunately, that this is a direct result of the laws on hate crime: once you have a law that is defined by the opinion of the victim (or, as the law around hate crime puts it, "perceives") rather than something being objectively illegal, this is bound to be the next step.

Yes! It's self-identified crime!

One the one hand I see where it. An be legitimately used. But on the other he very concept of it is being abused. there still needs to be an actual crime committed - the hate bit is the motivation.

But the same principle is being applied to harassment. No intention required. No motive required. Perception of victim only.

Sorry for multi-posting!

Also: statistics collection - we are recording crime based on the perception of the victim rather than the motivation of the perpetrator. Which is hopeless for prevention work.

But actual crimes can be prosecuted through the existing laws against assault etc, with eg race taken as an aggravating factor. There wasn't a need for new legislation, however well-meaning it is: the law itself is full of "perceives" and "perception". The very essence of a hate crime is that you perceive a crime has been done - including nasty words--on the basis of a protected (iirc) characteristic. So this works perfectly as an easy win against some idiot shouting racist abuse (as it's easier than getting a conviction for affray or whatever) but also as an easy win from TRA - because saying that sex is a biological construct is hurtful and thus, in their perception, a hate crime as a result.

It's not the same, but the proposed ivory ban is looking to be similarly shit, when we have existing laws that do the same thing already, and stopping people selling their eg pianos in the UK isn't going to save the life of a single elephant. It's well-meaning, and the public buy into the PR message, just as with hate crime, without stopping to trace things to their logical conclusion.

Thank goodness some of the public are starting to wake up to the issue around self ID and women's spaces but for every person who understands our argument, there's at least ten who are so focused on inclusivity that they've forgotten that they are excluding people (who am I kidding: excluding women) by their very act of being inclusive in that way. Disagreeing - in the face of biology - has become an act of hate.

MsMc I was pretty zen about lots of things when I was younger that I think now "what the hell was I thinking?!" Turns out that the thin end of the wedge was a lot thinner than I thought

X post, Mariotta- exactly, you've explained much more clearly what I was trying to say: ty!

The lack of critical thinking in this country terrifies me - people don't seem able to follow these ideas through to their logical conclusion: Groupthink of any kind is always dangerous, as we're seeing - where does it end, if telling a verifiable truth (or fact) is a crime? Very sad and worrying times.

Not sure if this link has already been posted but I’ve just been watching this interview about opinions being silenced. It’s truly terrifying when you start putting things together.

It's always a good idea to put some meat on the bones rather than wave journalists (and others) in the direction of 'something that needs investigating'

Would it be a good idea to catalogue instances of the abuse of criminal justice and civil courts in one handy thread? I'll start....

1. Green Party TRAs called Avon and Somerset Police to disperse three women handing out leaflets about the GRA. The call was so exaggerated that five officers and a police horse attended.

1. Aimee Challoner and the Green party started a civil action against a Gender critical green, with the court date arranged to coincide with a key GP policy debate where the GC Green was due to speak. The action lacked substance and was thrown out.

1. Posie (no action after voluntary interview - but scary nevertheless)
2. Glinner (no action after voluntary interview - ditto)
3. Linda B and Venice A (no action after referral to the CPS, but resurrected as a private prosecution. Discontinued by CPS after months of uncertainty)

I'm sure I must have missed a number of actual police actions/enquiries or injunctions, solicitors' letters and other civil court actions etc. What else needs to go on the list, to help journalists make a judgement about whether this subject is a runner or not?

There wasn't a need for new legislation, however well-meaning it is: the law itself is full of "perceives" and "perception".

yes, you’re right. And this and what mariotta says are good points. we are now seeing what happens when law is fluffy and subjective aren’t we? What a mess.

1. Abusers have used the law for years to intimidate victims and those who stand up for victims. These malicious prosecutions we are seeing, aided and abetted by police, are a good example.

2. Hate crime legislation is a mess and often a complete joke in practice.

Take a look at some of the reports put out by police forces themselves, lots of drunks getting aggressive (the crime) and then using mean words towards arresting officers or the original victim (the "hate"), and getting a slightly bigger slap on the wrist than they otherwise would:

"The defendant racially abused and assaulted a police officer and assaulted another after they found him unconscious on the street and took him to the hospital. He pleaded guilty at the first hearing to racially aggravated common assault, racially aggravated fear of violence by words, assaulting a constable in the execution of his / her duty and being drunk and disorderly in a public place. He was sentenced to 26 weeks’ imprisonment uplifted from 18 weeks. He was also ordered to pay £55 to each victim (Case finalised between July and September 2017)."

Yup Pam you’re right. Concrete examples to get teeth into.

Let me add: Stephanie Hayden’s court actions against a woman (who I won’t name, it’s in the court record and you can find it easily) who ‘misgendered’ them. Also the same person’s financial past - several companies opened and closed before needing to provide accounts to HMRC. And their offending past - all under previous names of course. Including an incident detailed here: www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-transgender-lawyer-calls-police-transexual-solicitor-harassment

And one here:www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-transgender-lawyer-sues-father-ted-writer-graham-linehan

Oh and this one here, where they detail how someone hit someone else with a golf club. But we can’t talk about it because deadnaming. www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-transgender-lawyer-suing-graham-linehan-was-convicted-threatening-man-golf

I’m sure I can thinknof some more...

Linda B and Venice A (no action after referral to the CPS, but resurrected as a private prosecution. Discontinued by CPS after months of uncertainty)

Hasn't the plaintiff requested a judicial review tho' I'm very unsure of the grounds?

I joined Liberty because I was worried about the creeping loss of social liberties/free speech. Ironic that I then cancelled my membership because of their policies on self ID.

I joined Liberty because I was worried about the creeping loss of social liberties/free speech.

I see Amnesty UK was quoted in a piece about how toxic and threatening social media is for women which has its own droll side given their attitudes to women in other areas...

MsMcWoodle - that is awful. Lots of love to Sandy.

What CAN I and others do to help.

Which police force?

I will happily:

• donate to a crowd funder
• write to the Police Complaints People
• contact every cartoonist I can think of, and ask for their support
• march in protest - wearing my new LAWS leggings.

God they really want to silence women. Not sure who the "they" is, but bastards anyway.

Sandy's twitter. twitter.com/SandyDrawsBadly

A great cartoon on the pinned tweet.

E pur si muove and sandy

City Councils threatening and/or making police reports for such heinous crimes as stickers and organising a lawful, public meeting are worth a mention ( Liverpool v Resisters and Leeds v WPUK)

Great post Bowl

Hugs to Sandy whose smart, humourous drawings succinctly capture the hypocrisy at play and whose ability to publish has already been severely compromised

"re you aware that the CEO of mermaids is alleged to have said in her TEDx talk that her child’s close friend during transition is now a member of the West Yorkshire police’s hate crime unit?"

how can you be alleged to say something in a TED talk? or is a TEDx talk something different?

A short video about deadnaming/deplatforming, about a certain ball waxer.

Or the Warwickshire Police signing a letter about standing with Mermaids in 2016, organisaed by an 18 year old Aimee Challenor and published by the Huffington post.

docs.google.com/document/d/1EVxLgtG7Oj0CxhdBBHVHEo2skLIQOYg5MTXCnXYMhEs/edit

At th time Aimee's father "Baloo" was under investigaiton for very serious sex offenses, later convicte. His name seems to have been subsequently removed from the list.

OP are you aware that some individuals are trying to make ‘misgendering’ a crime? theyll come for you next.

twitter statement