Is Hate Crime Report guilty of hate crime?

[Imnobody4]

Statement on the APPG on Hate Crime report ‘How do we build on community cohesion when hate crime is on the rise’ released last week (Tuesday 05.02.19)

Nik Noone, CEO of Galop said:

Galop values the work of the All Party Partimentary Group on Hate Crime, however we cannot support some of the content of the latest report published by the Group. Galop initially endorsed and welcomed the report on the basis of the content of the executive summary, and we were unaware of its full content. On publication we saw that the report includes excerpts from submissions with statements that are transphobic, and promptly withdrew our endorsement of the report. Galop works actively to challenge transphobia, and we highlighted our concerns to the report writers last week. We are having a face to face meeting with them this week to convey this message in person and ask that lessons be learnt.

Gallop is the LGBT+ anti-violence charity
The last sentence is chilling, hope the committee is unrepentant!

www.edf.org.uk/appg-on-hate-crime-report-how-can-we-build-community-cohesion-when-hate-crime-is-on-the-rise/
You can download pdf at bottom of page. Relevant section where women's contributions 're misogyny and use of 'terf is page 25.

I wrote a submission to this consultation but haven't been notified about it's publication which I would have expected. Presumably relevant groups were informed. I'm really concerned at the blatant attempt to dictate to what should be an objective committee working to balance the rights of the whole community not just segments.

Disturbing. So women aren't allowed a voice in hate crime discussion then according to this org.

That's fucking appalling.

I read the pages which refer to it (25-27). I think several things are really striking.

That the trans "hate" submissions appear to have concentrated on GC women asserting our boundaries and "excluding" them rather than actual abusive hate speech/violence as most people would understand the term.

It says that the "a large proportion" of personal written submissions in the consultation were from both sides of this particular debate.

It also makes it crystal clear that women have evidenced actual threats of violence, and that trans people and their allies were more concerned about the denial of trans identity. And perhaps inadvertently makes these complaints sound more trivial, even though they try to paint them as the same level of importance. But it doesn't quite wash.

Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics. On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid. It should be clear that neither is acceptable. (My bold)

I guess that's why this charity is pissed off.

On one hand, there are clear examples of threats and calls to violence against women^, whilst on the other vulnerable people are being made to feel unwelcome.

There is not a one-to-one relationship between “threats and calls to violence”, and “being made to feel unwelcome”.

That’s not two sides of the same argument; that’s active aggression vs being looked at funny.

I’m constantly amazed that such a small segment of the population has such control of the public discourse, to the point minor social unease is seen as the equivalent of rape and death threats.

Obviously the most trivial opposition to male privilege is always going to be more important than actual oppression of women.

made to feel unwelcome, that they are viewed as a threat and that their identity is invalid.

Haha, god forbid anyone view the people issuing clear examples of threats and calls to violence as a threat!

The attempt by Gallop to prevent the victims from speaking out is chilling.

You cannot prevent people from perceiving a threat and you cannot compel anyone to validate an identity they don't believe in.

The absolute most you can compel is grudging lip service of a lie and that is dodgy in every conceivable way. It is perfectly valid to believe - as most people do - that TW are TW, and biologically male.

Both sides of the argument illustrate that intra-community tensions are running high around this topic and that there are some on both sides of the divide who are resorting to extreme measures and tactics

This framing of 'two sides' is both innacurate and only serves TRAs narrative.
Just as when a woman is in an abusive / controlling relationship, using couples' counselling model is both inappropriate and harmful.
(see Lundy Bancroft/ Freedom Programme etc)

This is awful. I hope the free speech/democracy angles spark James Kirkup's interest.

They may be coming for women now, but it will be men next.

May 2018 James Kirkup covered the Home Affairs Committee investigation into Hate Crime last year.
It was a very nuanced article with regards the trans lobby, Mermaids, care of children questioning their gender identity as well as press freedom:

'Why are some MPs trying to shut down the transgender debate?'
(extract)
"Here’s another summary. A transgender charity [Mermaids] that says it is engaged in lobbying lobbied politicians and doctors to change the way children are treated by doctors. The doctors declined to make that change because it would be not be ethical to do so.

Doughty, meanwhile, describes as “extreme” and “hate material” an article which observes that some people lobbying for changes in the name of transgender people are advocating things that might not be in the best interests of children. I have never met Doughty but have generally heard good things about him from colleagues: bright, committed, thoughtful and so on. So I must assume that he was having an off day when the committee met last week. It happens to us all, after all.

Surely a bright, thoughtful chap like him didn’t mean to imply that it was his job as Member of Parliament to tell newspapers what they can and cannot write? Surely he had no intention of acting as if it is in any way appropriate for a politician to decide what is and is not acceptable for journalists to say, and how they say it? And I can only hope that it was by a simple accident that he singled out by name a female journalist and suggested that her employers stop her saying the things that she thinks – because Doughty happens not to like her saying those things? (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3237268-James-Kirkup-article-Why-are-some-MPs-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate

See also his article, December 2018,
Women are abused in the name of ‘trans rights’. But do MPs care?
(extract)
There are some things that pretty much everyone in politics and public life agrees on. Ask any politician about any contentious, heated debate and they’ll immediately talk about the need for respectful debate, for all views to be heard calmly and in a civilised manner. They’ll say that there is no place for harassment and abuse and bullying and threats, because this is Britain, a mature democracy where everyone gets to express their views about things like politics and the law without fear. Except that’s not entirely true. There are some people who aren’t allowed to speak freely, who cannot express their views about things like politics and the law without being abused and threatened and, from time to time, assaulted. You might have heard of this group: they’re called “women”.

Specifically, women who ask questions about laws and rules and practices that are proposed to improve the lives and treatment of transgender people. Women who worry about the implications of rules that would mean someone born male and possessing a male anatomy can have the legal and social status of people born female. Women who look at the implications of enshrining the mantra “transwomen are women” in law and practice and wonder if doing so might just have (negative) consequences for women born female and their legal and social status." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/women-are-abused-in-the-name-of-trans-rights-but-do-mps-care/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3443924-James-Kirkup-on-Rosa-Freedman-Women-are-abused-in-the-name-of-trans-rights-But-do-MPs-care

So objecting to threats of violence against women is transphobia then?

Explains a lot.

Is hate crime on the rise? I actually think this country is less racist, sexist and homophobic than it used to be, in the seventies nobody would have batted their eyelids at things now considered hate crimes.

Also includes Islamophobia, anti-semitism etc

The levels of threats against female MPs re Brexit was discussed on R4 Today program.

(threats against women of course because of sex not specifically included)

I think the difference zanahoria is the internet.

In the old days you had to say things to peoples faces or maybe write them a letter

Now angry men can bombard female MPs (as an example) with threats of rape, death threats, threats to their children with the confidence of anonymity.
It has made ongoing harassment easier as well.
And of course when they say they know where you live / where your kids are at school and describe in explicit detail what they are going to do to you it's terrifying.

Oh whoops this is about hate crime, forget that, poor example as victim is female, so just a normal crime.

That's the sort of situation then, but with a category of person that is covered by hate crime laws.