14.02.20 Live updates on Harry and Kate’s cases HERE

[MrsSnippyPants]

I shall be glued to social media this morning and thought it might be useful to have a place where we can post updates as they come in so people need to follow just one thread.
Please post Twitter handles of anyone providing live updates as you find them.
@WeAreFairCop are saying it is likely the judgement will NOT be read out so they hope to get a copy and summarise and tweet after 10.30am

I suspect JustHereWithMyPopcorn that Justice Knowles is being highly intelligent there. He knows he would be unwise to find against the College of Policing because in the current climate a judge appearing to undermine identity related law would be striding out into a minefield.

The hate incident is created because it has to be. There are no means for it to be removed. (Although I wonder if the College of Policing guidelines will be amended in a future release to enable this.) The judge is shedding light on the fact that an incorrect record has to stand even though it is potentially adverse to someone who has committed no offence. The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court would be faced with the question: "should the law work like this?"

From the full judge's findings:

286. The fourth question is whether the impact of the rights infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit of the impugned measure. I am quite satisfied that it is. The Claimant’s Article 10(1) right to speak on transgender issues as part of an ongoing debate was extremely important for all of the reasons I have given and because freedom of speech is intrinsically important. There was no risk of him committing an offence and Mrs B’s emotional response did not justify the police acting as they did towards the Claimant. What they did effectively granted her a ‘heckler’s veto’. As to this, in Vajnaj v Hungary, supra, the Court said at [57]:
     ^“In the Court’s view, a legal system which applies restrictions on human rights in order to satisfy the dictates of public feeling – real or imaginary – cannot be regarded as meeting the pressing social needs recognised in a democratic society, since that society must remain
     reasonable in its judgement. To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of speech and opinion is subjected to the heckler’s veto.”^

287. What the Claimant wrote was lawful. The Claimant was just one person writing things which only one other person found offensive out of however many read them. Mrs B chose to read the Claimant’s tweets. The tweets were not directed at her. If the Claimant’s tweets had been reported in a newspaper and Mrs B had complained as a consequence, then I seriously doubt it would have been recorded as a hate incident. He would have been expressing himself in a public forum (as he did on Twitter) for people to read, or not, what he had to say. What happened in this case was not in my judgment meaningfully different.

Conclusion
288. In his treatise On Liberty (1859) John Stuart Mill wrote:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Who is Mrs B and why are they the ‘injured Party’?

The judge's ruling talked about perception didn't it - so something could be viewed as hate by the person perceiving it. If that is all it takes for it to be recorded as a hate incident though, and this can come up on a search by a new employer, that is worrying.

The judge is shedding light on the fact that an incorrect record has to stand even though it is potentially adverse to someone who has committed no offence. The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court would be faced with the question: "should the law work like this?"

I think that is a very interesting analysis of the inherent contradiction within the ruling

Are we allowed to know who 'MrsB' is?

Harry Miller is trending on Twitter.

Barracker - so true when it is put like that. Why is sex not in the list of hate crimes - probably because some women are abused on a daily basis it would be impossible to police.

A lady but a woman. Someone has given themselves airs and graces.

The evidence of Professor Stock shows that the Claimant is far from alone in a debate which is complex and multi-faceted. Mrs B profoundly disagrees with his views, but such is the nature of free speech in a democracy. Professor Stock's evidence demonstrates how quickly some involved in the transgender debate are prepared to accuse others with whom they disagree of showing hatred, or as being transphobic when they are not, but simply hold a different view

I think this is a key part of judgement

I wonder what would happen if all the hate incidents directed at lesbians due to their sexual orientation excluding men were reported.

See here for guidance

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/sexual-orientation-and-transgender-identity-hate-crime/

I wonder what would happen if all the hate incidents directed at lesbians due to their sexual orientation excluding men were reported

Another excellent point.

Nothing would happen. The lesbians would probably be told off for being so lesbiany.

Humber Police statement says they accept the judgment and will learn from it.

BBC reporting:
(extract)
"Responding to the ruling, Helen Belcher, who co-founded Trans Media Watch, said: "I think trans people will be worried it could become open season on us because the court didn't really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was.

"I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don't understand trans lives and aren't there to protect trans people." (continues)

Recent thread about the influence Helen Belcher has had on politicians mistakingly using trans campaigners' term ‘spousal veto’ when it is in fact describing a person’s (usually a wife's) right to end their marriage under specific circumstances.

This was corrected in The House of Lords by "Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a justice minister. Before becoming a minister, Keen was a working QC at the English and Scottish bars. In other words, he’s a senior and serious lawyer." as reported by James Kirkup in The Spectator:
'The minister who politely refused to play the trans language game'
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-minister-who-politely-refused-to-play-the-trans-language-game/
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3820266-Lord-Keen-disputing-the-language-of-the-spousal-veto

It is purely about the perception of the victim or anyone else, recording is automatic, and there does not need to be any assessment of the nature of the incident and whether there was actually any hate.

Indeed. There does not even need to be any evidence that the perception was correct or that the incident even happened at all.

A trans person can have you given a recorded 'hate' mark on your enhanced DBS for no better reason than that they were displeased with you or wanted to. You have no recourse in this.

How this is supposed to make people trusting and inclusive as opposed to shit scared, suspicious and furiously angry at the injustice, I don't get. How exactly is this 'kind'?

Will Humberside police and Mrs B be send for re-education and have their thinking checked?

How many fingers now?

It is clear that there are those on one side of the debate who simply will not tolerate different views, even when they are expressed by
legitimate scholars whose views are not grounded in hatred, bigotry, prejudice or hostility, but are based on legitimately different value judgments, reasoning and analysis, and form part of mainstream academic research.

This was my favourite part of the judgement. Clear and unambiguous statement from the judge that it is those of the extreme TRA side of the debate who are intolerant, rather than those of us who are simply gender critical.

Press for Change is NW.

www.visitmanchester.com/ideas-and-inspiration/blog/read/2019/05/christine-burns-why-i-handed-over-trans-campaigning-to-a-new-generation-who-refuse-to-take-no-for-an-answer-b854

I take the following points from this evidence. First, there is a vigorous ongoing debate about trans rights. Professor Stock's evidence shows that some involved in the debate are readily willing to label those with different viewpoints as 'transphobic' even when they are not. It is clear that there are those on one side of the debate who simply will not tolerate different views, even when they are expressed by legitimate scholars

This is from the judgement. I think this is very significant

"I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don't understand trans lives and aren't there to protect trans people." (continues)

Ffs.

They do understand. And they don't think that your outrage over people objecting to the denial of biology needs 'protecting'.

Perfect
Snap! Yes, I think that portion is very significant