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

Because... men.

Headlining on radio 4 news items - not more balance with a quote from someone re not classing certain things as transphobic.

Regarding this; why was R0 deleted?!

Can I thank all posters, riveting thread.

The outright lies being told on these boards and elsewhere about KS's case are really concerning and I hope can be rebutted regularly as on the post earlier explaining her actual actions re the three accounts.

An erudite friend identified the following (I think) important distinctions & points to consider:

"We need to keep Harry's and Kate's cases entirely separate in our minds. Two completely different areas of law.

What does Kate's case (so far) tell us?

That the bar for S 127 harassment offences is set very low for a guilty verdict.

What does this mean for us?

Well, women are covered by harassment so we could bring cases against genderists. All the feminist academics, most of WPUK's founders, Caroline Farrow, etc, could probably win cases under this if they were to pester the police sufficiently. Or: we could campaign to tighten the law so that the bar for a guilty verdict is much higher (on the basis that every Twitter or Facebook spat could end up in court in the current set up).

What does Harry's case (so far) tell us?

That the judge thinks the recording of hate incidents on the "perception" basis is lawful but the police overreached their power unlawfully in their interactions with Harry.

What does this mean for us?

We continue to support Harry in his appeal. Or: we campaign to get the underlying legislation for hate as an aggravating factor in crime to be changed from "perception of the victim" to "a reasonable person" as all other laws, eg self defence, are, and then the hate incident guidance would have to fall into line.

What do both cases together tell us for the here and now?

Probably: yes, it's okay to speak IN generalities (transwomen are men) but not TO individuals (you, "Miss H", are a man). Because Harry's case says the former is pretty much okay but Kate's says the latter is not okay."

H/t

Regarding this; why was R0 deleted?!

Where?

I suspect it was the post speculating about the identity of the 'B' person, R0

Was that one yours?

Just heard @Spero on R4 news headlines. She was described as Harry's barrister, which I don't think she is?

14:07 R0

No. She's a barrister who is involved in Harry Miller's campaign. The barrister in the High Court was Ian Wise QC.

Neurotrash Thank you

Ive asked for clarification- not sure which parts of the Judge's findings today or Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland a justice minister & former QC's words in the HoL Im not to discuss.

Just caught a mention of Harry's case just now on BBC News. Maya's case was also mentioned very briefly by the dial-an-expert. No idea who he was. I don't think Kate's was mentioned.

I suspect it was the post speculating about the identity of the 'B' person, R0

Was that one yours?

I havent speculated. IMO its irrelevent who the individual is.
I provided the pertinent points from the judge's findings about what Mrs B had said which is very relevent & also the judge's order of anonymity which is important.

Sarah Phillimore (who has the most beautiful speaking voice!) did a very good job on BBC World Service Newshour

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172wq55yq2g2bd

(starts around 45 mins)

Apologies, R0wantrees, my mistake.
How bizarre that MNHQ deleted it.

Please reinstate R0wantree's post @MNHQ.
It appears to have been deleted in error, as it is pertinent, publicly available material from the court case.

It appears to have been deleted in error

We're hours away from the weekend. There's no telling what won't have been deleted once Monday rolls around.

Please reinstate R0wantree's post @MNHQ*.
It appears to have been deleted in error, as it is pertinent, publicly available material from the court case*

And the deletion cannot be a more perfect illustration of what the judge was disagreeing with on the basis that:

"...Free speech includes the irritating, the contentious, the unwelcome and the provocative. The freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."*

Free speech also being a concept that Justine Roberts herself is on record for saying she absolutely upholds.

Barracker It may be my link to another important current legal matter incorrectly termed the 'spousal veto'.

Someone else had linked to the BBC coverage which included comment by Helen Belcher of TransMediaWatch & the LibDems. Belcher has been heavily campaigning for the removal of what activists term the 'spousal veto' & I linked to the important recent legal intervention & clarification by Lord Keen in House of Lords.

I agree with James Kirkup as to the importance:
(extract)
"One of the interesting characteristics of the transgender debate is how trans advocates have used language with care and deliberation and repetition to create an orthodoxy that few people in public life will analyse let alone question. Hence the phrase ‘transwomen are women’, a proposition that raises some big philosophical and legal questions but ones that are barely even acknowledged; anyone in politics who does not say those words is at risk of being accused of transphobic bigotry. And so an important issue goes without proper scrutiny or debate.

The ‘spousal veto’ is another example, or at least, an attempt to create another bit of the orthodoxy, and one that, for instance, the Lib Dems have signed up to in full (even though they were part of the Government that passed the relevant legislation).

And so the fact that Keen, a serving government minister, has – on the basis of fact and knowledge – very politely rejected that attempt to capture language and use it to misrepresent reality is, I think, quite important." (continues)

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

Maybe the monitors mistook the nature of my link?

As far as I remember R0 has been quoting things from the judgment so no idea why it's been deleted. @MNHQ ?

From the BBC

(extract)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".

He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.

"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

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)

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

May 2018 OP leyat wrote:
'Trans Media Watch has written to parliament saying 'trans identified male' can be considered as hate speech, and that Mumsnet users referring to penises are being transphobic.'

Trans Media Watch appears to want the term 'trans identified male', or indeed referring to them as 'men' to be understood as hate speech and deems Mumsnet 'of particular concern'. This really has to be read to be believed; here is their written submission to the Home Affairs Committee: data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/hate-crime-and-its-violent-consequences/written/82105.pdf. It is quite the collection of lies and misrepresentations designed to completely malign women, the only good thing about it is that it is so obviously one-sided that most rational people would see that.

Worth sharing this article on how the committee has been approaching the matter, and how at least some MP's want women silenced: blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3238618-Trans-Media-Watch-has-written-to-parliament-saying-trans-identified-male-can-be-considered-as-hate-speech-and-that-Mumsnet-users-referring-to-penises-are-being-transphobic

I've been deleted for 'quoting' a deleted post, but when I've questioned, my post was reinstated - no reply or explanation - because I was caught up in the frenzy of MN deletions, and I'd not quoted anything.

Doesn't make me feel like I should trust MN

Blimey it's on the Radio 4 PM programme, first item.

FFS. The PM programme, just started on Radio 4, has, a number of times, referred to Harry Miller as "anti-trans". I guess Evan Davis likes to sit comfortably in the BBC progressive camp.

As far as I remember R0 has been quoting things from the judgment so no idea why it's been deleted.

I commented on the role that Helen Belcher had played in erroneously terming a part of the GRA 'spousal veto' as part of campaigns to remove this part of the GRA which transwidows have identified as important for wives.

Its a matter of (parliamentary) record that Helen Belcher has been campaigning to remove this for both a long time & determindly.

Oooh "wokerly direction.." Evan May be balanced..?

Harry on now!

Harry's being interviewed right now. Oooh he's taken issue with being called "anti-trans".