Norway criminalises 'transphobic' comments made in private

[DresdenChina]

Just posting this quickly so sorry if its already been discussed. Norway is now banning comments made in your own home with potential prison time for doing so.

It horrifies me how usually fairly sane Northern Euro cultures have embraced this, cannot wait for all the dobbing in your Mum and Dad cases.

www.reuters.com/article/norway-lgbt-lawmaking/norway-outlaws-hate-speech-against-trans-people-idUSKBN2852DL

This is about LGBT rights not just trans rights, unless I've mis-read. Also the bar is going to be very high.

The violence against the gay community has increased in recent years, that should be a concern. I'm sure some of this is folk devils and moral panic. Norway is very liberal in it's laws, so I think this is just a follow on. Small country, difficult to comment when knowing so little about the social structures. If Norwegians are totally up for this, I'm not in the business of saying they're wrong.

My objections are when stealth and lack of citizen support are overridden. Someone may know more

How are they going to prove this when it's one word against another in private, don't know what the statistics are in Norway but we seem to have a problem convicting rapists for this reason do we not? Nice to see they have overcome this when women are the defendants and not the victims....

The point isn't about getting convictions. It's that people will realise that any statement made at home about the gender identity ideology could carry the risk of the Police making a visit. It's the silencing and intimidation effect.

The police are going to be busy.

Never mind bloody Norway, the sodding SNP are currently debating introducing this in Scotland!
Hate speech includes anything said in your own home deemed hateful, and will carry a seven year prison sentence.
There is already uproar about it from the church and the performing arts, as the SNP say that actors and directors can also be imprisoned for hate speech in a stage play or film.

@Quaagars

What do they mean by "private remarks" though? That's a very half an article and wishy washy, doesn't actually say what it means - so the comments on here just seem to be speculating and scare mongering, I mean the article basically says sod all apart from "private remarks" which doesn't really explain anything.

People wouldn't have to "speculate" about hypothetical situations if the politicians would do their job and examine proposed legislation for unintended impacts. If they failed to do that, journalists should do their bloody job and ask those questions.

If people can come to Mumsnet, or go to twitter, and follow interesting people, who raise these concerns, why should they pay for "news content" which is a time-suck without... er... actual content?

(That's leaving aside the danger that people will go and consume misleading, even false, content. That's also a loss for news organisations: those people will unlikely be reconverted into news readers, let alone paying subscribers.)

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more how terrible

Grow up and look at what this actually means in the real world. Why is transphobia in its many forms the only issue some people care about?

Think about use cases, it's not going to be people having quiet GC chats at home, it'll be stuff like:
Kids wanting to transition using it against their "obstructive" parents.
Transitioning husbands using it against trans widows.

YY, exactly.

It says an existing law is being extended to include gender ID. The law already exists and had sexuality and maybe other things in it.

It also says the bar is high.

However. The idea of criminalising private comments is really worrying and Scotland going down that route as well.

How would it be proved and how could it be used?

If you're getting divorced say one partner could say oh they said xyz at home...?

The article is too light to understand what is actually going on.

@SusanKimberly

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more how terrible

Define "transphobia", please.

Whatever anyone says it is isn’t it? The onus is on the condemned to prove their innocence. Like what witch drowning.

Why so influential?

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more shock how terrible

‘Being transphobic’ means different things to different people though, eh?
Writing ‘transwoman’ instead of ‘trans woman’ is transphobic, apparently. Refusing to describe yourself as ‘cis’ is transphobic. Not referring to a man with a beard as ‘she’ is transphobic. Calling a babies mother their mother will be transphobic if some people get their way.

So it’s kind of difficult not to be ‘transphobic’ at the moment.

10TheLadyOfShallnott

There is a little part of ancient me that hopes everyone who has transitioned (physically or mentally) gets to be fully and officially accepted as a woman in all words, thoughts and deeds.

If only to watch the scrabble to reclaim penises or want to be a man again when they realise just exactly how the rights of women are being depleted.

Absolutely this^^

@SusanKimberly oh you trusting fool.

And The bar for prosecution is high, requiring direct incitement against people or language that dehumanises them, she said. So... what about the direct threats against women then? Or is there no prtection under Norwegian law for this.... [waits, not holding breath]

@Oreservoir care to elaborate on that one sweetheart?

[quote SusanKimberly]@Oreservoir care to elaborate on that one sweetheart?[/quote]
Ignoring the other questions?

journalists should do their bloody job and ask those questions.

Exactly, completely agree

• which is why I said it's a crap half an article that doesn't really say anything but still people are talking about Salem Witch hunts, people looking at you funny, "ask yourself why" (? is that to hint at some big hidden trans conspiracy or something?) etc

When nothing's been said of the sort and just people whipping each other up. Would like to know what it actually means before reacting.

If people can come to Mumsnet, or go to twitter, and follow interesting people, who raise these concerns, why should they pay for "news content" which is a time-suck without... er... actual content?

You've kind of answered your own question with the rest of your comment, where you said That's leaving aside the danger that people will go and consume misleading, even false, content
If all we have is biased opinions, that is a worry and leads to following one sided opinions and sometimes "dangerous" (for want of a better word) or misleading information
So yes, completely get where you're coming from in articles actually need to be just that - articles.
Not half a story that basically say nothing.

God I used to think the Scandinavian countries we’re an absolute Nirvana. I am so glad we live in a country that (currently) considers free speech a democratic right. Lord I hope that continues.

@Quaagars

If people can come to Mumsnet, or go to twitter, and follow interesting people, who raise these concerns, why should they pay for "news content" which is a time-suck without... er... actual content?

You've kind of answered your own question with the rest of your comment, where you said That's leaving aside the danger that people will go and consume misleading, even false, content
If all we have is biased opinions, that is a worry and leads to following one sided opinions and sometimes "dangerous" (for want of a better word) or misleading information
So yes, completely get where you're coming from in articles actually need to be just that - articles.
Not half a story that basically say nothing.

I think we may be on the same side, with you doing the "job" of asking posters to show how their context was missing from the (lightweight or biased) article.

For my part, I wasn't explicit enough about linking lightweight/ biased journalism to the media's problems with trust, and therefore with getting people to pay for their content.

Then social media is a different matter again, though Mumsnet really is quite good as a platform for different opinions. As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to block other posters, and so there's always the "danger" (or hope!) that unexpected or unwelcome angles will be uncovered. (Sometimes that consists of stupid derailing, and AIBU pile-ons, but I've also seen some very good, even forensic, questions about issues which might be related, from the Relationshipos board to AIBU to politics.)

@SusanKimberly

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more how terrible

Come back and say that when soemthing that "Will Not Happen" actually happens. As pps have said, this WILL be used to stifle discussion and to balckmail peple into silence!

How do you tell your husband that you have absolutely no desire to live with, let alone sleep with, his feminised self, that you aren't a lesbian and his new self disgusts you? You want a divorce because he is trans - ooh! You transphobe! It already happens and is being lobbied against - see the somewhat deranged arguments around the supposed 'veto' spouses have when their partner transitions!

Please forgive if someone else has replied about this above but there are moves to bring in the same sort of law here, in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland (where moves to do so are ahead (or should that be behind?) of the rest of the UK).

There is a law commission public consultation on hate crime laws going on now. It closes on 24 Dec 2020.

More detail here: consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/hate-crime/

We all need to think about responding to this but I understand it is quite complex...