Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

[LittleRa]

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1356233346565730304?s=21

And cross dressers. Don’t forget them

So JC was talking in the uk parliament about freedom of speech today I think

Jacob Rees mogg apologied to her for the threats she had received

No word from either humza yousaf or sturgeon

Despicable

And here is the problem: “For those who object to Cherry’s approach to Gender Recognition Act reform, including young SNP activists, first attracted by its progressive image, who quit the party, the reshuffling was a happy start to LGBT history month."

The SNP needed activists who were attracted by its commitment to independence. That’s the party’s one job.

But of course if you achieve independence then the SNP is out of a job. All those lovely salaries and pensions....

Again and again they signal: they are fine with this appalling behaviour, so long as it's only directed against females.

Disgusting.

Again and again they signal: they are fine with this appalling behaviour, so long as it's only directed against females

It seems, in practice, like the proposed religious exemption. All are not equal under the law at all. And 2 + 2 = 5

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

"In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then " ( George Orwell)

@littlbrowndog

So JC was talking in the uk parliament about freedom of speech today I think

Jacob Rees mogg apologied to her for the threats she had received

No word from either humza yousaf or sturgeon

Despicable

It's a hell of a thing when Joanna is getting more support from rees-mogg than her own party leaders.

Shameful

Its a tacit agreement that women standing up for women get what they deserve from men.

He is suggesting that people who belong to religious groups or minorities are pretty much exempt from the new hate crime laws, and can continue thinking, feeling and speaking as they always have; even to ridicule those, and that, which they determine morally reprehensible?

I'm not sure. From the previous tweet I think it might be a foe clause which allows ppl to criticise religions without it being a hate crime. One thing we have to consider in regulating speech is to distinguish between hating or being severely critical of the belief system of a religion, and hating the people who practice it. Former should be protected speech. Parallels with the things we discuss here.

I think he's saying that religious people are exempt, not that people can criticise them. So the Catholic Church can continue preaching that homosexuality is a sin (which of course is rubbish), but if any ordinary person says that they'd be hauled before the courts.

So would a perfectly reasonable defence to a charge of stating woman = adult human female be that it's a religious belief?

I think he's saying that religious people are exempt, not that people can criticise them. So the Catholic Church can continue preaching that homosexuality is a sin (which of course is rubbish), but if any ordinary person says that they'd be hauled before the courts

It also to relates to any religious group being critical of transgenderism. A lot of people in ethnic communities/ minority religions would end up being arrested under the hate crime law, otherwise. He must know that, and understand it.

The issue of religious sensitivities has never really been addressed full on by the activists - because this would inevitably run up against the community realities of the other more 'favoured' minority groupings. It has, in fact been avoided.

This bill would neatly side step that need for proper examination. So muslim women - only swimming sessions, for example, could continue to be single sex because they come under religious freedom of expression.

Then we have this in the bill

In the current Bill process, the only references to this issue in the Justice Committee’s Stage 1 report record the concerns raised by For Women Scotland; there is no other discussion of the inclusion of this group in the report, and no other witness appears to have been questioned about it or raised it in the oral evidence sessions.

1. Conclusion

The Scottish Government has refused to define who the protection for cross-dressers is intended for. Nor can it provide any evidence to justify its inclusion under hate crime law. As was pointed out during the Stage 1 oral evidence sessions, it is very hard to understand why a sartorial choice made by a small sub-set of men – some of whom are likely to be motivated by a recognised sexual disorder - should be afforded specific protection under hate crime law, over and above other sartorial choices. The inclusion of cross-dressers within the current Bill also brings into even sharper relief the exclusion of sex as a protected characteristic, first rejected for coverage in 2009 and now, over a decade later, put off still further to a working group to consider. If the Scottish Parliament continues to see crimes motivated by hatred against men dressing as women as more serious than hatred against women, it will send a particularly stark message to women and girls in Scotland about political priorities. The Government’s sole justification for including ‘cross-dressers’ in the Bill is because ‘transvestism’ was included in the definition of transgender identity in the 2009 Act, with no specific consideration or even acknowledgement by MSPs during that process. Unless an MSP brings forward an amendment at Stage 2 or 3 of the Bill, it seems likely that this protection will be cemented in law under Hate Crime and Public Order Bill.

From the wonderful

mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/hate-crime-briefing-12.-the-inclusion-of-cross-dressing-in-the-hate-crime-bill.-.pdf

Am I getting this right? If I say gender is bollocks and sex is immutable because of science then I'm a bigot, but if I say the same because of my religious beliefs that's hunky dory?

In the land of the Wee Free. You couldn’t make it up.

Out of interest, how complex is it to set up a "church". Say one that believes in the immutability of sex and the right of all its followers to bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom of speech?

@Tootsweets23

Am I getting this right? If I say gender is bollocks and sex is immutable because of science then I'm a bigot, but if I say the same because of my religious beliefs that's hunky dory?

Pretty much.

It's hard to wrap your head around this notion that those preaching "male people who identify as trans are an abomination" would be protected under this act.

But not women and girls who say, no, you are not an abomination. You have every right to identify as you wish. And even though we are not the same, you are free to say you are and because you are protected under the same law as we all are, when you say that, no one is allowed to deny you work, housing or medical care when you're sick. Which is right.

And because we are not the same, even though you would very much like to be, there are some, carefully limited, circumstances where we need to have our own provisions that exclude you. Because we have specific needs you do not have, and we have the right to assert these needs under the same law that protects you.

That is framed as hateful. Bigoted. How?

As for this sentence "For those who object to Cherry’s approach to Gender Recognition Act reform, including young SNP activists, first attracted by its progressive image, who quit the party, the reshuffling was a happy start to LGBT history month." Brilliant - celebrating the demotion of a campaigning lesbian as a great start to LGBT history month is really quite something.

Ironic that the implication is that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about history.

Bloody hell it is just so cynical. Can't face an almighty onslaught from the church so try to carve out an exemption while throwing science and logic adherents under the proverbial bus. Also, it is such a silly strategy as the church isn't going to be placated by the carve out.

Out of interest, how complex is it to set up a "church". Say one that believes in the immutability of sex and the right of all its followers to bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom of speech?

I'd come along to those sermons, Molten.

"This bill would neatly side step that need for proper examination. So muslim women - only swimming sessions, for example, could continue to be single sex because they come under religious freedom of expression."

Might have to become Muslim then, or ask them if I can join them, if they'll be allowed to remain having female only swimming sessions.

Identifying as is a Thing.

I identify as a female with x faith. End of issue.

It's the exact same issue: how on earth can you police these boundaries? It's not realistic. What's to stop any male person identifying as a Muslim woman and entering that single sex swim?

@JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown

From the Times article upthread, Keith Brown, the depute leader, wrote to members warning that “transphobia under the guise of a concern for women’s rights is still transphobia”. I'm not a member of the SNP but I'd hope he got at least a few replies pointing out that misogyny under the guise of concern for trans rights is still misogyny. I find it extraordinary that a man would have the utter gall to tell women off for their concern over women's rights.

I never say this, but I'm sick of men.