New group to consider criminalisation of misogynistic behaviour (Scotland) includes woman who thought if Assange apologised women accusing hime of rape would accept this in lieu of a court case

[stumbledin]

The independent working group, made up of a panel of experts with specialisms in Scots law, human rights, women’s equality and perpetrator behaviours relating to gender-based violence, will hold its inaugural meeting later this month.

The Working Group on Misogyny and the Criminal Justice System in Scotland - chaired by leading human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy - will consider how the criminal justice system deals with misogyny, including where there are gaps in the law that could be addressed by a specific offence to tackle such behaviour.

www.holyrood.com/news/view,new-group-to-consider-criminalisation-of-misogynistic-behaviour

Thread on Helena Kennedy and Assange rape case www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4146801-Swedish-documentary-says-Helena-Kennedy-asked-Julian-Assanges-alleged-victims-to-drop-rape-charges-in-return-for-an-apology

Another is Emma Ritch who is

www.engender.org.uk/content/staff/

But who is on absolutely every committee going using her powers to push women under the bus.

Engender

Talk about funding streams creating mission drift.

She is the spider at the centre of a very tangled web.

Also Chloe Kennedy signed that open letter re trans vs women’s rights by Rhiannon Spear.

www.thenational.scot/news/17472564.not-speak-us-feminists-hit-back-trans-exclusionary-activists-open-letter/

Ah. Less a working group for misogyny than a woke group for misogyny. Well I suppose if you write the legislation yourself you can ensure it says only what you want it to say and nothing that might end up inconvenient to your personal agenda.

Somehow I suspect the main people ideally criminalised in this view of misogyny will be female people talking about female people's sex based needs.

England may need to plan for the female human refugees fleeing the regime in Scotland.

I like that. A woking group.

Gargh.

Somehow I suspect the main people ideally criminalised in this view of misogyny will be female people talking about female people's sex based needs.

Inevitably.

I don't think we need to actually leave the country, tho, this wokery is bullshit that 90% of people don't buy. I think it's just part of whatever shitstorm is ripping up the SNP.

Emma recently invited women to an Engender Webinar purporting to inform women about CEDAW, specifically on incorporating CEDAW into Scots Law. She was asked if the Scottish Government could be trusted to do so since CEDAW is all about sex and the Scottish Government is all about gender. Her response was that a) she wasn't at all concerned because b) people are just confused about what sex is.

She still wasn't concerned when informed about certain statements by the ScotGov QC in the For Women Scotland judicial review such as the one claiming that women aren't oppressed on the basis of their biology, or that the chief statistician had recommended no more data collection on the basis of sex outside of specific medical contexts. She was unaware of either. Even though these ought to be of huge concern to a professional feminist who loves to bang on about the "pay gap".

She also didn't know anything about the latest country report published by CEDAW on Portugal, which strongly criticised trans policies and gender neutral policies superseding women's sex-based rights.

Honestly, if I was inviting the public to teach them about a topic, at the very least I'd read up on the latest news regarding that topic. And actually talk about the topic. But CEDAW was subsumed into nebulous talk about creating a new human rights framework for Scotland. No explanation as to why. Or how that would be better than incorporating existing frameworks.

But hey, someone's got obviously shit loads of money to burn on even more useless quangos.

FAOD: if Emma is involved, this is going to be about as useful a working group as a chocolate teapot and as successful as Don Quixote fighting windmills.

woking group - yes!

chocolate teapot - yes!

They would have to define woman first , as im pretty sure it wouldnt include those with a vagina , especially since humza has rejected the amendment that safeguarded womans rights to discuss equailty

You know it's bollocks when they use the term 'gender based violence'.

She also didn't know anything about the latest country report published by CEDAW on Portugal, which strongly criticised trans policies and gender neutral policies superseding women's sex-based rights.

Will check this out, thanks Charlie

I'd love to know if there's a single person on this working group who doesn't endorse and promote transgender ideology and legislation.

There's Helena Kennedy, whom we've discussed on MN before.

There's Emma R, whose org wants to remove the sex-based exemptions from the Equality Act and already acts and talks as if they don't exist.

There's Chloe K, who as rogdmum points out, signed that TRA letter. She's also part of Sharon Cowan's department at the University of Edinburgh, who is well known as a trans rights campaigner.

There's Mona Rishmawi, who works for an org that was involved in drafting the Yogyakarta Principles that aim to erase sex from all laws worldwide. I don't know if she believes in the doctrine of gender identity, but she's certainly pushing it professionally.

And then we have three more people:

There's Professor John Devaney, "who specialises in domestic abuse and gender-based violence" (said the National in its article announcing the working group)

There's Shelagh McCall, who was one of Alec Salmond's defence lawyers.

and

There's Susan Kemp, "a former International Criminal Court investigator [...] who also served on the United Nations' team of experts on sexual violence in armed conflict" (again from that National article)

Do Kemp, McCall and Devaney support women's sex-based rights or are they cheerleaders for the doctrine of gender identity?

I don't know whether to hope for the best or assume the worst with those last three. But if those seven make up the entire group, that's already a majority who I don't trust to act in the interests of the female sex.

Interesting that the group appears to have intentionally been formed or formed itself on the basis of bias and the exclusion of female centric views. This cannot be accidental. Therefore it would seen to suggest intentional gynephobia.

Of course who are we kidding: the whole point of selecting this group with these views and excluding all others is so that there is no danger of outcomes other than the intended one. How do you control females having a voice via protesting about misogyny? You take misogyny as a concept, define it and control it, produce a lot of pretty paperwork about it, and ensure that it works wholly for male centric policy and voices to the disadvantage and exclusion of females.

This is like asking the Fox Hunting association to draw up the policy on the rights and protections of foxes. It's an appalling betrayal of public trust and funding and any duty of impartiality, it is morally and ethically fucked.

Why else would you set out to avoid having to even listen to or consider arguments from alternative view points unless you are afraid to hear them and afraid that they may force the 'wrong' answer -

in other words, an answer that would work for female people?

Gynephobic. An unreasonable fear and dislike of female people as a group, and an exclusion of female centred voices or females with a declared interest in female needs, voices and best interests from forming policy.

Fucking hell

There's Chloe K, who as rogdmum points out, signed that TRA letter. She's also part of Sharon Cowan's department at the University of Edinburgh, who is well known as a trans rights campaigner.

There's Mona Rishmawi, who works for an org that was involved in drafting the Yogyakarta Principles that aim to erase sex from all laws worldwide. I don't know if she believes in the doctrine of gender identity, but she's certainly pushing it professionally.

It's really inappropriate that these two, in particular are on the group. Huge conflict of interest.