Stonewall, attempt 75219 to criminalise women for resisting them

[Artichokeleaves]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59554199

Is this something new or ongoing? Because reading that, it's plain as day that 'stirring up hate' just means women talking on MN and resisting Stonewall.

Not to mention the new catchphrase 'you can believe what you want' (but you can't talk about it, show it or refuse to participate in language and beliefs you don't hold)'.

Time to write to MPs again.

This is what some of us (who think hate crime needs scrapping entirely) were saying. As soon a misogyny becomes a hate crime, it will be used against women, rather than for us.

That's been on the cards for quite a while; hence the careful selecting of the group in Scotland to work on 'misogyny'. The whole 'sex' and 'misogyny' and 'gender' will all be sticks to beat female people with and to fit those words and narratives to the benefit of male people.

As yesterday there was a quoted response about women asking councils for FoI was an act of stirring up hate this really will be about nothing more than ensuring female people cannot talk together, share information, mention any facts or evidence that is unwanted by the political lobby, and criminalising people such as Sarah for fighting for access, inclusion and equality for females.

@GoodieMoomin

This is what some of us (who think hate crime needs scrapping entirely) were saying. As soon a misogyny becomes a hate crime, it will be used against women, rather than for us.

100% this.

Sex Matters reports a more positive take than I'd suspected from the reporting.

sex-matters.org/posts/the-legal-system/law-commission-recommends-protection-for-gender-critical-views-from-chilling-effect/

I don't want the safety to express GC perspectives to be contingent on the detail being passed.

This sounds more promising.
The Law Commission highlighted that the rulings in Miller and Forstater have now made it clear that the expression of “gender critical” views is protected under human rights laws. The issue, therefore, is not whether such expression should be protected, it is whether the stirring-up offences would require a provision to make clear it is protected.”

It concluded that it would.

The Commission noted that:

“It is not hard to imagine that without such protection, activists would seek to test the limits of the extended offence.“

Cards have been marked.

GIRES told the law commission

We think it would be harmful to afford legal protection to people who engage in…‘the discussion or criticism of gender reassignment; treatment for gender dysphoria; provision of and access to single-sex facilities and activities’

I bet they did.

That's the shark well and truly jumped, right there.

The Law Commission highlighted that the rulings in Miller and Forstater have now made it clear that the expression of “gender critical” views is protected under human rights laws.

Excellent

Yet another attempt to shoehorn gender identity ideology into law.

How can we fight misogyny when the most misogynistic thing of all is removing our right to name ourselves as a separate sex class to men.

The commission said its recommendations would not criminalise "offensive" comments, or the telling of sexist jokes."What we are referring to is threatening or abusive material which incites and glorifies violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls, and praises men who murder women

Like the thousands of rape and death threats sent to JKR and other women by TRA's? Or all the kill a terf posters at pride?

And where does Nancy draw the line at what we can say about trans ideology?
Why must we be legally compelled to pretend humans can change sex in case it hurts feelings? Absurd.

@Datun

GIRES told the law commission

We think it would be harmful to afford legal protection to people who engage in…‘the discussion or criticism of gender reassignment; treatment for gender dysphoria; provision of and access to single-sex facilities and activities’

I bet they did.

That's the shark well and truly jumped, right there.

Yup. There it is.

Females who discuss provision and access of single sex facilities are harmful and should not be afforded legal protection from the males who want them to lose those resources.

Male supremacism, and the weaponisation of law by the political lobby of Stonewall.

Pmk, thank you

I love that GIRES wrote a load of utter bollocks, and the Law Commission used that bollocks as an example of the problem here...

“We do not agree with GIRES that such discussion necessarily amounts to ‘vilification’ or ‘dehumanises’ trans people, still less that it encourages others to do so. Indeed, we think that characterising it as GIRES does demonstrates the risk that without explicit protection, such discourse – which has been recognised as protected speech – risks being perceived, reported, and potentially investigated as hate speech.”

👏 Thanks GIRES, that was beautiful.

Isn’t it lovely when someone makes your case for you.
GIRES
Thank you for illustrating the point so beautifully

So, they want women who DISCUSS single sex spaces are to be afforded no legal protection?

That is actually spinechilling.

All those women in the Wi Spa who objected to a predatory male sex offender getting in the jacuzzi next to a child? They’d be the criminal ones in the GIRES utopia.

Girls who object out loud to sharing a toilet with boys who are throwing sanitary pads around and pissing in the waste disposal bins?

Criminals.

Parents who think their child needs mental health treatment more than cross-sex hormones?

Criminals.

Thank fuck it didn’t work. I had no idea this was happening or that the stakes were so high.

@Sexnotgender

So, they want women who DISCUSS single sex spaces are to be afforded no legal protection?

Exactly.

Plus "the discussion or criticism of gender reassignment".

The discussion???

The stakes for females are incredibly high. And this is going on constantly under the radar, this lobby is absolutely intent on finding a way to fix several things in law that would achieve their political goals. Which it looking more and more quite frankly to be to subordinate females in law. It's getting that straight forward, and politicians need to be directly faced with it. This is not about inclusion - inclusion means everyone, females included. This is about male supremacism. The dictionary definition of. The superiority of one sex over another - while at the same time saying sex doesn't exist.

Women aren't allowed political representation if they are GC (thanks LDs, Greens and Labour)

And they don't only want that, they want to criminalise other forms of campaigning.

And women are just supposed to be nice about it and be unconcerned by these moves?

I heard someone from the Law Commission on the radio.

She gave examples of incel culture inciting rape and murder as the reason for the need of a law on misogyny, and then in the next breath said that it would be gender neutral.

Is there any evidence that gender neutralising a law for a sexed crime actually works, or do they just assume that you will somehow get the same outcome?

She gave examples of incel culture inciting rape and murder as the reason for the need of a law on misogyny, and then in the next breath said that it would be gender neutral.

Because the issue of man-hating femcels inciting women to rape and murder men is real and pressing.

The “gender neutral” thing is very worrying, the double standards in society are huge.

Like women get permanently banned from Facebook for saying “I hate men” under an article about men behaving with unspeakable depravity. But the most repulsive misogynistic statements about women aren’t actioned.

If this law is “gender neutral” I don’t think the police and CPS are going to be any more impartial than Facebook moderators are.

@GoodieMoomin

This is what some of us (who think hate crime needs scrapping entirely) were saying. As soon a misogyny becomes a hate crime, it will be used against women, rather than for us.

I also agree.

The gender neutralising thing seems to be sweeping through society without any proper evidence base. It just seems to be accepted as A Good Thing. Where are the studies that indicate this is so?

@Melroses

The gender neutralising thing seems to be sweeping through society without any proper evidence base. It just seems to be accepted as A Good Thing. Where are the studies that indicate this is so?

I’ve often wondered this. Also, how Stonewall and its supporters got such power.

Like the thousands of rape and death threats sent to JKR and other women by TRA's? Or all the kill a terf posters at pride?

I see no reason why they shouldn't be caught by this law, and the police will see just how "both sides" it is, if it were passed.

I saw this yesterday, which I found enlightening: