KJK assaulted at Hyde Park SFW meeting

[Imnobody4]

Could have added this to several threads, however couldn't decide which.

A man approached KJK and threw liquid in her face - turned out to be water but obviously could also have been acid, urine etc. It was captured on film (can't find the video at the moment.)

This is an actual crime of common assault. Common assault: the maximum sentence is six months' custody. if the assault is against an emergency worker, the maximum sentence is one year's custody. if the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years' custody.

He has been given a Community Order and banned from going into Hyde Park. Given that this was done in the context of a mob holding up threatening signs and the purpose was obviously to intimidate and frighten women holding a peaceful meeting this seems pretty lenient to me. So much for the VAWG strategy

reduxx.info/uk-women-critical-of-gender-ideology-heckled-assaulted-at-free-speech-event-in-london/

KJKs account starts 3 min in.

...the assault was at the very low end. So something like a community order, or a number of community service hours was the appropriate sentence. There's no need to throw the book at a first-timer for something that was essentially a very mild form of common assault.

That's ONLY because you know what the outcome was, that the liquid was water (though A N Other Eejit claimed it was urine!) and KJK pretty much shrugged of the event, if not the legal aftermath!

It was assault. The assailant had his reasons and they would, if women were included in the new legislation, be a hate crime - actually, it might actually be one. It would be good, amusing, justice being seen to be served, if KJK could swing a conviction with that added 😆

Don't downplay this. She was bloody lucky and 'They' may now be even more emboldened.

pattihews - "The signs are now getting so ridiculous it's made me wonder whether the Black Pampers have been infiltrated by Terfs."

You could be on to something! 🤔

Are TERFs Running the Trans Activist Show?
Kathleen Lowrey Oct 21, 2021
How else to explain the increasing levels of self-sabotage in contemporary trans activism?
4w.pub/terfs-run-trans-activist-show/

Does those fact that the perpetrator was attacking a women on the basis of a protected belief make it a hate crime?

I think it very well could be classed as a hate crime against a belief protected in law.

IADNAL, but as I understand it hate crimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 only relate to: (a) racial hostility, (b)religious hostility, (c)hostility related to disability,, (d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or (e)hostility related to transgender identity. The religious element only relates to "the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group" and not the broader philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act by Maya Forstater's Employment Appeal Tribunal decision.

IIRC, there has been talk about making misogyny a hate crime, but it was suspected that the definition of "woman" was going to be expanded to give TW yet another legal route to persecute non-believers of gender ideology.

It would come under religious hostility as gender critical views are protected as a belief.

"Somanysocks · 29/11/2022 12:52
Mind you, if IW has been given a threat to kill 'herself', IW doesn't have to actually do it, does IW?"

Frankly with these responses, you can't reasonably expect me to have sympathy for KJ who got squirted with a little water?

Agree that some of the responses are fucking awful.
As in,If you receive a threat, doesnt mean have to do it, does it?!
WTAF.
Way to mock and dismiss a threat, if say JKR got the same threat, you'd say the same would you?
(Name picked as prominent person who receives threats too?
Can't get on board with throwing anything though, you have no idea what liquid is in there.
Yes it might be water but it might not be too
No way of knowing, and it's assault pure and simple.

And you have done it yet again.

You have dismissed a violent act against a woman you disagree with. One that was carried out and is an evidenced reality.

You have also then tried to distract people leveraging a threat against someone else. While abhorrent, and should be investigated by the police, you are trying to portray a threat against someone as greater importance as a proven act of violence against KJK.

So, please answer the question.

Is this just callous hatred and misogyny?

Or is this just ignorance?

It is hard to believe it is just ignorance. I have now pointed out your dismissal of violent acts against women you disagree with across at least two or three threads now.

Own your actions.

Bravo!

I think pie, if umbrella here has actually called you out, you must start to understand that your behaviour here is now extremely obvious. Even umbrella is telling you that your zeal in defending violent acts against women has gone too far.

No. "Philosophical beliefs" are not covered under Hate Crime legislation.

Hate Crime Laws
Final Report
Law Commission, 6 December 2021

Chapter 7: Recognition of other groups and characteristics

7.1 Our terms of reference ask us to “consider whether crimes motivated by, or
demonstrating, hatred based on other potential protected characteristics should be hate crimes.” In this chapter we consider the case for the inclusion of sex workers, people experiencing homelessness, alternative subcultures and philosophical beliefs. Some of these groups – sex workers and alternative subcultures – have been recognised for recording and monitoring purposes by various police forces across England and Wales. Philosophical beliefs are recognised for the purposes of antidiscrimination law under the Equality Act 2010. Homelessness is recognised in various North American jurisdictions, but not in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

7.5 We conclude that none of these characteristics should be included in hate crime laws at the present time. However, in doing so, we do not suggest that crimes targeted towards any of these groups should not be considered serious and harmful. We also do not wish to suggest that current efforts of certain police forces in recording and monitoring hate crimes against alternative subcultures and sex workers should be abandoned. Though related, the considerations that guide police hate crime recording policy and practice are wider than those of the criminal law itself, in that they are connected to the common law duty of the police to keep the peace and prevent crime.

Conclusion following consultation

7.268 We understand the desire amongst victims and their supporters to have philosophical beliefs explicitly protected in hate crime laws. A few consultees provided evidence of a demonstrable need, although this was largely anecdotal. For example, British Naturism asserted that there has been an increase in recent years of criminal damage and assaults targeted at Naturists. The Hate Crime Unit also noted that there is research to suggest that there has been a rise in the harassment of religiously unaffiliated people in recent years (though as we have noted, lack of religious belief is protected under current hate crime laws). This echoed the evidence Humanists UK provided earlier in the review about the wider global threat that humanists and apostates face, and specific examples such as fake “anthrax” powder being sent to their offices.

7.269 However, overall evidence of criminal targeting on the basis of philosophical belief remains sporadic and inconclusive. We are therefore not persuaded that th “demonstrable need” criterion has been satisfied in relation to philosophical belief.

7.270 We acknowledge that violence against MPs has emerged as a serious concern in recent years. In the case of Jo Cox MP, the murderer was charged and dealt with as a terrorist. The suspect in the murder of David Amess MP was held under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and the CPS has authorised murder charges and announced that they “will submit to the court that this murder has a terrorist connection, namely that it had both religious and ideological motivations.” This demonstrates that there are ways of dealing with such ideological offending – namely terrorism legislation – that do not require the inclusion of philosophical or political belief in hate crime law.

7.271 In relation to addition harm, consultees in favour of recognising philosophical beliefs as a hate crime category drew comparisons between philosophical beliefs and religion. British Naturism, for example, argued that the effects of hate crime on adherents of a philosophical belief are very similar to those suffered by adherents of religion.

7.272 We accept that for at least some philosophical beliefs – Humanism and Naturism perhaps being two examples – criminal targeting may cause individual victim significant additional harm, and also cause wider harm to the affected group and society more widely. It is less obvious that this logic can be applied across all groups that may fall within the broad category of philosophical belief. However, for these purposes we accept that there is at least a strong argument that this criterion is satisfied.

7.273 The criterion of suitability arguably raises the greatest concerns. The issues we explored in our consultation paper were reiterated by a significant number of consultees. Indeed, a significant majority of consultation responses were opposed to the addition of philosophical beliefs as a hate crime category.

7.274 The first suitability issue relates to whether the extension of hate crime protection to philosophical beliefs is workable in practice. A number of consultees expressed concern that the concept of “philosophical beliefs” is too broad and thus it would be difficult for law enforcement agencies to draw effective parameters.

7.275 The second suitability issue also arises in relation to the broad nature of the concept of philosophical beliefs. Some consultees were concerned that extending protection to philosophical beliefs could risk providing protection to groups who hold views that are very harmful to society.

7.276 Finally, the third suitability issue relates to free speech concerns that may arise from the inclusion of philosophical beliefs. Consultees such as the Christian Institute and English Democrats were of the view that it could jeopardise the free exchange of ideas.

7.277 Due to these complex suitability issues, and a lack of concrete evidence of criminal targeting of individuals based on their philosophical beliefs, we do not recommend that philosophical beliefs should be recognised as a protected characteristic in hate crime laws. Although some consultees provided anecdotal evidence of their members being targeted because of the philosophical beliefs they hold, there is an overall absence of tangible data to establish a strong demonstrable need for protection to be extended to this group. We also find the suitability concerns persuasive. In particular the definitional concerns; a definition that is sufficiently broad to capture the intended groups could result in potentially harmful consequences, such as having a chilling effect on the expression of legitimate views and beliefs, and the protection of views
and beliefs that are in themselves harmful.

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2021/12/Hate-crime-report-accessible.pdf

But @MargaritaPie yiu dusmissed threats to JKR on other women, and doxing and assaults on other women as not that bad, so why would you get upset when we do that when someone you like receives the same treatment? You condoned the doxing of JKRs private address. You’re a bit of a hypocrite aren’t you?

Datun I am wondering that too! KJK is one of the women I am sure would ask that question. What was the point of Maya's trials and tribulations else?

Could be really interesting?!

If you take a step back I am sure you will see that the comment that has caused such ire is a woman here repeating the response oft repeated across Twitter when a woman gets just such a threat.

If you and Marg can't get on board with it being said to/about IW then surely you must decry it when it is said to a gender critical women, by a transwoman, a TRA etc etc.

Come on Marg do acknowledge this!

If you and Marg can't get on board with it being said to/about IW then surely you must decry it when it is said to a gender critical women, by a transwoman, a TRA etc etc.
I have literally just said I can't get on board with it being said to a gender critical woman either, that throwing stuff is assault pure and simple, in the comment you've just quoted!
I've also always said that threats are never acceptable, never OK, regardless of who they're sent to.
So why say me and Marg?!
I think it's you who needs to take a step back, and reread what I wrote.
Throwing stuff, including water - assault.
Threats - never OK.
I don't think I can get any clearer than that?!

Thanks for the info about hate crimes excluding wider philosophical beliefs, Bosky.

Obviously it goes with out saying that death threats or any threats of violence and any assaults are completely wrong...I've probably missed one there

And I do not doubt at all that (as will anyone inthe public eye willingly or unwillingly) that India has been subject to abuse and threats and again Obviously these are wrong and should be dealt with by twitter and the police

I have not seen the 'kill yourself' tweet but I'm a bit confused....did someone say 'kill yourself' or did they threaten to kill India?

And back to the topic of the thread I agree complete with umbrella and many others on here that throwing liquid of any type is an assault and very scary for the person being assaulted

I have not seen the 'kill yourself' tweet but I'm a bit confused....did someone say 'kill yourself' or did they threaten to kill India?

Both are fucked up. But yes. There is a significant difference between being told to kill yourself and being directly threatened.

I am no longer surprised though to see @MargaritaPie fail to see the difference. The distraction attempt was a blunt one, as expected.

Both are fucked up. But yes. There is a significant difference between being told to kill yourself and being directly threatened.

If it was this one, it was pretty nasty (censored for MN) and the picture certainly didn’t imply suicide.

You have pixelated it. I cannot see why suicide is not the implication. Could you please explain why suicide is not the implication.

And as I have said numerous times already. It is fucked up to be sending these messages.

"There is a significant difference between being told to kill yourself and being directly threatened."

Yes I know I could have clarified better. However I have a feeling if JK Rowling were told the same thing she would be claiming to have been threatened.

And I have a feeling if Montgomerie, Willoughby, Harrop et al received a 100th of the abuse JK Rowling gets, they'd be claiming to have been threatened.

So @MargaritaPie are you saying it’s really bad for IW to have been sent that, but if JKR or KJK gets doxed, assaulted or threatened, that’s all right because they deserve it? Why did you condone assault on KJK but the meme sent to IW is wrong? Either these things are not acceptable whoever receives them, and should be called out whoever does them, or you believe it’s ok to harrass and assault women but not a male with a trans identity? Which is it?

No. margarita in the scheme of the direct rape and death threats that have been sent, I think she would put that in the 'unpleasant' and 'vile' pile.

But I am not her, and nor are you.

But you DO dismiss violent acts against women!

And you attempted to distract from the discussion of these violent acts against two women at Hyde Park by introducing a threat from an unknown person (who is Jim Renyolds) who is not a feminist to Willoughby. Meaning, that the threats are of no relevance to this discussion except for distractive purposes and to somehow convey that this threat is 'worse' than the evidenced assaults on two women over the weekend.

You don't get to escape the fact that you are a violence against women denier. Doesn't that make you rather bigoted, and other things that I won't say because it will mean deletion.