Labour want jail time for pronoun refuseniks - DM

[mb2512cat]

In normal times I’d think this couldn’t possibly be true but these days I wouldn’t put anything past Labour once they’re in power.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12631243/Deliberately-calling-wrong-gender-pronouns-land-jail-TWO-YEARS-Labour.html

Well again, it depends. In Scotland, sheep are one of the few ways farmers can make a use of hillside farmland that is too rough for anything else. You can graze sheep almost anywhere. So that's a really effective use of the land. And a lot of large parts of the country are not suitable for crop growing. A meat tax would likely kill off many farmers who are really struggling to scrape any kind of a living and lessen the amount of high quality food we are able to produce.

Sorry, though, this is a bit tangential.

The reason is that probably, the Law Commission could not find a way of doing it without allowing misandry being included under sex. Misogyny only would need a very brave government

I am genuinely surprised that a group of supposedly intelligent and discerning feminists are taking a highly speculative article in a right-wing media outlet with a history of misogyny as gospel.

How hard is this to understand? The Daily Mail are opposed to both feminism and transgender but over both, to Labour. The DM perceives that Labour has a historical problem with women and its attempt to appease liberal voters by championing trans rights so to try and discredit Labour, the DM publishes a nonsense article claiming that Labour will bring in a law to imprison people for GC to try and win over all the Labour-supporting GC people.

I said it before on this thread, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Don’t assume that just because the right-wing media is anti-trans that it’s automatically because it supports women.

Honestly, I wish people would apply a bit of critical thinking to reading media outlets.

Well that's me told.

You've not read the thread, then, AnxiousPangolin.

They can want all they like, prisons are legitimately full.

"Ladies!

You decide whether an article is factual or not by assessing the politicall leanings of the publication it's printed in.

I am a critical thinker."

I remember years ago, at work, I said to my boss's wife (who was the second-in-command, effectively, how can you read the Daily Mail when it is so anti-women? And she said, don't you know it has the biggest female readership? And I said, yes, I do, and that's thoroughly depressing. But all that doesn't mean everything in the DM is lies. Their motives may be impure, but, like the man said, that's not important right now.

And you would trust who to report on this? The Guardian? Fantastic example they set with the Cologne attacks and Rochdale. Given Harriet Harman has just spilt the beans on Labour's definition of a woman (it includes men), I know who I'm inclined to believe on these matters.

I believe a Labour government would criminalise not using someone’s preferred pronouns. Either you believe people have a right to be referred to the way they want or you don’t and I think Labour do and would be prepared to use the threat of imprisonment to enforce it.

If you told me 10 years ago that all the stuff that is happening now would happen I would not have believed it possible and would have told you it’ll never happen, yet here we are.

Oh and I'll add the Guardian refused to report the MPs expense scandal to add to their roll call of principled journalism.

The Daily Mail is nothing more than a hate filled rag that shills for the Conservative Party.

Their Deputy Chairman has said the only way they could possibly win the next election is by creating a "war on woke and trans" and this article has been written for this express reason, to try and suggest Labour will send you to prison for using incorrect pronouns.

It is total rubbish, and anybody who fails to realise that is, I'm afraid, a mug - and falling straight into the trap that the Conservatives have set.

Well, as with the 'what is a woman' question, all Labour have to do is tell us what they believe & what they intend.

So why don't they?

re all those saying this is made up by the Daily Mail

Apart from feeling really sad that either no one read my post or ignored it, this is not made up by the Daily Mail

They are quoting a new article / post that has been published by somebody or other (read my original post) and there will be a meeting to discuss it (read my original post) and there is already a thread about this oon FWR, where they have bothered to find out the origins of the story.

And based on this silliness (its just the Daily Mail) I haven't got past page 2 of this thread, and will continue with the original one as contributors are talking about the source material, ie the article / pamphlet that is available to down load.

Surely if someone is committing crimes due to misandry that is also something that ought to be considered in sentencing? Isn't the whole point of any of these named and protected groupings that it is especially egregious to act against others out of group based identifications?

I am somewhat skeptical myself that it is necessarily worse than the same act done for more personal, or ideological, or some other reasons, but if it is then I on't see how it could ever be arranged according to oppression hierarchies, without destroying the way we understand equality altogether.

Why does anyone think the Daily Mail is anti-woman? They make a considerable point of reporting on women's issues, and have often written on stories that were important before papers like The Guardian touched them.

I disagree with this. The vast majority of land in this country is suitable for farming some kind of crop, and many now-barren landscapes used for grazing were forested before human intervention. What hilly regions cannot support, however, is modern machinery like combine harvesters, which might raise costs. Furthermore, lots of animals are grazed on land which is perfectly suited to arable farming. It's such a waste of land: it takes 2.5 - 10 acres to feed a single cow, when 0.25 acres can feed a human on a plant based diet. Land in the UK is very limited compared to our population, we do not have the luxury to waste space.

Rather than taxing meat, they ought to stop throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayer's money at propping up animal agriculture, which artificially lowers the price of meat and dairy. Meat eaters should pay the real price for their food, and stop feeling entitled to eat it at every meal: it is an expensive, resource-intensive food and should be treated as such. Taxpayers money should instead go to arable farming, which will lower the cost of vegetables, beans, grains and fruit grown in this country, will support arable farmers, and will increase the amount of food we produce. It will encourage farmers to make better use of their land by opting for arable farming over grazing.

To all the Labour apologists on here tonight, why don't Labour simply tell us what a woman is? That would close down any nonsense from the Daily Mail. They won't because their definition includes 'legal' women i.e. men
I think Labour's position should be exposed at every turn. They created this mess. Enjoy.

Remind me again, what political party have been in power for 10+ years?

@Rudderneck - that is the issue I believe. And it would have been fundamental and very obvious at the time of commissioning the report, so clearly it was done to kick the can done the road. Very little of what the Law Commission ever does becomes actual law.

The reason aggravation exists in sentencing, as do guidelines is that actually, the outcomes from the judiciary were not that good in recognising why crimes might be committed against minorities. For myself, I don't agree with equalities legislation. What happens is you build a little legal hierarchy around what is bad in society based on status, whereas it ought to be conduct.

Aggravated sentences and crime are all about saying that the conduct is worse because of your intention to target someone because of race or religion or their sexuality.

My view is that it should be about harm, inflicted or intended. What was done, to who?

Forested land does not equal suitable for arable crops. And it seems odd to suggest grazing lands are barren when you compare it to the vast monoculture crop fields. As for the idea of the raised peat bogs and mountains being just a tad more costly to grow crops because you can’t run a combine up a scree slope or stop it sinking into the mire…

But far more relevant to the debate is the fact that prime agricultural land should be protected and labour’s promise to bulldoze planning legislation is likely to increase our reliance on importing food.

And consider how much worse it would be if it had been labour in charge.

Also I do despise the Mail; so very concerned for women to be in their little boxes and also homophobic in their time. But very popular all the same.

I don't know, there's something about the DM I rather like. I think that it's because it is open about appealing to a fairly broad spectrum of regular people.

The Guardian is a paper for people who look down on the rabble. The Daily Mail is for people who are no better than they ought to be.

That being the case, it looks to appeal to those people with a bit of everything, some general news, some gossip titillation, a little humour, a little pandering to people's desire to see scandal, some feeding people's prejudices (though all the papers do that IMO,) and also, on some issues that regular people are really concerned about, some very good reporting. And a lot of that has been on issues that are important to their female readers, as much as that is embarrassing to those for whom it isn't their natural home.

I don't think it's that hard to look at the articles (usually it's best to take the headlines with a grain of salt) and see if they are well founded or not. You can usually get a good sense by looking at who wrote them, but beyond that it's always good to check out other sources. Though sometimes the DM has in fact been the only English language source for significant stories.

Well, it seems to attract homophobes to write for it; and I don't really enjoy its use of women as titillation but with the finger wagging on morality at the same time. The Guardian is just awful but at least the website is faintly respectable.