How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

[IwantToRetire]

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

This isn’t the fault of the Tribunal. Judges can only apply the law. In all of the above cases, the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law. The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues. GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority”.

Second, the law permits GC activists to use intemperate (arguably degrading) language to attack trans people but appears to prohibit criticism in response.

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute.

NB - these are only extracts, not the full arguement from the author - who is a Barrister -Sam Fowles. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Also a Director of ICDR which says:

Provide legislators and officials at all levels of government and devolution with non-partisan, concise, accessible, and strategic advice on constitutional and democratic issues.
https://www.icdr.co.uk/about

I wonder if he understands what non partisan means?!

Dr Fowles, when asked by Andrew Doyle about censorship, states he believes that it is 'legitimate to derogate from the right to free speech' in order 'to limit misinforming people'.

That proper Aspen Institute stuff right there. It's what Prince Harry is after ('the First Amendment is bonkers'): elite males deciding what is legitimate information and what isn't isn't. And we know from Fowles's potentially libellous article from the New European in February and from Harry's own book Spare - in other words, from their own mouths (metaphorically) - that that very much centres their own preferences and not necessarily the objective truth.

Thank you nauticant that was indeed a glorious snapping of the bear trap and for an 'intelligent' man like Mr Fowles purports to be to walk right into it makes it even more glorious.

😂

I still have no words for the utter mediocrity, yet apparently stellar career, of 35-year old Dr Sam Fowles.

It's astonishing how far good connections, a desirable television presence, and utter self-belief and confidence will get you. That said, he is a talented barrister. He's unaccustomed to being challenged effectively because other interviewers have been more than a little bedazzled by him.

Vacuous nonentity.

Zoolander’s ‘blue steel’ pose comes to mind.

Also, they are descriptions of actual material reality.

Telling that.

😂I thought exactly the same thing!

I was trying to be grown up and not point it out, but, yeah, kind of says a lot maybe?

Bookmarked for an opportunity to watch it!

Has RMW commented on | fawned on | praised Fowles' performance (as per the previous lamentable encounter with Doyle)?

He's saying the council of Europe was set up by Churchill after WW2 to make sure 'we could not again decent in to authoritarianism'

But the UK did NOT descend in to authoritarianism during that time, failing to mention this debunks his own argument.

I don't understand how someone so thick get so far in life?

I don't understand how someone so thick get so far in life?

SF isn't as you characterise him. As mentioned upthread, Cherry has worked with him as her Junior Counsel. iirc, he's done some good quality environmental work.

Bing a junior member of Cherrie's team means nothing as its the team that would have been appointed not a junior member specifically, as for the environmental work Id have to see actual evidence for that.

The man is thick as mince, and yes has only got as far as he has due to significant class and sex privilege's.

It's GI ideology that makes otherwise intelligent people seem thick.

Edited for clarity.

Gurwinder Bhogal is on point here about the impact of ideology:

When intelligent people affiliate themselves to ideology, their intellect ceases to guard against wishful thinking, and instead begins to fortify it, causing them to inadvertently mastermind their own delusion, and to very cleverly become stupid.
9:45 pm · 9 Nov 2018

let me guess:
Second, the law permits GC activists to use intemperate (arguably degrading) language to attack trans people but appears to prohibit criticism in response.

Actually means GC people are allowed to state that transwomen are male and not women by a biological definition and that in return he can't throw insults back and discriminate the people who say that?