Misgendering won't be a hate crime

[lcakethereforeIam]

Yay!

https://archive.ph/8ab6S paywall bypass

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/09/labour-will-not-make-misgendering-trans-people-a-hate-crime/

I'm going to assume that it won't be a regular old-fashioned cunty type of crime either.

Given that Scotland has a population of only 5 million that's one hell of a database. 😱

Oh no,whatever will the poor little darlings do?

Noone ever said it was or would be.

Yes:

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-considers-defining-islamophobia-despite-warnings/ar-AA1oty9M

No one should be beyond ridicule or criticism. We must not have a blasphemy law here. Otherwise how could we even report on or know about news such as this, let alone discuss it?

www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/aug/09/proposed-iraqi-law-change-would-legalise-child-say-activists

My life of crime strangled at birth. So disappointed 😞

From the 20th Century to the 11th Century, brought to you by the regressive party.

There's always thought crime.

Keep your chin up.

It’s a worry that Labour will use the riots as a further excuse to crack down on lawful speech. Obviously stirring up racial hatred should not be tolerated or incitement to violence but cracking down on our ability to criticise any of the religions would be entirely the wrong direction to go in.

Labour have shown their hand pretty quickly what with threatening to do away with the free speech Act and now threatening to introduce what could potentially amount to blasphemy laws. Obviously the devil will be in the detail but it’s a worry.

It will be a relief if they back away from the pronoun compelled speech thing but I think they are chomping at the bit to make things more difficult for those who define women according to our biology. I wonder what “hate” towards trans will look like in any hate legislation if misgendering is not included?

Bringing back "legal but harmful". That could mean "misgendering". Or anything on FWR that the monitors take offence to. Like male boxers, or ideological RSE lessons, or men who just so happen to discover their trans identity once married, that kind of thing.

It could also apply to discussing the plans in Iraq as given earlier (www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/aug/09/proposed-iraqi-law-change-would-legalise-child-say-activists).

It could be anything.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/09/tech-giants-forced-ban-fake-news-labour/

"The Telegraph understands that ministers are looking at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict “legal but harmful” content.
It could mean that firms are required to remove or suppress posts spreading fake news about asylum seekers or other topics such as self-harm, even if they do not meet the threshold for illegality.
...

The potential crackdown on tech companies would likely form part of a review of the Online Safety Actt_, which was passed last year.
The Act requires platforms to take “robust action” against illegal content and activity and will be implemented gradually.
A “legal but harmful” clause, requiring firms to take down or restrict the visibility of content deemed to be dangerous but not against the law, was included in the original Bill brought forward by the Tories in 2022.

However, it was removed because of free-speech concerns, with critics warning it could allow a future Labour government to censor controversial material."

Legal but harmful is such a pernicious attack on free speech. It’s not like sm companies need encouragement either. Look at facebook and instagram banning #XX.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · Today 14:03

Often it isn't the hatred that is religious; in the case of islamophobia, for example, it's often a hatred of Islam or of Muslims, by people who may or may not themselves be "religious". Language is so ambiguous!

To me, the people who follow the example of Yaxley-Lennon, saying that they're not racist, that they just don't like Muslims is code for a certain derogatory word, which begins with P and is used to refer to people from a part of the Indian sub-continent.

Those types aren't known for their intelligence and nuanced discrimination; my wife has it shouted at her in the street, despite most people assuming that she's Chinese. (She's not).

Yes, I've pointed out to obnoxious kids that they were getting a family's nationality wrong - and if they knew that Pakistanis are mostly Muslims, they were also probably getting the religion wrong.

Often it isn't the hatred that is religious; in the case of islamophobia, for example, it's often a hatred of Islam or of Muslims,

Hatred of any group of people for their beliefs is prejudiced and unpleasant and wrong, although I'm not sure it should be illegal in and of itself.

Hatred of the religion or belief system itself being made illegal is very, very slippery territory. So if its illegal to hate Islam, then is it illegal to criticise it? Or any religion? Or any belief system? How will that work, exactly?

I don't understand how hate or hatred ever became legal/policing words.

How can you legally differentiate between hatred and criticism or mere dislike? Is it the strength of the language? Isn't that bonkers really.

Inciting violence is a bit more measurable so can be policed. But I can't see how hatred was ever policeable. It's so Orwellian

This is the crux of it

Yes. I do understand the rationalisations put forward.for criminalising 'hate', but I don't they balance out the risks. Also not convinced how effective they are. What is criminalising 'hate' actually exacerbates community tensions? How does anyone know banning certain thoughts is a useful approach? Is there any evidence of the success of creating thoughtcrime?

It's absolutely essential to differentiate between the thought/feeling and the expression or action that may be inspired by the thought/feeling.

Nobody ever seems to consider what the long term effects are of banning people from thinking or feeling certain things. How does that impact on our intellects, culture, creativity, productivity, relationships, morality? How does it affect our international relations?

When you have a populace that is cowed into only considering approved and sanctioned views, never questioning, never upsetting, never raging or hating, never dissenting....

I'd hazard a guess that 'hate', or any emotions if forbidden, are more likely to erupt in violence, possibly more explosively than if the thoughts/feelings had been allowed to be expressed and then calmly challenged.

If you are able to express them, however 'wrong', and then talk through them then there's more likelihood of engaging the frontal cortex and coming to a healthier resolution.

Authoritarianism just doesn't work well in the long term. (We could probably effectively apply lessons learned from child rearing to society.)

That's before one even gets into abuse of the law and process, how the average police officer interprets the law, etc.

Or the political ramifications (see Murdo Fraser, opposition MSP, in Scotland being recorded as committing a NCHI for criticising the Scottish government)

I'm not sure anyone has defined 'hate' in law yet. Give it a go and you'll find it almost impossible.

If we are being thrown breadcrumbs to disguise a crack down on free speech, I'd be very worried. In fact socialism functions best when free speech is inhibited and Sir K is a socialist. I think I was once (a Socialist), but I brushed aside any thought that it would happen until I started thinking, which is a bit hit and miss but.....

Criticising government policy has been recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

That really ought to be very instructive.

'Malice or ill will', I think. 'Ill will' is stupendously vague.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/advice-and-information/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/

If we are being thrown breadcrumbs to disguise a crack down on free speech, I'd be very worried.

I think this might be it in a nutshell. I'm not sure them saying "we won't count misgendering" is a reason to celebrate. That position might change (remember: the GRA was Blair's second term) and we might be being used in order that other groups can be brought into line. I don't think we should accept that.

Wait what? You can mention XX on Facebook? Bloody hell. Women speaking really upsets the technocratic billionaires and their "lives online" woker bees

Exactly. Who benefits most from vague legal terms? I guess the lawyers, certainly not us. I can think of many comments on here that would land us in court and it would only take one win, just one and free speech is toast

Malice or ill will. Like this? Or maybe not as this seems to have moved straight into censorship, with Dawkins guessing as to why:

"My entire @facebook account has been deleted, seemingly (no reason given) because I tweeted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khalif (XY undisputed) should not fight women in Olympics. Of course my opinion is open to civilised argument. But outright censorship?"

"To clarify. I made the statement on @X, not on Facebook. Yet is it my @Facebook account which is deleted."

x.com/richarddawkins/status/1822166372819853352?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/richarddawkins/status/1822171008016457788?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ