The Spectator in trouble for stating the truth

[lcakethereforeIam]

Just read the article from the Telegraph, my free speech has been chilled

https://archive.ph/8628j

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/10/press-watchdog-accused-of-chilling-effect-free-speech/

and now i'm on the same side as Gove! Strange times.

I also don’t understand this. I also don’t understand why all publications signed up protest and challenge IPSO on this. What actual power does IPSO have?

I think they prefer this self regulation rather than a government appointed body?

If everyone leaves IPOS, a non voluntary organisations might be established.

I read a bit of one of Dawson's books, one about a trans student at a girls' school. It read like a perverted sex fantasy. This is a book aimed at "young adults" i.e. children from Year 7 up.

If we can't talk about him being a man can we at least talk more about this?

We can talk about him being a man and the perverted things he writes, because we are not beholden to IPSO.

So, is the secrecy clause regarding GRCs nonsense? I'm sorry but I'm still confused. Is it something that's entered into trans folklore? I've seen it said by a GC group (I forget which) regarding single sex spaces you cannot ask to see a GRC or even ask aboutit. You have to instead ask to see a birth certificate because holders of GRCs, and only holders of GRCs, can have the sex marker on the bc changed.

Eta just read @ArabellaScott 's earlier post. Although I note the rather dismissive tone about it probably being unnecessary 🙄 Perhaps at the time the law was drafted. Such innocent times.

Does anyone know where 'chapter 6' is?

Which would require legislation and would require debate in the HOC and HOL.

I’ve always been baffled why publications like the Daily Mail play the pronoun game etc. If there’s no legal requirement to, just ignore any sanction from IPSO on such matters. And leave if they try to impose a sanction, like those who aren’t members.

Describing a trans person with a GRC as "a man who claims to be a woman" is an attack on someone's deeply held faith in the same way that printing "Allah does not exist and Mohammed is not a prophet" would be an attack against the muslim faith.

The Spectator could have communicated exactly the same information by describing Dawson as "A person who was born male but is now legally considered a woman" without it being an attack.

I'd like to see what he's really like getting some more airtime. Even the GC community is pretty quiet on the actual content of his books. Here's a review: https://www.google.com/amp/s/safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/03/20/wonderland-by-juno-dawson-a-review/amp/

To summarise: this a sexually explicit book with frequent pornographic language, whose main characters are underage, and have sex with older men. (And other awful things besides.) And it's explicitly marketed at 12-year-olds.

We should be screaming from the rooftops about this. The problem with Dawson - one of the UK's top YA authors apparently - goes far beyond the mere fact of his sex.

Some, perhaps most, Muslims might consider it an attack. It certainly wouldn't be very kind. It, considering the uncertain temperament of some of the holders of that faith, would be an unwise thing to put your name to. There was a Labour member of Parliament just the other day who seemed to be calling for a blasphemy law. Would that get your vote?

I suspect, as suggested above, it’s all in the word “claims”. I also suspect that “a male person who identifies as a woman” would have been ok by IPSO. The organised religion analogy would I guess be “a person who claims that their god is omnipotent” versus “a person who believes in an omnipotent god”. There is a subtle difference in tone I think.

But why shouldn't someone write "Allah does not exist and Mohammed is not a prophet"? It's a statement that many people believe to be true. The whole point of free speech is that you can say things that other people don't like - if you can't, then it's not free speech.

Agreed in spades.

Curious how it's OK to say the Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but was not, and to draw pictures of God (Jews forbid images of God), but it's not OK to say that a man claims to be a woman but is not a woman, or draw pictures of Mohammed.

It's unwise to do things that will cause people who demand respect for their belief, but deny you respect for your belief, to attack you? Victim blaming.

I do not support a law against blasphemy. I might support a law against incitement to violence.

@RoyalCorgi my point is that while you might be "free" to write something that is an attack on the deeply held beliefs of a significant number of people, doing so in an allegedly reputable national publication is inappropriate. The Spectator would not print such a blatant attack for any other widely-held belief. The belief that sex is real, immutable and sometimes more important than "gender" is certainly also a valid belief that has been upheld in court to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. The belief that gender should be upheld as more important than sex is an opposite belief that is also subject to the same principles of respect. It is perfectly possible for newspapers and magazines to produce factual information that respects all relevant belief positions without attacking.

It wasn't such an issue then; although he was always a great supporter of Kemi Badenoch.

How would anyone know he's legally considered a woman?

Asking journalists to speak of some men in particular way without any way to confirm he has legal status is unreasonable, i would have thought.

Without a way to confirm this status, we either having to say every man who demands it is a legal woman, or not use the description of legal woman for anyone.

Are these still the old Stonewalled IPSOS regulations? If so could they be changed pronto? (Also surprised to be agreeing with MG)

" The belief that gender should be upheld as more important than sex " is not a belief that has been deemed WORIADS

It seems from this IPSO ruling that there is a quasi-blasphemy law in effect. I remember hearing about the 'there probably isn't a God' campaign on London buses. Could you imagine what would have happened if they'd tried it with 'there probably isn't an Allah'? Well, for starters TfL would never have dared!

I don't want to derail this thread any further though. My post was meant to be a reply to an earlier poster. I, too, think people should be able to write freely. No ideology should get special treatment because its followers are a bit fighty or litigious or prone to sadness. There should be no blasphemy laws, quasi or otherwise.

Do we actually know whether Juno has a GRC? Did the Spectator know at the time of publishing their article?

Are we supposed to assume that every man who claims to be a woman has a GRC, because if they later claim to have one and make a complaint, their complaint will be upheld?

Did Juno have to show Juno's GRC or falsified birth certificate to IPSO when making the complaint, or did IPSO just take Juno's word for it that Juno was "legally a woman" rather than just a man who claims to be a woman?

Yes, Gove's article explicitly says this.

'When Ipso was set up it was established as a lesser evil. The Leveson Report had called for effective state regulation of the press. The Spectator was resolutely opposed. In place of that undoubted curtailment of free expression, media organisations, including The Spectator, instead agreed to be bound by an independent regulator, whose remit was both to uphold high standards and defend free speech. Ipso was set up to fulfil that role. The Spectator agreed, with other media organisations, to fund the body, subscribe to its Editor’s Code and abide by its rulings. We did so on the basis that self-regulation by an independent body was infinitely preferable to state regulation.

during the recent Supreme Court thing it turned out that the process is that you get a (super secret) GRC, and use that to change your birth certificate. And then in future you use that birth certificate to claim your right to be in opposite sex spaces.

People can't ask to see the GRC but they can ask to see the birth certificate. All well and good. My problem with this is: this assumes that all trans people pass all the time. Is that realistic? IDK but that is the only way you get to know about the GRC (unless the person crows about it)

ETA: having read further, seems this is all wrong!!!

@NobleWashedLinen Describing a trans person with a GRC as "a man who claims to be a woman" is an attack on someone's deeply held faith in the same way that printing "Allah does not exist and Mohammed is not a prophet" would be an attack against the muslim faith.

So? If I had sixpence for every time I've read or heard someone saying 'there is no God' or 'Jesus is not God' or 'Jesus is not the son of God' etc etc etc I'd be very very rich.

It is an expression of a belief I do not share, but it isn't an attack.

Re disclosure and asking for a GRC, here is the relevant section (22) of the GRA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Prohibition on disclosure of information

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

So those are very specific circumstances. To whit:

'A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.'

And probably worth noting:

'Not a single prosecution has yet been brought for breach of Section 22.'

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39006.htm#:~:text=73.It%20is%20not%20unlawful,in%20almost%20all%20circumstances%20unnecessary.

So a member of the public or a journalist is perfectly free to ask about a GRC or talk about it.