Rosie Duffield's speech in Westminster Hall yesterday

[Gagagardener]

I have not seen a thread about this; I fell across it on YouTube just now. (If I could remember how to post a link, I would do that. Perhaps someone could help?) She is clear, calm, logical.

I greatly respect Rosie Duffield's determination to speak out.

Surely stating we are a dimorphic species, and discussing the consequences of that, should be regarded as merely an expression of everday common knowledge, rather than being defined and deemed in law as a 'belief' WORIAD ?

There is at least one other thread - see https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5292326-westminster-hall-debate-on-gc-beliefs-and-the-ea

Surely stating we are a dimorphic species, and discussing the consequences of that, should be regarded as merely an expression of everday common knowledge, rather than being defined and deemed in law as a 'belief' WORIAD ?

The trouble is that the knowledge and facts are not protected under the Equality Act 2010, only belief or lack of belief, and belief only if it is WORIADS.

There is the Human Rights Act 1998, but Article 10 of that act "protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference", per the EHRC. It doesn't mention interference by non-government organisations, AFAIK, and only deals with opinions, not knowledge or facts.

IANAL, mind.

So could all the people who are targeted by the police force for 'hate speech' claim that the government is interfering with their right to "express them freely without government interference". Because the Police Service is an extension of government power.

Police forces are overseen by the Home Office but are operationally independent. So I don't know.

Your question merits being run past a suitably qualified lawyer, I think, citing Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Anyone know how to do that?

Article 10 also says: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

"..restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society..."

Restrictions or penalties which are in total conflict with protecting expression of beliefs deemed worthy of respect in a democratic society under the EA 2010 and therefore unnecessary in a democratic society.

That's what I think, I think!
It sounds like there's a built in opt out clause for any government in the Human Rights Act.

Your free to express any opinion so long as it's approved by the government. 🤯