It says that for the purposes of the equality act that transwomen are males. This has many implications and knock on points.
Given the tweet was about males in single sex facilities, this is kinda relevant.
Why are people being arrested for a 'hate' when the tweet is about women being sexually assaulted by males and protecting themselves (with the qualification of only when other legal challenges have failed)?!
You might be able to say it's encouraging violence, but then you have to arrest every single male who suggests violence against women for any reason at all.
Males should not be in the single sex female facilities. We have plenty of males threatening to do this and actually doing this and posting pictures on social media which constitutes sexual harassment. It's not a theoretical issue of 'hate' it's a real life issue of male harassment of women. So why on earth are the Met prattling on about this being a hate crime and having no choice but to intervene? It's bollocks. They just haven't actually considered the SC ruling in this context.
The hate element becomes null and void the second a male steps foot in a female single sex space - the trans bit isnt a protection because in legal terms they effectively change from being 'legal female' (if they have that status) to being male! This is a massive point of Lineham's tweet!!! We treat all males equality in line with the equality act and we treat females equally too - and they have equal rights to safety, privacy and dignity.
It might be encouraging assault but there's no aggravated factor of 'hate' for doing so if it's just female on male (or vice versa). So how can it be aggravated for hate?!
Why is there a 'watch list' for stating that males who harass women in toilets are potentially dangerous because they are literally breaking the law and are sexually harassing just by bloody well being there?!
Are they going to start rounding up all the incels who post shite about women when they arrive at Heathrow? No, if not why not?
Is Glinner an extremist? Let's have this conversation out.
Is he harassing males who are threatening to sexually harass women or is he highlighting theres a problem with males sexually harassing women and trying to hold to account?
You rapidly get into a debate about public interest (and within that, you often get a broader scope to say things if you can demonstrate relevance to your political argument).
Glinners political argument has always been that men retain male pattern behaviour and that we should recognise male pattern behaviour and treat all males equally regardless of how they identify.
Good luck with this in court is all I can say to that.
If there are other harassment charges, then again prove it's harassment rather than holding people who are posting publicly online trying to influence others, if they are also posting other shit which might reveal nefarious motivations. (See above point about public interest).
This is going to rapidly descend into an utter mess and frankly anyone with half a brain can see the train crash incoming on this.