Kellie-Jay Keen (AKA Posie Parker) has been charged by the police under the Communications Act

[TERFandSWERF]

https://x.com/wasacop/status/2116241544084619461?s=46&t=p6GESSn09HWHVXYgTLIbJg

“Kellie-Jay Keen has been charged under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 over posts made between 23 and 25 June.

As ex-police, here's how it works:
• No victim needed
• No intent needed
• The offence is complete once the message is sent if a court finds it 'grossly offensive' (DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40)

That's a very low bar for a criminal charge over words.

But Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 set a high bar for these cases, and Article 10 protects speech that offends, shocks or disturbs. A district judge decides on 4th December.

One to watch.”

A lot of people see working-class white girls as deserving of whatever they get. They don’t see them worthy of protection. The same reaction we saw with the girl in Dundee.

Meh, I'm on the fence.

On one hand, hate speech campaigns & human rights abuses are inextricably linked see: The Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda Cambodia & Rohingya.

On the other, it acts as a community service for these types of individuals to expose the nature of their illiberal beliefs so the buyer can be fully aware of the direction of travel….& if history is any guide it isn't anywhere good.

@oldtiredcyclist you can talk about the rape and murder of girls without being racist. Lots of women do so.

Not the feminists who are pointing out Posie parkers racism. Many have been fighting this shit for years, and without being racist.

It's a type of brainwashing isn't it?

#Criticising Islam is racism
#Saying people can't change sex is transphobia
#Diversity is our strength
#TWAW TMAM
And so on.

They learn these "rules" by rote like kids learning their times tables. And are actively discouraged from any form of critical thinking.

Anyone who challenges these tropes is automatically evil and must be shut down.
I worry for the future

It is critically important that we are able to freely object to religious practices that are harmful. FGM, child marriage etc. To do so is not racist.

People are, rightly arrested for similar statements about Jewish people, non white Britons, people from Asia and the ME, etc.

When someone advocates for the removal of people from society on the basis of their religion, colour or sex, they enter Hate Speech territory.🤷‍♀️

The "Grossly Offensive" Standard: Courts assess whether a message is grossly offensive according to contemporary multi-racial and societal standards, rather than just being annoying, shocking, or in bad taste. 1, 2]

After seeing so many of these supposedly not racist feminists instantly go after the girls in Dundee rather than even consider that they might have been the actual victims, I don’t believe that anymore. They’re happy to show their “not racist” credentials at the expense of white working class girls.

It's the Omnicause init. The Raise of the Stupid, people who outsource their critical thinking to a third party, who then believe everything the third party tells them and wilfully ignores anything that contradicts the third party.

Stupid has nothing to do with intelligence, and intelligence won't defeat stupid, only courage can, women like KJK are the courageous one's, we need courageous people if we're to survive The Raise of the Stupid.

That was a sorry debacle.

It wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out the person who reported her is a well known trans activist rather than a Muslim. They are not interested in stopping her criticising certain Islamic practices, they just want to use that to punish her for being vocal about men accessing women’s spaces.

That was my thought too.

The bar is hardly low:

(c) Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications
Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin).
Additionally, section 127 CA 2003 also encompass 'obscene communications‘. 'Obscene' also has an ordinary meaning - see R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304, in which the Court of Appeal (with reference to other legislation) noted 'obscene' means 'shocking, lewd and indecent’.
There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent. Prosecutors must also consider whether the communication(s) cross the threshold at which interference with the Art. 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate – see below re. Art 10 ECHR.
In the leading case of DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40, the defendant made racially offensive telephone calls to the offices of his Member of Parliament and left racially offensive telephone messages. The High Court (at para 9 of the Judgement) held that it was for the justices at first instance to "determine as a question of fact whether a message is grossly offensive, that in making this determination the Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, and that the words must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances… The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates" – i.e. whether reasonable members of the public would find the message grossly offensive (not just the recipients/intended recipients).
In the case of DPP v Bussetti [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin), the Divisional Court held that, in order to cross the threshold for this offence, the message must have been "not simply offensive but grossly offensive. The fact that the message was in bad taste, even shockingly bad taste, was not enough".

Well said.

Its the guilt by association that generalising about groups does. Muslims like Christians are a very diverse group that using a minority as a representative of the majority creates harmful misinformation which race baiters like Keen & Robinson profit from.

The OP states

That's a very low bar for a criminal charge over words.

But Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 set a high bar for these cases

So she could be arrested on a trivial thing but if it goes to court she'll not likely be found guilty if it's a trivial thing.

It's been said many times before, the process is the punishment, the CPS is a vexatious complainant and the CPS is an arm of the state.

You seem to be advocating for not charging people for alleged offences in case they are found innocent. Its not as if a probable cause isn't required first.

Weird.

Eh? We do not have “probable cause” as a legal concept in the UK. We have “Reasonable grounds to believe or reasonable grounds to suspect” that a crime has been committed, in various bits of law.

CPS simply considers if there is enough evidence to lead to a conviction. And then if it is in the public interest to prosecute.
A minor offence might not be in the public interest to prosecute, although magistrates court hear many trivial offences. Repeated offences are viewed more seriously

Same thing.

Do you need to read my post again?

Criticising Islam - fine.

Advocating for Muslims to be banned from public office - not fine.

I was pointing out the inconsistency between what is required to make an arrest and what would be required for a conviction for the crime if someone was arrested. As did the expolice officer in the OP which is why they think it's One to Watch.

Yes but they aren't able to put them on blast on a carriage service in many western countries for good reason & that's because of quantifiable harm that may potentially occur.

I suspect the problem with why 'free speech' principles are misunderstood is because many don't really understand the point of free speech which is to facilitate democracy. While in theory all opinions being heard ensures democracy that isn't necessarily the case particularly in the modern era as most people don't get to hear all those opinions or hear misrepresentations of facts depending upon where they get their news from. Often people don't read broadly & stick to one outlet that usually have a biased viewpoint not to mention how algorithms are set to funnel the same of content to them.

Add to that major news outlets who have political interests in pushing a particular narrative & you have a recipe for far reaching hate campaigns saturating the media space. So much for all opinions being equally heard so voters can make informed decisions. Free speech absolutism becomes the antithesis of free speech principles.

Islam is a political system as well as a religion, it's all the same thing for Muslim Fundamentalists, so advocate for Muslims to be banned from public office is fine if you can make a case for it.
You may not think she has made a case but you don't point out why you think that you just shout racist, racist, racist.

Similar to how there is a plethora of new-to-MN posters who take a similar approach.