Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

129 replies

TERFandSWERF · Yesterday 15:02

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.”

WasAcop profile picture

WasAcop (@WasAcop) on X

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...

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

OP posts:
Magnetasky · Yesterday 22:11

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 22:05

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.

That applies to all crimes. The cops aren't qualified to be the arbiters of justice so its always going to be a possibility they get it wrong.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 22:18

Magnetasky · Yesterday 22:08

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.

No one is advocating for Free Speech absolutism, but the decision to silence people expressing an opinion should pass a very high threshold in a free and open society.

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.

That's on them, stop blaming the algorithms for people being uninformed. We live in the Information Age, if people can't be bothered to take advantage of that, then that's up to them, but people being dumb is no reason to silence the people who are not.

Magnetasky · Yesterday 22:28

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 22:18

No one is advocating for Free Speech absolutism, but the decision to silence people expressing an opinion should pass a very high threshold in a free and open society.

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.

That's on them, stop blaming the algorithms for people being uninformed. We live in the Information Age, if people can't be bothered to take advantage of that, then that's up to them, but people being dumb is no reason to silence the people who are not.

Edited

No one is advocating for Free Speech absolutism, but the decision to silence people expressing an opinion should pass a very high threshold in a free and open society.

And it is as I linked upthread.

But let's not confuse opinions with gratuitous insults shall we? One can still express their concerns about orderly & sustainable immigration without resorting to racist generalisations. If anything racial vilification distracts from the legitimate concerns of unchecked immigration & turns people off from the concern because of historical associations of highly inflammatory racist rhetoric.

It's not what you say but the way you say it.

That's on them, stop blaming the algorithms for people being uninformed. We live in the Information Age, if people can't be bothered to take advantage of that, then that's up to them, but people being dumb is no reason to silence the people who are not.

But the important point you are missing here is its part of the government's responsibility is to protect all its citizens from harm & a ginned up ignorant population high on fear mongering isn't going to help that. See: The Holocaust.

Magnetasky · Yesterday 23:57

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 22:09

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.

But Keen has made the case & that's that the minority represent the majority & that's racism 101.

Tears0fTheMushroom · Today 00:03

TooBigForMyBoots · Yesterday 20:51

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.🤷‍♀️

FGS she's not talking about death camps. She's talking about deportation
You can argue until you are cobalt blue in the face about the rights and wrongs of that but not if your starting position is a ridiculous misinterpretation of the point you are discussing.

GarlicNothing · Today 00:14

LeftieRightsHoarder · Yesterday 17:38

Yes, she has strong opinions. But she has every right to hold them and to express them, as long as she doesn’t call for violence or action against anyone.

As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.“

The police, on the other hand, have no right to seek brownie points by silencing someone who says things that offend some people.

Edited

I agree. I don't know everything Kellie has said, but haven't got the impression she incites violence or terrorism.

That woman everyone got their knickers in a twist about did tweet 'burn them down' about migrant hotels, which is a crime.

Disagreeing with some Muslim values and believing they present a danger to British society is an opinion, and one she supports with evidenced reasoning. Unless she's advocating sectarian violence, she should be as free as anyone else to express her views.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:15

Magnetasky · Yesterday 22:28

No one is advocating for Free Speech absolutism, but the decision to silence people expressing an opinion should pass a very high threshold in a free and open society.

And it is as I linked upthread.

But let's not confuse opinions with gratuitous insults shall we? One can still express their concerns about orderly & sustainable immigration without resorting to racist generalisations. If anything racial vilification distracts from the legitimate concerns of unchecked immigration & turns people off from the concern because of historical associations of highly inflammatory racist rhetoric.

It's not what you say but the way you say it.

That's on them, stop blaming the algorithms for people being uninformed. We live in the Information Age, if people can't be bothered to take advantage of that, then that's up to them, but people being dumb is no reason to silence the people who are not.

But the important point you are missing here is its part of the government's responsibility is to protect all its citizens from harm & a ginned up ignorant population high on fear mongering isn't going to help that. See: The Holocaust.

Edited

That's clear as mud, are you using the bananarama defence?
What gratuitous insults are you referring too?
Are you calling KJK a Nazi.
What race are you referring too.
Which AI did you use.

TooBigForMyBoots · Today 00:19

Tears0fTheMushroom · Today 00:03

FGS she's not talking about death camps. She's talking about deportation
You can argue until you are cobalt blue in the face about the rights and wrongs of that but not if your starting position is a ridiculous misinterpretation of the point you are discussing.

Edited

I said nothing about death camps.🤯 Why have you brought them up?

Advocating for deportation of UK citizens because of their religion or colour is mental and borders on Hate Speech.

Magnetasky · Today 00:25

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:15

That's clear as mud, are you using the bananarama defence?
What gratuitous insults are you referring too?
Are you calling KJK a Nazi.
What race are you referring too.
Which AI did you use.

Edited

What gratuitous insults are you referring too?

Implying group guilt over a minority committing criminal acts for starters.

Are you calling KJK a Nazi.

No the Nazi's wanted to 'remove' Jews, socialists, academics, queers & the disabled not muslims....probably because there weren't any. But she's using the same tactics of smearing whole groups as 'degenerates' who are going to degrade society based off a few instances as if its inherent to this group. Its blood guilt.

What race are you referring too.

Apologies, ethnicity & religious affiliation as well as race.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:28

Magnetasky · Yesterday 23:57

But Keen has made the case & that's that the minority represent the majority & that's racism 101.

Is that the case she made or is that just what you decided she said because it fits in with your narrative, that's misinformation 101.

GarlicNothing · Today 00:31

TooBigForMyBoots · Today 00:19

I said nothing about death camps.🤯 Why have you brought them up?

Advocating for deportation of UK citizens because of their religion or colour is mental and borders on Hate Speech.

OK, so have the police charged the many Reform, Britain First and Restore members calling for the same?

Magnetasky · Today 00:32

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:28

Is that the case she made or is that just what you decided she said because it fits in with your narrative, that's misinformation 101.

Just how many times has she mentioned grooming gangs? Never or frequently?

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:35

Magnetasky · Today 00:25

What gratuitous insults are you referring too?

Implying group guilt over a minority committing criminal acts for starters.

Are you calling KJK a Nazi.

No the Nazi's wanted to 'remove' Jews, socialists, academics, queers & the disabled not muslims....probably because there weren't any. But she's using the same tactics of smearing whole groups as 'degenerates' who are going to degrade society based off a few instances as if its inherent to this group. Its blood guilt.

What race are you referring too.

Apologies, ethnicity & religious affiliation as well as race.

Do you have a concrete example of any of this, if she's made her case, so should you, it would just be a gratuitous insult otherwise.

Again which race, neither ethnicity nor religious affiliation is racist.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:37

Magnetasky · Today 00:32

Just how many times has she mentioned grooming gangs? Never or frequently?

Grooming gangs are a fact, men went to prison because of the vile crimes they committed, how many times would it be acceptable to you for grooming gangs to be mentioned.

Magnetasky · Today 00:40

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:35

Do you have a concrete example of any of this, if she's made her case, so should you, it would just be a gratuitous insult otherwise.

Again which race, neither ethnicity nor religious affiliation is racist.

Do you have a concrete example of any of this

One of many where she weaponises grooming gang stories.

Again which race, neither ethnicity nor religious affiliation is racist.

It doesn't have to be 'technically' racist to come under anti discrimination protections.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Li5mGBrmk0

Magnetasky · Today 00:41

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:37

Grooming gangs are a fact, men went to prison because of the vile crimes they committed, how many times would it be acceptable to you for grooming gangs to be mentioned.

Yes but you don't get to smear entire groups off the back of that. Its blood guilt.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:54

Magnetasky · Today 00:40

Do you have a concrete example of any of this

One of many where she weaponises grooming gang stories.

Again which race, neither ethnicity nor religious affiliation is racist.

It doesn't have to be 'technically' racist to come under anti discrimination protections.

This is your concrete evidence, someone reading out the real words of a real young girl who was used and abused, who was silence by people using the same tactic's your trying to use on KJK, by claiming speaking out will cause racial tensions. This is what you're calling it weaponising. I call it highlighting a massive wrong that was done to many young girls, and I call anyone who tries to silence anyone who brings the truth to the masses as an apologists and a collaborator with child abuse on a massive scale.

I ask again which race, if you're going to call someone a racist you should be able to identify the race they're being racist about.

Hedgehogforshort · Today 00:59

I think that we do have extremist attitudes to women within our country, that can be attributed to some incoming communities. Primarily they are variations of Islamic faith be they from African countries, and India/pakistan.

Equally we have problems with other groups, from other European countries, such as Poland and other countries previously behind the iron curtain.

we also have problems within the settled peoples of the UK including so called indigenous men.

all with regard to rape and domestic violence

The issue goes beyond rape and sexual violence, we have women walking the streets covered from head to toe, we have arranged or forced marriage, we have as i have seen for myself repeated generational cousin marriage that causes terrible disabilities, of which the women bear the burden of the consequences of this.

And yet we have women on here who look away, scream racism, because the issue is to difficult to contend with.

i get that.

It takes someone to be extreme to call this extremism out.

because the more liberal of us fear to do so.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:59

Magnetasky · Today 00:41

Yes but you don't get to smear entire groups off the back of that. Its blood guilt.

The guilt is all yours, and you have blood on your hands for trying so hard to shut people up for telling the truth.
Why? for the sake of 'community adhesion', just like the government what's, let the guilty go free so you can have a quiet life.
What fucking race, you know which one your referring to, you just can't bring yourself to say it.

Tears0fTheMushroom · Today 01:00

TooBigForMyBoots · Today 00:19

I said nothing about death camps.🤯 Why have you brought them up?

Advocating for deportation of UK citizens because of their religion or colour is mental and borders on Hate Speech.

No it doesn't. Your hyperbole is showing.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 01:05

Hedgehogforshort · Today 00:59

I think that we do have extremist attitudes to women within our country, that can be attributed to some incoming communities. Primarily they are variations of Islamic faith be they from African countries, and India/pakistan.

Equally we have problems with other groups, from other European countries, such as Poland and other countries previously behind the iron curtain.

we also have problems within the settled peoples of the UK including so called indigenous men.

all with regard to rape and domestic violence

The issue goes beyond rape and sexual violence, we have women walking the streets covered from head to toe, we have arranged or forced marriage, we have as i have seen for myself repeated generational cousin marriage that causes terrible disabilities, of which the women bear the burden of the consequences of this.

And yet we have women on here who look away, scream racism, because the issue is to difficult to contend with.

i get that.

It takes someone to be extreme to call this extremism out.

because the more liberal of us fear to do so.

Agreed.

"Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." George Orwell.

In this case the violence isn't literal, just metaphorical, but the sentiments are the same.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"

TooBigForMyBoots · Today 01:24

Tears0fTheMushroom · Today 01:00

No it doesn't. Your hyperbole is showing.

OK. You don't think advocating for the removal of UK citizens from their home because of their religion or colour is Hate speech.

What group(s) of British people do you think should suffer this sort of removal? From their homes, communities, jobs, lives and country? Muslims? Hindus? Sikh? Jews? People of SE Asian descent? ME descent? African descent? Afro Caribbean descent? Catholics? Atheists? Refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong?

TooBigForMyBoots · Today 01:31

Tears0fTheMushroom · Today 01:00

No it doesn't. Your hyperbole is showing.

I didn't bring up death camps. That was a different poster doing hyperbole.

LeftieRightsHoarder · Today 01:35

BorgQueen · Yesterday 18:11

The first school my DD taught in was one of the targets of the Stoke grooming/drugs network - in 2013 there was an onsite police officer and the Teachers would go and stand outside at home-time to ‘dissuade’ the Pakistani ‘boyfriends’ who turned up in flash cars to pick up white ( and only white) Girls of 12-16. They would probably be arrested now, the Teachers I mean.
DD taught some of the younger brothers of the Men and they ALL had the same ‘white Girls are slags’ attitude.

If you aren’t angry, like KJK is, like I am, then What the hell is wrong with you?

Well said. I agree.

Magnetasky · Today 01:37

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Today 00:54

This is your concrete evidence, someone reading out the real words of a real young girl who was used and abused, who was silence by people using the same tactic's your trying to use on KJK, by claiming speaking out will cause racial tensions. This is what you're calling it weaponising. I call it highlighting a massive wrong that was done to many young girls, and I call anyone who tries to silence anyone who brings the truth to the masses as an apologists and a collaborator with child abuse on a massive scale.

I ask again which race, if you're going to call someone a racist you should be able to identify the race they're being racist about.

That you can't see that she's weaponising this tragic story to frame Muslims in general as a danger to society is wilfully ignorant not mention disgracefully exploitative.

What's particularly dangerous about this type of exploitation is the minimising of the culpability of authorities by doing so. In other words, criminals left to their own devices are going to be criminal. Not only was there a failure in the immigration policies that allow such criminally inclined individuals to enter the country unvetted but those of law enforcement & protective services to do their jobs. Its effectively making women more unsafe to ignore all the contributing factors of this case as a means to promote ethnic & religious hatred.

People like KJK don't really care about women's rights other than to exploit their political saliency given she has gone as far as to attack contraception. Any one 'snuggling up' to the far & mirroring their talking points right cannot be taken seriously to defend women's autonomy.

I ask again which race, if you're going to call someone a racist you should be able to identify the race they're being racist about.

Racism includes ethnicity & religious belief:

Racism

Not to be confused with Discrimination based on nationality.
Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race or ethnicity over another.[1][2][3] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different ethnic background.[2] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[2][3] There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, such as scientific racism, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded. In terms of political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.
While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g., shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, there is no distinction between the discrimination resulting from either basis of race or ethnicity, but that the terms do have different meanings that may not always coincide. It further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, and dangerous. The convention also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[4]

Nativism (politics) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)