Again i havenât seen it. Buuut, if the material was held privately and not spread online then nobody would make the complaint and @BhomasTrady wouldnt be investigated and have his phone searched i presume? It certainly wouldnât stand up in court if he didnât actually spread it. Iâd imagineâŚ
Iâm not sure why there should be. There has been a law against incitement to hatred since 1989. This new law updates it to take account of things like Twitter and to make it more specific in relation to matters gender related (previously it went only as far as sexual orientation). Under the old law a court could issue a search warrant and the guards can then search your house for offending material. Now if they have a search warrant they can also search your phone and computer. That seems like a reasonable extension given how things have evolved in the last 35 years. If they have a search warrant you have to give them your password so they can examine the phone or the computer. That also seems like a reasonable extension on the basis that there is no point allowing them to search they phone if they donât have the password.
The last point also seems reasonable - if you put something up on twitter itâs presumed you intended it to be for public consumption unless you can prove otherwise (you thought it was a private group). The old law was that you couldnât go shooting you mouth off in public or on Telly or the radio. Now you canât do it on twitter. Iâm not sure what the issue is with that.
5 Likes
Thomas Brady tweets that biological males shouldnât be allowed in female changing rooms. Thomas is charged for inciting hatred towards trans genders and his phone is searched and materials that argues biological males can never be women are found.
5 years in jail for Thomas.
Weâve never even had political debates on the gender / trans issue but now youâll be charged for speaking out against this lunacy.
Itâs 100% a bill set on attacking free speech and how people should think.
1 Like
Whatâs hate exactly? What are the
Limits/ tolerance levels? Itâs very unclearâŚ
Iâm not calling for the press to tear it apart, it just seems a little odd that thereâs no debate around it at all.
I agree that the laws did need updating but weâve perhaps gone a tad too far the other way. On appearance it looks like it will stifle debate around certain topics.
The limits are the same as they always were. You couldnât go into the George roaring about quares 6 months ago and now you canât do it on Twitter either
7 Likes
Where in the bill does it say any of that?
The George? But no, thatâs being a tad silly.
I think you should be able to debate ideology in a respectful manner but this bill is clearly looking to curtail this.
Where? What part of it? Can you point to any bit of it in particular? Thereâs a link to it in this PR:
You can. You could always debate this things in respectful manner but not in a manner thatâs likely to incite hatred.
1 Like
Hopefully the law will include the hatred prominent free state journalists and politicians ratchet up against northern nationalists.
Northern republicans are now as establishment as FFG with Michelle OâKneel off to curtsey for King Charles.
2 Likes
I hope this to be true but itâs clear the left donât want certain topics debated at all and this looks to be the tool theyâll use to curtail it
How do you define âincite hatredâ. I donât think the Act does either. Saying âkill all X â is one extreme. Telling somebody with a cock and balls not to be in a girls changing room is now conceivably a criminal offence.
I think itâs an important symbolic action for MON to take.
Sad that weâve never had a free state establishment politician up in Ballymurphy paying respects but they are happy to lay wreaths at victims of IRA atrocities in the north.
Iâd imagine that wouldnt happen, as long as Tom was respectful enough or at least non incendiary in his initial tweet. Having a position that has been advocated by many sporting bodies is surely not hate speech. Seems like you might be imagining some thingsâŚ
Itâs a huge worry and anyone who cares for democracy and free speech should be gravely concerned.
1 Like
Only if you say it in a way that will incite hatred.
You should be as concerned as you were about free speech six months ago.
1 Like
Youâre very naive god bless you. Itâs why i like you really.
Not using a personâs preferred pronoun is now potentially a criminal offence. Everybody laughed when it was suggested that would happen.
Itâs happened in the UK.
Christian evangelist Dave McConnell regularly preaches in the streets of Leeds. He likes to engage the audience by inviting questions from them. In June 2021, a transgender woman (i.e., a biological man dressed as a woman and identifying as a woman) asked a question about whether God accepts the LGBT community.
McConnell responded to the question referring to the questioner by saying: âSo, this gentleman asked a question âŚ.â
Members of the crowd screamed at him: âSheâs a woman!â
McConnell replied: âNo, this is a man.â At which a woman in the crown shouted: âSheâs just as much a woman as me!â
Interactions continued, with McConnell calmly preaching about Biblical sexual morality and continuing to refer to âthis gentlemanâ and sometimes referring to him as a âman in womenâs clothes.â
So far so boring. A robust exchange of views was had. No crime was committed. Nothing to see here.
Until . . . the police turn up. At this point the growing crowd started chanting: âHate speech, hate speechâ, and members of the crowd complained to the police that McConnell had offended them.
But really, so what? There is no offence of offending someone. Nothing to see here. The police could just explain this, but their presence stoked the crowd further.
Members of the crowd started shouting abusive things at McConnell. For example: âTurn that cross upside down and shove it up your f***ing arse.â
Others shouted at police âYouâve got a baton, slap him around the f***ing arse and take him.â
Members of the crowd, whose words actually were threatening, were left alone
This is abusive and threatening language. Police paid no attention to it. Fair enough. Probably no crime has been committed, but that kind of incitement to violence is much closer to a criminal offence than anything McConnell said.
Instead, the police now started to engage McConnell in conversation. An officer accused him of âHomophobic hate crime.â But what crime exactly? Is it a crime to state Biblical sexual morality that sexual expression belongs in a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman?
In the conversation with the officer, McConnell said: âI know I have not violated any lawâ, adding âthe person who came up was a man in womenâs clothes.â
At this the officer aggressively stepped towards McConnell and said: âListen mate, Iâm not having that, because sheâs told you sheâs a woman.â
What exactly was the officer ânot havingâ? The officer spoke and acted as if âmisgenderingâ is a crime. Shortly afterwards, when McConnell was trying to explain himself, saying, âShe asked me, he asked me what do I think âŚâ the officer cut him off and arrested him.
The crowd cheered and jeered as McConnell was led away to a police van. He was held in custody for 14 hours before being charged with a breach of the Public Order Act.
Astonishingly, at the Magistrates Court in August 2022, McConnell was convicted and sentenced to a 12-month community order and fined ÂŁ620. But all McConnell really did was refuse to refer to someone by their chosen gender.
Commenting on the case, Elizabeth Wright from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: âPeople have the right to hold opinions and express their views. But when words cross the line between a legitimate expression of religious views, and become distressing and threatening, the CPS will prosecute offenders if our legal test is met.â
So, the CPS believes that McConnellâs words âcrossed a lineâ, to âbecome distressing and threateningâ. But there was no threat at all in McConnellâs words. McConnellâs calm words stand in sharp contrast to the incitement to violence expressed by members of the crowd. Yet McConnell, was arrested, charged and convicted, while members of the crowd, whose words actually were threatening, were left alone.
A preacher was convicted for refusing to use a personâs preferred pronouns
McConnell was also reported to counter terrorism for âpersistently and illegally espousing an extreme point of view.â So, what exactly is the âextreme point of viewâ that McConnell was espousing? Is it the view that people cannot change their biological sex? If so, this view was ruled in court as âworthy of respect in a democratic societyâ. This belief is actually a protected belief under both the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. The CPS is point blank wrong to say that disbelief in transgenderism is an âextreme point of viewâ as far as the law goes. Do they think that belief in marriage being between a man and a woman is an âextreme point of viewâ? Surely not? This was, after all, the position of the law until as recently as 20 years ago.
That a preacher can be arrested, charged and convicted for refusing to use a personâs preferred pronouns is extremely disturbing. Requiring someone to affirm that a biological male is a woman is akin to requiring them to affirm that 2+2=5. It is requiring people to lie. It is forcing people, on pain of criminal sanction, to contradict science and go against their conscience. If the view that people cannot change sex is deemed by the state to be an âextreme point of viewâ then we are living in a full-on dystopian, Orwellian, totalitarian state which will stop at nothing to enforce agreement with state doctrine.
McConnell is appealing his conviction in court this week. The court will hear expert evidence from Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union. Toby is absolutely right to see the implications of this case for free speech. Maya Forstater, from Sex Matters, who won the judgement that gender critical beliefs are âworthy of respect in a democratic societyâ, will also give expert evidence to the case. I hope very much he wins. A lot is at stake. If you can be convicted for âmisgenderingâ then we are living in a land where compelled speech is enforced by law.
2 Likes