Extremely worrying:
A Conservative group warns of the United Nations Human Rights Bureau's plan to collect names of organizations or individuals who in any way oppose the LGBT agenda. “Religious narratives” about gender and sexuality also come into focus.
On its website, OHCHR calls for "statements" for the drafting of a report on the subject of "Gender, sexual orientation and gender identity". According to the Christian Post, the editor of the appeal, Victor Madrigal-Borloz -
the "United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" - is looking for information about the actions of individual nation states with regard to questions of sexual orientation and gender identity-
- He also asked for information about groups that oppose the idea that "the meanings associated with gender (and other) differences are socially determined," as the OHCHR puts it.
....It found that Madrigal-Borloz had previously encouraged states to “act decisively” against “church officials and religious groups” who “violate the rights of LGBT people” with “hate speech”....
Which raises all sorts of questions.
Who defines what is 'hate'?
Is it disagreeing with or challenging someone?
If so, how does this violate another's rights?
Which right? The right to be validated?
What is the ultimate punishment for those who want to keep speaking?
Another one for @GaryLineker to ponder while he sifts through the hundreds of replies of those genuinely afraid about where our world is going and the continued erosion of people's rights to speak freely.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2 weeks time, we are at The Court of Appeal challenging the Hate Guidance. Even if you think @HarryTheOwl101 is a nob, please consider throwing something into the pot. We have the opportunity to win this.
We are challenging the practice of police recording names in the absence of a crime, in the absence of hate, in the absence of evidence.
Since October 2020, police must now record children on a Hate Crime database if, for instance, a 15 year old girl objects to a 15 year old penis in the changing rooms.
More coverage of @HarryTheOwl101’s killer point - the police do NOTHING with the ‘hate incident’ info they gather - other than leave it on your police record for onwards disclosure. thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-c…
Let’s just consider ‘escalation’ for a moment. Harry didn’t stop airing his views. He carried on, airing them to all and sundry and is taking the College of Policing to court. On those ‘five steps’ to murder - where do the police think he now is?
Similarly SVP has been reported 3 times to Wiltshire and once to GMP. Pretty clear pattern of escalation there! Is she under surveillance now? If not - why not? What is the point of the police recording that she discussed an article and this upset someone?
Why are malicious people ‘on the edges of rationality’ allowed to make unchallenged and unverified reports about people they don’t like? And why do the police promise them anonymity and a free reign to continue?
They may regret not turning off replies. Interesting ratio for an account with so many followers that claims to be on the right side of history.
We can find only one supportive comment - from someone in the USA who clearly doesn’t understand what’s going on but hopes that ‘terfs’ end up eating their ‘collective asses’. If this is the quality of the opposing argument, Allison Bailey has already won.