I have to admit however that my faith in #LawFare is wavering. I thought that public bodies would be very keen to avoid the financial and reputational harm of court action. I thought Forstater and Miller would send a clear message. It seems I was wrong.
So what did I fail to properly consider? The sheer entrenched belief by proponents of gender identity ideology that they are on the ‘right side of history’. I did not remind myself of that strange propensity humans have to deny facts they don’t like.
I thought money and the fear of losing it would be enough to make public bodies at least wake up to the consequences of their continued unlawful discrimination. I can see I was naive. It isn’t after all, the individual’s money.
But what else can we do? Public demonstrations of course have an impact. But if those who hate women are allowed to act as if they are above the law, this will have long term and terrible consequences over every domain.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Please write to @EHRC about @MyNottingham. It is ridiculous that yet again a private citizen has to take on the expense and stress of #LawFare. Given the flagrant nature of this breach, the @EHRC should take direct action.
"I am very concerned about the decision made by Nottingham City Council to ban Julie Bindel from speaking at an event at the Aspley Library on 25th June 2022. This decision appears to be direct discrimination against Ms Bindel -
@EHRC@MyNottingham " - for her protected belief, as well as breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. I note Ms Bindel is taking her own legal action, but it simply cannot be right that private citizens have to take on the burden of court action to re-affirm their fundamental human rights."
A Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit for parents and carers of disabled children. Let’s look at its focus. contact.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
Section 1 - who are the seldom heard and under represented groups? LGBTQIA+ people get 4 of the 14 pages. One thing you will need to do is ‘learn to apologise’.
Race gets 1 page. Deaf children 2 pages. Blind children 1 page. Clearly space to consider the needs of actual disabled children had to be sacrificed for gems like this.
Not only did @MyNottingham unlawfully ban Julie Bindel from its library, even when she tried to meet outside with those who wanted to hear her speak, attempts were made to drown out her voice with music.
This is a common tactic, as I experienced directly on Sunday 19 in Bristol
I will be attending this meeting. I appreciate that we are no where near living in a fascist regimen - the fact that I am alive and tweeting is proof of that. But I make no apology whatsoever for raising serious concerns about where we are now.
But in case I am wrong and being unfair - always possible - I will engage with this question. It is not inherently unlawful to use people’s names or laugh at them. You may in certain circumstances find you are in breach of data protection or harassment law, so do exercise care.
But if you are studying with the aim to be a barrister in five years <cough unlikely cough> you will need to develop critical thinking skills which go beyond ‘laughing at people is unlawful’. You will need to balance all the requirements of Article 10.
Crikey. Never underestimate the lengths some will go to scaffold their delusions. The anticipated pain of the truth is so frightening they will do and say anything to avoid it. But the truth is coming, all you can do is delay it. Always much less painful to embrace it.
But I don’t understand. He retweets this. So we hired the 15 year old so we could attack him/her/xie ? Or we just hired the blokes in ski masks to defend the 15 year old we were attacking?
"Indeed, it is notable that when responding to the Claimant’s Subject Access Request, Stonewall redacted the threatening passages ... it is difficult to escape the inference that they appreciated the implications of those passages and sought to withhold them for that reason."
"Stonewall is a campaigning/lobbying organisation and
the whole purpose of the [Diversity Champion's] scheme is to increase its influence so as to further its campaigning/lobbying objectives: otherwise there would be no point to the scheme."
"Through this policy guidance, Stonewall thus clearly and expressly seeks to induce Diversity Champion members to adopt policies which would, contrary to the correct legal position, effectively prohibit the expression of gender critical views ..."