Now talking is @MForstater - I have a precedent using my name - audience cheers and claps.
‘My case was about the completely ordinary belief that there are men and women… we can’t stop perceiving this. Now I am a single issue campaigner with @SexMattersOrg
We are not a litigating campaign …. It’s expensive and painful. Want to unpack #Lawfare - like cake. Top layer, judges decisions. Then legislation and below that human rights. The plate the cake rests on.
So what layer do we use #LawFare on? Whatever the law says, material works will continue to exist.
The icing is regulation and guidance. How do people understand the law? Where in the cake is the problem? The Equal Treatment Bench Book is like a fish stuck in the cake - audience laugh.
Who ever wrote this is unaccountable - trying to write things into law. Just stuck a fish in it!
We need to defend reality and the words we use. Trans rights are human rights - the same rights as everyone else. No one has a right to change sex as it is impossible.
Important distinction - individuals fighting for their rights and people using law to create a ‘better society’. Should not rely on judges to make these decisions. We need culture of discussion, disagreement and debate.
Rousing contribution from @ShahrarAli - we have to fight for our rights, not settle scores. It’s imperative we do this.
Now Kate Harris @ALLIANCELGB - audience claps and cheers - I despair when I hear about ‘winning hearts and minds’. Had no idea what we were facing. We feel the law is our last resort as we live through a period of insanity.
We are not allowed in the public space to discuss what the law should be. We have no choice but to go to the law.
To sum up - a difference between individuals fighting to protect their individual rights and attempting to use the law to force social change.
Motto of this event is ‘free speech allowed’ - which of course is a Far Right dog whistle! Free speech should not be a partisan issue.
Audience - Graham Norton said it’s not cancel culture it’s accountability. Panel - pathetic. He was asked specific question about JKR. <audience clap>
Really upsetting to watch as this was his chance not to be a coward. He has never been cancelled as he doesn’t say anything to get him cancelled. Said it doesn’t exist because it didn’t happen to him.
GN suggested that JKR didn’t have a right to an opinion on this. But surely women have a right to be interested?
Asks question - does anyone think comedians should not have a right to offend? Would anyone like to make the case. No response!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The creation of bogus data, generated by the malicious or the hysterical, is not a ‘win’ for anyone. It seems clear that ‘communities’ which rely on this are generating greater ill feeling from other sections of the population.
The great lie that perception based reporting of 'crime' will prevent the 'crime' from happening. Let's not forget the 12 pages of my 'crimes' that were reported to and recorded by Wiltshire police - who a year and £12k in costs later, conceded they had acted unlawfully.
reported under the category of 'hatred towards transgender individuals' was a picture of my dog looking sad. I had written 'my dog would call me a Nazi for cheese'. 12 pages of this. No conceivable crime at all. Yet I was recorded as 'a barrister posting hate'.
This was used to bolster complaints to my regulator, as if I had already been tried and convicted. It was nothing but a gift to the malicious and the trouble maker. The College of Policing further conceded before the Court of Appeal -
FWIW nobody believes anyone can change sex. What we do need however is to find a way to accommodate those who want to be seen as the opposite sex and those who resist any such recognition. As ever, I think both groups often go too far in insisting on 'their way or the highway'.
It's difficult because harassment is very fact and context specific. The EAT suggested that 'gratuitous and indiscriminate' misgendering would likely be harassment regardless of the protected belief of the person doing it. I think that's a sensible starting point.
If I were sexually assaulted and giving evidence in a criminal court about my attacker, I would use whatever pronouns I thought were appropriate. If the person was male, I would refer to them as 'he'. Their 'self identification' in those circumstances would be of no importance.
Using a binder to compress the chest is a medical issue as it is likely to cause injury including damage to lungs and ribs. Mermaids told a Tribunal they did not give medical advice, had not read or only skimmed the Cass Review.
To send a binder to a 13 year old who had explicitly said their parents would not give consent is an unlawful erosion of the parents parental responsibility. I would be interested to see Mermaids risk and capacity assessments for these children. I suspect there are none.
Because this is the organisation remember which sees no distinction between a 3 year old or a 17 year old - if a child says they are trans, they are trans. If they want cross sex hormones, then refer them to Gender GP.
Confusion around the extent and limitations of parental responsibility seems widespread. Gillick not confined to contraception- endorsed more general point