1/ In a criminal trial a jury can ask questions by sending notes to the Judge. Here are 10 jury notes that would derail a Conversion Practices trial:
"I am gender critical and do not believe in transgender identity which is just really gender identity, can I sit on this case?"
2/
"The Prosecution say the Defendant mother caused her daughter serious distress by not sending her to gender GP and this was controlling and economic pressure. I think she was just a good mum doing her best, can I acquit on that basis?"
3/
"How do the Prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt the daughter in this case had a gender identity, can they call evidence and can we hear from someone like Helen Joyce?"
4/
"The Prosecution say the child in this case "identified as neither male or female". I do not believe in this sex category and it does not exist in law. Can I disregard the prosecution "evidence" as frivolous nonsense?"
5/
"The Prosecution say the Defendant was controlling by refusing to purchase cross sex hormones, but I think responsible parents do have to take control of important things like a child taking irreversible medicines. Can I take that into account as evidence?
6/
"Can I take into account that gender critical speech is legally protected under the Equality Act or can a belief simultaneously be a protected characteristic and a crime?"
7/
"Do the prosecution have to prove as a matter of objective fact that the daughter had a gender identity or is enough they prove the defendant thought they did and intended for them not to have it?"
8/
"We have been told that having a transgender identity is "not limited to" the protected characteristic. What is the limit and where do we draw the line? Is the Complainant saying they had one enough?"
9/
"Serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities is not unusual when a teenager is told "no". Can we take that into account as a normal part of family life?
10/
"We have been told a conversion practice can be "any conduct", is there a lower limit on this or can it be literally anything, even a normal conversation?"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ It's extremely good news and a hopeful sign that Stonewall captured gender loon Olivia Bailey MP is leaving Government. She boast here of her pride in introduced a "trans inclusive conversion ban". What she means is she wants parents arrested for not using new pronouns.
2/ We know this is true because Bailey explicitly said that parents should have no carve out from her dreadful draconian bill, this puts criminal law into absurdity because doctors have such a carve out. They can say what they like, parents get prosecuted.
3/ Worse still, Bailey cited a Gallop nonsense study of "conversion practices" as proof of such. Bailey thinks parents who don't call teenagers they/them or use new names or pay for puberty blockers are guilty of abusive conversion practices and should be jailed.
1/ The Crown outlined today the details of how they allege Ann Widdicombe was murdered to Westminster Magistrates Court. People are understandably furious and they want justice, but justice is best achieved with a cool head and remembering Contempt is now an active consideration.
2/ The Contempt of Court Act 1981 exists to preserve the presumption of innocence and to avoid a jury being so prejudiced against a Defendant that a fair trial is impeded. This matters. It means everyone should decline from opining as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
3/ Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 a "publication" (which can be a social media post) is a contempt if it creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in these specific proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. No intention is required. This is strict.
1/ Patriarchy is not oppressive presence in debates, it is the luxury to be absent from debates.
Checking out while feminists, women, lesbians and gay men say "chemically castrating children is wrong". That's real power and that's what people always get wrong on this.
2/ The blue haired downloadable personality morons mouth breathing "heteronormative patriarchy" have never once met a man who disagreed with them. Wisely, no grown man dared risk the boredom of the pronoun ritual or litany of petty grievances that now pass for "left wing".
3/ It seems to me if one is to locate moral fault in male power structures in the gender wars one should do so principally in their absence more than their presence. All the men who looked on at the cancelled and sacked women and said "she's a terf, it's a woman's thing"
1/ I'm amazed the minister can't see the problem with this. The word "abusive" is not defined in her poorly drafted bill, so her plan to "let the courts decide" means a load of parents face first instance courts with no definition coming to their own conclusions.
2/ This is deeply irresponsible. Parliament makes the law. Not the Courts. And no Crown Court should be judging the finer points of parenting, that is a matter for the Family Courts. Especially do when "any conduct" can trigger this wide and draconian offence.
3/ How can it possibly be right that Doctors have a carve out in clause 1(3) but there is no carve out for a decent parent doing their best in a difficult situation trying to prioritise the welfare of their own child?
1/ As someone who has been in a few murder trials let me just try to explain why the police always ask people not to speculate, (with the caveat that I understand everyone is justifiably angry, saddened and horrified).
Murder investigations and trials are very fragile things.
2/ In a murder trial, every single move the police make is put under a microscope. Days and days can be spent on suggestions they were "playing to the media" or that they improperly provided a running commentary on an investigation for social media consumption. This matters.
3/ In criminal proceedings, evidence can be excluded under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or common law if it's unfair to go before a jury. One way a defence team can make that argument is to argue release of evidence contaminated other evidence or ultimately the jury
1/ Amnesty International produce a silly report in which gender critical organisations are libelled variously as conversion practitioners, "anti-rights" and anti abortion adjacent. This, from a charity who intervened unsuccessfully to supress gay rights in For Women Scotland.
2/ So there's no doubt about that matter, let's consider paragraph 206 of the Judgment. Amnesty were supporting the side that wanted to render gay rights flowing from the same sex orientation characteristic "meaningless", yet they now call others "anti rights"
3/ Amnesty provided written submission the court rejected when it overruled the Scottish Courts. To be clear, Amnesty wanted a position whereby a GRC modified sex in law and the same sex orientation PC thus becomes meaningless because people are not attracted to bits of paper