Gender again. Sorry!

[theclaud]

Nobody is demanding that you respect anyone's opinion, only that you respect that they have a right to say it if it's within the law. And that they should be free to say it without intimidation or violence.

You don't respect that right. In fact, you try to suggest it doesn't exist. All to avoid having people hear ideas and opinions that you disagree with rather than allowing analysis and open debate.

This you?

It might seem harsh when you look at what people get for violence, but I'd say those are clearly deterrent sentences. One of the protestors explicitly said he would do it again if he wasn't jailed. What would have been a better course? A fine or community service? They would still be out and able to do the same thing again.

 

[monkers]

Nobody is demanding that you respect anyone's opinion, only that you respect that they have a right to say it if it's within the law. And that they should be free to say it without intimidation or violence.

You don't respect that right. In fact, you try to suggest it doesn't exist. All to avoid having people hear ideas and opinions that you disagree with rather than allowing analysis and open debate.

Nonsense. Freedom of speech does exist in the UK. If you took the trouble to read instead of concoct a load of bollocks in your head, you'll see that I've plainly said so. Freedom of speech is cemented in UK law from a number of places, just not through old British texts as some like to pretend, but through 20th international agreements starting with the United Nations.

The problem for many British people is that it is not the absolute right that they think it is; it is a qualified right that parliament have a right to qualify under sovereign law. The purpose of freedom of speech is to be able to share ideas in a civilised way without assaulting the dignity of others, but also, and I'd say more importantly, to have the right to speak truth to power, hence the clause 'without frontiers'.

My problem with all this is that we have people such as you redefining what freedom of expression is intended to do, and what you'd like to use it for. This is a recruitment from the ultra right and you've suckered into it. We now have an abusive government who are redefining freedom of speech in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their fascism, and enabling it by setting groups against each other. They are propagating a culture war, and saying people should vote for them to end it.

I'm not against freedom of speech, I'm against our loss of it, which is why I oppose such as you who place it in such jeopardy.

Once it is understood that this abusive government wish to remove our rights to free speech we should be frightened. If you doubt me read Conservative manifestos since about 2010 where you can read it in their ambitions.

Then I see you and other women celebrating Glinner for telling the United Nations Women's groups to 'go fark themselves' when they try to warn you of the consequences.

You even pretend that the UK is not bound by UN conventions, but it is since the UK has signed the pledge to accept the findings of the ICJ as the court of final relief. This is not the pathway for individuals to take complaints, but for all member states.

When it comes to the individual, we rely on the texts of the European Convention on Human Rights and its subsets. The government's attitude to human rights is the manner in which they treat asylum seekers and refugee people - with such disdain that the Home Secretary admits on the Bill that she prepared that it may be unlawful in international law. And if it is found unlawful, then they say they will withdraw the UK from the European Court of Human Rights, which for UK citizens is the last resort for seeking effective remedy against an abusive government.

Let's be clear, a government that wishes to withdraw from this can only have intent to have sole control of human rights in the UK. The stated aim of the Conservatives has been to leave the 'evil EU', and the related European Court of Justice, leave the European Court of Human Rights, abolish the UK Human Rights Act, abolish the Commission which they have effectively seized control of, remove the separation of the legislature and the judiciary, and to prepare instead their own Bill of Rights which they are unprepared to publish ahead of any election.

You should be afraid, very afraid of these 1930s Germany tactics to seize absolute governmental control over citizens' rights, but you and others have been duped by the ultra-right mantra.

It's plain from what you write Aurora, you've been recruited. You spend your life campaigning for a culture war designed to end in the loss of human rights in the UK. This is not conspiracy theory, it is written in manifestos, and leaves the mouths of the likes of Raab, Braverman, Badenoch, and now Sunak every day.

I just hope we don't see the day that they succeed. But if or when it does, remember that you were part of the apparatus of this.

 

[monkers]

Since 2016, I've been sharing this. At one time it was a valuable warning, and now it exposes the Tory script.

This film shows exactly the state of play. It has humorous presentation, but the warning is stark. If you haven't seen it, it's a must view.


View: https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA

 

[AuroraSaab]

This you?

What's your point?

Were those protestors acting within the law? If so, there is no problem, they shouldn't have been charged. Presumably they weren't so they were charged. You seem to be saying it's fine to break the law if the cause is just - and to some, women simply meeting to discuss certain issues is sufficient justification for assault and intimidation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You should be afraid, very afraid of these 1930s Germany tactics to seize absolute governmental control over citizens' rights, but you and others have been duped by the ultra-right mantra.

It's plain from what you write Aurora, you've been recruited. You spend your life campaigning for a culture war designed to end in the loss of human rights in the UK.

I just hope we don't see the day that they succeed. But if or when it does, remember that you were part of the apparatus of this.

Hyperbolic whataboutery that appropriates the suffering of Nazi oppression to justify stopping women discussing their rights.

 

[monkers]

Hyperbolic whataboutery that appropriates the suffering of Nazi oppression to justify stopping women discussing their rights.

You are either an ultra-right stooge masquerading as a feminist while campaigning against human rights, or a recruited fool.

I'm going out now, I maybe some time.

 

[icowden]

Nonsense. Freedom of speech does exist in the UK. If you took the trouble to read instead of concoct a load of bollocks in your head, you'll see that I've plainly said so.

Except when you say that the best word for people who menstruate is "woman". Then you get your books burned, interviews cancelled and people try to ghost you from your own intellectual property. And god forbid you try to stand up for women's rights.

Some women feel strongly, even teenaged women:-

View: https://twitter.com/brandubh4/status/1647583221188550656?s=20


Some feel that opportunities for women are being taken by transwomen who don't merit those opportunities.

View: https://twitter.com/ArchRose90/status/1645800520903442432?s=20


But talking about it publicly is taboo. Biological women should be quiet and just accept it.

 

[theclaud]

What's your point?

Were those protestors acting within the law? If so, there is no problem, they shouldn't have been charged. Presumably they weren't so they were charged. You seem to be saying it's fine to break the law if the cause is just - and to some women simply meeting to discuss certain issues is sufficient justification for assault and intimidation.

My point is that you're a bit selective about whose freedom of speech you want to uphold. It's fine with me, yes, and I guess in this context it's kinda fine with the 120-odd lawyers who signed a declaration last month that they wouldn't prosecute peaceful climate protestors. Legal fundamentalists of whatever stripe can argue amongst themselves. At the risk of stating the obvious, legality/illegality is a product of laws, not a property of actions. I guess you either haven't noticed the tendency of authoritarian governments to introduce ever more draconian laws criminalising protest, industrial action and migration, and to dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse in educational settings, or you simply don't care because the likes of Gove and Badenoch and Jenrick will be shoring up your patch of the culture war territory with their largely manufactured free speech crisis.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You are either an ultra-right stooge masquerading as a feminist while campaigning against human rights, or a recruited fool.

Thinking that women deserves their own spaces, prisons, and sports, isn't ultra right. Campaigning to maintain these hard won rights isn't foolish. These slurs are all you have left because the more people who hear about this stuff the more batsh*t everybody realises it all is. It's The King's New Clothes and you can't bear the thought that people are actually starting to notice.

 

[icowden]

I guess in this context it's kinda fine with the 120-odd lawyers who signed a declaration last month that they wouldn't prosecute peaceful climate protestors.

That one's a bit odd to be honest and really endangers the legal profession as it gives weight to the lie that a Barrister must support or believe in the cause of their client, when in actuality a Barrister's job is not to take sides with the client but to represent their legal position. It doesn't matter if your Barrister believes you are guilty or innocent.

I guess you either haven't noticed the tendency of authoritarian governments to introduce ever more draconian laws criminalising protest, industrial action and migration, and to dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse in educational settings,

I have noticed this and it is absolutely odious.

because the likes of Gove and Badenoch and Jenrick will be shoring up your patch of the culture war territory with their largely manufactured free speech crisis.

I'm not sure that supporting the rights of women to speak freely without being attacked is in the same category. I'm also pretty sure that @AuroraSaab takes a similar view to mine. I have no problem with LGBTQIA++QUERTY whatever doing whatever they want to do or saying whatever they have to say. I do however have a problem with them or their supporters shutting down discourse and threatening to kill or rape women.

I have no problem with a 42 year old man deciding that they are a woman and taking up ballet. Where I take issue is if that transwoman is granted a place in a prestigious dance school that teenaged girls have sweated blood to get into, working hard every day to hone their skills, often developing eating disorders or being rejected for being too fat, too tall or too short whilst demonstrating that they are not at the same level of skill. That to me says that dance skill is not why this transwoman was accepted and they have taken a place which someone far more skilled would benefit from.

 

[theclaud]

That one's a bit odd to be honest and really endangers the legal profession

It endangers the legal profession to use the law the way the government is doing against its citizens. They are just refusing to be tools of a politicised attack on civil liberties.

 

[AuroraSaab]

My point is that you're a bit selective about whose freedom of speech you want to uphold.

I think everybody has a right to meet together to do whatever they like within the law. I don't think people should use violence or intimidation to stop them doing so.

Were those climate protestors acting within the law? If so, crack on. In a democracy where there are legitimate ways to change laws, what you can't have is the law being unfairly applied because you agree with the cause. Under that system paint bombing an abortion clinic becomes acceptable too because everyone thinks their cause is more just than the other person's.

I guess you either haven't noticed the tendency of authoritarian governments to introduce ever more draconian laws criminalising protest, industrial action and migration, and to dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse in educational settings, or you simply don't care because the likes of Gove and Badenoch and Jenrick will be shoring up your patch of the culture war territory with their largely manufactured free speech crisis.

I'm able to think about two things at once so I don't struggle with thinking about both the failures of a Tory government and also thinking about women's rights. Women shouldn't have to abandon campaigning on issues that matter to them simply because party x,y, or z, are making political capital from the same issues.

Once again that's just asking women to defer to others and put themselves second. It's never quite the right time, it's never quite our turn. Just hang on ladies, we'll get to you eventually...

 

[theclaud]

I have no problem with a 42 year old man deciding that they are a woman and taking up ballet. Where I take issue is if that transwoman is granted a place in a prestigious dance school that teenaged girls have sweated blood to get into, working hard every day to hone their skills, often developing eating disorders or being rejected for being too fat, too tall or too short whilst demonstrating that they are not at the same level of skill. That to me says that dance skill is not why this transwoman was accepted and they have taken a place which someone far more skilled would benefit from.

As time goes on your post become less and less distinguishable from Aurora's - why are you bombarding me with straw men? If you are, for some reason, wanting to bring up with me the media story about the person known as Sophie Rebecca... Pigeonholing for a moment the fact that I find even good classical ballet ridiculous, I quite agree that it would be unjust if she were to gain a place at a prestigious ballet school for talented youngsters. That isn't actually what happened, though, is it? It's good for everyone if we all just pause before hitting the outrage retweet button.

 

[theclaud]

I'm able to think about two things at once so I don't struggle with thinking about both the failures of a Tory government and also thinking about women's rights.

I think you do, actually.

 

[monkers]

Thinking that women deserves their own spaces, prisons, and sports, isn't ultra right. Campaigning to maintain these hard won rights isn't foolish. These slurs are all you have left because the more people who hear about this stuff the more batsh*t everybody realises it all is. It's The King's New Clothes and you can't bear the thought that people are actually starting to notice.

Feeling that you deserve something is not the same a it being 'deserved', or making it so in law, or being right. I haven't argued that men should be in the female prison estate as you will continue to say. I have said very little about sport, save for one opinion that you didn't disagree with. But I challenge the lies, because that is not a pathway to anything useful, or a correct outcome.

So far you've managed to argue that the EqA protects women's hard won rights, but after being challenged couldn't define those rights or where they exist in the EqA 2010.

You've argued that spaces are already segregated by biological sex. Whereas they are not, but they are the change being sought.

You've argued that women should be able to challenge people who look dodgy entering the women's loo, but not by their appearance.

You've argued that human rights are not cemented in international human rights law, but that they are in UK law even though we have a government with a manifesto pledge to abolish the UK Human Rights Act.

You've argued that women's rights are cemented in 'social mores' but that gender is nothing more than a social construct.

Here is a picture of the pie of protected characteristics after you've taken your share using 'social mores' to ensure that you've got the piece that you 'deserve'.