My Wedding And Other Secrets
Update 439. Never Knowingly Undersold Special. #BeMorePorcupine
Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.
From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas.'
Thanks to Rex Landy for tonight’s choice in the Heroes season.
A Romeo and Juliet story set in Auckland, New Zealand, Emily Chu (Michelle Ang) is the daughter of traditional Chinese parents, whose only wishes are that she marry a good Chinese boy and become a doctor. But Emily has other ideas, dreaming of becoming a world-famous director and falling in love with a white boy from university, James Harrison (Matt Whelan).
Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Wadhwa’s Resignation
Great analysis of the issues surrounding Rape Crisis Scotland by JL on the Glinner Update.
The Wadha story is not over
Mridul Wadha's reign reveals the ideological rot at Rape Crisis Scotland
Sep 15, 2024
I provide an extract here.
When she was still an MSP, Joan McAlpine contacted Rape Crisis Scotland on behalf of several women who had all suffered male sexual violence and were extremely concerned about accessing genuinely female-only care. She organised a meeting with these women and Sandy Brindley, the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland.
The meeting took place in the ERCC offices. Sandy Brindley and the ERCC representatives gave their full names and job titles. The women used first names only and shared their traumatic stories. One woman introduced herself simply as ‘Sharon’ and it was assumed that she, too, was a survivor of male sexual violence. However, Sharon became extremely vocal, insisting to attendees that it is illegal to stipulate one’s rape counsellor is biologically female. (This is untrue and contradicted by the Equality Act 2010.) It was subsequently revealed that this woman was Sharon Cowan, a professor of Feminist and Queer Legal Studies and a prominent trans activist.
“Bringing a third-party campaigner to a meeting of such vulnerable women without asking their permission, or even offering an introduction, was and remains astounding to me”, writes Joan McAlpine. “It shocked me then as it still does now, that given 100 per cent of rapes in Scotland are committed by men this appeared to not be an issue for the head of Rape Crisis Scotland… Rape Crisis say sex self-ID causes no problems. But what I can’t forget is that I was in the room when its CEO heard those women, saw their distress, and knew they were self-excluding from a service they needed.”
Greta is the mother of a girl who, aged 14, was gang-raped by four men in 2014. She attended the meeting at ERCC organised by Joan McAlpine. In October 2022, Greta and the other women present wrote of their experiences at that meeting in a report for the Scottish parliament.
“When the mother of a daughter gang-raped in 2014, who was also present at the meeting, explained how traumatising it was when her local rape crisis centre refused to guarantee her child a female counsellor, Ms Brindley did not acknowledge that this should never have happened. Our member was in tears at sharing her experience… Ms Burrell [Caroline Burrell, then CEO of ERCC] responded to this by elaborating on the pain suffered by men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment on being rejected by female survivors.
Sandy clarified that any male who claims a trans identity would be treated as a woman by the service, including those who present as male, have made no changes to names or pronouns and who would be unequivocally perceived as men by all. Sandy confirmed for instance that a male-born person could work on their phone counselling line, as long as that person identified as a woman… Sandy told us that if a woman asked for a female counsellor, she could theoretically be assigned to a male-born person identifying as female, and that they would not be told in advance of the status of this person.”
As detailed by Susan Dalgety on social media this week, a survivor of male sexual violence wrote of her experiences in the book, Women Won’t Wheesht. The author describes Sandy Brindley “Muttering under her breath and shaking her head” when the issue of Mridul Wadhwa was raised at a conference on male violence. Brindley insisted (to a survivor of MVAWG) that Wadhwa is a woman.
The full piece is here and I recommend it:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-wadha-story-is-not-over
EDI Jester also deals with this matter:
UK: The National Curriculum Panel
EDI Jester reveals that another member of the panel, Fanmilola Stewart is wedded to Critical Race Theory. So far, that is 5 members of the Panel who are Critical Social Justice ideologues ( see last update for the other 4). What is the betting about the remaining 7?
Free Speech
Baroness Claire Fox will be standing out for free speech in the face of this Labour Government as she makes clear on the Academy of Ideas site.
Inside The Lords: a Labour government revealed
The battle for free speech doesn't go on recess - Claire Fox reports on a short few weeks in parliament.
Sep 15, 2024
Here is an extract dealing with the Freedom of Speech Act:
Meanwhile, the massed ranks of vice chancellors, college heads and research council leaders who sit in the House of Lords, used a debate on university funding to lobby for more money - and were assured by government they would be looked after. I pointed out that this same government and lobbying Lords have effectively blocked an Act of Parliament that was passed last year to protect free speech. What’s the point in defending universities if they sacrifice academic freedom to stay open as businesses?
John Lewis
Yet another great analysis of the capture of John Lewis by JL on the Glinner Update. You will find it here:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-cae
James Esses also reports on this on Matt Goodwin’s susbstack ( behind a paywall):
UK: The Women and Equalities Committee
In the piece mentioned above, JL also reports on Sarah Owen MP being appointed Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Ms Owen is unable to answer the question ‘What is a woman?’, thinks ‘transwomen are women’, ‘transmen are men’ and is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot. Might as well change the name to The Men’s Rights Committee! No doubt this is a vision of what the next five years holds in store for us Terfs in the UK. Buckle up, Terven!
#AdultHumanFemale
#TranswomenAreMen
The Irish Hate Crime Bill
I last reported on this here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-wizard-of-oz-part-2?utm_source=publication-search
Fatima Gunning in Gript News (The Garda stat that shows how ridiculous the government’s hate crime proposal is 11 September) reports:
Over the last year or so we’ve talked a lot about the new ‘hate speech bill’. How it will have a “chilling effect” on free speech and how it could lead people to self-censor in order to avoid being accused of committing ‘hate speech’ has been discussed at length.
That’s all well and good, but I think it’s important to remember just how administratively stupid the thing is.
I’ve just seen what the Minister for Justice sent to TD [ Dusty - member of the Dáil - Teachta Dála] Nolan in answer to a parliamentary question the independent Laois/Offaly representative sent on whether the recording of so-called ‘hate crimes’ and the endlessly ridiculous ‘non-crime hate incidents’ is compatible with relevant data protection laws when entered onto the Garda [ Dusty -Irish Police] PULSE system.
Parts of the answer were a grim reminder of just how monstrously silly this whole thing is.
Despite a large campaign to see the bill scrapped and its general unpopularity, Taoiseach Simon Harris – who was interim Minister for Justice when it was being drawn up – has recently insisted that it will be passed within the term of this government.
It’s hard to know where to begin with this, so perhaps making a list might be useful.
Why are An Garda Síochána to be made responsible for ‘policing’ incidents that are ‘non-criminal’ in nature?
So this one is where the stupid starts for me: Why are our national police force expected to deal with instances where someone – anyone – subjectively feels they have been on the receiving end of a ‘non-crime hate incident’?
The reply of the Minister for Justice says that “An Garda Síochána’s policy document titled ‘Responding to Hate Crimes and Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ states that the perception of the victim or other relevant person is central to determining whether to record an incident as a Hate Crime or a Hate Incident. Hate Incidents (Non-Crime) are by (working) definition not criminal offences and therefore do not result in criminal investigations”.
So someone who simply feels that another person has been rude to them and decides to feel that this rudeness was motivated by a ‘hatred’ for some random characteristic they may or may not possess (it’s based on perception folks) can go to the police and make a complaint that the Gardaí then have to take action on as “the perception of the victim or other relevant person is central to determining” whether one of these ‘offences’ has taken place.
“Incident. Hate Incidents (Non-Crime) are by (working) definition not criminal offences and therefore do not result in criminal investigations”. – If it doesn’t result in a criminal investigation: why bother the Gardaí with it in the first place if it’s not a crime?
This comes at a time when the force is suffering from a recruitment shortage while the population of Ireland explodes. It seems the current occupiers of the Dáil aren’t overly familiar with practicality, if the 336,000 bike shed has taught us anything.
Speaking of practicality, look at what happened in Scotland.
In the first week of Scotland’s similar ‘hate crime’ bill passing, over 7,000 complaints of ‘hate crimes’ and ‘non crime hate incidents’ were made.
That’s an average of 1,000 incidents per day for those of you who didn’t already work that one out.
The BBC reported that, “Police Scotland said the “vast majority” of the reports were anonymous and that no action was taken after they were assessed against the new legislation.”
“A total of 240 hate crimes and 30 non-crime hate incidents were recorded during the seven-day period.”
The population of Scotland as recorded in 2019 was just under 5.5million. This seems like a reasonably comparable sample to what may happen in Ireland if the government has its way with their own bill.
Although the report said that the process of narrowing the over 7,000 reports down to the 240 “hate crimes” and 30 “non-crime hate incidents” had had a “minimal” impact on front line policing, it’s pretty hard to see how following up on the possibly 7,000 reports that didn’t make the cut wasn’t a massive waste of a finite resource like police man hours.
If the total number of reports was over 7,000 and only 270 of these yielded any ‘hate fruit’, it’s entirely possible that the number that didn’t pass the post was a full 7,000.
Does An Garda Síochána really need to be caught up in something like this I wonder?
Although many readers may have reservations about some of the force’s recent activities in relation to pride parades or their response to asylum centre protests, it seems utterly shameful that people who have dedicated their careers to protecting public safety and upholding the rule of law are reduced to responding to allegations that could simply amount to name-calling.
Let’s remember folks, assault, harassment, intimidation and other forms of nastiness are already illegal.
The apparent exception of objectivity when the grounds need only be subjective.
The Minister for Justice said that, “Under the new legislation, it will be an offence to communicate, or to behave in such a way that incites violence or hatred against a person on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation or disability. It will not be an offence to hold an unpopular opinion, or to criticise or insult a person on account of their protected characteristics.”
I’m taking a deep breath for this one: How is it an offence to ‘incite hatred’ towards someone “on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation or disability” but not an offence to “hold an unpopular opinion, or to criticise or insult a person on account of their protected characteristics” in circumstance where the legislation says that the alleged victim’s “perception” “is central to determining” whether to record the incident?
This seems counterintuitive.
If the “central determining” factor in all of this is the complainant’s (let’s not forget here that it can also be “another relevant person”) mere perception of what they say has happened, how can the law guarantee that criticism and insult will not be seen as incidents of ‘hatred’?
It’s important to remember that the word ‘hate’ is not defined in the bill.
The 1989 prohibition on incitement to hatred seems to cover the bases
A quick perusal of the existing 1989 prohibition on indictment to hatred seems to have the bases covered on hate speech and incitement to hatred (as the name suggests).
While I’m no legal expert, the bill contains prohibitions on “actions likely to stir up hatred”, “ preparation and possession of material likely to stir up hatred”, and “broadcasts likely to stir up hatred”. This covers publishing, distributing, the use of words, and behaviours etc likely to stir up hatred against people on account of “race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation”. That seems pretty broad to me.
Don’t take my word for it, have a read of it yourself.
Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989
electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)
However, the Minister for Justice claims that the 1989 act does “not reflect the modern online context,”.
How so? It would seem to me that “spreading hate” online would fall under publication, and if there is a blind spot in the 1989 bill, why can’t it simply be amended? Where is the need to repeal and replace it altogether?
The bill is “not intended to enforce politeness or political correctness”. Really?
The reply of the Minister for Justice also stated that the bill,”is not intended to enforce politeness or political correctness. A person will still be able to, for example, say that they disagree with using a certain pronoun a person uses to identify themselves, and not use that pronoun if they don’t wish to.” it says.
How can it be that the bill is “not intended to enforce politeness or political correctness” when acts that would put a person in actual danger are already illegal in this jurisdiction, as discussed above?
I’m no legal expert here, but it seems like the main objective of this new bill is to make words and opinions which may lead to offence and hurt feelings illegal: but nobody has a right not to hear things they don’t like or find offensive.
The reply also states that, “The Bill provides for an objective demonstration test, similar to that used in neighbouring jurisdictions, which allows for guilt to be established if the perpetrator uses, for example, a racial slur, gesture or other evidence of hatred towards the victim. The demonstration test is not based on the perception of the victim. For a prosecution to succeed, a jury will have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a hate-aggravated offence has been committed.”
Bearing in mind again that assault, harassment, intimidation, threats etc. are ALL already illegal, why do we need this bill?
It’s very difficult to understand the legal necessity of this bill at all if it’s purpose is not to enforce political correctness and to make people afraid to voice opinions that some ‘special characteristic’ may find offensive.
The Woolympics
Women’s Rights Network in their latest Newsletter (14 September) report:
2024 Olympic Shame Revisited
The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has published an advanced report on violence against women and girls in sports – its causes and consequences. We think the report should be required reading for anyone in sport.
We are still reeling from an Olympic Games that sanctioned male violence against women in the boxing ring, and a Paralympic Games in which a middle-aged, fully-intact male who has raced in men’s events was selected to race against young women.
The athletes are taking a well-earned break, Paris is getting back to normal, and the @Olympics and @Paralympics bigwigs are congratulating themselves on delivering two successful Games.
In our latest post, we ask: how are they judging success? By our reckoning, Paris 2024 was, possibly, the most misogynistic Games in modern Olympic history (and it’s a crowded field).
Current sports policies do not uphold the human rights of females to fair and safe sport. We thank @UNSRVAW for shining a light on the misogyny that pervades all sport from grassroots to the Olympics.
This is a summary of issues covered in more detail on the website.
The IOC:
sanctioned male violence against women – in the form of two male boxers in the female category – and dismissed our concerns, with the statement, “they are female in their passports”
selected a 50-something bloke to race against young women because he says he’s a woman
allowed several males to take to the field in women’s football – and other sports because, yes, you’ve guessed, “female in their passport”
allowed a convicted child rapist to take his place on the Dutch team.
We call on the organising committees to root out misogyny that prioritises the inclusion of males in women’s sport over safety and fairness for females.
This is what needs to happen:
ditch the Olympic Framework that states there is “no presumption of advantage” to being male
bring in some actual sports scientists and biologists to advise
write rules that state female sport is for females only. Sports federations cannot be trusted to put female safety and fairness first. This has to come from the top of sport.
bring back sex verification tests and conduct the tests early in an international athlete’s career so they can deal with the consequences of failing a gender test out of the limelight
put safeguarding at the heart of the Games. No sportswoman should fear for her life when stepping onto the field of play. Convicted rapists should not be selected to represent their country.
Italy hosts the Winter Olympics in 2026. Los Angeles is in 2028. The clock is ticking. We hope the IOC is listening. Women all over the world are watching.
New Zealand - Women’s Sport
On her substack, A B’Old Woman, Katrina Biggs deals with a letter to the New Zealand Government:
"They have a point", says NZ's Sports Minister of the 59 former elite and Olympian athletes who signed an open letter to the government.
Sep 14, 2024
It’s getting harder for trans/queer lobby groups, and their dedicated devotees, to get away with spinning the misinformation about sports they’ve been spinning for years. Transactivists have long claimed that men who say they’re women, and reduce their testosterone levels, have no physical advantage over women. This is rubbish, and more and more sportspeople are willing to say so.
Amongst those here in New Zealand are some big-name former elite and Olympian athletes. Recently, 59 of them signed an open letter to the New Zealand government asking them to protect female sports. The letter was organised by Save Women’s Sports Australasia (Australasia = Australia and New Zealand) and delivered to the NZ Sport and Recreation Minister, Chris Bishop on 11th September.
Subsequent reports have cited Mr Bishop as acknowledging that Save Women’s Sports Australasia and the open letter signatories have a point, in that Sports NZ’s current guidelines don’t have anything about fairness in them. The reason for this omission is, of course, due to Sports NZ being lobbied by trans/queer groups and activists, both inside and outside the organisation, to make certain it was. Mr Bishop has said that updating the guidelines to include ‘fairness’ is being considered.
I expect that will go down like a cup of cold sick amongst the transactivists who worked their butts off to ensure nothing stood in the way of men who say they’re women playing women’s sports in NZ. Right now, I anticipate they’ll be having urgent meetings to plan how to kill off that ‘fairness’, before it has a chance of ruining the free-for-all access into female sports which men who say they’re women currently have. In fact, it’s started already with an anonymous editorial in the NZ Herald, which concluded that protecting women’s sports will mean ‘trans’ kids miss out. Save Women’s Sports Australasia responded via a letter to the editor, and posted that response on their Facebook page.
Even though Sports NZ’s guidelines are technically not mandatory, it’s hard for sports clubs to not go along with them, as there are hints of retributive funding cuts from Sports NZ if they don’t. There’s also a callous and concerted effort to minimise the negative impact on women and girls, by pointing out that the guidelines are primarily for community-level sports. Community-level sports are hugely important as the stepping stone to elite-level sports, mental and physical wellbeing, connection with others, development of character, learning how to be involved, and making a commitment and turning up. Brushing off community-level sport as unimportant, purely for the purpose of enabling males who say they’re women or girls to get entry into female sports, is a scurrilous tactic unworthy of Sports NZ, or anyone else who uses it.
All women’s and men’s sports should have a blanket rule of being separated by sex. Having said that, I believe horse-riding is mixed-sex, because, I presume, the horse is doing most of the physical yakka. It’s also true that in addition to single-sex teams and competitors, mixed-sex teams and competitions may be okay in some sports where everyone knows what they’re getting onto, but otherwise -
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo!
There are those who feel there are some sports, like bowls, where it doesn’t matter if the games are mixed-sex. As soon as we say that some sports are okay to be mixed-sex because the disadvantage to women doesn’t seem to be apparent, we are condemning women to having to prove their disadvantage in all sports. It will never be a one-off requirement, either. Transactivists will constantly try and produce new evidence to prove that the prior proof women gave has become obsolete, and women will have to prove the disadvantage over and over again. Instead of being allowed to glory in their own prowess, women will be in the soul-destroying position of having to say time and time again that, comparably speaking, they’re not as good as men.
SO, JUST NO, AND FOREVER SO!
In addition to the open letter with 59 high profile signatories on it, Save Women’s Sports Australasia was also able to supply Sports Minister Chris Bishop with stories from everyday Kiwi women who’d had negative sports experiences with men who say they’re women. If you’re either a Kiwi or an Aussie woman with a similar untold story, contact details for both countries are at the bottom of the Save Women’s Sports Australasia web page.
Save Women’s Sports Australasia also met with Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, as above. Mr Peters is the leader of one of the government’s three coalition parties, NZ First. NZ First are the only political party represented in Parliament who campaigned on protecting women’s sports.
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/they-have-a-point-says-nzs-sports
Australia - Women’s Sport (Roller Derby)
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic.
The Collision of Sport and Identity: My Departure from High-Level Roller Derby ( 15 September)
Monique Murphy writes:
This year, playing in several major tournaments in Australia, I encountered numerous athletes who, despite no longer identifying as male, retained the physical attributes of males, including male levels of testosterone. This isn’t merely about identity; it’s about the physical realities of sport.
This isn’t a trivial difference in a full-contact sport like roller derby.
The tipping point came six weeks ago when a hit from a male skater resulted in a grade 2 AC joint sprain. The pain lingers, but more than the physical injury, it was the response to our complaint that struck me. The implication was clear: if you can’t handle the physicality, don’t play. But when “the physicality” involves the inherent advantages of male physiology in a women’s game, the choice becomes stark.
I anticipate backlash for voicing these concerns. In an era where diversity and inclusion are paramount, discussing the physical advantages of males in female sports can be seen as controversial or even transphobic. Yet, I believe many share my view, valuing safety and fairness in sports above all. This isn’t about being against diversity; it’s about recognizing where the line must be drawn for the integrity and safety of the sport.
The silence around this issue is deafening. Many women have quietly left the sport, fearing the label of bigotry more than the physical injuries. It’s time for open dialogue. Roller derby, a sport built on community and resilience, should not be a battleground for identity politics at the expense of its athletes’ safety.
Source: The Collision of Sport and Identity: My Departure from High-Level Roller Derby
Book On….Masturbation!!
Genevieve Gluck on the Women’s Voices substack brings us this shocking report. How is this man not locked up!?
Swedish Academic Who Wrote “Masturbation” Research Paper Releases Book About “Cute Boys” in Cartoon Child Porn
Sep 16, 2024
A Swedish academic who triggered severe public backlash after writing his PhD thesis about masturbating to fantasy child sexual abuse material for three months has now released a book on the topic. Karl Andersson, previously a PhD student at the University of Manchester in the Japanese studies department, announced the publication of his new book, Impossibly Cute Boys: The Healing Power of Shota Comics in Japan, in a recent YouTube video where he states that the text incorporates his “philosophy of boy worship.”
Shota, a shortened version of shōtarō complex, refers to comics, cartoons, and other forms of visual media which focus on young boys in erotic and sexualized situations. The boys are primarily depicted as prepubescent, often having hairless bodies and very small features.
The medium is largely regarded as a form of fantasy child sexual abuse material, and is illegal in many countries including Canada and Australia as a result. It is also illegal in the United Kingdom, where Andersson’s PhD program was based.
In the YouTube video where Andersson introduces his book, he explains, “It is my research, basically. I have studied shota for over ten years, but most recently in the form of a PhD, and in the form of field work I conducted in Japan in 2023. So basically I associated with a lot of people who like shota,” he says.
Andersson neglects to mention that two years ago, following intense public scrutiny, Manchester University launched an inquiry into the circumstances of his PhD research and its publication. The paper, published in April 2022 in the academic journal Qualitative Research, sees Andersson admitting to masturbating to fantasy child sexual abuse material for three months as his chosen method of “research.” In the 4,000-word article, titled “I am not alone — we are all alone: Using masturbation as an ethnographic method in research on shota subculture in Japan,” Andersson details undertaking his “experimental method” of masturbating to shota pornography.
The full piece is here:
Stop Press
Good news from the Women’s Rights Network - the Gender Quota Bill in Wales which would have brought in self ID by the back door has been dropped:
https://x.com/WomensRightsNet/status/1835777055327154355
Well done to all those who campaigned against it.
I previously reported on this, if you want the background, here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-wizard-of-oz-part-2?utm_source=publication-search
Stop Press 2
I previously reported on social worker Lizzie Pitt winning her tribunal case ( the misgendered Daschund case!):
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/a-lame-ass-offer?utm_source=publication-search
I am delighted to report that she has also been awarded some of her costs ( it is not normal for there to be a costs award in a Tribunal case):
Endpiece by Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#XX
#SaveWomensSport
Really sorry Dusty, I completely forgot to leave a comment so I’ll just say thanks as ever for excellent pieces. I’ve just called Glinner and JL stars for everything they do so I’m saying the same to you. ⭐️