Sticking with Peter Greenaway and The Draughtsman’s Contract. In the pub, all those years ago ( see last update), none of us could work out the relevance of the ‘living statue’ ( makes a brief appearance in the trailer). Any suggestions 😊
Thanks again to two wonderful readers for suggesting pieces to me.
Irish Hate Crime Bill
I am currently very focussed on Cass and the Scottish Hate Crime Act but, if the Irish Government pass their Hate Crime Act I might have to shift my attention. However, very interesting developments…and a brilliant analysis…
John McGuirk in Gript News ( THE CONFUSION OF THE HATE SPEECH LAW’S REMAINING SUPPORTERS 08 April) reports:
It is a matter of record that yours truly does not believe that the Hate Speech or Hate Crime bill will be passed by the Oireachtas in the remaining time before the next general election, meaning that – if I am correct – the legislation is functionally dead unless and until a future Government decides to resurrect it.
This does not mean, however, that the debate is over. Indeed, new life was breathed into that debate this weekend by no less a figure than the opinion editor of the Irish Times, Jennifer O’Connell, who occupies one of the most influential postings in Irish journalism. The unfolding fiasco with the Scottish Hate law, she observes, is not an object lesson in the lack of wisdom behind enacting such a law, but rather a lesson that such a law should be done – as only we Irish can – properly.
Basically, O’Connell argues, the Scottish law is flawed because it is unclear what, exactly, constitutes a hate crime or hate speech. One might pause at this point to note that the Government of Ireland has been entirely unwilling to offer a definition of “hate” in its own law, which somewhat undermines the claim that Ireland is likely to avoid a similar mistake.
However, the real problem with O’Connell’s argument is when she seeks to justify the need for the law in the first place. I’ll quote the relevant section of her article in full, out of fairness:
‘It would be tempting for the Government to let this one quietly drop, but there are compelling arguments why it must go ahead, including a 29 per cent increase in reported hate crimes in 2022 and an increase in arson attacks of 11 per cent in 2023, possibly linked to attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.
LGBTQ+ people say they feel less safe on the streets following a surge in incidents of abuse and assaults. Women journalists and politicians are routinely abused on social media; some male politicians have cited the toxicity in public life as a factor in their decision to retire.
Meanwhile, a handful of aspiring politicians are normalising rhetoric and tactics that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. In a 24-hour period this week, a candidate in the upcoming local elections, Gavin Pepper, posted videos to his X platform of himself shouting at Hazel Chu on the street, and another he filmed outside the tented encampment on Mount Street which he captioned, “Where are the missing children?”
Would those type of incidents meet the bar for hate speech? Unlikely, because free speech is rightfully protected here too. If the legislation is passed, despite the air of semi-hysteria surrounding it in sections of the UK media, it would be still be almost impossible to go around accidentally inciting hatred. As JK Rowling discovered, even when you really set out to deliberately push the boundaries, it is not easy.
Hate-speech legislation does not stifle free speech.’
There are three distinct arguments there, each of which I have highlighted in bold. We will talk about them in reverse order.
The last, that “hate speech legislation does not stifle free speech” is what we might call an unsupported assertion: There is no evidence for it. None is offered. It is simply the author’s personal opinion.
It is notable however that it is a personal opinion offered immediately after an example that explicitly contradicts the opinion.
Gavin Pepper, a local election candidate, she says, with undisguised disapproval, has been wandering around Dublin shouting at Hazel Chu and shouting at Migrant tents. It should be noted here that disapproval of such conduct is something that Irish voters (at least those in Finglas) will have the opportunity to express directly to Mr. Pepper, should they choose to do so, via the ballot box in June. Nevertheless, this conduct, says O’Connell, is a problem, and clearly part of her rationale for supporting the hate legislation, otherwise why mention it?
She then goes on, however, to say that such behaviour would not be illegal under the very law she is using that behaviour to justify: It would not “meet the bar” for hate speech, says she. In which case, one might ask: What’s the point? Why mention it?
This would be a forgivable bit of waffle from an average punter, but coming from the exalted perch of the opinion desk of the country’s most prestigious newspaper, it’s entirely noteworthy, because it allows us to make an inference that was perhaps not intended. That is, that many supporters of the hate speech think or hope that it might result in as much cultural change as legal change: People like Gavin Pepper might not actually commit any crimes, they tell you, but at the same time fear of committing crimes might nevertheless change their behaviour. That hope is also, you’ll note, only extended in one political direction – there’s no example provided of intemperate commentary from the left, since the Irish Times often likes to pretend such things do not exist.
This, essentially, is as close as you’ll get to an admission that the purpose of the law is to act as political intimidation of political candidates that the bill’s supporters do not like, while protecting candidates (such as Ms. Chu) who the bill’s supporters do like. It’s also a nice illustration of the rhetorical trick that the left often plays on this topic when describing the exact same thing done by either side: My side expresses its principled opposition in strong terms, Your side, on the other hand, expresses hate.
Oh, and by the way, “Hate Speech legislation does not stifle free speech”.
The third argument she makes is related to an increase in reported hate crimes, and arson attacks. The first thing to note here, of course, is that such things are already illegal. We are being asked to believe that somebody who is set on breaking the present laws around arson might think twice were a new law enacted to add hate to it.
Yet, how would that even work? How does one prove that arson is a hate crime directed against a “protected characteristic”. There’s a strong case to be made that those who burn down migrant centres or putative migrant centres are acting out of opposition to Government policy, rather than hatred for the likely residents of such centres. Government policy is hardly a protected characteristic.
Finally, you’ll note the inherent three card trick being played upon the public: On the one hand, the bill’s supporters assert that it is a moderate, limited, entirely restrictive piece of legislation that will protect free speech and have almost no impact on public discourse. On the other hand, they argue that it is entirely vital, because of the kinds of political speech we are seeing in increasingly widespread areas of public discourse. The bill is at once going to do nothing, so you don’t need to worry, and at the same time going to save us from the likes of Gavin Pepper.
It cannot be both. If this is the best that the Irish Times can muster in its defence, it is no wonder that this legislation is dying slowly on the vine.
The British Woocasting Corporation
A slight acceptance of responsibility from the BBC!
Lily Zhou in Epoch Times ( BBC Says It Broke Accuracy Rules by Omitting Trans Identity of Murderer Scarlet Blake 12 April) reports:
The BBC breached accuracy rules by failing to mention that convicted murderer Scarlet Blake identifies as transgender, the public broadcaster’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) has said.
However, the BBC did not break impartiality rules by referring to the male murderer as “she” or “her,” the unit said on Thursday.
The ECU also used “she/her” pronouns when referencing Blake in the summary of its findings, saying it “does not indicate a view on which pronouns might be appropriate in other contexts.”
Blake, 26, a Chinese-born man who identifies as a woman, was convicted and jailed in February for the murder of a vulnerable stranger.
The trial also heard that Blake felt part of his personality was that of a cat, and that he had re-enacted a cat torture video four months before killing his human victim, 30-year-old Jorge Martin Carreno, in July 2021.
Following the BBC’s reporting on the conviction and the sentencing, the broadcaster received “a number of complaints,” mostly focusing on two articles that referred to Blake as a woman without mentioning his trans status, the unit said.
Well done to those who complained.
The full article is here:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)
Where did the term ‘gender identity disorder’ come from…oh no, hold on, it’s ‘gender dysphoria’…no, no it’s now ‘gender incongruence’…
Scotland
The latest excellent Sex Matters newsletter ‘Memo’ is out and I am just taking one piece from that.
Scotland: teachers told to affirm pupils (12 April)
This week The Telegraph highlighted Scottish government guidance for schools which tells teachers not to question pupils if they say they want to be treated as the opposite sex, and to instead ask them for their new name and pronouns.
The 70-page document also claims that it is possible for pupils to “come out” as trans at any age and that the views of young people should be respected if they do not want their parents to be informed. The guidance also endorses breast binders, claiming they can have a “positive impact on a young person’s mental health”.
A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The Supporting Transgender Young People in Schools guidance does not recommend that pupils are encouraged to socially transition and any claim otherwise is completely incorrect. The guidance is clear that schools should support all young people, including those who are considering their identity.”
Sall Grover
More reliance on the Guardian ( what’s going on, man!!) via wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic (FLC).
‘What is a woman?’: court asked to rule on definition in transgender woman’s case against Giggle for Girls platform ( 12 April)
A court has been asked to define what a woman is as a landmark gender identity discrimination case comes to a close in front of a packed gallery of trans and women’s rights campaigners in Sydney.
Tickle is seeking damages and aggravated damages amounting to $200,000. Her team claims discrimination took place when Grover and Giggle – represented by the former Liberal candidate, Katherine Deves – did not respond to her request for access and reinstatement to the app. She was also discriminated against when she was removed from the app, the court heard.
Grover has more than 90,000 followers on X, formerly Twitter, and has given up to 50 media interviews in which she has persistently misgendered Tickle, the court heard. Her legal costs are in part funded by the sale of merchandise that is “demeaning” to Tickle.
Grover had previously told the court that she would not address Tickle as “Ms” and that, even if a transgender woman presented as female, had gender affirmation surgery, lived as a female and held female identity documents, Grover would still see her as a “biological male”.
At the heart of the case are definitions of gender and sex and the boundaries of the Sex Discrimination Act. The outcome is likely to have wide-reaching implications for male and female spaces and activities.
To aid in navigating that complexity, the Australian Human Rights Commission acted as a friend of the court. The barrister Zelie Heger told the court on Wednesday that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act, but that “importantly, the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.
An “11th hour” submission by the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls was deemed “completely unacceptable” by Bromwich [ Dusty - the judge].
For what it is worth, I think that Sall is going to lose at first instance and will have to go for appeal ( I hope). If I am reading it correctly, the case for Sall attacks the Australian Sex Discrimination Act for being in breach of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and Girls ( CEDAW) which Australia (and many, many other countries including the UK) is a signatory to.
More from Australia
A group in Australia called Lesbians on the Loose (LOTL) have a podcast with the rather strange title of ‘Queer Conversations’(!!??). Anyway, they have done a good interview with Nicole Mowbray of the Lesbian Action Group in Australia who are trying to get permission to hold an event for lesbians only for International Lesbian Day in October. You couldn’t make it up!!
Germany goes Woo Woo
Thanks again to FLC.
German parliament votes to make it easier for people to legally change their name and gender ( 13 April)
The “self-determination law”, one of several social reforms that Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s liberal-leaning coalition government pledged when it took office in late 2021, is set to take effect on Nov. 1.
Germany, the European Union’s most populous nation, follows several other countries in making the change. Parliament’s lower house, the Bundestag, approved it by 374 votes to 251 with 11 abstentions.
The German legislation will allow adults to change their first name and legal gender at registry offices without further formalities. They will have to notify the office three months before making the change.
The existing “transsexual law,” which dates back four decades, requires individuals who want to change gender on official documents to first obtain assessments from two experts “sufficiently familiar with the particular problems of transsexualism” and then a court decision.
Source: German parliament votes to make it easier for people to legally change their name and gender
Iran
Maybe Stonewall, Mermaids and the LGBTQ Foundation would like to spend some quality time in Iran? Thanks again to FLC.
Iran’s vile way of trying to eradicate homosexuality, gay people ( 13 April)
Death or surgery? It’s a capital offence to be gay in Iran. But gender-change surgery is legal. Now, 4000 Iranians are undergoing the life-changing procedure every year. And many of them are children.
[F]or thousands of “in the closet” Iranian homosexuals and lesbians – an unwanted and unnecessary surgical procedure may save their lives.
The religious government in Tehran insists homosexuality represents ‘Western barbarism’ and is a ‘virus’ that people should ‘kill.’
But a rare quirk of theology and history has combined for a formal – if not willing – acceptance of gender dysphoria.
In a 2022 UN report, Iran Rehman, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran wrote that members of Iran’s LGBT community “are often advised that their gender nonconformity or same-sex attraction represents so-called gender identity disorder, which necessitates ‘reparative’ therapies or sex reassignment surgeries, to ‘cure’ them.”
Iran has become an international hub for gender reassignment surgery. Up to 4000 procedures are carried out every year. However, some reports state the actual number is much higher as there is no requirement for doctors to be qualified.
Go, Mona!!
FLC yet again 😊
MONA is the Museum of Old and New Art in Tasmania.
MONA ordered to allow men into ‘Ladies Lounge’ after discrimination complaint (09 April)
MONA has been ordered to allow men into their ‘Ladies Lounge’ exhibit after a man complained about being excluded from the women’s-only space.
New South Wales resident Jason Lau lodged a discrimination complaint against the popular Tasmanian museum, which was upheld by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The tribunal has given the museum 28 days to “cease refusing entry to the exhibit known as the Ladies Lounge at the Museum of Old and New Art by persons who do not identify as ladies”.
Tribunal Deputy President Richard Grueber said in his published decision that the case “involves conflict between an artwork which deliberately and overtly discriminates for artistic purpose and legislation which has the objective of prohibiting discrimination”.
He said Lau visited MONA in April of last year, paid the $35 entry fee and entered the museum – but was “not permitted entry into the Ladies Lounge was because of his gender”.
Grueber, in his comments, also criticised Kaechele and her 20+ female supporters for their conduct at the hearing, saying the way they left the tribunal building while dressed in blue power suits and dancing to Robert Palmer’s Simply Irresistible was “inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful and at worst contumelious and contemptuous”.
Dusty- loving it 😎
MONA stated last month in a statement that their lawyers were prepared to fight and take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Source: MONA ordered to allow men. into ‘Ladies Lounge’ after discrimination complaint – Pulse Tasmania
Update on In Defence of Academic Freedom
We are academics and the directors of the documentary feature Adult Human Female, the first UK film to explore the clash between women's rights and trans activists promoting gender identity claims.
Scheduled screenings of our film have twice been cancelled by protestors at the University of Edinburgh. On both occasions the Edinburgh branch of the Universities and College Union (UCU) denounced the film as 'hate speech' and 'transphobic'. We are members of UCU and yet the union has treated us and the film as beyond the pale and unworthy of a place on campus.
We are raising funds to bring an employment tribunal claim against UCU for unlawfully discriminating against us because of our protected 'gender critical' beliefs.
Dear Backers,
The preliminary hearing of our case took place on Monday 25th March. The employment judge didn’t understand why UCU denies that its treatment of us is unwanted and wanted to know what the reason for UCU’s behaviour was, if not our protected beliefs. UCU have been ordered to provide further information about this by 16 April.
We also now have a final hearing listed for 31 March – 4 April 2025. There is plenty of work for our solicitors to undertake between now and then, so please spread the word in your networks as we have a lot of money to raise if we are to bring this case to tribunal.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/in-defence-of-academic-freedom/
Dear readers
My friend, Mark has asked that you sign this petition started by Simon Edge 😊
https://www.change.org/p/strip-ruth-hunt-of-her-peerage-for-her-role-in-the-gender-medical-scandal
Thanks in anticipation
Dusty
Done - great read, thanks for sharing, Dusty!