The Rise Of Skywalker

Update 443. TRAs and Violence 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 one of the readers mentioned below for the latest and what will be the last in our Heroes season.

Set after The Last Jedi, The Rise of Skywalker follows Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn ( John Boyega), and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) as they lead the remnants of the Resistance in a final stand against Supreme Leader Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and the First Order, who are allied by the resurrected Sith Lord, Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid).

The next season will be called These You Have Loved. This substack started in February 2023 so I will be trawling over that first year to February 2024 for the best film clips featured (any suggestions gratefully received 😀). The title comes from an old Radio 4 music programme that Mum and me would listen to on a Sunday night featuring Alan Keith. Mr Keith would always end it with:

Until next week, I wish you well, and now, a very good night to you all.

Any oldies remember that?

OK, back to Skywalker!

Thanks to three wonderful readers for suggested pieces.

Stand With Posie

I reported on the events at Sheffield Let Women Speak here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/stand-with-posie

Excellent piece on this from JL on the Glinner Update this week and, to correct what is stated in my piece, Southampton Solent University make it clear that the attacker, Ben Lindsay, has not worked for them for several years and they ‘do not condone any acts of violence.’

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-166

Violence And ‘Trans Rights’

I have been to 5 Let Women Speak rallies and at 4 of them the baying mob of trans rights activists had to be held back by the police. So I can concur with all that Andrew Doyle states here on his substack.

I did also enjoy:

It is essential that even people who are determined to march for rights they already have are protected by law and can assemble as they wish.

Violence has become normalised within trans activism

It’s about time that mainstream commentators recognised the aggression at the heart of this movement.

Sep 23, 2024

Trans activists enjoy the same rights to peaceful protest as the rest of us. It is essential that even people who are determined to march for rights they already have are protected by law and can assemble as they wish. At the same time, there should be a zero tolerance policy for protesters who commit criminal acts. And we need to be willing to recognise when a particular movement has accepted violence as an inevitable aspect of its operation.

Very few of us will have been surprised by the attack on Kellie-Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker) at the Let Women Speak event in Sheffield this weekend. In mimicry of a previous attack in New Zealand last March, Keen’s assailant threw tomato soup over her while she was leading the rally. The alleged attacker boasts on his social media profile that he was an “Equality & Diversity associate” at his former university, and that his job was “to make the campus that little bit more tolerant and friendly for everyone”. Somehow, I don’t think he has the temperament for this role.

There is little doubt that violence, both in rhetorical and physical terms, has become normalised within trans activist circles. Every movement has its “bad apples”, which leading figures ought to criticise wherever possible. When anti-gay campaigner Anita Bryant was hit in the face with a pie in 1977, LGB rights groups were quick to condemn the assault. This is not simply a matter of exercising sound moral judgement, it is also strategic. If a group fails to condemn the most egregious actions of its own members, those elements end up representing the group in the eye of the public.

And of course once you have expressed sympathy with those committing acts of violence for political purposes – even if it’s as harmless as throwing a milkshake – then you cannot complain when such tactics are used against you. Nor should anyone be surprised when the choice of missiles escalates to something more serious. Many leftist commentators dismissed the throwing of milkshake at Nigel Farage as trivial, but it wasn’t long before one activist threw a coffee cup and wet cement, objects that could easily have caused injury.

Let’s take the example of the “London Trans+ Pride” march last July, where a violent ex-con who identifies as a woman took to the stage and proclaimed the following:

“I was going to come here and be really fluffy, be really nice and be really lovely and queer and gay. Nah, if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face.”

The words would have been bad enough, but the reaction of the audience was surely the most disturbing aspect. If violent rhetoric hasn’t been normalised in this movement, why would the crowd cheer upon hearing these words? Surely the overwhelming majority of sensible adults would have reacted with stunned silence? Or removed this unhinged individual from the platform before he could harm their cause any further?

The violence we have seen over the past few years from trans activists is undeniable. Virtually all protests of this kind involve some kind of demonstration of aggression, whether that be placards bearing phrases such as “Kill JK Rowling” or “Punch TERFs” or actual instances of physical hostility. Such rhetoric is now so commonplace that two SNP politicians were photographed next to an activist holding a placard with the slogan “Decapitate TERFs”, along with an image of a guillotine, and they didn’t even notice (see image at the top of this article).

…

It isn’t difficult to see why women might not want to permit these kinds of men in their spaces. And yet for making the case for single-sex services, they are branded as “hateful bigots” and “anti-trans”. In truth, this is simply a matter of safeguarding.

Despite claims that the debate over gender identity ideology is toxic on “both sides”, it is indisputable that threats of violence, murder and rape are only coming from one faction. Has anyone ever seen a women’s rights campaigner holding a placard that calls for anyone’s execution? Or social media posts from feminists inciting the murder or rape of their ideological opponents? I certainly haven’t.

If it were the case that just a handful of trans activists behaved in this way, and were robustly taken to task by their associates, then we need not be too concerned. After all, whenever those few “bad apples” in the gender-critical movement express their homophobia, misandry and other forms of bigotry, they are quickly condemned by feminist campaigners as being outliers and totally unrepresentative. But among trans activist groups the examples are far more severe and far more frequent. Let’s take a look at a few examples:

Many will argue that such images are not representative of the movement as a whole, and yet their sheer volume is suggestive of normalisation. Those seeking equivalent sentiments in the gender-critical movement will struggle to find a single example, but the instances on the trans activists side are endless. For those who can stomach it, you can look through hundreds of other examples here.

Of course, many trans-identified people do not behave in this way, and are rightly appalled by such images. I have often heard transsexuals complain that the antics of these activists have made their lives much worse, and that these so-called “allies” are doing far more harm than good. How does it help anyone to smear J. K. Rowling as a “transphobe” and send her so many death and rape threats that she has remarked that she could paper the house with them?

This kind of abusive behaviour is so uncommon among women that it is remarkable that these activists don’t realise how it fatally undermines their point. If they sincerely hope to persuade us that they are women, acting like a drunk bloke with anger management issues is hardly a sensible approach.

And yet we are continually told that these activists are “marginalised” and “vulnerable”. If this is true, why do they enjoy the support of all major corporations and public institutions? Why are they able to call on the police to arrest those who refuse to use the language that they demand? Why are they tolerated when they harass and physically assault women who are gathering peacefully to express their views? These are bullies who are claiming to be the victims.

Given the sheer volume of evidence, it is now indisputable that violence has been normalised among trans activists and their supporters. It’s about time that mainstream commentators condemned such tactics rather than pretending this is simply a civil rights movement like any other.

 https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/violence-has-become-normalised-within

Teachers Or Parents?

My friend Siobhan has been looking at what is going on in schools in her locality. She recommends this publication just out from Civitas and written by Joanna Williams Teachers or Parents: Who is responsible for raising the next generation?

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Teachers-or-Parents-pdf.pdf

Irish Hate Speech Bill

 On 23 September Gript wrote to me and all those who had supported their campaign against the Bill:

Dear Dusty

On Saturday we shared with you the news that the Government will not proceed, at least this side of an election, with its proposed hate speech law. 

In the short term, at least, this news should be welcomed for what it is: A victory for free speech, common sense, and basic freedom.

As the editor of a media outlet, I am conscious that it is not generally our duty to campaign or to seek to influence political outcomes – those are, in an ideal world, matters for voters, politicians, and campaigners. However, on questions of basic human rights, like the right to speak one’s mind, I believe the media has a duty to highlight threats to freedom of expression and to continuously prosecute the case for free speech.

That is why I wrote, all the way back in June 2023, that Gript Media would deliberately flout the hate speech law and seek to be prosecuted under it, were it passed. I wrote at the time:

"We also, we believe, have a solemn duty to do so. We are a media organisation, with protected speech to a higher degree than that of the average citizen. We have a duty to put ourselves in the firing line, deliberately.

In a democratic society, the right to speak your mind is of paramount importance: We have seen the consequences of people fearing to speak up with disastrous consequences around the world – from Chernobyl, to Rotherham, and at home in the case of clerical child abuse. Making people afraid to speak has bad consequences, everywhere it has been tried."

I still believe that. I also believe, with all my heart, that were it simply up to RTÉ, the Irish Times, and most of our other mainstream competitors, the hate speech bill would be law today.

It was this media outlet, and this media outlet alone, that raised questions on the subject and put them directly to the Ministers responsible for drafting them. Gript's videos and comment on the subject went viral, generating tens of millions of views at home and abroad, and driving conversations about the legislation. That is what the media should do, in a democracy – engage citizens in the process, and highlight their concerns. I am proud that we did so.

In this respect, I continue to believe that our work is vital. You may not agree with everything we publish, but our core fundamental values here at Gript Media are those of openness and freedom, and commitment to the original meaning of the word “democracy” – the voice of the demos; the people.

However, none of this is possible, without you and your support. We remain, in relative terms, a minnow in the Irish media sphere whose continued existence is solely down to the support of our readers. I believe we have accomplished much, these past five years. But we could disappear just as quickly, without your support.

On the other hand, we could continue to grow, and continue to be an even bigger thorn in the side of those who would prefer fewer debates, not more, on the major issues facing Irish society. We can only do that with your help and support – which I’m humbly asking you for again.

Thank you, so much, for continuing to partner with us and support our work. All of it would be meaningless if we had no readers, and for that most of all I remain grateful and humbled.

Sincerely,

John McGuirk,
Editor

John McGuirk expands on this ( wonderfully) on Gript:

On Free Speech, an important battle has been won

September 23, 2024

In June of 2023, I wrote on these pages that if the Government’s Hate Speech bill were to have been passed, then Gript Media under my editorship would have deliberately flouted the law – specifically the provisions related to gender – and seek to be prosecuted.

This was not because I, or anyone on our staff, has any desire to say anything hateful about anybody, but because we considered the proposed law to be a fundamental attack on one of the most important and essential freedoms in a democracy – the right to speak one’s mind, free from persecution.

The price of that freedom as with any right or freedom, ultimately, is recognising that some will abuse it. This is true of all freedoms: Grant people the right to purchase alcohol, and some will become anti-social alcoholics. Grant people a social welfare system to help them when they are unemployed or otherwise unable to support themselves, and some will commit fraud. Grant people the right to freedom of speech, and some portion will express horrible and obnoxious ideas.

Yet it is also true that almost every dominant idea in society today was at one time a horrible and obnoxious idea in another time or place. The obvious example here is that current social mores around homosexuality represent ideas that were ruthlessly suppressed just over a century ago, where the idea of venues openly advertising themselves as gay bars would have resulted in their closure and the likely prosecution of their owners and customers on grounds of public decency. The idea that women could vote was, not so long ago, so controversial that untold numbers of people were imprisoned or otherwise mistreated simply for advocating it. As recently as 1958 in the United States, Richard and Mildred Loving saw Virginia State Troopers invade their home and literally drag them out of the bed they shared as a married couple for the crime of living together as a mixed race couple on the basis of that state’s law that “any white person who intermarries with a colored person shall be guilty of a felony”.

Indeed, the great irony is that most of modern progressivism and liberalism owes its cultural and societal dominance to free speech, and the right that said speech grants us to challenge injustices and dominant ways of thinking which are – we believe – misplaced.

Of course, it’s easy to defend free speech when that speech advocates progressivism and liberalism. What about when it does not?

Last week’s RTE documentary on the anti-immigration protests in Coolock featured a woman – who appears to look very like a woman Gript Media had interviewed separately at the same protest – making utterly horrendous and racist comments to black-skinned private security staff tasked with defending the proposed Coolock Asylum center. The woman calls the staff “dirty filthy n*ggers”, and says “youse are not wanted in this country, do you understand that?”

How can one defend speech like that?

Well, the answer is, I think, that such speech is in a way helpful. RTE chose to broadcast it for a reason, after all – they clearly agreed with me that her overt racism was helpful.

It is helpful because it shows the world who a person is, and what their concerns really are. The contrast between the woman Gript interviewed, saying that her and the local’s concerns were about services and capacity and public safety could not have been more perfectly undermined than they were by the woman who looked very like her, roaring about “dirty filthy n*ggers”. When people are free to express themselves clearly, the world can clearly see them and their ideas for what they truly are. Put legal constraints around what a person may say in public, and clarity about what they actually believe goes further out the window.

Consider these two women – who look very, very like the same person – and their respective arguments. One character makes an argument about capacity and services and whether it is wise for the state to accommodate people in a disused factory. The other goes on an openly racist and deranged rant. If we were to imagine for just a second that these two women were in fact the same person, then we would be quickly able to come to the conclusion that the case she made to Gript Media was in fact deeply dishonest. Free speech is the freedom to say things – not the freedom to be taken seriously when you say them.

The idea of a “marketplace of ideas” is, of course, a cliché, but it has survived as long as it has for a reason. RTE, we can safely say, did not broadcast a woman screaming about dirty filthy n*ggers because they thought lots of people sitting at home consuming the documentary would listen to that little speech and think “gee, this woman has a point which I had until now failed to consider”. No – they broadcast that utterly hateful rhetoric because they thought people sitting at home would listen to it and think “there must be a better way than this”.

Now, consider what happens to liberal democracy when you start taking people like the woman in Coolock and prosecuting her, and tossing her in prison: Her crime will have been – in her telling – that she said something bad about black people. Legions of defenders would rise in her support, chronicling every slight, real or imagined, uttered about white Irish people and declaiming the two-tier justice system. And they would, of course, have a point. When the Government seeks to criminalise a thought, or criminalise words, it does not send the signal that the words in question are dangerous for society. It sends the signal that the words in question are dangerous for the Government.

Beyond that basic defense of free speech, there are other reasons to celebrate the fall – for now – of this legislation.

First, that it shows that organised grassroots opposition to the Government can work.

Second, and perhaps most encouragingly, that it shows that Irish people as a collective have not yet entirely surrendered their appetite for liberties that have always been fundamental to the cause of Irish national freedom.

Third, that the case for calmly and rationally argued opposition to mainstream ideas has actually been strengthened, because we do not -for now – have to concern ourselves with defending the right of people to speak in the way our Coolock activist did. This should be an opportunity for people to focus on developing clear and effective ideas, rather than defending the right of people to make extreme statements, since that right is at least temporarily secured.

Because this is the final point I’d make: It is not simply enough to secure the existence of an open and unregulated “marketplace of ideas”. At some point, you have to actually win in that marketplace of ideas.  Having the legal right to say something does not – and never has – entitled you to success in that marketplace.

Those of us who opposed this bill made a good and effective argument based on rationality, logic, and an ability to persuade the public that we were correct. Having done so, it might be wise to adopt that approach in other matters, and recognise that having the legal right to say something does not always make it a defensible thing to say.

https://gript.ie/free-speech-win/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_5_17_2022_13_19_COPY_01)

Conversion Therapy

Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic.

Will the Labour Government take any notice? Will MsDodds see the light on the Road to Damascus…or Dagenham..or somewhere? Your thoughts, dear readers?

Conversion therapy ban could backfire and stop doctors analysing root cause of patients’ distress, UN expert warns (24 September)

A United Nations expert has warned that plans to ban conversion therapy could backfire by preventing doctors from analysing the root causes of patients’ suffering.

Reem Alsalem, the UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, says young women risk being put on a ‘fast track’ to irreversible gender transition.

The new Labour government revealed in its King’s Speech in July this year proposals for a Conversion Practices Bill, which would block action to ‘change, ”cure” or suppress’ someone’s sexuality or gender ID.

The reforms, to be overseen by equalities minister Annaliese Dodds, have been backed by campaigners as helping people to freely ‘explore their sexual orientation and gender identity’.

But critics including Ms Alsalem have raised concerns that lesbian and autistic girls could be encouraged too soon into unsuitable surgery.

Ms Alsalem cited the Cass Review of gender services for children, published in April this year, which said many teenagers in the UK were being allowed to change their gender based on ‘remarkably weak evidence’.

Ms Alsalem also called for the Equality Act to be clarified to ensure biological men can be stopped from competing in women’s sports and also from accessing rape refuges.

She said: ‘I believe that it would be useful for the Equality Act to clarify whether the term “sex” in the Act means biological sex or not.’

And she said police should compile crime data based on sex rather than gender, adding: ‘We have to diagnose the phenomena of violence against women for what it is, which is that it is perpetrated predominantly at the hands of males against females.

‘If we start not registering males for females perpetrators, then that skews statistics and then leads to a misdiagnosis.’

Ms Alsalem insisted people should not be punished in employment for expressing gender-critical views – and that universities should allow free speech on the issue.

Source: Conversion therapy ban could backfire and stop doctors analysing root cause of patients’ distress, UN expert warns

Think you’ve covered most of our issues there, Ms Alsalem!

EDI Jester also reports on this:

Australia - Sall Grover

Thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic.

Sall Grover urges Aussies to ‘wake up’ to the erosion of women’s rights (23 September)

This is an extract from the Daily Mail hence the annoying incorrect pronouns and use of the word ‘transwoman’!

The creator of a female-only app who was found to have discriminated against a transgender woman has called on Australians to ‘wake up’ to the erosion of women’s rights, as she prepares to appeal the decision.

Sall Grover, the founder of the app Giggle for Girls, lost a Federal Court case last month brought by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle.

Ms Grover had banned the 54-year-old from the app in 2021, arguing it was for women and Ms Tickle is biologically male.

Ms Tickle had identified as a woman since 2017, undergoing surgery two years later and getting a new birth certificate that showed her as female.

Justice Robert Bromwich found Ms Tickle had suffered discrimination, ordering Ms Grover to pay $10,000 in damages – a small fraction of the $200,000 that was being sought – and to cover legal costs.

Now, Ms Grover has issued a warning to all Australians.

‘They’re forcing you to believe that men are women and, if they can force you to believe that, they can force you to believe anything,’ Ms Grover told Daily Mail Australia.

‘Politicians cannot campaign to end violence against women and try to look like the good guys when they are literally forcing through legislation for women to not be able to say “no” to men.’

Source: Sall Grover urges Aussies to ‘wake up’ to the erosion of women’s rights | Daily Mail Online

Australia - Moira Deeming - Part 3

And thanks again to FLC for the latest in the Moira Deeming trial that I have been covering.

Deeming v Pesutto: Opposition Leader’s honesty questioned in tense grilling (24 September)

Opposition Leader John Pesutto’s honesty has been called into question during a tense grilling in his defamation battle with Moira Deeming.

Mr Pesutto repeatedly insisted he was being truthful during his first two hours of cross examination on Tuesday, in relation to both a dossier of evidence his office prepared to expel Mrs Deeming, and a secret recording of a meeting with the exiled MP which was taped by deputy David Southwick.

He said he was only made aware of the recording — which has become central to the case — sometime at the end of 2023 or early 2024 and rejected any suggestion he knew earlier.

The court heard he only told his lawyers about the recording a week before the defamation trial began after learning that Mrs Deeming also had a secret recording of another meeting.

The secret recording captured a March 2023 meeting between Mr Pesutto and his leadership team, his former chief of staff Rodrigo Pintos-Lopez, and Mrs Deeming the day after she attended a Let Women Speak rally that prompted moves to expel her from the party.

Mr Pesutto said he completely rejected the suggestion he had kept the recording secret because it directly contradicted a version of events he had told both the media and his party room about the meeting.

Ms Chrysanthou also slammed a dossier of evidence used to back his case to expel Mrs Deeming as “no better than a project prepared by an eight year old”.

That fact that publications were made that defamed Mrs Deeming has already been conceded by Mr Pesutto’s legal team.

But they are relying on a public interest defence to the comments which focuses on the honest and reasonable belief in the truth of a publication.

Source: Deeming v Pesutto: Opposition Leader’s honesty questioned in tense grilling | Herald Sun

My money’s on Moira!! I’m surprised Mr Pesutto is still fighting on!

News From New Zealand

Excellent discussion on her You Tube channel and reported on her substack by Katrina Biggs with four other Kiwi Terfs. The video is a long one, dear readers.

No wonder they don’t want terfs to gather.

Sep 21, 2024

I had the pleasure of hosting four women for a chat on my YouTube channel. And what women they are! The combined knowledge and wisdom between them is dangerous - dangerous to the popular and much-parroted narrative of transactivists, that is. No wonder they don’t want terfs to gather.

The subjects for the chat were Suffrage Day in NZ, the Midwifery Council’s revised Scope of Practice, and Surrogacy in NZ. The women are:

Jill Ovens – national secretary and co-leader of the NZ Women’s Rights Party, and recently retired after a 36-year involvement in the union movement, which included a leading position in the midwives’ union.

Di Landy – co-founder of Mana Wāhine Kōrero (Sovereign Women Speak), and outspoken activist against gender ideology, especially that which erodes Māori culture.

Deb Hayes – midwife and initiator of the petition against the NZ Midwifery Council’s revised Scope of Practice, where they omitted the words ‘mother’ and ‘baby’.

Robin Jones – retired midwife, expert on breastfeeding, and researcher on the harms which mega-dosing on testosterone does to those women desperate to identify as men.

Women’s Suffrage Day in New Zealand is 19^th September. On that day in 1893, women in NZ won the right to vote, when Lord Glasgow signed the bill into law. The women, both European and Māori, fought hard for it, and it was only won by a narrow margin of 20 votes to 18. NZ became the first self-governing country in the world where women could vote in political elections. Women’s Suffrage Day is becoming less and less acknowledged here, though, whilst Pride days are littered throughout the year, and neo-rainbow flags and whatnot are flown and displayed everywhere. We want to own Women’s Suffrage Day once again, and bring back more celebrations of it.

NZ’s Midwifery Council began revising their Scope of Practice four years ago, and decided that gobbedlygook language and omitting the words ‘mother’ and ‘baby’ from it were good ideas. Much to their surprise, it seems, they got a lot of pushback. However, they appeared determined not to take any heed of that, so eventually Deb Hayes, a midwife, initiated a parliamentary petition against it. The petition collected nearly 7,500 signatures, and made its way all the way to the Petitions Committee, and on September 12^th Deb sat in front of them along with Mana Wāhine Kōrero (represented by co-founder Di Landy, and Sarah Henderson), and made their case against the Midwifery Council’s revised Scope of Practice. The Midwifery Council come across as being oblivious to the harms they promulgate with their nonsense language in the Scope, which they have also tried to make as sexless as possible. At no stage have they been heard to express any knowledge of what mega-dosing on testosterone does to women who identify as men. Retired midwife Robin Jones has some grim information to impart about that.

Surrogacy is a subject that is gaining more awareness worldwide, as the loopholes in laws around it get exploited. Jill and Robin tell us about the situation around the surrogacy laws in NZ, which, although not perfect, seem to be better than many other places.

Di finishes off with a plug for her upcoming talk with Jennifer Bilek, and other guests.

New Zealand - Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa (LAVA)

On her substack The Ministry has fallen Garwhoungle writes about a new and impotant court action. Here is an excerpt:

Context

LAVA had applied to hold a stall at the Out in the City event. At the stall they would display a large map of Wellington that members had created. The map showed places of social, historical and cultural significance to lesbians. Although the event organiser, the Wellington Pride Festival Board (WPF), had encouraged members of the rainbow community to apply to hold stalls at their ‘all-inclusive’ event, it had turned LAVA down, citing LAVA’s alleged trans-exclusionary views.

While LAVA does not believe males can be either women or lesbians, and has other concerns about extreme gender ideology, it had made it clear its stall would be showcasing the map, an expression of lesbian pride. It would not be promoting LAVA’s views on gender issues. LAVA and its members, by the way, have publicly stated that they support transgender people’s human rights. [ Dusty - aren’t they the same as everyone’s human rights?]LAVA members also have a long history of involvement in the rainbow community. [ Dusty - I’m not sure who the ‘rainbow community’ are meant to be?] LAVA members have helped organise previous Wellington pride events including Out in the City’s forerunner, the Lesbian and Gay Fair.

After being refused a place inside the official venue, LAVA members decided to run a stall outside. The stall was held both to protest their exclusion, and to do as they originally intended, display their map. LAVA hoped the map might inspire young lesbians. But, as evidenced in the transcript, the mere presence of these lesbians, even outside the event, was intolerable to this iteration of Pride.

The LAVA map of Te Whanganui-a-Tara / Wellington.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal case

LAVA is taking Wellington Pride Festival Board to court.

The Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) prohibits discrimination based on political beliefs. The Wellington Pride Festival Board explicitly told LAVA it was refused a stall because of their so-called trans-exclusionary messages. These included LAVA’s “no to self-id” stance and previous slogans used by LAVA: “female is not a feeling”, “biology is a fact”, “ban puberty blockers”, “woman=adult human female”, and “protect women’s rights + safety + statistics”. LAVA argues that these views constitute political beliefs and WPF, therefore, discriminated against LAVA members.

Perceived breaches of the Human Rights Act are heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Two rounds of mediation between LAVA and Wellington Pride failed and so now LAVA’s complaint proceeds to a Tribunal hearing. The case will probably be heard around mid-2025.

It’s an important case—for lesbians, for women, for rainbow people who really do believe in inclusion and tolerance, for people who want the freedom to define their sexuality—one that involves consenting and enthusiastic adults—without being called harmful, hateful bigots, and for people who want to prevent discrimination based on political opinion.

Best of luck to LAVA. The full piece is here:

https://theministryhasfallen.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-pride-vs-the?publication_id=810553&post_id=147180937&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Endpiece By Liz

#BeMorePorcupine

#LetWomenSpeak

The next update will probably be on Thursday, Terven

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.