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.'
Us Terfs need our heroes. Hence the Heroes Season. Thanks to one of the wonderful readers mentioned below for the latest in the Season, The Untouchables.
Eliot Ness ( Kevin Costner) is determined to get a conviction against Al Capone ( Robert De Niro). This took a lot of bravery on the part of Mr Ness and his family. For example, he has to get his wife and daughter into a safe house after threats to kill them. How can they get Capone? How about failure to pay taxes?
Thanks to two wonderful readers as ever for suggested pieces ( and welcome back to Liz 😊).
Free Speech
Credit: Pavel Durov/Instagram
Jason Osborne in Gript News ( If you care about free speech, France’s move on Telegram’s CEO should trouble you 26 August) reports:
Over the weekend, the CEO of popular messaging platform Telegram, Pavel Durov, was arrested on arrival in France, the latest development in what seems to be a rapidly increasing set of free speech flashpoints.
Russian-born billionaire, Durov (39) was reportedly detained by French police on Saturday after his plane landed at the Le Bourget airport outside Paris, in relation to alleged offences related to his messaging app. Those alleged offences are broad, but at their heart is the claim that Telegram isn’t doing enough to moderate its content, and that as a result, the platform is being used to facilitate various forms of criminality.
For its part, Telegram has previously denied having insufficient moderation. Indeed, since Durov’s arrest, Telegram issued a statement arguing not only that “its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving,” but that it “is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform”.
This saga remains ongoing, with the French authorities reportedly extending Durov’s detention, at the end of which the judge can decide to free him or press charges and remand in further custody.
It’s not the first time Durov’s censorship-free vision of social media has brought him into conflict with government forces. In 2014, he left his native Russia after Kremlin-linked owners took issue with the management of another social media venture of his, VKontakte (VK). On that occasion, Durov reportedly refused to comply with demands to censor opposition groups, a move which saw him leave VK behind in order to focus on Telegram, which he founded with his brother Nikolai in 2013.
Telegram is listed alongside Facebook, Instagram, X and WhatsApp as one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, and boasts an encrypted messaging system that has boosted its popularity among those critical of perceived free-speech infringements.
It is particularly popular in Russia and Ukraine, having been used extensively by both sides to communicate about the course of the ongoing war. This is despite the app having been banned in Russia in 2018, after Durov refused to hand over user data – a ban that was lifted in 2021.
After his clash with the Russian state in 2014, he emigrated, obtaining citizenship at the Caribbean archipelago of Saint Kitts and Nevis after making a $250,000 donation to its sugar industry. Durov was also granted French citizenship in the summer of 2021.
He’s now settled in Dubai – where Telegram is based – and has added a United Arab Emirates (UAE) citizenship to his collection. He said that after trying to settle in a number of western cities, he ended up settling on Dubai, which he praised for its “neutrality” and its business environment.
Earlier this year Durov sat down to an interview with Tucker Carlson, during which he reiterated his vision of a Telegram committed to being a “neutral platform” rather than a “player in geopolitics”.
After Durov’s arrest, Carlson took to X to describe the Telegram CEO as “a living warning to any platform owner who refuses to censor the truth at the behest of governments and intel agencies”.
“Pavel Durov left Russia when the government tried to control his social media company, Telegram. But in the end, it wasn’t Putin who arrested him for allowing the public to exercise free speech. It was a western country, a Biden administration ally and enthusiastic NATO member, that locked him away,” Carlson wrote.
Whatever your view of geopolitics, it’s hard to argue against the notion that Durov’s arrest isn’t something of an exercise in intimidation – which seems to be working. CEO of Rumble, Chris Pavlovski posted on X following Durov’s arrest that he had “just safely departed from Europe”.
“France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.
“Rumble will not stand for this behavior and will use every legal means available to fight for freedom of expression, a universal human right. We are currently fighting in the courts of France, and we hope for Pavel Durov’s immediate release,” Pavlovski wrote.
Telegram came under attack most recently following the Southport stabbing unrest in the UK, with commentators claiming that it played a significant role in allowing the “far-right” to communicate plans for gatherings and protests.
It’s not hard, though, reading the tone of those critiques to come to the conclusion that the reason a significant number of people are upset about Telegram is simply because it’s harder to place controls on than other forms of social media. After all, it’s not like Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp are free of content that violates the law.
In the US, the New Mexico Attorney General claimed last year that Facebook and Instagram have become a “breeding ground” for child predators, while it was reported earlier this year that Meta documents revealed 100,000 children were sexually harassed on a daily basis on its platforms. And yet, as far as I’m aware, there are no European warrants out for Mark Zuckerberg’s arrest as soon as he steps foot on the continent.
Rather, the current Telegram saga seems like simply the latest attempt to grab hold of conversations that threaten to burst free of government control. Durov’s arrest is the first of its kind, but with the scrutiny applied to Elon Musk since his Twitter takeover, I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t the last.
Stop Press
Instead of getting rid of the ridiculous non-crime hate crime, Labour ( surprise!) want to ramp it up!
Charles Hymas in The Telegraph ( Hate crime measures axed over free speech fears back on agenda 27 August) reports:
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary with Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner - Jeff Moore/Pool via REUTERS
Labour is set to strengthen hate-crime laws watered down by the Tories over free-speech concerns in order to crack down on anti-Semitic and Islamophobic abuse.[ Dusty - and while we’re at it why not gender identity…]
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is considering a new “zero-tolerance” approach to ensure that anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate falling short of criminality is recorded by police.
She is understood to be committed to reversing the Tories’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of non-crime hate incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so they can be logged by police.
Home Office sources said incidents would only be recorded where “proportionate and necessary” to protect Jewish and Muslim individuals and communities from abusive and hateful comments and behaviour while also preserving the “fundamental right” to free speech.
Suella Braverman, as home secretary, issued new guidance last year ordering forces to stop recording the incidents just because someone was offended amid concern that freedom of expression was being curtailed.
Officers are restricted to recording only incidents motivated by intentional hostility and which pose a real risk of escalating into significant harm.
The changes followed “trivial” cases such as a man who ended up with a police file for whistling the theme tune to Bob the Builder at his neighbour, who perceived racial hatred.
Labour, however, believes the guidance is preventing police from monitoring tensions involving Jewish and Muslim communities that could escalate into violence and criminality.
This then prevents local agencies from providing support to the communities.
The move follows a surge in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents after the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct 7. Anti-semitic incidents hit a record of 4,103 last year, double the previous high, while Islamophobic incidents tripled to 2,010 in a similar period.
It is understood the review of how such incidents were recorded was ordered by Ms Cooper before this month’s riots. Some of the violence was fuelled by false rumours that the suspect behind the murder of three young girls in Southport was a Muslim.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Home Office has committed to reverse the decision of the previous government to downgrade the monitoring of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate, at a time when rates of those incidents have increased.
“It is vital that the police can capture data relating to non-crime hate incidents when it is proportionate and necessary to do so in order to help prevent serious crimes which may later occur.
“We are carefully considering how best to protect individuals and communities from hate whilst also balancing the need to protect the fundamental right to free speech.” [ Dusty - however, if you’ve been burgled or subject to shoplifting, forget it…]
The full article is here:
Surrogacy and Education Guidance
See this from Clare Page! What!!?? All thoughts gratefully received.
https://x.com/NoSecretLessons/status/1828042231653027860
Shame on Manchester Pride
What was meant to be a vigil to remember the victims of AIDS was ambushed by the T and the Q, as detailed by EDI Jester:
Can We Trust Labour?
Well, I spent the General Election campaign explaining why I felt ( despite being a former Labour loyalist) we could not trust Labour but it is worth re-visiting the question.
James Esses has now joined with Matt Goodwin’s substack and they address this issue:
James Esses: NO. Labour CANNOT be trusted on sex and gender.
A look at what Labour politicians have actually said
Aug 26, 2024
Just a few short weeks ago, Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Anneliese Dodds Minister for Women and Equalities.
Dodds, who has previously demonstrated that she does not know what a woman is, is now in charge of protecting women’s interests.
The irony of this is not lost on many.
Unfortunately, this appointment came as no surprise. Why?
Because contrary to all the talk about the Labour Party becoming ‘moderate’, ‘sensible’, ‘grown-up’, and ‘responsible’, Starmer’s Labour have already made it crystal clear where they stand on the ongoing trans debate.
And that is squarely against biological reality.
In 2023, Anneliese Dodds —then Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities— wrote an article for the Guardian.
In it, she pledged that “Labour will lead on reform of transgender rights”.
However, in an attempt to ‘back both horses’ (Dodds said “Labour’s commitment to trans people and women is not up for debate”), Labour now risk alienating everyone.
Labour’s proposed reforms in this area essentially involve removing what limited protections there currently are to prevent radical gender ideology gaining an even greater foothold across British society.
For one, Labour want to remove safeguards from the process to legally change sex, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
Of course, it is ludicrous that our law creates a distinction between biological sex and legal sex at all.
My own view is that this piece of legislation should be repealed altogether.
Labour have stated that, if given the chance, they will abolish the safeguard of having a panel of independent and anonymous doctors make decisions around the granting of Gender Recognition Certificates.
Instead, they will replace this with a diagnosis of a single doctor chosen by the applicant. This is justified on the grounds of “removing invasive bureaucracy”.
This would allow applicants to go to one of the many and growing private gender clinics in the UK (see, for example, the disgraced GenderGP) and pay a few hundred quid to get a diagnosis, possibly after just a single conversation.
It will allow those with nefarious motives to legally change sex.
This undermines safeguarding.
Equally, Dodds has made it clear that Labour does not believe the Equality Act of 2010 should be amended to clarify that ‘sex’ means biological sex – a crucial change that is required to properly uphold protection for women and LGB people in the UK.
Possibly most concerning of all is Labour’s pledge in the King’s Speech to criminalise ‘conversion practices’. The risks, should this become law, are significant.
It will, in essence, criminalise talking therapies for vulnerable children who are struggling with gender dysphoria, which is a mental health condition.
It will create a slippery slope, in which parents could be criminalised for failing to affirm their child’s ‘gender identity’, as witnessed in Victoria, Australia, where a similar ban was recently introduced.
It will also criminalise conversations between religious leaders and their congregation, therefore further diluting free speech under Labour.
Labour have also, crucially, facilitated a culture of abuse of women who have a strong tradition of supporting women.
Rosie Duffield, a Labour Party MP, has spoken out about feeling “hounded and harassed” by those within her party for her stance on the trans debate.
The Labour Women’s Declaration were even denied a stall at last year’s Party Conference. Not very ‘inclusive’, is it?
The full piece is here:
Women’s Football
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic.
Flying Bats: Australian women’s soccer team featuring five trans players wins grand final amid tight security after going undefeated all season ( 27 August).
The Flying Bats won their Women’s Premier League grand final
The women’s team consists of five transgender players
Six of their wins came as the result of forfeits, including semi-final fixtures
Australia’s most controversial soccer team has won its grand final after going through their season undefeated fielding five transgender players in Sydney competition.
Sydney-based Flying Bats FC made headlines around the globe earlier this year after it was revealed that five of the team’s women’s side were made up of transgender players.
The team’s presence in the women’s competition led to complaints from club officials and parents, while high-profile figures like JK Rowling and Lucy Zelic have also criticised their participation.
And now it can be revealed that the team have capped an undefeated season in the Women’s Premier League competition which they have won all 16 of their regular season matches while scoring 65 goals and conceding just four in the process by winning the grand final on Sunday.
Earlier this year, it was reported that sports governing bodies had told clubs that they would be punished if they forfeited their games against the Bats.
Brisbane Women’s Rally
Great rally! Loads of good speeches. The police at least held the bawling trans rights nutters sufficiently far away that the attendees could hear the speeches. It included a speech by Dr Jillian Spencer who I have referred to several times before, including here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/zero-dark-thirty?utm_source=publication-search
Women’s Sport
In the light of what happened at the Woolympics ( see many recent updates from me), this is a fascinating piece on her substack, Eva’s Newsletter from Eva Kurilova.
The Women's Ski Champion Who Turned Out to Be a Man and Accepted It
No matter how sympathetic their story, we used to understand that men shouldn't compete as women
Aug 24, 2024
Erik Schinegger was born in 1948 in Agsdorf, Austria, surrounded by the steep slopes of the Carinthia Valley. These slopes would later beckon him to become a world-class skier, first in the women’s category and then in the men’s.
When the midwife announced, “It’s a girl!” the infant boy was named Erika.
I was alerted to Schinegger’s story by Amy E. Sousa, a writer and women’s rights activist who pointed him out in relation to the Olympic boxing scandal. While there was so much confusion and argument about what to do with two male boxers who were competing against women, Sousa noted that here was a man who stopped competing against women when he found out he was male and who, in fact, eventually gave back his world championship medal.
Schinegger was born with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) that caused him to be misidentified as female at birth. Though these conditions are exceedingly rare in the general population, such men are overrepresented in female sports categories due to their male advantage. Perhaps the most famous such case in modern times, at least until this past Olympic boxing controversy, was Caster Semenya.
As former president of Athletics Alberta Dr. Linda Blade wrote for Reality’s Last Stand, “From the moment the IOC reluctantly allowed women to compete in the Olympics back in the early 20th century, situations arose where male athletes were discovered competing in the women’s category.”
Like many of these athletes, Schinegger was told from birth that he was a girl and did indeed believe himself to be one. However, he always knew he was different and didn’t fit many girly stereotypes, for example, preferring matchbox cars to dolls. During adolescence, he noticed that he wasn’t maturing like the other girls, namely that he didn’t begin menstruating nor develop breasts. Distressingly, he started having feelings for girls as well.
Since Schinegger didn’t fit in with girls or boys, he took refuge in sports. At age eight, he made himself his first pair of skis from barrel staves. He would watch hours of televised ski races, memorizing the techniques of the era’s stars. At age 12, he won his first race. At age 16, he was invited to join the Austrian National Youth Team.
Just after turning 18, Schinegger had his breakout moment at the 1966 World Alpine Ski Championships in Portillo, Chile. After a dominant French performance, Austria’s last hope for a gold medal lay on the dangerously steep women’s downhill course. The leader was France’s Marielle Goitschel. Schinegger flew down the slopes and beat Goitschel’s time by an eighth of a second. Austria named him athlete of the year.
Still troubled by questions about why he had never developed like other young women, Schinegger focused everything on his goal of winning all three alpine gold medals—slalom, giant slalom, and downhill—at the 1968 Olympics in Grenoble, France. In training, he was usually several seconds ahead of the women and often as fast as the men, sometimes even beating them. For Schinegger, there was nothing better than skiing.
But everything was about to change. In 1968, the Olympics finally introduced sex testing via a quick and easy cheek swab which can reveal a person’s chromosomes. The test revealed the answer to why Schinegger had always suspected that something was wrong: he was male.
In the moment when Schinegger was facing the biggest goal of his career, his world crashed around him. He, of course, was told that he could not compete. A hospital confirmed that he had internal testicles.
According to Schinegger, the Austrian Ski Association attempted to persuade him to undergo treatment with female hormones so that he would not lose his world championship gold medal. Schinegger, however, chose to accept that he was a man, began going by the name Erik, and reportedly underwent months of surgery. The details of these surgeries are unknown aside from reports that they externalized his male genitals.
Unfortunately, even though all he did was begin living as the man he really was, Schinegger was met with quite a lot of hostility because of the taboo nature of his experience. Still feeling isolated, he once again threw himself into his training with the intention of continuing to ski in the male category.
Schinegger did indeed resume racing in the men’s category at the Europa Cup Tour, winning three races. Despite this and despite outperforming many of Austria’s best male skiers, the national team chose to omit him, citing “media unrest.” The team was worried that he would make headlines and harm their reputation.
And so, at the age of 22, a heartbroken Schinegger retired from skiing.
The full piece is here:
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/the-womens-ski-champion-who-turned
Endpieces by Dusty and Liz
Though this is nothing to do with the gender madness ( albeit it is about BBC disinformation), in a detailed analysis of the current awful situation in Bangladesh ( which you will find here and is behind a paywall: https://malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/the-bbcs-masterclass-in-disinformation), Malcolm refers to the wonderful song by Joan Baez so that is my choice for tonight:
Obviously Liz is going to upstage me as usual!!
#BeMorePorcupine
#XX
#SaveWomensSport
Thanks for a great, if worrying update, Dusty. Again, TT just about covered everything, including the abominable labour government’s cretinous kowtowing to the gender woo. They are handmaids, one & all, & will be as culpable as manic TRAs in the dismantling of 🚩child safeguarding 🚩& women’s rights.
Great return piece Liz. Didn’t know you were into documentaries.
Hope you’re recovering well. 💜🤍💚