4 ms·

Since it's "just" for crimes: It UK it can be used for thought crimes, social media crimes like pointing out basic biology and so on. You are spot on about the

Since it's "just" for crimes: It UK it can be used for thought crimes, social media crimes like pointing out basic biology and so on. You are spot on about the definition of "crimes" being altered in the last decade. It will only get worse by the looks of it.

DanBC 6y ago
> social media crimes like pointing out basic biology Do you have any examples?
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  Most likely transgender ideology and issues like that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 In general, Europe has much stronger workers rights so companies can't and won't get rid of people just for PR. UK is always a bit different of course, the whole denying basic biology and sex is more an American topic but it's creeping to UK as well. As an example, here in Spain the socialist party that is very much left wing publish (in my personal opinion too much) open letters titled 'Arguments Against Theories Which Erase the Reality of Women' which would be called 'TERFs' in America and possibly hate crime in the UK.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Maya Forstater wasn't "fired" for "denying basic biology", and this is all entirely civil law (an argument between two parties settled by the courts) and has nothing at all to do with criminal law (an argument between the state and an individual). 1) she wasn't fired, her contract was not renewed. 2) This had nothing to do with biology (which she got wrong), but was to do with her choice to harass people in the workplace, and to harass people on social media using an account tied to her workplace. I wish people would read the Maya Forstater tribunal case notes, because it's clear that there's a lot of misinformation. She tried to make the case that she held a philosophical belief and that her belief was thus protected. She failed because her belief was incoherent and because her absolutionist approach requires her to cause harm to other people. > However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. [...] > I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

DanBC 6y ago

> social media crimes like pointing out basic biology Do you have any examples?

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Most likely transgender ideology and issues like that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919 In general, Europe has much stronger workers rights so companies can't and won't get rid of people just for PR. UK is always a bit different of course, the whole denying basic biology and sex is more an American topic but it's creeping to UK as well. As an example, here in Spain the socialist party that is very much left wing publish (in my personal opinion too much) open letters titled 'Arguments Against Theories Which Erase the Reality of Women' which would be called 'TERFs' in America and possibly hate crime in the UK.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Maya Forstater wasn't "fired" for "denying basic biology", and this is all entirely civil law (an argument between two parties settled by the courts) and has nothing at all to do with criminal law (an argument between the state and an individual). 1) she wasn't fired, her contract was not renewed. 2) This had nothing to do with biology (which she got wrong), but was to do with her choice to harass people in the workplace, and to harass people on social media using an account tied to her workplace. I wish people would read the Maya Forstater tribunal case notes, because it's clear that there's a lot of misinformation. She tried to make the case that she held a philosophical belief and that her belief was thus protected. She failed because her belief was incoherent and because her absolutionist approach requires her to cause harm to other people. > However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. [...] > I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.