9 ms·

It is noteworthy that the "meme" being shared was pride flags arranged in a swastika pattern, and that the person who originally made the image runs the Bad Law

It is noteworthy that the "meme" being shared was pride flags arranged in a swastika pattern, and that the person who originally made the image runs the Bad Law Project, whose webpage(https://www.badlawproject.com https://www.badlawproject.com) contains statements such as this: >Bad law is political ideology disguised as law. When we see police officers marching with demonstrators and waving political flags and chanting activist slogans - that is bad law. >Our Equality Act 2010 is bad law, because it does not treat all people equally and can be interpreted in such a way as to discriminate against people with certain views or beliefs. One of the people they feature on their website as oppressed by "Bad Law" is Calvin Robinson, who has this to say on twitter: >“No LGB without T” is a highly political statement. What does a mental health issue have to do with sexuality? >The trans movement is discriminatory towards women’s rights and female-only spaces. >Anime is degenerate. There’s a reason most trans activists use anime avatars. As far as I can tell it's an anti LGBT organization, and focuses on legal defense of people who engage in hate speech, and the repeal of anti discrimination laws. Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

Veen 4y ago
It's not an anti-LGBT organization. It is an organization concerned that the police have embraced trans ideologies that don't have the support of most of the UK population. It is in many ways similar to the LGB Alliance, which has a similar position with regard to the T in LGBT. Many of its supporters are gay, including a large number of lesbian feminists who support its goals.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation, and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group. Make of that what you will.
  - gawbla 4y ago
    > The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation No it is not. Please don't spread mistruths. > and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group I doubt that most people in the UK have heard of this charity. Also this is a very disingenuous view of their aims.
  - implements 4y ago
    (Non-combative) do you have a non-partisan source? - I ask because I’ve seen that and other similar statements (“The LGB Alliance is an astroturfed organisation”) on Twitter, and wonder if they’re objectively true or exaggerations / distortions from opposing activists?
    - notahacker 4y ago
      It's almost impossible to find non-partisan sources on culture war debates and the definition of "astroturfed" is debatable. It is true that the LGB Alliance was formed by a small group of primarily lesbians who strongly disagreed with positions held longstanding LGBT groups that had historically campaigned for lesbian (and gay) rights. It is also true that the Heritage Foundation, more noted for sponsoring anti-gay groups, is its primary sponsor, and that the group's primary activity is campaigning against gender recognition and access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the group is quite popular with conservative journalists and highly unpopular with most lesbian and gay people familiar with them.
      - implements 4y ago
        > is also true that the Heritage Foundation […] is its primary sponsor, I can’t find evidence of this, and the LGBA website says their primary funding comes from individual donations. https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-why-the-gender-ideology-activists-are-wrong-about-me-the-heritage-foundation-and-lgb-alliance/ https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-wh... The above article makes this point: Why would it donate to an organisation that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, that has an overwhelmingly left-wing membership, and that was founded by two left-wing lesbian feminists? - given the LGBA’s position is: “(W)e do not, and will not, forge links with, or accept funding from, any organisation… that seeks to undermine women’s reproductive rights.” - which the Heritage Foundation oppose, I gather. I’m inclined to believe the Heritage Foundation link is a untruth, to be honest. Given the LGBA’s charitable status I guess we’ll get definitive evidence at some point.
- nisegami 4y ago
  You've just described an anti-LGBT organization while claiming it is not
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    You've implied that a bunch of gay people are anti-gay because of the gay organization they belong to that advocates for gays.
    - nisegami 4y ago
      I claim that they're anti-LGBT, not anti-gay
      - bobsmooth 4y ago
        They are pro-LGB. If you think that means they're anti-LGBT that's on you.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      They're not "anti-gay", they're anti-the-wrong-sort-of-gay. You're only gay if you're the kind of gay they approve of.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        Gordonjcp 4y ago
        Yeah, you don't need to explain it to me, and especially not incorrectly.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        If I was wrong you'd have corrected me. People have a legal and moral right to self-associate with those they choose and to exclude those sabotaging their political movements.
- elsonrodriguez 4y ago
  You're right, they're not exclusively anti-LGBT. Looking at their cases page, they are also "Anti Woke". https://www.badlawproject.com/cases https://www.badlawproject.com/cases They highlight a case with Amy Gallahger, who is an adamant "anti-CRT" activist per her Twitter. So it seems they were focused on other things, but have pivoted to anti-trans activism(hence the amount of Pride imagery on their front page). Tactically it makes sense. They are following the lead of other such organizations by focusing on anti-trans rhetoric, as it is currently more palatable, before pivoting back to marginalizing other minorities.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > that don't have the support of most of the UK population [citation needed]
  - implements 4y ago
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/... It’s a tricky read, but a gist might be that most Brits are generally well-meaning, fairly uninformed, and tend to be conservative when asked questions about specific scenarios: “Recognition: most Britons say that people should be able to change their social gender, but are split on whether they should be able to change their legal gender” “Process: Britons oppose making it easier to legally change gender“ “Access to sport: Britons oppose transgender athletes taking part in sporting events for their new gender” “Access to treatment: Britons are split on the NHS providing hormone therapy for trans people, and tend to oppose it providing gender reassignment surgery”
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Ah, but that's a Yougov poll, so carefully selected from Daily Heil readers.
mmastrac 4y ago
The escalation from "swastika memes" to more substantial hate is not a big stretch either. There's been multiple threats to LGBT events in my local city lately. No tolerance for intolerance. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/planned-drag-night-at-calgary-kangaroo-petting-zoo-spurs-hateful-messages-threats https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/planned-drag-night...
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Oh, you should really arrest the people making the violent threats - as that is in fact a crime. Distasteful memes are not.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    Hate speech is a crime, in many countries.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      If the law is so broad that anything can be interpreted as hate speech, it is bad law.
      - mmastrac 4y ago
        A swastika is not hate speech?
        xdennis 4y ago
        jaywalk 4y ago
        It may or may not be. Context is important, and I think it's pretty clear that the swastika here is attempting to make the point (right or wrong) that LGBT groups act like Nazis.
aydyn 4y ago
> Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > No it's not, it's literally not relevant. You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not. In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I'm not taking one side or the other, personally, but this is an opinion question settled by the voters.
  - aydyn 4y ago
    > In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      I'm not GP.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - aydyn 4y ago
        That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."
        arcticbull 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
I think that organization is gross, Robinson is a bad human being, and the meme is disgusting, but whether or not someone should be arrested for "causing someone anxiety" is not "another debate". It's flat-out ridiculous.
vorpalhex 4y ago
They don't seem to be anti-lgbt even if they disagree with your political beliefs. They have helped defend some feminists. Again, you can disagree with their defense of those people - but that isn't exactly mustache twirling evil. Society isn't supposed to be where one political faction throws it's opposers into prison.
- elsonrodriguez 4y ago
  The feminist they helped is an anti-trans activist who was posting "No Men In Women's Bathroom" posters. I'm also not sure if she is LGBT. They have also helped an Anti-CRT activist per their "cases" page, which contains a video about "AntiWoke". This organization has a peculiar pattern, much of which revolves around attacking the Equality Act, which tries to protect people based on: "Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation" With that laid bare, I guess their pattern isn't so peculiar, huh. This isn't "politics", it is simply about suppressing minorities.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I don't think being opposed to CRT or respecting Women's spaces is the same as "suppressing minorities".
1123581321 4y ago
That was not noteworthy other than it highlighted the civic attitude that leaves police feeling free to arrest for merely perceived speech violations.
abnry 4y ago
You come off as saying the arrest is warranted but in a way so as to suggest you aren't saying so.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  It is obviously warranted
- epgui 4y ago
  No, he isn't saying that at all. There's a difference between saying something is morally reprehensible (OP's comment in my own words) and that an arrest is warranted.
number6 4y ago
> Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. Is it really? Someone retweeted something, that's controversial but not illegal and got arrested. The context does not clarify anything but divides. I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either, but if people get arrested for speaking their minds that's the pathway to fascism.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either And that's the thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people (probably even the guy who was arrested in the article) who could claim a pro-trans tweet "caused them anxiety", and get someone arrested, or at least subject to a required police interview, which isn't much better. I am dumbfounded that people seem to think this situation is ok, and the UK law in question is sane.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    I think it's because you're only hearing from the more militant internet-comfortable commenters who enforcement currently favors. When it's swung back on them in due time--and it will be, as it always is--then suddenly it'll be a grave injustice.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
I personally interpreted the original tweet as being against a rather extremist minority within the LGBT community. It was not in good taste but I think it highlights an actual issue and it's too easy (and perhaps even proves the point) to accuse anyone sharing it or not being overly outraged by it of being 'anti LGBT'. Like JK Rowling being cancelled for saying that women may not feel safe in toilets with men (many women agree), for instance.
- mock-possum 4y ago
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    You're using a term, TERF, which is used to spur stochastic terrorism[1] by implying that adult human females aren't to be allowed to explain their political needs. You're also using fake quotes (very loose paraphrases in quote marks) to support your demonization. But, even if she or Dave had said that transwomen are men, and that as such they're as much risk to women (rape, violence, etc) as any other men, why would such an opinion not be worthy to be expressed. It seems distinctly less harmful than accepting the other side on faith, given the many rapes committed by trans-identified-men on women in women's prisons[2] for one. [1] https://medium.com/@deepgreenresist/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-3ccb82b34ab https://medium.com/@deepgreenresist/san-francisco-public-lib... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-...
UpstandingUser 4y ago
This comment causes me anxiety, I'll be reporting it to the authorities.
notahacker 4y ago
Nothing says sincere commitment to freedom of expression quite like organising a campaign to ban policemen from appearing at pride events and force churches to ordinate people whose views they consider to be unrepresentative of the church's teaching... Also noteworthy that the UK has had "Malicious Communications" laws on the statute book since 1988 and actually jailed people for it, so the position that this is some new level of outrage perpetrated by the Woke Agenda because the person spoken to by police was a homophobe rather than a poppy burner isn't really one in favour of free speech per se...
Dig1t 4y ago
> It is noteworthy It is NOT noteworthy. The solution to bad speech is MORE speech, not authoritarian crackdowns based on how someone had hurt feelings. Better points of view will prevail. A system where it’s okay to arrest someone for causing “distress” is one that will 100% be abused.
whiddershins 4y ago
It’s clearly anti-trans activism, not anti LGBT, which is a distinction that is meaningful, whether or not I find it repugnant. That your comment conflates the two is everything that worries me about speech policing.
scarmig 4y ago
Just the other day, we saw government tools originally promised to only be used against the Bad Guys (pedophiles, terrorists, and copyright violators) being used to persecute a 17 year old girl who got a miscarriage. In the long run, bad precedents have a way of inevitably being turned against everyone, especially the most vulnerable.
- kofejnik 4y ago
  No, she induced a miscarriage at 28 weeks. Babies born at 28 weeks have over 80% chance of survival, so she murdered her own baby
matrix_overload 4y ago
So ad hominem attack in its textbook form. "Let's not discuss a specific action and its implications on the society. Let's instead talk how bad the person is because he retweeted a post that was created by another person that expresses the views that some people decided nobody should dare to express." No, separation of actions from identities is a cornerstone of a civilized society. Otherwise, we quickly descend into witch burning and lynching by the mob.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mgdlbp 4y ago
It's also interesting to consider, that: > The Equality Act 2010 says you mustn’t be discriminated against because of your religion or belief. > A philosophical belief is a non-religious belief and includes things like humanism, secularism and atheism. > Something can be a philosophical belief if you strongly and genuinely believe in it and it concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour. The courts have said that the belief in man-made climate change and spiritualism are philosophical beliefs. But a political belief is not a philosophical belief. 0 https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/religion-or-belief-discrimination/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discriminat... Specific to Northern Ireland: > It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions. > However, a political opinion which includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political purposes in Northern Ireland is excluded from protection. 1 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/religious-belief-and-political-opinion-discrimination https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/religious-belief-and-po...
tohnjitor 4y ago
Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who flies a flag so closely related to the nazi flag to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.
thingification 4y ago
I honestly don't know the answer to this, but: Has somebody asked the person who got arrested whether the swastika means something closer to "I think nazis are good", or instead something closer to "I think some people in some political groups who align themselves with the LGBT community share some attributes with nazis"? There's an odd mindset around this sort of thing in some internet circles, in which for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition. Isn't that part of what people are reacting to when they are outraged when this sort of arrest happens?
- mock-possum 4y ago
  > for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition which book specifically are you thinking of here? was this a thing I missed?
  - thingification 4y ago
    I'm not thinking of a specific book, but I am thinking of this kind of thing (but I haven't read this specific article in full): https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/ya-twitters-victims-and-critics-speak https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/ya-twitters-victims-and-c...
california2077 4y ago
Excellently done. I applaud your skill at rebuking all these right-wing free speech assholes. We need not discuss whether this person should have been arrested when we can much more productively discuss the fact that he is a piece of shit. Who cares if a piece of shit gets arrested? The proper fate of such pieces of shit is to suffer. I mean, suffer the proper and just consequences of their own hate. Who would want to live in a society where everyone can just post whatever hateful garbage they want?
bacchusracine 4y ago
>>it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. It implies nothing though. Or are you saying before hitting retweet or before passing along a meme that everyone now needs to do hours of research trying to trace back the origin of a meme to determine its source and how that source relates to politics and wokeness? Does that really seem reasonable to you?
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image Well actually No. Its not important, not at all. If it’s not illegal to cross the street, it doesn’t suddenly become illegal to cross the street because you’re crossing to get to a nazi meet up. This whole “yes we are abusing the laws to oppress people with opinions we disagree with… But just look at how disagreeable they are!!” Is dangerous.

Veen 4y ago

It's not an anti-LGBT organization. It is an organization concerned that the police have embraced trans ideologies that don't have the support of most of the UK population. It is in many ways similar to the LGB Alliance, which has a similar position with regard to the T in LGBT. Many of its supporters are gay, including a large number of lesbian feminists who support its goals.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation, and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group. Make of that what you will.
- gawbla 4y ago
  > The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation No it is not. Please don't spread mistruths. > and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group I doubt that most people in the UK have heard of this charity. Also this is a very disingenuous view of their aims.
- implements 4y ago
  (Non-combative) do you have a non-partisan source? - I ask because I’ve seen that and other similar statements (“The LGB Alliance is an astroturfed organisation”) on Twitter, and wonder if they’re objectively true or exaggerations / distortions from opposing activists?
  - notahacker 4y ago
    It's almost impossible to find non-partisan sources on culture war debates and the definition of "astroturfed" is debatable. It is true that the LGB Alliance was formed by a small group of primarily lesbians who strongly disagreed with positions held longstanding LGBT groups that had historically campaigned for lesbian (and gay) rights. It is also true that the Heritage Foundation, more noted for sponsoring anti-gay groups, is its primary sponsor, and that the group's primary activity is campaigning against gender recognition and access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the group is quite popular with conservative journalists and highly unpopular with most lesbian and gay people familiar with them.
    - implements 4y ago
      > is also true that the Heritage Foundation […] is its primary sponsor, I can’t find evidence of this, and the LGBA website says their primary funding comes from individual donations. https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-why-the-gender-ideology-activists-are-wrong-about-me-the-heritage-foundation-and-lgb-alliance/ https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-wh... The above article makes this point: Why would it donate to an organisation that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, that has an overwhelmingly left-wing membership, and that was founded by two left-wing lesbian feminists? - given the LGBA’s position is: “(W)e do not, and will not, forge links with, or accept funding from, any organisation… that seeks to undermine women’s reproductive rights.” - which the Heritage Foundation oppose, I gather. I’m inclined to believe the Heritage Foundation link is a untruth, to be honest. Given the LGBA’s charitable status I guess we’ll get definitive evidence at some point.
nisegami 4y ago
You've just described an anti-LGBT organization while claiming it is not
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You've implied that a bunch of gay people are anti-gay because of the gay organization they belong to that advocates for gays.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    I claim that they're anti-LGBT, not anti-gay
    - bobsmooth 4y ago
      They are pro-LGB. If you think that means they're anti-LGBT that's on you.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    They're not "anti-gay", they're anti-the-wrong-sort-of-gay. You're only gay if you're the kind of gay they approve of.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        Yeah, you don't need to explain it to me, and especially not incorrectly.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        If I was wrong you'd have corrected me. People have a legal and moral right to self-associate with those they choose and to exclude those sabotaging their political movements.
elsonrodriguez 4y ago
You're right, they're not exclusively anti-LGBT. Looking at their cases page, they are also "Anti Woke". https://www.badlawproject.com/cases https://www.badlawproject.com/cases They highlight a case with Amy Gallahger, who is an adamant "anti-CRT" activist per her Twitter. So it seems they were focused on other things, but have pivoted to anti-trans activism(hence the amount of Pride imagery on their front page). Tactically it makes sense. They are following the lead of other such organizations by focusing on anti-trans rhetoric, as it is currently more palatable, before pivoting back to marginalizing other minorities.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
> that don't have the support of most of the UK population [citation needed]
- implements 4y ago
  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/... It’s a tricky read, but a gist might be that most Brits are generally well-meaning, fairly uninformed, and tend to be conservative when asked questions about specific scenarios: “Recognition: most Britons say that people should be able to change their social gender, but are split on whether they should be able to change their legal gender” “Process: Britons oppose making it easier to legally change gender“ “Access to sport: Britons oppose transgender athletes taking part in sporting events for their new gender” “Access to treatment: Britons are split on the NHS providing hormone therapy for trans people, and tend to oppose it providing gender reassignment surgery”
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Ah, but that's a Yougov poll, so carefully selected from Daily Heil readers.

mmastrac 4y ago

The escalation from "swastika memes" to more substantial hate is not a big stretch either. There's been multiple threats to LGBT events in my local city lately. No tolerance for intolerance. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/planned-drag-night-at-calgary-kangaroo-petting-zoo-spurs-hateful-messages-threats https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/planned-drag-night...

vorpalhex 4y ago
Oh, you should really arrest the people making the violent threats - as that is in fact a crime. Distasteful memes are not.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  Hate speech is a crime, in many countries.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If the law is so broad that anything can be interpreted as hate speech, it is bad law.
    - mmastrac 4y ago
      A swastika is not hate speech?
      - xdennis 4y ago
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        It may or may not be. Context is important, and I think it's pretty clear that the swastika here is attempting to make the point (right or wrong) that LGBT groups act like Nazis.

aydyn 4y ago

> Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.

arcticbull 4y ago
> No it's not, it's literally not relevant. You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not. In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I'm not taking one side or the other, personally, but this is an opinion question settled by the voters.
- aydyn 4y ago
  > In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    I'm not GP.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - aydyn 4y ago
      That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."
      - arcticbull 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago

I think that organization is gross, Robinson is a bad human being, and the meme is disgusting, but whether or not someone should be arrested for "causing someone anxiety" is not "another debate". It's flat-out ridiculous.

vorpalhex 4y ago

They don't seem to be anti-lgbt even if they disagree with your political beliefs. They have helped defend some feminists. Again, you can disagree with their defense of those people - but that isn't exactly mustache twirling evil. Society isn't supposed to be where one political faction throws it's opposers into prison.

elsonrodriguez 4y ago
The feminist they helped is an anti-trans activist who was posting "No Men In Women's Bathroom" posters. I'm also not sure if she is LGBT. They have also helped an Anti-CRT activist per their "cases" page, which contains a video about "AntiWoke". This organization has a peculiar pattern, much of which revolves around attacking the Equality Act, which tries to protect people based on: "Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation" With that laid bare, I guess their pattern isn't so peculiar, huh. This isn't "politics", it is simply about suppressing minorities.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I don't think being opposed to CRT or respecting Women's spaces is the same as "suppressing minorities".

1123581321 4y ago

That was not noteworthy other than it highlighted the civic attitude that leaves police feeling free to arrest for merely perceived speech violations.

abnry 4y ago

You come off as saying the arrest is warranted but in a way so as to suggest you aren't saying so.

bowsamic 4y ago
It is obviously warranted
epgui 4y ago
No, he isn't saying that at all. There's a difference between saying something is morally reprehensible (OP's comment in my own words) and that an arrest is warranted.

number6 4y ago

> Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. Is it really? Someone retweeted something, that's controversial but not illegal and got arrested. The context does not clarify anything but divides. I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either, but if people get arrested for speaking their minds that's the pathway to fascism.

kelnos 4y ago
> I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either And that's the thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people (probably even the guy who was arrested in the article) who could claim a pro-trans tweet "caused them anxiety", and get someone arrested, or at least subject to a required police interview, which isn't much better. I am dumbfounded that people seem to think this situation is ok, and the UK law in question is sane.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  I think it's because you're only hearing from the more militant internet-comfortable commenters who enforcement currently favors. When it's swung back on them in due time--and it will be, as it always is--then suddenly it'll be a grave injustice.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

I personally interpreted the original tweet as being against a rather extremist minority within the LGBT community. It was not in good taste but I think it highlights an actual issue and it's too easy (and perhaps even proves the point) to accuse anyone sharing it or not being overly outraged by it of being 'anti LGBT'. Like JK Rowling being cancelled for saying that women may not feel safe in toilets with men (many women agree), for instance.

mock-possum 4y ago
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  You're using a term, TERF, which is used to spur stochastic terrorism[1] by implying that adult human females aren't to be allowed to explain their political needs. You're also using fake quotes (very loose paraphrases in quote marks) to support your demonization. But, even if she or Dave had said that transwomen are men, and that as such they're as much risk to women (rape, violence, etc) as any other men, why would such an opinion not be worthy to be expressed. It seems distinctly less harmful than accepting the other side on faith, given the many rapes committed by trans-identified-men on women in women's prisons[2] for one. [1] https://medium.com/@deepgreenresist/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-3ccb82b34ab https://medium.com/@deepgreenresist/san-francisco-public-lib... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-...

UpstandingUser 4y ago

This comment causes me anxiety, I'll be reporting it to the authorities.

notahacker 4y ago

Nothing says sincere commitment to freedom of expression quite like organising a campaign to ban policemen from appearing at pride events and force churches to ordinate people whose views they consider to be unrepresentative of the church's teaching... Also noteworthy that the UK has had "Malicious Communications" laws on the statute book since 1988 and actually jailed people for it, so the position that this is some new level of outrage perpetrated by the Woke Agenda because the person spoken to by police was a homophobe rather than a poppy burner isn't really one in favour of free speech per se...

Dig1t 4y ago

> It is noteworthy It is NOT noteworthy. The solution to bad speech is MORE speech, not authoritarian crackdowns based on how someone had hurt feelings. Better points of view will prevail. A system where it’s okay to arrest someone for causing “distress” is one that will 100% be abused.

whiddershins 4y ago

It’s clearly anti-trans activism, not anti LGBT, which is a distinction that is meaningful, whether or not I find it repugnant. That your comment conflates the two is everything that worries me about speech policing.

scarmig 4y ago

Just the other day, we saw government tools originally promised to only be used against the Bad Guys (pedophiles, terrorists, and copyright violators) being used to persecute a 17 year old girl who got a miscarriage. In the long run, bad precedents have a way of inevitably being turned against everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

kofejnik 4y ago
No, she induced a miscarriage at 28 weeks. Babies born at 28 weeks have over 80% chance of survival, so she murdered her own baby

matrix_overload 4y ago

So ad hominem attack in its textbook form. "Let's not discuss a specific action and its implications on the society. Let's instead talk how bad the person is because he retweeted a post that was created by another person that expresses the views that some people decided nobody should dare to express." No, separation of actions from identities is a cornerstone of a civilized society. Otherwise, we quickly descend into witch burning and lynching by the mob.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mgdlbp 4y ago

It's also interesting to consider, that: > The Equality Act 2010 says you mustn’t be discriminated against because of your religion or belief. > A philosophical belief is a non-religious belief and includes things like humanism, secularism and atheism. > Something can be a philosophical belief if you strongly and genuinely believe in it and it concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour. The courts have said that the belief in man-made climate change and spiritualism are philosophical beliefs. But a political belief is not a philosophical belief. 0 https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/religion-or-belief-discrimination/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discriminat... Specific to Northern Ireland: > It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions. > However, a political opinion which includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political purposes in Northern Ireland is excluded from protection. 1 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/religious-belief-and-political-opinion-discrimination https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/religious-belief-and-po...

tohnjitor 4y ago

Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who flies a flag so closely related to the nazi flag to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

thingification 4y ago

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but: Has somebody asked the person who got arrested whether the swastika means something closer to "I think nazis are good", or instead something closer to "I think some people in some political groups who align themselves with the LGBT community share some attributes with nazis"? There's an odd mindset around this sort of thing in some internet circles, in which for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition. Isn't that part of what people are reacting to when they are outraged when this sort of arrest happens?

mock-possum 4y ago
> for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition which book specifically are you thinking of here? was this a thing I missed?
- thingification 4y ago
  I'm not thinking of a specific book, but I am thinking of this kind of thing (but I haven't read this specific article in full): https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/ya-twitters-victims-and-critics-speak https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/ya-twitters-victims-and-c...

california2077 4y ago

Excellently done. I applaud your skill at rebuking all these right-wing free speech assholes. We need not discuss whether this person should have been arrested when we can much more productively discuss the fact that he is a piece of shit. Who cares if a piece of shit gets arrested? The proper fate of such pieces of shit is to suffer. I mean, suffer the proper and just consequences of their own hate. Who would want to live in a society where everyone can just post whatever hateful garbage they want?

bacchusracine 4y ago

>>it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image. It implies nothing though. Or are you saying before hitting retweet or before passing along a meme that everyone now needs to do hours of research trying to trace back the origin of a meme to determine its source and how that source relates to politics and wokeness? Does that really seem reasonable to you?

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

> but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image Well actually No. Its not important, not at all. If it’s not illegal to cross the street, it doesn’t suddenly become illegal to cross the street because you’re crossing to get to a nazi meet up. This whole “yes we are abusing the laws to oppress people with opinions we disagree with… But just look at how disagreeable they are!!” Is dangerous.