5 ms·

There was a case in the U.K. where a man was arrested and charged for misgendering a trans person on the street. The very obvious (to me) next step would be fac

There was a case in the U.K. where a man was arrested and charged for misgendering a trans person on the street. The very obvious (to me) next step would be facilitating surveillance to track when people commit similar hate crimes (like using the wrong pronouns) online. We in North America forget that our friends across the pond have a very different relationship with speech than what we enjoy here. I find this bill pretty chilling.

tekla 3y ago
I don't want to believe you. Can you link the case?
- johndunne 3y ago
  I think this is the case being referred to, and it was less misgender, more harassment and public humiliation. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    The article you've linked doesn't support your interpretation: > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. > She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" > The video then showed the 42-year-old as he responded to the crowd and referred to her as "this gentleman" and saying: "This is a man." It appears this trans woman approach a preacher and at best asked a question and got an answer. Without context, I wonder if it were intentionally inflamatory. Regardless, it hardly fits the bill of 'harassment'.
    - joenot443 3y ago
      This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. I'm unsure why my comment's being received so poorly - for those downvoting - do you disagree with the court's decision? Do you think this does meet the definition for "harassment"?
      - guitarbill 3y ago
        Nothing to do with disagreeing with the court. That case does not seem particularly relevant to the bill, but is excellent flame bait. And the smug North American comment does nothing to further the discussion either.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - johndunne 3y ago
      And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of gender politics. Call me triggered, I came to see what HN'ers thought of the law in relation to these sham end-to-end encryption laws, not G politics.
      - averageRoyalty 3y ago
        I see, your point was more a technicality on the legal reason for the charge. I think the GPs point was not what the charge was, but the reason the person was charged in the first place. Technically the charge may have been harassment, but in reality it was gender politics reasons - it's unlikely a harassment charge would have been laid if the accuser were not a trans person here. The reason this was highlighted was the concept of how other digital laws could be abused in a similar manner.
johndunne 3y ago
I think you've misconstrued this case. The preacher was arrested for shouting and harassing a person in a public space. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
- fitchel 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - KronisLV 3y ago
    > Not everyone believes in this "gender identity" bullshit, and we shouldn't be forced by the law to accede to the demands of its acolytes. This feels like a very hateful take. For anyone who needs to hear this: not everyone is like this and a lot of people actually support you in finding your best selves and living happy lives. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Debating the extent of the law and how it should be applied is okay, the tone doesn't seem that way to me.
    - fitchel 3y ago
      [flagged]
- joenot443 3y ago
  Where is my misconstruction? > A Christian preacher who was found guilty of harassing a transgender woman by calling her a "man" and "gentleman" has had his conviction quashed. From what I understand, the 'harassment' claim was based on the misgendering, not the preaching. It sounds as if the court later overturned the claim, but the fact he was charged at all is a tad unsettling to me. In NYC I walk past preachers at Union Square all the time. I've been called a heretic and a sinner, you just gotta shrug it off. It sounds like in this case, the trans person who felt victimized actually _initiated_ the conversation. > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" So the complementary case here would be if I approached one of the Black Hebrew Israelites in Union Square and asked them how they felt about Catholics, and got the response you'd expect. Do you really think I'd have grounds for a 'harassment' claim? Like I said, I'm not English, this isn't my country. If the voters of the UK want this type of protection through power of the law, who am I to tell them otherwise. I'm just observing that I'm pleased to live in a country where disagreeing on gender politics isn't enough to land you a criminal record.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
People in the UK get arrested just for saying something online about transgender people even if it's not hateful, but 'wrong'. Look at how many people got arrested at the coronation. Yeah, they don't have free speech like the US, but most countries don't.

tekla 3y ago

I don't want to believe you. Can you link the case?

johndunne 3y ago
I think this is the case being referred to, and it was less misgender, more harassment and public humiliation. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  The article you've linked doesn't support your interpretation: > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. > She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" > The video then showed the 42-year-old as he responded to the crowd and referred to her as "this gentleman" and saying: "This is a man." It appears this trans woman approach a preacher and at best asked a question and got an answer. Without context, I wonder if it were intentionally inflamatory. Regardless, it hardly fits the bill of 'harassment'.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. I'm unsure why my comment's being received so poorly - for those downvoting - do you disagree with the court's decision? Do you think this does meet the definition for "harassment"?
    - guitarbill 3y ago
      Nothing to do with disagreeing with the court. That case does not seem particularly relevant to the bill, but is excellent flame bait. And the smug North American comment does nothing to further the discussion either.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - johndunne 3y ago
    And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of gender politics. Call me triggered, I came to see what HN'ers thought of the law in relation to these sham end-to-end encryption laws, not G politics.
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      I see, your point was more a technicality on the legal reason for the charge. I think the GPs point was not what the charge was, but the reason the person was charged in the first place. Technically the charge may have been harassment, but in reality it was gender politics reasons - it's unlikely a harassment charge would have been laid if the accuser were not a trans person here. The reason this was highlighted was the concept of how other digital laws could be abused in a similar manner.

johndunne 3y ago

I think you've misconstrued this case. The preacher was arrested for shouting and harassing a person in a public space. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216

fitchel 3y ago
[flagged]
- KronisLV 3y ago
  > Not everyone believes in this "gender identity" bullshit, and we shouldn't be forced by the law to accede to the demands of its acolytes. This feels like a very hateful take. For anyone who needs to hear this: not everyone is like this and a lot of people actually support you in finding your best selves and living happy lives. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Debating the extent of the law and how it should be applied is okay, the tone doesn't seem that way to me.
  - fitchel 3y ago
    [flagged]
joenot443 3y ago
Where is my misconstruction? > A Christian preacher who was found guilty of harassing a transgender woman by calling her a "man" and "gentleman" has had his conviction quashed. From what I understand, the 'harassment' claim was based on the misgendering, not the preaching. It sounds as if the court later overturned the claim, but the fact he was charged at all is a tad unsettling to me. In NYC I walk past preachers at Union Square all the time. I've been called a heretic and a sinner, you just gotta shrug it off. It sounds like in this case, the trans person who felt victimized actually _initiated_ the conversation. > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" So the complementary case here would be if I approached one of the Black Hebrew Israelites in Union Square and asked them how they felt about Catholics, and got the response you'd expect. Do you really think I'd have grounds for a 'harassment' claim? Like I said, I'm not English, this isn't my country. If the voters of the UK want this type of protection through power of the law, who am I to tell them otherwise. I'm just observing that I'm pleased to live in a country where disagreeing on gender politics isn't enough to land you a criminal record.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

People in the UK get arrested just for saying something online about transgender people even if it's not hateful, but 'wrong'. Look at how many people got arrested at the coronation. Yeah, they don't have free speech like the US, but most countries don't.