3 ms·

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-64

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.

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.