Yet again it's not actually about free speech; it's "we're right and you're wrong and we deserve rights and you don't because you want to help a marginalized group"
Such a good point that it’s not about free speech and is entirely about discrimination. I hadn’t realized the EHRC also mandates that gay and lesbian associations exclude trans people 😳 Maybe the EHRC’s bi erasure can be used against them and bi organizations in the UK will be able to include trans folks without technically defying the EHRC 🤔
Good god is transphobia wicked. To make your own community exclude you in the name of “liberation,” solidarity between cisgender and transgender queer people is much more needed than ever. I hope it doesn’t fizzle out too much.
I never thought in my life using a public restroom would be such a big deal. So everyone else has the right to use a bathroom but Trans people? This is inhumane. I wish one day they would take Cis people’s rights to do something away and see who they feel! I love how the TERFS are being w used by white misogynist men and are not even aware that they are doing their work for them. 🤦♀️
Oh I’m pretty sure they’re aware, it gives them a privileged position in the patriarchal hierarchy. They’re more than happy to hurt women to get to trans women.
I don’t know about UK policies of the past but is there something about sex and gender reassignment in the Equality Act of 2010. They say it doesn’t include and it’s inferred but sex is female and gender is woman so how did the country who made the language not know how to use the language? I know legalese can be different so still trying to get the deferment but it seem inaccurate to presume women to be just pertaining to females alone. Sounds TERFy af.
The criticism of Chapman is specified in Wikipedia. “Chapman denounced what she called "bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court". Chapman's comments were denounced by the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law", and constituting "an egregious breach of Ms Chapman's duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary".”
Someone *in her position* claiming the judges are biased is egregious. She could say she disagrees, she could say new legislation is needed: fine. Free speech. No problem.
But when you undermine the judges who implement the rule of law, you undermine *everything* including the social contract. That’s why she was criticised so fiercely. It’s the same as the Daily Mail calling judges “Enemies of the People”.
Chapman’s duty is to the equality committee, and she believes the SC acted out of bigotry in a way that contravenes their equal rights to others before the law - a view many others agree with. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with her expressing that opinion in a professional capacity, and your comparison to the Daily Mail using a phrase reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric is nonsensical. Members of government should be able to criticise the judiciary, including for hatred and bigotry. We can disagree with legal judgments and the motivation for them - indeed, ‘gender critical’ activists have been doing so for years, which is how we ended up with the SC making this judgment in the first place. Arguing that members of government shouldn’t be able to critique the judiciary and that attempting to remove them from the position for doing so is justified is a deeply authoritarian and arguably fascistic position to take.
She did more than “criticise”. She essentially said “all these judges are corrupt”. She didn’t (just) say she disagreed with the ruling: she said the judges were bigoted. For someone who is meant to be part of the structure of the rule of law, that undermines faith in the system. Those are not people you want to have in positions of power. Because once you eat away at trust in the system like that, it is very, very hard to rebuild.
Well no, she didn't say that. But even if she had, that's a form of criticism, and she is entitled to it. The judiciary are not beyond criticism or well-founded accusations. Again, arguing otherwise is deeply authoritarian. You seem to think that a woman who doesn't share your transphobic ideology and dares to critique the judiciary should be sacked for doing so, which flies in the face of free speech and democratic values. I think you're a misogynistic, bigoted little authoritarian, Charles, and I've had quite enough of your bullshit now, thank you very much.
Quoting from the BBC: “Chapman - a long time supporter of trans rights - attended a protest in Aberdeen and told the crowd: "We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society."”
The criticism of her that followed was because that is seen - correctly I think - as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It is authoritarian to attack the judiciary - that is what Trump does; that is what Orban does. It’s essentially saying that they are wrong and implies they should be ignored. That attacks the rule of law. Nobody benefits from that except those who would take freedoms away.
It wasn’t me who suggested she be fired; it was KCs and other MSPs. She only survived the vote against her because she didn’t recuse herself and was the casting vote - the polar opposite of a disinterested decision.
Ad hominem always marks the point where someone admits to themself and everyone else that they can’t win the argument. Thanks for making that clear.
Yet again it's not actually about free speech; it's "we're right and you're wrong and we deserve rights and you don't because you want to help a marginalized group"
Such a good point that it’s not about free speech and is entirely about discrimination. I hadn’t realized the EHRC also mandates that gay and lesbian associations exclude trans people 😳 Maybe the EHRC’s bi erasure can be used against them and bi organizations in the UK will be able to include trans folks without technically defying the EHRC 🤔
Good god is transphobia wicked. To make your own community exclude you in the name of “liberation,” solidarity between cisgender and transgender queer people is much more needed than ever. I hope it doesn’t fizzle out too much.
I never thought in my life using a public restroom would be such a big deal. So everyone else has the right to use a bathroom but Trans people? This is inhumane. I wish one day they would take Cis people’s rights to do something away and see who they feel! I love how the TERFS are being w used by white misogynist men and are not even aware that they are doing their work for them. 🤦♀️
Oh I’m pretty sure they’re aware, it gives them a privileged position in the patriarchal hierarchy. They’re more than happy to hurt women to get to trans women.
Ugh, I'm ashamed of the UK on this issue. The prejudice and ignorance are stunning. Kudos to Maggie for standing her ground.
I don’t know about UK policies of the past but is there something about sex and gender reassignment in the Equality Act of 2010. They say it doesn’t include and it’s inferred but sex is female and gender is woman so how did the country who made the language not know how to use the language? I know legalese can be different so still trying to get the deferment but it seem inaccurate to presume women to be just pertaining to females alone. Sounds TERFy af.
The criticism of Chapman is specified in Wikipedia. “Chapman denounced what she called "bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court". Chapman's comments were denounced by the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law", and constituting "an egregious breach of Ms Chapman's duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary".”
Someone *in her position* claiming the judges are biased is egregious. She could say she disagrees, she could say new legislation is needed: fine. Free speech. No problem.
But when you undermine the judges who implement the rule of law, you undermine *everything* including the social contract. That’s why she was criticised so fiercely. It’s the same as the Daily Mail calling judges “Enemies of the People”.
Chapman’s duty is to the equality committee, and she believes the SC acted out of bigotry in a way that contravenes their equal rights to others before the law - a view many others agree with. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with her expressing that opinion in a professional capacity, and your comparison to the Daily Mail using a phrase reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric is nonsensical. Members of government should be able to criticise the judiciary, including for hatred and bigotry. We can disagree with legal judgments and the motivation for them - indeed, ‘gender critical’ activists have been doing so for years, which is how we ended up with the SC making this judgment in the first place. Arguing that members of government shouldn’t be able to critique the judiciary and that attempting to remove them from the position for doing so is justified is a deeply authoritarian and arguably fascistic position to take.
She did more than “criticise”. She essentially said “all these judges are corrupt”. She didn’t (just) say she disagreed with the ruling: she said the judges were bigoted. For someone who is meant to be part of the structure of the rule of law, that undermines faith in the system. Those are not people you want to have in positions of power. Because once you eat away at trust in the system like that, it is very, very hard to rebuild.
Well no, she didn't say that. But even if she had, that's a form of criticism, and she is entitled to it. The judiciary are not beyond criticism or well-founded accusations. Again, arguing otherwise is deeply authoritarian. You seem to think that a woman who doesn't share your transphobic ideology and dares to critique the judiciary should be sacked for doing so, which flies in the face of free speech and democratic values. I think you're a misogynistic, bigoted little authoritarian, Charles, and I've had quite enough of your bullshit now, thank you very much.
Quoting from the BBC: “Chapman - a long time supporter of trans rights - attended a protest in Aberdeen and told the crowd: "We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society."”
The criticism of her that followed was because that is seen - correctly I think - as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. It is authoritarian to attack the judiciary - that is what Trump does; that is what Orban does. It’s essentially saying that they are wrong and implies they should be ignored. That attacks the rule of law. Nobody benefits from that except those who would take freedoms away.
It wasn’t me who suggested she be fired; it was KCs and other MSPs. She only survived the vote against her because she didn’t recuse herself and was the casting vote - the polar opposite of a disinterested decision.
Ad hominem always marks the point where someone admits to themself and everyone else that they can’t win the argument. Thanks for making that clear.