Linda Bellos gets hate charges dropped but why has the anti trans press not reported this “Victory”? And can British law ever serve minorities and victims?

Court 6 Westminster Magistrate’s Court Friday November 30th 2018.  Once more the British legal system demonstrates why victims do not bring prosecutions of hate crime to court but why having had the charges dropped did Linda Bellos looks so unhappy as she left court?bellos pissing

Linda Bellos was charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which bans “threatening or abusive words or behaviour” that is likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress.” But this was closed down by the CPS on Friday with no explanation given for curtailing the proceedings.

The case revolved around a meeting in Leeds during which Linda Bellos said “But I play football and box, and if any one of those bastards comes near me I will take my glasses off and clock them… I am quite prepared to threaten violence because it seems to me politically what they are seeking to do is piss on women.” The meeting was broadcast on the web and seen by trans women including myself.

As a trans woman I was deeply shocked by Linda Bello’s words and in an atmosphere of hate that was growing up around debate of GRA reform interpreted this as both a threat and also as an implicit encouragement of direct action against trans women.

Giuliane Kendal  bought the private prosecution after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case which centres around comments made and broadcast at an event about the Gender Recognition Act, held in York last November.  Giuliane , a trans woman who watched the event remotely on a live stream, brought the case after the CPS decided not to press charges.

Following the closing down of the case by the CPS, for which no reasons have as yet been given, the British legal system, in the shape of the Defence for Linda Bellos, turned its ugly head to the victim and commenced sustained attack on Giuliane’s character. Giuliana, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, was left shattered and physically shaking as a succession of baseless claims was set by the Defence to undermine her.

If anyone wishes to look for an example of why so many victims do not carry through prosecution then this is a prime example.  In this case the court did nothing to protect Giuliana and once more we saw the victim suffer doubly from a hate crime once by the perpetration of the crime and secondly at the hands of the legal system.

Hate crime will continue to flourish in the UK unless the British legal system can show it can protect minority groups such as trans gender people.

So as the case closed on Friday three mysteries remain:

1/ why was Linda Bellos so afraid to have the issue examined in court under oath? Why apply for the CPS to take over and close that case if her defence was so strong?

2/ why did the CPS close the case down when the evidence looks so damming?

And most interestingly

3/ Why did Bellos look so unhappy as she left court? And why hasn’t there been any press coverage this weekend heralding a great victory?  And why was the webcast from the meeting organised by Bellos supporters after the court hearing cut just as the first speaker comes to the stage?

Perhaps this isn’t quite the end of the story…..

 

Advertisements

A “balanced” debate

On the subject of “debate”.

The debate about my life and my rights has apparently been febrile in the last year. This is really apparent to anyone in touch with the media.

Today IPSO said of a report on David TC Davies’s debate in Parliament on GRA reform that the paper did not have to provide a balance article but could just report Davies words if it chose to – even though this totally misrepresents what actually happened. None of the comments made by the women MPs who support trans rights had to be reported – papers do not have to provide balance. It is not deemed as inaccurate reporting even if the impression given by the article is inaccurate and misleading.

In contrast to this we have the coverage of the trans debate by the BBC. Now by charter the BBC MUST produce balance – so every time you hear a trans positive person it MUST be followed by an anti trans speaker. Witness the six programs about Gender/Trans issues on Woman’s hour over the last three weeks every trans positive view balanced by a negative view, even if the person talking makes an attack on general trans rights and not the GRA reform. So even if most feminists support trans rights it actually looks like it is a one to one balance! The same with academicians – most academics support trans rights but on the BBC it will always look balanced one on one – the same for medical practitioners – always one on one…

So what does this mean for debate? In the press only the view of the editorial team will be represented – no need for balance – bias is fine… On the BBC there will always be balance even if to provide balance the BBC must promote views that are demonstrably untrue.

Dear IPSO surely the clue is in word Newspaper or perhaps we just need to rename them Opinion papers?

 

Hensteeth

“Transgenderism and the War on Women” Parliament 14th March 2018 – Posie Parker

This is the fourth in a series of blogs covering the various speeches given by anti transgender activists at a meeting took place in a committee room in the Houses of Parliament on the 14th March 2018. The meeting was hosted in Westminster by anti LGBTQ campaigner David TC Davies and organised by Venice Allen(DrRadFem). This meeting is being investigated by the Parliamentary authorities.

The meeting heard from four speakers; the last of which was Posie Parker(01.38.10). I have really spent a lot of time considering whether to tackle the speech by Posie as it is largely her repeating and talking about tweets she has made which have lead to her being cautioned by the police following a complaint made against her.  Whatever the outcome of the police investigation I think is is important to look at what David TC Davies has facilitated in Parliament and to look at what the organisers are party to.  It is also worth noting that I personally spoke to the Sergeant at Arms advising them that someone under investigation for harassment and hate speech was to talk at the meeting but they refused to listen and so this hate speech was allowed to take place.

….”43 year old mother of four” being interviewed and cautioned by the Police for “just telling the truth”…she has never seen “trans women as anything but men”…She states “there is no such thing as trans children, what a load of nonsense”

Posie begins by setting the scene; here she is a “43 year old mother of four” being interviewed and cautioned by the Police for a number of tweets she has made about Suzie Green, CEO of Mermaids and mother of a transgender woman, and in her words for “just telling the truth”(1.40.30).  She recounts the telephone call she has from a clear perplexed Police officer who according to her recollection appears bemused by the complaint.  Posie then goes on to read out the tweets she is being investigated for;  I was stunned by this as it clearly shows her disregard for the police investigation and the seriousness of the issues.  She says that this is now the “new human rights frontier”. I will not repeat the next section of her speech as it constitutes abuse but she does use the word “castration” many times and talks about “sexual predators and fetishisers” stating that she has never seen “trans women as anything but men”(1.44.17).  She goes on to describe how two police officers are bought in from Leeds to question her rather than  a local police officer; she describes “ping pong” questioning and how she was not going to let them see she was afraid, giving a picture of interogation.  Posie describes the complaint against her as being five pages which she says show Suzi has clearly been coached.   Posie finishes by stating “there is no such thing as trans children, what a load of nonsense” and “I will not be compelled to say that a man is a women”(1.47.45).

She clearly repeats tweets that she is under investigation for…..Not at any point does she discuss the proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act.

Posie’s inclusion as a speaker at the meeting appears to be based on her notoriety on twitter and for the her recent questioning by the police for harsment and hate speech on twitter.  She adds nothing to any discussion on the amendments to the Gender Recognition Act. Her speech is designed to set herslef and the anti trans community as the little people fighting the establishment, a 44 year old mother of four against the trans community and the police.  She clearly repeats tweets that she is under investigation for to roars of applause from the audience.  Her inclusion at the event appears to be to repeat her attack on Suzi Green and to attack the treatment of transgender children as well as widening the attack of the meeting on the trans community.  Not at any point does she discuss the proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act.

The spotlight falls then on the audience who laughed at the jokes and the attacks on Suzi Green and transgender people…. And lastly the spotlight falls on the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Commons…..

It seems to me that allowing someone who is under investigation by the police for hate speech and harassment is possibly the worse lowest ebb of the meeting.  Firstly for David TC Davies to have facilitated this person by giving them a platform in Parliament shows disrespect for the institution and for the Police.  The spotlight then falls on the organisers who have given a platform to someone they know is under investigation and to provide a platform of celebration of this fact. The spotlight falls then on the audience who laughed at the jokes and the attacks on Suzi Green and transgender people.  And lastly the spotlight falls on the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Commons;  during the day before the meeting I personally spoke to the Deputy Sergeant at Arms and advised him that someone under investigation by the police for hate speech was to talk at the meeting. I was assured by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms that they had approached the police and that this was not the case – this reveals total incompetence or complicity by the Sergeant at Arms Office as even as cursory looks at Posie Parker’s twitter feed would have revealed this to be a fact and it is factually untrue as Posie has been under investigation for making tweets that she actually reads out in Parliament.

“Transgenderism and the War on Women” Parliament 14th March 2018 – Anne Ruzylo

This is the third in a series of blogs covering the various speeches given by anti transgender activists at a meeting took place in a committee room in the Houses of Parliament on the 14th March 2018. The meeting was hosted in Westminster by anti LGBTQ campaigner David TC Davies and organised by Venice Allen(DrRadFem).  This meeting is now being investigated by the Parliamentary authorities.

The meeting heard from four speakers; the third of which was Anne Rizylo(01.09.58). Very much following the theme of the event Ruzylo sets out once more a history of the last fifty years that totally excludes transgender people, she then attacks the treatment of transgender children and the CEO of Mermaids, Suzi Green, and finally spends a little time attacking GRA reform.

“Trans was not a thing”…… there were no trans people at the Stonewall riot

Ruzylo sets out her memories from the 1960’s through the 70’s and 80’s, her formative years, where she discovered that she was sexuality was as a lesbian and repeating the meeting theme “Trans was not a thing”.  She asserts that there were no trans people at the Stonewall riot; which is an unbelievable claim when we know that Martha P Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_P._Johnson) threw some of the first stones and was a big part of the early LGBT movement in the US.  Her opening is very much about how she was a very tomboyish girl but never considered that she should actually be male – how she liked boys toys but was still a girl who was discovering that she liked girls.  She takes the story up to the 1980’s whem men started to “dress effeminately” but still only lesbian and gay people existed(01.14.09).  On her 19th birthday she came out to her mum as lesbian; her mum’s reaction was to say she wished Anne had never been born (01.15).  Again she states trans “was not a thing”  (01.16.37).  She feels that had trans been a thing at this time that this would have been seen as a “cure for being lesbian”(01.17.23).  Ruzylo emphatically states that “no child is born in the wrong body” she is happy to express herslef as “gender non conforming”.

Ruzylo states she is fed up with the use of the suicide statistic…. stating that “the 48% is a big lie”….. transgender adults of “befriending children to encourage them to be trans”

Ruzylo goes on to describe gender as being a social construct and that “trans women are men” (01.20.24).  She goes on to talk about what she sees as the harm of girls breast binding (01.21.10) how how trans is just a sex fetish(01.23).  She talks about the “long term effects of hormone blockers” and how children are being supplied with “hormones”; both of which are demonstrably not true – studies show hormone blockers to be reversible and safe and no children under sixteen can get hormones on the NHS in the UK.  Ruzylo accuses transgender adults of “befriending children to encourage them to be trans”, to me such heavy reminders of the arguments for Section 28 and the same accusations against gay men (01.23.17).  She then attacks the suicide rates which she says are “used by Mermaids” (01.23.40).  She extols the school guidance published by transgender trend; despite it being rejected by all educationists.   Ruzylo states she is fed up with the use of the suicide statistic on how many transgender children have attempted suicide stating that “the 48% is a big lie” (01.25.40).  She accuses Suzi Green, the CEO of Mermaids(a charity supporting transgender children and their families) of misusing the suicide statistic.  She then focuses on Suzi for a while critisising how she supported her transgender child and stating that “she had taken him to Thailand and had his penis cut off” completely mis-gendering Suzi’s daughter Jackie and Jackie’s journey as a transgender women(01.31.20).

She lists issues she sees such as “athletics, scholarships and lesbian specific groups, care and prisons……

Finally Ruzylo moves on to discuss the GRA reforms saying that it will make sex based protections harder to enforce replacing sex with gender (01.32.23).  She lists issues she sees such as athletics, scholarships and lesbian specific groups, care and prisons. On prisons she uses the discredited statistic that 50% of trans prisoners are “sex offenders”.  Analysis of this statistic shows that the author counted those in “segregated prisons”, which re often co-located with sex offender institutions, as being sex offenders when they are not but have been assessed as not suitable to go to women’s or men’s prisons.  She is able to find one prisoner who has been moved back to the male estate after the prison service assessed them incorrectly.  Not at any point does she explain what the GRA is, what is does for a transgender person or the current situation such as in prisons where each prisoner is individually assessed and how the criminal justice system has access to the GRA register or in athletics where each association has rules covering trans gender participants, as allowed in exceptions given within the Equality Act 2012.

 

In summary Ruzylo uses her platform at the meeting in Parliament to attack the treatment of transgender children – raising the straw-man of lesbian girls being pushed to be trans as a “cure for being lesbian”, she attacks the idea of being supportive of a trans child’s stated identity and she attacks the statistic that 48% of all transgender children have attempted suicide. She then goes on to attack the GRA reform setting out issues actually covered by the Equality Act and which all have provisions within that act to deal with any possible problems.   Once more this speech appears to be more about writing transgender people out of history and attempting to undermine important supportive therapies for transgender children than any attempt to seriously discuss GRA reform.  The speech continues to mis-gender trans people and to create fear within the audience.

 

 

Reference web site https://soundcloud.com/user-907701005/transgenderism-and-the-war-on-women accessed 27th March 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Transgenderism and the War on Women” Parliament 14th March 2018 – Julia Long

This is the second in a series of blogs covering the various speeches given by anti transgender activists at a meeting took place in a committee room in the Houses of Parliament on the 14th March 2018. The meeting was hosted in Westminster by anti LGBTQ campaigner David TC Davies and organised by Venice Allen(DrRadFem).

The meeting heard from four speakers; the second of which was Julia Long(29.00). From the text below you will see that she continues to erase transgender experience by linking it exclusively to the word Transgender and its recent adoption; ignoring that is has  become the preferred term but has continuity with words previously used such as transsexual.  She also goes on to link transgender women with male violence and oppression of women. Finally she set out her argument that all things, she includes women here as “things”, are defined purely by their form and function ignoring such human attributes as emotion, intelligence and identity; the things that make us human and not objects. During the speech she seeks to erase the word trans and states by its use even anti trans activists are complicit with the transgender movement.  From the speech is is very plain that she sits at the far extreme of anti transgender thinking “There is no such thing as trans anything” denying us even the use of a word to describe our experience and existence and denying a characteristic protected by the 2012 Equality Act.

Julia starts by thanking Sheila Jefferys for setting the foundation for the rest of the speakers by setting a context of the history of “transgender” – in the last blog we explored how Sheila Jefferys writes the trans experience out of history setting it as a recent ideology.  She then sets out her stall by talking about male power and male dominance(33.20).  She quotes Dawkins “In a male dominated society” – straight away setting trans women as men with male power.

…..how “transgenderism” erases women through language(38.30) and how the language has developed in very recent times. 

Her arguments begin by looking at the power of language and how “transgenderism” erases women through language(38.30) and how the language has developed in very recent times.  In 1991 she can find no reference to the word transgender in the dictionary but she does see the word woman defined as “an adult human female”.  She contrasts this to the list of fifty six possible genders available on Facebook in 2014 – but stating that there is no category for female thus showing female erase(42.50).  Julia then goes on to take issue with the latest online Cambridge Dictionary definition of trans which is “someone who feels they are not the same gender(equal sex)” this is to gasps of disbelief from the audience.  So it is interesting that while she uses the lack of the word in a dictionary in 1991 as affirming her stance she then takes issue with its definition in a dictionary now so is she saying a Dictionary is a good source or a bad source?

…..everything can be defined by its “form” and its “function”

She then moves on to the main thrust of her speech that everything can be defined by its “form” and its “function”(46.40).  Therefore a watch is a watch because it looks like a watch and tells the time and cannot be a chair and a chair cannot become something else by adding the word trans to it.  In my view this reduces the definition a women to merely form and function, inanimate objects,  she ignors feeling, identity, intelligence and all the things that make us human.  Julia tells her audience that she is being asked to say that an adult human male is now a trans women and states that “you can make people believe anything and say anything”(48.31).  She explains that the words trans is affecting how we see women she goes to to talk about how a trans woman “an individual who calls himself Paris“(deliberate misgendering) was written about in the press as a “women” and how this shows how a member of the oppressing group is demanding access to the oppressed group – how this use of language is normalising and legitamising the trans narrative.  She critisises her “gender critical” allies who begin by saying “I support trans rights” as they are endorsing the concept of trans by using the word. She goes on to say how the word trans “functions to normalise, legitamise this whole fictitious of men as women“(51.45).

……Julia then goes on to dismiss the suicide statistics for trans gender people saying “if you dare to say that is a man then you are killing a child”

The next section of her talk concentrates on male violence; thereby creating a link between male violence and transgender women(53.07) feeding the hate and fear narrative.  Julia sees the trans movement as a massive exertion of male power and control over women(56.40).  She then talks about how people are painting their anti trans movement as a hate group and how this is a total reversal of what is happening once more creating the feeling of “us against the world” within the room.  Julia then goes on to dismiss the suicide statistics for trans gender people saying “if you dare to say that is a man then you are killing a child” and says that these statistics are “a fabrication” (1.02.32).

……by using the words trans we legitimise it as a “thing and not merely a disillusion”

As the concludes her speech she asks “what can we do about all of this scary stuff?” once more adding to the atmosphere of fear around the issue(1.06.28).  She says transphobia is a “fictional term”(1.06.50) and disparages anti trans activists who talk about it as a thing.  By using the word trans she sees that this helps to legitimise that a watch can be a chair – feeding the trans narrative. Julia then goes on to quote from a tweet which says that by using the words trans we legitimise it as a “thing and not merely a delusion”(1.07.45) by attaching trans to anything you have agreed that this concept exists.

The speech given by Julia goes beyond the terms of reasonable debate or free speech as it seeks to deny the existence of a group of people identified by transgender characteristic; a characteristic protected under the Equality Act 2012.

 

My next blog will go on to look at the speech given by Anne Ruzylo.

 

Reference web site https://soundcloud.com/user-907701005/transgenderism-and-the-war-on-women accessed 27th March 2018

 

 

“The War on Women” Parliament 14th March 2018 – Sheila Jefferys

It has not been widely covered in the press but a meeting of anti transgender activists took place in a committee room in the Houses of Parliament last week.  The meeting was hosted in Westminster by anti LGBTQ campaigner David TC Davies after Millwall football pulled out as the venue as the agenda breached their diversity policy.  That a group of speakers, including “three lesbians”, found themselves hosted by an MP who voted against Gay Marriage and campaigns against LGBTQ acceptance.  This group could only find a man to host their event as no women MP’s would host the meeting; this is a damming indictment of the anti trans movement in it’s self.

The meeting heard from four speakers the first was Sheila Jefferys, an Australian Academic,  she spent a good half hour erasing transgender history and providing a context for the following speakers.  Her opening shot was to describe the trans movement as “A weapon aimed at the heart of the women’s movement” and to raise her status in the movement as someone who has suffered at the hands of transgender activists(4.00) explaining how she was targeted by activists for her views.  She sets herself and the anti trans movement up as those being oppressed – she seeks to bind to them as a group by creating an enemy that is oppressing them.  She states that men are oppressing women by wishing to posses their bodies(7.34) an appalling thought and one so disingenuously designed to create fear and hatred.   Her next move is to erase transgender history by claiming that transgender was not a “thing” until the recent times(8.58).  Her claim is that in the 1970’s transgender people did  not exist and that there was only its cross dressers who dressed occasionally and that even the Beaumont Society has just recently started to support the transgender ideology(10.22).  She states that the vast majority of transgender people “keep their penises”, that they are just stereotypes of women, that no one can change gender and lastly that they are all homosexuals who cannot cope!(11.11-11:28). She even goes as far as to say trans women are a “sexual perversion”(12:11).  By the middle of her speech is is claiming there is a “huge industry” behind the movement – pushing the trans agenda.    Her theory is heavily reliant on an encounter with a boy friend(25.54) in 1971 who said that he wished to “be her, be inside her skin” she sates that she was “disturbed” and that we should all be disturbed by this and that it is reasonable to be disturbed saying “we all know what they do with body parts”.   Her last throw of the dice is to accuse transgender women of being parasites of “paratasising” women awards and prizes.  She concludes by bringing up the picture of an Australian footballer, a trans women, called Hannah – she mis genders her many times as he “he is a very tall man” once more raising the specter of “men” in women’s roles ignoring that any sport will have rules on trans women participating.

 

It is hard to know how to critique the speech by Jefferys as an “academic” she gives no academic rigor to any of her arguments; there are are no prier reviewed papers or research there is just her rewriting of history to erase transgender people completely and her assertion that trans people are just homosexuals who cannot cope with their feelings and sexual perverts who wish to inhabit women’s bodies.  The theme appears to be to set up a narrative that is subsequently taken up by the other speakers one that heightens a fear of trans people, one that affirms that trans people are to be feared and to reinforce this group, this meeting of women, as being oppressed by trans people.  In many ways this replicates other groups who wish to “other” a minority so that they can be excluded or erased – it seeks to bind this group together against “an enemy”.  If Jefferys was my only source of information about transgender women then I think I to would be terrified of them.

Transgender Acceptance

 

“a great reflection on the social acceptance of transgender people in the UK.”

Very tired today.  Managed two days on the road at meetings with customers. Lots of driving and hours held up in traffic!  Great feedback from one of my customers today which really made me glow and reminded me why I love solving problems for customers.  So has living as Vicky made any difference to my work?  To my surprise no – I was worried about being rejected by my colleagues, management and customers. I work in a small team of specialists spread across the country, we have worked together a long time and really are an amazing team.  When I came out to them are transgender they were totally accepting and have never missed a beat in supporting my decisions.  The same can be said for the management in the company – they assisted in name changes and suggested places to get support.  And then the biggest worry was the customers I visit everyday and again no problems at all! So if I look at the people I meet I can honestly say I have had total support from all quarters.  I feel it is a great reflection on the social acceptance of transgender people in the UK.

“….#Stopfundinghate”

Amazing news seeing that Virgin Trains are no longer selling the Mail! Now we just need places like Cafe Nero and Waitrose to follow. The hate I see propagated by the Mail and the Times against transgender people if just not reflected in the general population.  It would be good to see the #stopfindinghate campaign look at the transphobia coming from the Times.

“…someone at the cabinet table each week making sure our issues are taken into account”

Really disappointing to see Justine Greening resigning from the Cabinet yesterday.  Justine represented the voice of LGBTQ people at the top table of British Government.  Just having someone at the cabinet table each week making sure our issues are taken into account in every decision is so important.  We see targets on representation for women but nothing at all on LGBTQ representation.  LGBTQ people do have the right to be present at the table when issues affecting them are discussed! Acceptance comes from seeing talent blossoming at the highest levels.

“…these anti trans campaigners just do not represent the mass of the UK public.”

Reform of LGBTQ rights has been a hot topic this past year.  A proposed review of the Gender Recognition Act has released a storm of anti transgender vitriol from the press.  A small group of anti transgender campaigners, an alliance of left wing TERFs and right wing religious groups, have created a storm of stories.  A lot of the stories have been about “no platforming” they complain that their voices have been silenced – and they do this from items on the BBC, columns in The Times and the Mail. I will let you make up your minds just how silenced they have been!   The acceptance I have found just shows that these anti trans campaigners just do not represent the mass of the UK public.

Do I feel positive about the future for myself? Only time will tell whether pressure from the press will turn the public against our community.  I truly hope we can see the acceptance I have had ripple across the country so that all transgender people across the country can live good lives!