"I want to deny you access to healthcare, toilets, and other basic civil rights"
"Fuck you here's a picture of an anime girl with a gun"
The British government is literally committing a genocide against the trans community. The euphemisms and bad faith being used to back that decision up are actually violent, much more so than an image ironically implying violence.
The Liberal Democrats' website falsely asserts that transphobic views are protected by Equality Act 2010. They're wrong about that, but the incorrect argument which made them think that ought just as well to protect pro-trans shitposts too.
I don't disagree with any of that, I still don't think it's shocking that posting images of an anime girl with a gun goes against the councilors code of conduct
Also they are not wrong about that, the Maya Forstater ruling said they were no? I fully agree that it is a terrible ruling and that they shouldn't be illegal, but under the current law that isn't a false assertion. Its insanity that "gender critical" (transphobic) views have so much legal protection, and I hate that
But here the issue isn't the expression of the view, it's specifically again the inclusion of a gun which violates the councillors code of conduct I imagine. I don't tink it's really surprising imagery like that wouldn't be allowed
For the record again though, I don't disagree about your claims on the UK govts attacks on trans people, nor am I claiming the LDs have a perfect record on this (we dont). I'm just pointing out that I think this would be an issue whatever the view expressed for LD councillors, given the imagery of a gun
NO! The Forstater ruling established that firing someone without following the party's proper disciplinary process because of their views violates EA10. The views themselves are not special and above scrutiny, you just have to follow the proper disciplinary process first.
The ruling also doesn't say anything special about "gender critical views" at all. It establishes that ANY belief can constitue a "religion or belief" for the purposes of EA10 if it is held in as high esteem as a religious believer holds their religious beliefs.
Also if the Liberal Democrats weren't spineless cowards they'd have appealed that ruling up to the Supreme Court. The idea that SCOTUK would rule that a political party "discriminating" against their members over their political views is somehow not a "proportionate means to a legitimate ends" is frankly laughable.
Someone at the top of the party wanted to give transphobes money, because they agree with them. That's what this is really about.
Not in the slightest. The party got very good legal advice that we would not win that case. Where we to take it to SCOTUK we would have no only lost, but had to pay even MORE money. Gender Critical views are protected under the EA. That's the law whether we like it or not.
We also didn't follow our own processes when removing her, so would have failed on that step anyway.
No, the "very good legal advice" was that it's cheaper to pay these people off than to have to deal with them. Who cares about civil rights when you can save a bit of money, right?
"Gender critical views" are NOT specifically protected under EA10, see my other comment explaining why.
The very good legal advice told us if we fight this, we will lose. Fighting a doomed case helps no one.
Yes I have read your comment, and I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The judgment explicitly stated that gender critical views pass the Grainger criteria and so would fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This does not mean gender critical views are always protected, i.e Mackereth, but it does mean they will be protected if they avoid harassment or threats.
I'm not saying I agree with it, that's just the law whether we like it or not. If we break it we will end up being taken to court, and losing. Again, and again, and again. All that will do is give them even more money they can use to take legal cases against us and hurt the cause for trans rights.
The judgment explicitly stated that gender critical views pass the Grainger criteria
NO! Such views can pass Grainger and constitute a "religion or belief" for the purposes of EA10 IF THEY ARE HELD IN AS HIGH ESTEEM AS A RELIGIOUS BELIEVER HOLDS THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. This is true of pretty much any belief, but there's nothing special about "gender critical views" here and such views are not protected by EA10 if held casually.
It is entirely false to claim that "gender critical views" are specifically protected by law. They have no more, and no less, protection than any other kind of bigotry. Our community is already in a fight for our survival, I don't need Bootlicking Becky to misrepresent EA10 and defend the Liberal Democrats' explicit participation in transphobia.
2
u/TangoJavaTJ No votes for transphobes! 🏳️⚧️ 4d ago
I hope he sues the party and wins. If transphobic views can't justify being dismissed from the party then neither can pro-trans views.