The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I agree mostly, but the venue has exposure if legal action was pursued. I'm not sure they will be sued given the wider background.

---

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

---

The statement they put out about 'values' was really ill advised. There's been a number of cases recently that have cost venues. That's one of the reasons the Stand folded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

---

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

---

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

That's what I pick up from him. Fair enough you are allowed your views but the manner and the content of some of the stuff he publishes is hugely insulting and way over the top.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1655894725231083520

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/st...94725231083520

---

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.

---

The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

---

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

---

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

---

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/st...94725231083520

---

It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

---

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

---

That's one interpretation.


He values abusing a whole group of people with accusations that are wholly unwarranted. He does it again and again so it must be of value to him.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

---

Graham Linehan, believes that a person with a ***** is male, that there is no such thing as her ***** and that the only pronoun that can go before ***** is his, I,e Graham Linehan believes in the reality of biological sex.

Believing in the reality biological sex is a protected point of view, if you cancel someone because they have an opinion then this is discrimination. Two venues cancelled Graham Linehan because a small group of activists from the trans lobby emailed the venues, when It was announced that Graham Linehan had a 10 minute set and the venues capitulated, this brings shame on the Edinburgh Festival, because it shows that there is only one view you are allowed to have. Its group think.

Graham Linehan will be able to sue the venues if he can show that they cancelled him because he believes in the reality of biological sex.

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

---

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-government-plan-make-easier-26174624

Meanwhile, in Wales.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

---

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's from February 2022.

---

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

---

They didn't , it was a clinical decision taken by the health board. There had been silence from SNP Ministers. I see they have made what amounts to a holding statement now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

---

Apologies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

---

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...view_Final.pdf

Correct link to the final report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

---

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

---

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

---

It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

---

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

---

:agree: