The Trans Rights Debate

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that was simply the case, there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, as you know. She's fine with people assigning their own gender identity, but she doesn't want it to be legally recognised if it deviates from their biological sex, which creates numerous implications when it comes to the rights of transgender people.

Source? I've seen her quoted on self ID, but not existing law.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If that was simply the case, there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, as you know. She's fine with people assigning their own gender identity, but she doesn't want it to be legally recognised if it deviates from their biological sex, which creates numerous implications when it comes to the rights of transgender people.

Depends whether or not you think transgender people already have all the rights they need thanks to the 2010 Equality Act. Like Cherry, I'd argue that they do.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Depends whether or not you think transgender people already have all the rights they need thanks to the 2010 Equality Act. Like Cherry, I'd argue that they do.

If the 2010 equality act went far enough, then why have other countries gone even further?

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Transphobia is no more "contested" than racism, sexism or antisemitism.

It absolutely is. If a belief in biological sex being real is seen as transphobic then transphobia is contested. What do you think transphobia is?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It absolutely is. If a belief in biological sex being real is seen as transphobic then transphobia is contested. What do you think transphobia is?

That's not the problem.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's not the problem.

So what is?

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What protected characteristic does JC have, that is the basis for discrimination in this case?

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opin...source=twitter

And for balance here is Forbes article on the subject.
Both make good points IMO.

I DON’T know if you’ve heard, but there’s a coronation this weekend. I say that somewhat sarcastically because the news has been pretty much wall-to-wall.

Shops are full of bunting, Union flags adorn boxes of strawberries and we’re all invited to join in a chorus of allegiance.

There’s an equally vocal backlash to the festivities.

This newspaper recorded citizens in Glasgow on Monday dismissing it as a “load of rubbish” and referring to the King as “an unelected billionaire”. Another said she “didn’t really believe in the monarchy”.

You’ll be relieved to know that this isn’t another column dedicated to the coronation.

Instead, it is a celebration of our freedom to speak our minds. Not that long ago, you’d have had your head on the chopping block for such treachery and treason. Now, even the British Broadcasting Corporation can publish an article asking whether Scotland wants “its kilted King”.

Thank goodness we live in a liberal democracy where differing views can be heard. Such differences of opinion will only get louder in the coming days, rising to a crescendo on Saturday.



The debate on the monarchy illustrates the vital importance of our hard-won rights and freedom to express our views. Freedom of speech is invaluable. In fact, it is the bedrock of every liberal democracy and the cornerstone of every other freedom we enjoy in this country.

It is a fundamental human right, a general standard to which every nation should aspire and all governments must defend and protect. It is a right which is of particular importance to the disenfranchised and powerless.

Of course, freedom of speech, like all individual freedoms, is limited by law in this country, and carries with it the burden of accountability.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Freedom of speech isn’t just a nice aspiration, it is a legal right. That means it should not be subject to whether I like your views or indeed whether your views are in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

It is irrelevant whether the political leaders of the day approve your speech as politically acceptable to them – be they the kings and bishops of old or the parties and media moguls that hold sway today.

READ MORE: SNP MPs among Scottish politicians attending King’s coronation

Even with the legal right to freedom of expression, we need to protect the culture that fosters the free and frank exchange of ideas. George Orwell said that “unpopular ideas can be silenced … without the need for any official ban”.

It feels like we are increasingly seeing that, not least this week at Edinburgh University, as protesters blocked the entrance to a venue that was screening a film.

I thought the First Minister was absolutely right when he responded to a question about the protest at First Minister’s Questions last week. He said: “We should ensure that our universities — and society more generally — are places where we can have even robust exchanges of ideas.”

Elsewhere in the great city of the Enlightenment, Joanna Cherry said she has effectively been “cancelled” by a public venue on account of her views.

I’m no lawyer, so I will quote the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC, instead, who tweeted that it is “plainly unlawful”.

Other legal commentators have drawn comparisons with Franklin Graham who was “cancelled” by the SECC several years ago. The case went to court and Mr Graham won – at a cost to the public purse – almost £100,000.



Beyond the legal implications, which are for others to consider, I think this “cancellation” decision raises serious issues for all of us in public life.

Firstly, it risks undermining Edinburgh’s international reputation as the home of the Enlightenment.

The free and frank exchange of ideas is required for society’s flourishing. Exploring, interrogating, and dismissing ideas all depend on those ideas being heard in the first place, without fear.

Human progress is propelled by concepts and beliefs that emerge from intellectual, evidenced, and experienced debate.

Although far from perfect, scientists, geologists and economists were able to flourish in Scotland’s Enlightenment because of the freedom to propose ideas, underpinned by evidence, without censorship or cancellation, leading French philosopher Voltaire to argue that “we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”.

These days, the Edinburgh Fringe draws thousands of visitors from across the world.

They come to enjoy the great talents on display and listen to the exchange of ideas – some controversial, some humorous and some thought-provoking. That exchange can only happen in a forum that allows for freedom of speech and expression, without fear.

As former High Court judge Lord Justice Sedley famously said: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

READ MORE: Watch as Celtic fans sing 'you can shove your coronation up your a***'

Secondly, it is a failure of our mission to disagree well in society. There are few in society or leadership positions or indeed in my own family with whom I agree completely. I don’t think the answer is to censor them or erase them from society.

In a healthy democracy, we make progress through debate between those of different opinions and views. We listen, debate and seek to persuade.

In the recent leadership contest, I strongly emphasised the need for respectful dialogue with those not yet persuaded of the merits of independence.

Such dialogue starts with a listening ear on both sides of the debate. Of course, it must be respectful, sensitive and wise. That’s just one issue of many that require a similar approach.

But I find that when you believe in the strength of your case, you do not fear debate. It’s those without a case to answer who run from arguments. I strongly believe that in a fair, free and respectful debate, the truth always wins.

Lastly, this decision leaves everybody else a bit more vulnerable. As a politician and a successful lawyer, Joanna Cherry has a powerful voice. Already, the decision to “cancel” her has been documented in the press and famous voices have drawn attention to it.



But what about those in society without the same political platform? They can be silenced through fear, or sacked by their boss, without recourse or anybody knowing.

People in other lines of work – not least comedians and journalists – are also at risk if we start “de-platforming” people who are out of step with the unwritten rules on what is beyond the pale.

We must think seriously about what can be done to shore up free expression for the sake of generations to come.

Part of this will be articulating the many positives of free speech for society. It may also require a more robust defence of civil liberties in education and the public square.

Despite all this, I believe that the public are wise to the dangers of cancel culture. They know where it leads, and they reject it.

In the most recent leadership contest, I received huge volumes of correspondence. Most letters started with the lines: “I disagree with your views, but I absolutely defend your right to express them.”

I would expect people to disagree with my arguments in this column. I defend their right to do so, and look forward to considering their alternative views.

That’s how we learn in a society that safeguards freedom of speech.

I hope we can agree that it is a precious thing to be allowed to disagree, and it is to the credit of The National for offering a platform to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination

Spot on.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opin...source=twitter

And for balance here is Forbes article on the subject.
Both make good points IMO.

I DON’T know if you’ve heard, but there’s a coronation this weekend. I say that somewhat sarcastically because the news has been pretty much wall-to-wall.

Shops are full of bunting, Union flags adorn boxes of strawberries and we’re all invited to join in a chorus of allegiance.

There’s an equally vocal backlash to the festivities.

This newspaper recorded citizens in Glasgow on Monday dismissing it as a “load of rubbish” and referring to the King as “an unelected billionaire”. Another said she “didn’t really believe in the monarchy”.

You’ll be relieved to know that this isn’t another column dedicated to the coronation.

Instead, it is a celebration of our freedom to speak our minds. Not that long ago, you’d have had your head on the chopping block for such treachery and treason. Now, even the British Broadcasting Corporation can publish an article asking whether Scotland wants “its kilted King”.

Thank goodness we live in a liberal democracy where differing views can be heard. Such differences of opinion will only get louder in the coming days, rising to a crescendo on Saturday.



The debate on the monarchy illustrates the vital importance of our hard-won rights and freedom to express our views. Freedom of speech is invaluable. In fact, it is the bedrock of every liberal democracy and the cornerstone of every other freedom we enjoy in this country.

It is a fundamental human right, a general standard to which every nation should aspire and all governments must defend and protect. It is a right which is of particular importance to the disenfranchised and powerless.

Of course, freedom of speech, like all individual freedoms, is limited by law in this country, and carries with it the burden of accountability.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Freedom of speech isn’t just a nice aspiration, it is a legal right. That means it should not be subject to whether I like your views or indeed whether your views are in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

It is irrelevant whether the political leaders of the day approve your speech as politically acceptable to them – be they the kings and bishops of old or the parties and media moguls that hold sway today.

READ MORE: SNP MPs among Scottish politicians attending King’s coronation

Even with the legal right to freedom of expression, we need to protect the culture that fosters the free and frank exchange of ideas. George Orwell said that “unpopular ideas can be silenced … without the need for any official ban”.

It feels like we are increasingly seeing that, not least this week at Edinburgh University, as protesters blocked the entrance to a venue that was screening a film.

I thought the First Minister was absolutely right when he responded to a question about the protest at First Minister’s Questions last week. He said: “We should ensure that our universities — and society more generally — are places where we can have even robust exchanges of ideas.”

Elsewhere in the great city of the Enlightenment, Joanna Cherry said she has effectively been “cancelled” by a public venue on account of her views.

I’m no lawyer, so I will quote the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC, instead, who tweeted that it is “plainly unlawful”.

Other legal commentators have drawn comparisons with Franklin Graham who was “cancelled” by the SECC several years ago. The case went to court and Mr Graham won – at a cost to the public purse – almost £100,000.



Beyond the legal implications, which are for others to consider, I think this “cancellation” decision raises serious issues for all of us in public life.

Firstly, it risks undermining Edinburgh’s international reputation as the home of the Enlightenment.

The free and frank exchange of ideas is required for society’s flourishing. Exploring, interrogating, and dismissing ideas all depend on those ideas being heard in the first place, without fear.

Human progress is propelled by concepts and beliefs that emerge from intellectual, evidenced, and experienced debate.

Although far from perfect, scientists, geologists and economists were able to flourish in Scotland’s Enlightenment because of the freedom to propose ideas, underpinned by evidence, without censorship or cancellation, leading French philosopher Voltaire to argue that “we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”.

These days, the Edinburgh Fringe draws thousands of visitors from across the world.

They come to enjoy the great talents on display and listen to the exchange of ideas – some controversial, some humorous and some thought-provoking. That exchange can only happen in a forum that allows for freedom of speech and expression, without fear.

As former High Court judge Lord Justice Sedley famously said: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

READ MORE: Watch as Celtic fans sing 'you can shove your coronation up your a***'

Secondly, it is a failure of our mission to disagree well in society. There are few in society or leadership positions or indeed in my own family with whom I agree completely. I don’t think the answer is to censor them or erase them from society.

In a healthy democracy, we make progress through debate between those of different opinions and views. We listen, debate and seek to persuade.

In the recent leadership contest, I strongly emphasised the need for respectful dialogue with those not yet persuaded of the merits of independence.

Such dialogue starts with a listening ear on both sides of the debate. Of course, it must be respectful, sensitive and wise. That’s just one issue of many that require a similar approach.

But I find that when you believe in the strength of your case, you do not fear debate. It’s those without a case to answer who run from arguments. I strongly believe that in a fair, free and respectful debate, the truth always wins.

Lastly, this decision leaves everybody else a bit more vulnerable. As a politician and a successful lawyer, Joanna Cherry has a powerful voice. Already, the decision to “cancel” her has been documented in the press and famous voices have drawn attention to it.



But what about those in society without the same political platform? They can be silenced through fear, or sacked by their boss, without recourse or anybody knowing.

People in other lines of work – not least comedians and journalists – are also at risk if we start “de-platforming” people who are out of step with the unwritten rules on what is beyond the pale.

We must think seriously about what can be done to shore up free expression for the sake of generations to come.

Part of this will be articulating the many positives of free speech for society. It may also require a more robust defence of civil liberties in education and the public square.

Despite all this, I believe that the public are wise to the dangers of cancel culture. They know where it leads, and they reject it.

In the most recent leadership contest, I received huge volumes of correspondence. Most letters started with the lines: “I disagree with your views, but I absolutely defend your right to express them.”

I would expect people to disagree with my arguments in this column. I defend their right to do so, and look forward to considering their alternative views.

That’s how we learn in a society that safeguards freedom of speech.

I hope we can agree that it is a precious thing to be allowed to disagree, and it is to the credit of The National for offering a platform to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a load of drivel from Dugdale in that Courier piece.

[Santa Cruz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What a load of drivel from Dugdale in that Courier piece.

I wouldn't say it's drivel. I don't agree with her saying if staff don't agree with anyone's views they have a right to refuse to work. They are contracted to provide a service, they're bound to hear a number of conversations on any shift from clients and customers they don't agree with. Different matter if it was their colleagues continually spouting views they took offence to. KD's not living in the real world if she thinks employers can operate a business dependant on staff picking and choosing when and why they are prepared to work in that sector specifically. Do agree with some other points she makes though.

Think KF's article was far better, she comes across very well. I'm surprised at how much she impresses me, knew very little about her until recently.

[147lothian]

Trans ideology doesn't care for fairness in woman's sport.

A biological male Austin Killips who identifies as a woman, has won the Tour of of Gila an elite woman's cycling race in New Mexico US. Killips, who only began cycling in 2019, smashed to victory, finishing 89 seconds clear of second-placed Marcela Prieto, and took home $35,000 prize money. And also won a bonus prize of being named 'Queen of the Mountains'.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/03/the -brazen-entitlement-of-trans-athletes/

[Stairway 2 7]

Nitwits call any opinion different from theirs on the subject transphobic. Some say women wanting separate female spaces or situations transphobic, thinking biological males shouldn't play female sports transphobic, lesbians not wanting to sleep with females with a ***** transphobic. If you throw the word around for people who aren't transphobic then it loses all meaning, when there are many that are transphobic then that is stupid.

People should be free to priorities women's rights whether that is right or wrong. Most lawyers I've seen discuss it say the stand are acting illegally, I'm not a lawyer so it would be radge to dispute or agree with that

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nitwits call any opinion different from theirs on the subject transphobic. Some say women wanting separate female spaces or situations transphobic, thinking biological males shouldn't play female sports transphobic, lesbians not wanting to sleep with females with a ***** transphobic. If you throw the word around for people who aren't transphobic then it loses all meaning, when there are many that are transphobic then that is stupid.

People should be free to priorities women's rights whether that is right or wrong. Most lawyers I've seen discuss it say the stand are acting illegally, I'm not a lawyer so it would be radge to dispute or agree with that

The issue is the very wide and imprecise definition of what trans means. It ranges from people who have had surgery through to someone who might feel like a woman that day. In terms of law and policy that's unworkable.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/vie...discrimination

Presumably, it would be up to JC to prove that it was her GC views that caused the staff to take their stand (pun intended). So far, all that has been mentioned is "her views", without specifying which ones.

Also, IIRC, the Forstater case was an employment tribunal. If JC went down the Court route, is the burden of proof greater?

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Presumably, it would be up to JC to prove that it was her GC views that caused the staff to take their stand (pun intended). So far, all that has been mentioned is "her views", without specifying which ones.

Also, IIRC, the Forstater case was an employment tribunal. If JC went down the Court route, is the burden of proof greater?

Firstly, I'm not a lawyer. It appears to be material. There's also the cases in Glasgow and Edinburgh where damages were paid to groups who booked venues that were then cancelled because of their religious views about gay people. You raise an interesting point. The Stand has been very vague about staff conerns. Maybe anticipating legal action?

[He's here!]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnis...and-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnis...and-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

"The Stand invited Joanna Cherry – the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West – to do a speaking event during this summer’s Edinburgh Festival."

It didn't. She was booked by a third party as one of a series of events they were running.

I'm all for decent debate, but some of the stuff being said is nonsense, which makes that debate difficult.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnis...and-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

I don't entirely agree with this. There has to be a right to withdraw labour. But that has to be done in a legally defensible way. No one would support the staff if it was on the basis of Joanna Cherry being a lesbian. I think it's equally problematic because she holds gender critical views.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"The Stand invited Joanna Cherry – the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West – to do a speaking event during this summer’s Edinburgh Festival."

It didn't. She was booked by a third party as one of a series of events they were running.

I'm all for decent debate, but some of the stuff being said is nonsense, which makes that debate difficult.

I don't think that's the get out you think it is. It's the Stand who are refusing her a platform.

If a black person makes an accommodation booking through an agency and the accommodation refuses their booking because they are black, it's not the agency to blame.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think that's the get out you think it is. It's the Stand who are refusing her a platform.

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken.

"Self-righteous Telegraph staff will simply say anything to cause trouble."

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken.

Sure, but the reality is that it's the Stand who banned her. I'm not saying you are doing this, but opponents of JC are using the third party booking as some kind of gotcha.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000611612362

Cherry gives her side of the story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

At Edinburgh’s recent Beltane Festival, the Green Man ( a symbolic representation of the spirit of male fertility in nature) was actually enacted by a female. All in the interest of inclusivity of course.

SHe “ married” the May Queen, who ironically was actually female.

I wonder when the forces of the pretend woke will waken up to the stereotyping and systemic discrimination directed at working class people?

Can we have protests about the Orcs in Lord of the Rings being portrayed with cockney accents or maybe rise to challenge why people from certain postcode area have such different levels of attainment in education, health, employment etc?

Perhaps the enlightened ones could look at how many of our judges or MP’s went fee paying schools and start addressing these blatant disparities, or is that a bit like getting too close to the things that actually matter?

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

At Edinburgh’s recent Beltane Festival, the Green Man ( a symbolic representation of the spirit of male fertility in nature) was actually enacted by a female. All in the interest of inclusivity of course.

SHe “ married” the May Queen, who ironically was actually female.

I wonder when the forces of the pretend woke will waken up to the stereotyping and systemic discrimination directed at working class people?

Can we have protests about the Orcs in Lord of the Rings being portrayed with cockney accents or maybe rise to challenge why people from certain postcode area have such different levels of attainment in education, health, employment etc?

Perhaps the enlightened ones could look at how many of our judges or MP’s went fee paying schools and start addressing these blatant disparities, or is that a bit like getting too close to the things that actually matter?

I think you've nailed it. It's no consequence radicalism. You can promote how radical you are in a way that does not affect any economic structure in society. You can proclaim that you are attacking 'the patriarchy' while actually reinforcing it.

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you've nailed it. It's no consequence radicalism. You can promote how radical you are in a way that does not affect any economic structure in society. You can proclaim that you are attacking 'the patriarchy' while actually reinforcing it.

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

[LewysGot2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

It’s not the radicalism of decades gone by. Think back to the 80s and a music scene peppered with political messages with everything from unemployment, apartheid, poverty through to questioning the monarchy…almost all of it class based or championing the disadvantaged. Poll tax action, industrial action, generally fighting for the rights of the poor.


Identity politics are not likely going to be resonating in the same demographic areas as these other issues.

[147lothian]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

Does this mean your not concerned about the plight of painfully middle class Rupert, who declared himself non-binary last week and is experiencing an unsufferable dilemma over which Edinburgh University loo to go to.

[He's here!]

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.