Monday, 2 March 2020

Hate Incidents

The UK Column broadcast on 17 February 2020 with Brian Gerrish, David Scott and Mike Robinson (about 21 mins into the programme)


Mike Robinson: "Now last week we were talking about queer theory, David. You mentioned the Highland Times. Well the Highland Times has been writing a bit more on this."

David Scott: "Yes, this is another article by Bruce Scott ... looking at the nature of Queer theory. So he writes:"

"They`re coming for our kids, the Highland Times has warned, and so I thought it might be worth taking a closer look at Scotland`s Queer theory inspired LGBT inclusive education. Queer theory/gender ideology and its application in schools can be summed up in an influential book published in 2009 called `Interrogating Heteronormativity in Primary Schools: the Work of the No Outsiders Project`, edited by Renee de Palma and Elizabeth Atkinson."

"And it says that Andrew Moffat contributed to this book. Now Andrew Moffat, he was the headmaster from Birmingham who led the charge to bring this sort of education into Birmingham schools which got all the push back from  the Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities in Birmingham and was headline news and we reported on it at some length. and Dr Scott continues here."

"Its stated objectives were to understand the operation of `heteronormativity (heterosexual behaviour, lifestyle), its normalisation, and to develop means to challenge its normativity, in primary schools. It wanted to develop teaching practices within the classroom so it could carry these objectives out."

"Another more sinister aim of the project was, as the authors lamented, to address the omission in primary schools of sexuality, pleasure, bodies and desire which ordinarily, within educational settings with children is omitted (quite rightly in my opinion) to protect children..."

"An even darker aspect of No Outsiders lurks hidden in their manifesto for queering the classroom."

"The overt disdain for heteronormativity is revealed in discussions of a need for the rejection of heterosexuality and reproduction. They argue that there is a need to challenge reproductive futurism (human reproduction of children and its heterosexual nature) and that queering the classroom and human reproduction are at odds with each other."

"Indeed, the rational for teaching children at all is questioned, as queer existences or lifestyles are antagonistic to a reproductive future: i.e., as in heteronormativity, where the future, child and family are valued."

"In other words the notion of the family: a biological Mum and Dad, heterosexuality, commitment to heterosexual monogamy for one`s children and the future, all need to be sacrificed on the altar of Queer theory; the present alternative sexualities (LGBT/Queer sexualities), alternative lifestyles (e.g. open relationships/polyamory) Sex as only for pleasure or immediate gratification is the ideal of a queer Utopia."

"That`s the underlying philosophy that`s driving sex education in Scottish schools and it would appear in schools in Birmingham and other places in England as well."

Mike Robinson: "OK .... which brings us on to this article in Cambridgeshire Live. This is a so-called professor from Anglia Ruskin university, Patricia MacCormack, and the headline in Cambridgeshire Live was `The Only Solution for Climate Change is letting the Human Species go Extinct` ... but at the back of it David is the same Queer theory."

"Absolutely, yes. She`s launched a book, `Ahuman Manifesto`. The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction,  exactly the same ideology here, but rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity `it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth - without mankind`."

"So this is very very profoundly dangerous stuff."

Brian Gerrish: "We`re going to get rid of mankind, joyfully !"

David Scott: "Yes, and just a final slide here of the various organisations pushing this.  We`ve got Stonewall; we`ve got the TIE campaign, Scotland. We`ve also got Mermaids. Here they`re encouraging children to think about gender being a spectrum and they`re not a boy or a girl but something in between. And just to point out that ... currently Starbucks are running a campaign to raise money for Mermaids, so I`m afraid, personally, I won`t be drinking in Starbucks."

Brian Gerrish wonders whether reporting on this topic is going to be made more difficult in future and refers to a case in the press recently about a former policeman who was visited by the homicide police for commenting on Twitter about transgender matters.

 "Let`s have a look at the start of this BBC news - and this is from a couple of days ago - the headline is that Former [high ranking] policeman Harry Miller commented on some tweets and the next minute the police ... had visited his place of work in January last year. Somebody had made a complaint. He was never told who had actually made the complaint ... and then what [the police] said to him is that basically they wanted to check his thinking and they also said well you haven`t actually committed a crime but there has been a hate incident... They indicated that they had logged his name even though he was not guilty of committing any crime... [Mr Miller] believed that if he did not stop speaking and stop tweeting [about transgender matters] that the police were going to take action. So this became a freedom of speech issue."

"Let`s have a look at the Telegraph. `Police compared to Stasi and Gestapo by judge as he rules they interfered in freedom of speech by investigating `non crime` trans tweet.,, Former Police Officer Harry Miller said the police`s actions had a chilling effect on his right to free speech`. So we`re into very very dangerous territory here. This man did not commit any crime but nevertheless he gets the police at his door and as far as he`s concerned the police were threatening him that he needed to change and shut up or he would be in further trouble. So the reporting in the press, very interesting."

"Let`s have a look at what the judge said according to the mainstream press. The claimant`s tweets were lawful and ... there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet. I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant`s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant`s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect...."

"So you`re led into a world that this is a very good judge and this man is standing up for free speech and the court case has gone quite well . Let`s follow it along because he said some more: `I conclude that the police`s actions led him reasonably to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression about transgender issues on pain of potential criminal prosecution`...."

"So we get a look into the mindset of Mr Miller. He was very worried that if he did anything more the police were going to be on his case and it appears that this judge is also very worried about his freedom of expression."

"So the judge then said... `In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society`. Well at that point we might have thought that the media in particular would have been very concerned about this case but it was fascinating to notice because of the style of reporting by Grimbsy Live here; because they more or less made this very damning comment into complete fun by putting up a main page on the internet, at least, with a big superimposed picture..."

"So that this very very serious event, impinging on freedom of speech, was made into a joke and Grimbsy Live did something else which I found very interesting because if you follow through the article it suddenly came up with this banner:"

"Now this is one of the key tweets that was involved in the case."

"Now remember that Mr Miller didn`t actually tweet this out himself: he simply commented, but Grimsby Live so paranoid that it felt it had to sort of put a firewall in front of the tweet itself."

"So this results in a court case When we follow through the court case... we start to see deeper and darker issues because the judge said `[I reject] a wider challenge to the lawfulness of the College of Police guidance [and] rule that it serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate`. Now what he`s talking about is the fact that the guidance defines a transgender hate incident as `any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender`."

"The judge is saying very clearly that he completely stands up for that particular piece of guidance by the police and what`s more he said this: `The recording of non-crime hate incidents barely encroaches on freedom of expression, if it does so at all the aims of the guidance are `extremely important`."

"So having judged against the police action he reinforces the legitimacy of the College of Policing in creating `law` and recording and holding personal data for non crimes. David, it seems to me that this judge is giving a perfect example of the Orwellian future which he claims we`ve never lived in."

David Scott: "Yes. `War is peace. Freedom is slavery.` This is `Black is white`. This is exactly correct. Now we`ve seen this in Scotland... because of the same guidance being used as de facto legislation in Scotland. It`s called the Haters Campaign in Scotland. and if you say anything, tweet anything, write anything that anybody anywhere thinks might be offensive that can be a hate incident."

"This is nonsense. How can ... anybody possibly express themselves in public? It`s completely ridiculous. Now it was the Wee Flea blogger [who] made this completely ridiculous by reporting the `Police Scotland Haters Campaign` to Police Scotland as a hate incident... He was offended by it because of its negative references to Christianity; and, of course, they wouldn`t record it... because they decided that it was `all well`. But that`s not what the guidance says: It says if anybody, anywhere sees something as offensive then that becomes a hate incident. It`s about any of the protected groups. So the whole thing is insane, completely, unworkable and deeply Orwellian. Why could the judge not say that?"

Brian Gerrish: "Well I think we might ask some questions about the judge himself - we can`t do that today - but let`s come over to the College of Policing that produced the law that has now been approved by the judge. So, of course, they were crowing. So the two highlighted bits here: `The Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles ruled the mere recording of a non crime hate incident based on an individual`s speech is not an interference of their rights and if it was it is prescribed by law and done for two of the legitimate aims in article 10` and also because part of the challenge had been common law they crowed that that challenge at common law had been rejected. "

"So this was very, very dark once you got into the ruling by the judge. He wasn`t actually standing up for freedom of individuals and free speech; he was going somewhere down the middle and that`s a very dangerous line."

"But the Police College continued to crow. Here`s Bernie O`Reilly, Detective Chief Constable, Executive Director.  He said that he was pleased the court had recognised the guidance on recording non-crime hate incidents was `both lawful and extremely important in protecting people. Our guidance is about protecting people because of who they are and we know this is an area where people may be reluctant to report things to us`."

"And he said `The College of Policing`s position is clear - we want everyone to feel able to express opinions as passionately as they wish without breaking the law. Hate incidents can be a precursor to these types of crimes and without recording them the police will begin to lose sight of what is happening in their communities - and potentially lose their confidence."

"So, is it law? We don`t yet know.  He was also using Twitter himself to crow about the result." 

"So there was no other comment about ... Mr Miller or the wider concerns about the incident itself; it simply was crowing praise for the fact that the court had said that their policy stood but we couldn`t help note that Mr O`Reilly was also promoting LGBT and therefore presumably transgender material himself. So one says: `Is the College of Policing neutral on this particular subject?`"

"And if you want to know what that college is, well it`s not quite what you think. It was established in 2012 as a professional body for the police. It intends to be a not-for-profit membership organisation and they are looking to achieve chartered status although they haven`t achieved that: `We will have a mandate to set standards.` Now if they haven`t got a mandate to set standards at the moment, how can they set policy which has now been labelled as law? I don`t know. `We also have a remit to set standards on police service training and development and as a professional body for policing. The government`s intention is for the College of Policing to operate independently of the Home Office` ... It`s a private limited company and if you go online you can have a look at the details. `We`ve got thirty three... officers` who sit on this company and now can make, apparently, law, but they are independent of the Home Office, Mike."

"Well, until you look at the accounts where you suddenly find that they`re funded predominantly from the Home Office.,, They`re funding a private limited company making law that allows [the police] to record non-crimes..."

No comments:

Post a Comment