Following comments made by Patrick Harvie MSP in @scotparl on Wed in the #hatecrimebill debate, FWS have received some interesting correspondence.

Thread /

Those watching the debate will have noted Mr Harvie’s insistence that only certain people should be permitted a voice in the democratic process while he freely smears those who disagree.

These tactics came as no surprise to a woman who wrote to Mr Harvie in Jan 2018 to ask him for support for the principle of women meeting to discuss GRA without encountering abuse and harassment.

She wrote an account of the “we need to talk meeting” she attended in Jan 2018 in Glasgow, asking Mr Harvie if he would support the right of women to meet & speak and drew attention to the tactics of the group Reclaim Glasgow Pride who attacked the event.

She also asked why Mr Harvie’s colleague, Ross Greer, appeared to support them, despite their extremist tactics. As the group appear to be opposed to police, the need for passports, & in favour of violence & physical confrontation with people they oppose, it was a fair question.

In light of the events described, Mr Harvie’s reply was troubling. He said nothing about the threats & hostility faced by the women, instead saying he couldn’t judge between the “perception” of the two sides.

The stated “perception”, as demonstrated by a glance at their tweets, of RGP was that women holding meetings to discuss the GRA were guilty of murderous actions & needed to be met with force.

He also wasn't unduly concerned by Mr Greer's support for RGP as, apparently, he'd been asked whether he endorsed them by someone "anti-trans".

That Mr Greer might support trans people without calling others "transphobes" or seeming to back those advocating VAW, didn't occur.

Having dismissed the woman’s experience, he told her that she had to acknowledge the “torrent of abuse” faced by trans people including denial of existence & misgendering.

Saying he had “no reason and no wish” to accuse her of abusing anyone, he nevertheless appeared to feel that "harmful impact on trans people" was grounds enough to insinuate she had done so and to dismiss her frightening experience.

In conclusion, he told the woman that because GRA reform was, apparently, supported by the funded women’s sector in Scotland, there was nothing more to be said. Mr Harvie would not, therefore, support the right of women who held a different opinion to air these views safely.

This email was sent to journalist @shonacraven who was present at meeting - she wrote up her account in the National and quoted this part of the exchange. She pointed out that Mr Harvie only seemed prepared to allow a voice to women who agreed with him.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15865387.women-must-not-silenced-debate-gender-identity/

It’s worth remembering that Scot Gov funded women’s orgs undertook no research or consultation. Engender cancelled a meeting to discuss GRA & the only work undertaken by the women’s sector in the past overwhelmingly supported need for single sex space https://twitter.com/caithness_pf/status/1102931852212559872?s=20

In a further exchange, the woman asked Mr Harvie to look at the threats women received and to acknowledge that women also face a torrent of abuse & urged him to look at http://terfisaslur.com  to see what women faced.

Having refused to support in principle the right of women to meet freely to talk about rights or to express any concern about the tactics used against women, Mr Harvie was indignant that she dared to accuse him of not caring about misogynistic harassment.

His rationale was that he claimed she was “overstating [her] position” & he hoped she understood that the view of groups supporting reform “should be heard & understood, not merely [her] own”.

This is hugely ironic, as it was Mr Harvie who was unprepared to support the right of women opposed to GRA reform to meet & discuss their rights and who was only prepared to hear one side of the debate. One might call this DARVO.

This, of course, was not the end of the story. So incensed was Mr Harvie by seeing his words in @shonacraven’s article, that he wrote a blog denouncing the mother who had written to him and all women opposed to GRA reforms. https://greens.scot/blog/trans-rights-are-human-rights-and-we-must-stand-together-to-achieve-them

Dishonestly, he characterised them as “anti-trans” with opinions born of “unthinking prejudice and intolerance”.

This, remember, of a woman who described those meeting as left wing but believing there was a valid discussion about the impact on single-sex spaces.

He ended by saying that he would no more host a meeting in parliament for women to discuss this in a safe manner than he would for “anti-abortion” or “anti-Islam” campaigners. Disgustingly, Mr Harvie equates women seeking to uphold CEDAW rights with racists.

Watching Harvie’s performative outrage when @JohannLamont recorded how he acted as judge & jury, our correspondent was reminded of how she felt when she was branded hateful & extremist because she dared ask if women should be able to meet without fear of violent reprisals.

Johann was in no doubt she might have faced a charge under the hate crime bill. We are similarly fearful. Worse, would an MSP happy to publicly condemn a mother as analogous to a racist for wanting to go to meetings without being punched, be prepared to use this law against her?