Why filling in the Law Commission consultation matters.

Looks like a simple streamlining & consolidation of “various reforms”. Don’t be fooled. The devil is in the detail. Lots (I mean lots) of questions but you can skip the ones that don’t matter to you.

First up. Do we need to add “asexuality” to the protection of “sexual orientation”? Why? The Law commission have not caught up with the plethora of “sexual” identities for one thing. (Will find a list) Also how are asexual people oppressed?

Here’s a list. References Stonewall but may not be the U.K. one.

https://www.umass.edu/stonewall/sites/default/files/documents/allyship_term_handout.pdf

Protecting “cross-dressers” would cover heterosexual men who are “transvestic fetishists”. This is a paraphilia and these men get an erotic charge from forcing women to participate in their fetish. Also non-binary= neither male nor female. We all deviate from sex stereotypes.

This one treats “intersex” as if it is some kind of “trans-identity”. a) People with Disorders of Sexual Development might find this term and definition akin to a “hate crime”. Seems like the LCC has been listening to lobby groups. Dangerous to legislate for non-binary. Why?

If we legislate for “non-binary” it will displace sex for data collection purposes as with “Gender”. Are more females rejecting their sex stereotype? If so the data gets skewed. Women disappear. Bad law. This is happening already with the census etc. This will make it worse.

This is an outrageously bad idea. Of course Lobby Groups want “Gender” enshrined in law. They want sex gone. The EHRC already funded a project to examine removing sex from birth certificate etc. Mission Creep.

98% of sexual offences are committed by the male sex. FGM happens to females. Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly committed by males against females (12% males but some of that is male on male). Sex-specific not “Gender”. Non-binary females still get raped.

Erm...how are you defining “women”? is the aim to criminalise women for calling self-identified “women” “men”? Who is pushing for this law?

And Lo! Look who thinks it’s a good idea Stella Creasy and Stonewall. What could possibly go wrong? Let’s have a think about that.

Mumsnet have a couple of interesting threads on this. Stella asked women to share why this matters but then blocked women who answered in terms of #SexNotGender.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4032110-Stella-creasy-asks-women-about-misogyny?msgid=100275815#100275815

Note that Stonewall are on record campaigning to attach women’s rights to single sex spaces? The sort of thing Men’s Rights Activists would do.

Also note that a Transsexual (Miranda Yardley) was taken to court for transphobia by a self-described “cis-woman”. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-collapsed-case-shows-the-perils-of-policing-transphobia-

And lo! Law Commission propose the word “woman” (complete with inverted commas) be used instead of misogyny. What the betting they are proponents of the mantra “Trans Women are Women”. And that it protects the female sex “or gender”. So there we have it. Minds already made up.

And they don’t want to bother the pretty little heads of the #LadyBrain women with a bothersome choice between sex or gender. They don’t want to over tax us. They mean they want to keep “gender” and ditch sex. Blatant.

There’s that word again “intersectionality”. Yep. They have absolutely been cognitively captured.

The Sussex Report turns out to focus on LGBT & Muslim Hate crime. Not misogyny at all.

Here it is. 54 pages. Adding here to bookmark.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jenny-Paterson/publication/322570085_THE_SUSSEX_HATE_CRIME_PROJECT_FINAL_REPORT/links/5a60696f0f7e9b964a1f11ad/THE-SUSSEX-HATE-CRIME-PROJECT-FINAL-REPORT.pdf?origin=publication_detail

And who did they acknowledge. A list of all the main peddlers of misogyny including Stonewall. The CPS who published a document on Hate Crime and left out “Sex” as a protected characteristic but added “Gender” (Which isn’t one). #StonewallLaw.

Exemptions for theatre , films etc are proposed. But social media are only proposed to be “criminally liable” in some circumstances. Women are already banned , taken to court for stating biological facts on here. What could possibly go wrong?

And of course the offence of “stirring up hatred” is, it is proposed, to be extended to include “transgender” folks.

And stirring up hatred v women is not even proposed as a specific offence related to sex. No, once again, it is sex or gender. So transgender folks are covered twice and women are not allowed sex based protection. Remind me again which is a legally protected characteristic?

And it is proposed to extend this provision to include what you say in your own home? “Alexa...report back any thought crimes from this household”. Who writes these consultations? The Woke Stasi?

So parliamentary records are not even automatically “exempt”. I use Hansard all the time. If someone says something deemed “hateful” I want it recorded for posterity so I can judge for myself and refer to it.

NO! we don’t need another big fat salary going to the diversity industry. All of these initiatives are actually having a damaging impact on social cohesion. Enough.