Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

Was he really arrested for suggesting that transwomen should be kicked in the groin for being in women's bathrooms? I usually agree with the UK and Canada on most things but I think their well meaning efforts to limit calls to violence and other extreme speech do more harm than good.

I don't think he was literally demanding kicks in groins happen. More that he was doing his little transpanic fantasy of evil men pretending to be women and sneaking in women's restrooms so they could...pee near a ciswoman or something. Whatever violent degradations that for some reason can only be done in a restroom and not in the hundreds of other places a ciswoman might run into a transwoman in their weird imaginations.

Just how many rapes and abuses of women do these weirdos think having women's restrooms prevent? I am going to guess basically none. If somebody is assaulting a woman, her going into the woman's restroom is not going to create some kind of magical forcefield around her. I guess it only applies to the very narrow band of criminals who have no problem committing major felonies, but breaking the unofficial social contract of bathroom etiquette goes too far.

I think its in response to a well-known (ongoing) case in Scotland where a female nurse objected to the presence of  a trans doctor in the female changing rooms. The doctor filed a harassment complaint and the nurse was sacked as result. The doctor self-identifies as a woman.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrqjyxzwnro

[crazy canuck]

Was he really arrested for suggesting that transwomen should be kicked in the groin for being in women's bathrooms? I usually agree with the UK and Canada on most things but I think their well meaning efforts to limit calls to violence and other extreme speech do more harm than good.

I don't think he was literally demanding kicks in groins happen. More that he was doing his little transpanic fantasy of evil men pretending to be women and sneaking in women's restrooms so they could...pee near a ciswoman or something. Whatever violent degradations that for some reason can only be done in a restroom and not in the hundreds of other places a ciswoman might run into a transwoman in their weird imaginations.

Just how many rapes and abuses of women do these weirdos think having women's restrooms prevent? I am going to guess basically none. If somebody is assaulting a woman, her going into the woman's restroom is not going to create some kind of magical forcefield around her. I guess it only applies to the very narrow band of criminals who have no problem committing major felonies, but breaking the unofficial social contract of bathroom etiquette goes too far.

fyi, if the posts we now know about were the reason for his arrest, that would not come close to violating Canada's hate speech law.

[Valmy]

fyi, if the posts we now know about were the reason for his arrest, that would not come close to violating Canada's hate speech law.

That's fair, the UK seems worse on this front than Canada. Which is why American celebrities love suing people for libel in UK courts.

[Valmy]

I think its in response to a well-known (ongoing) case in Scotland where a female nurse objected to the presence of  a trans doctor in the female changing rooms. The doctor filed a harassment complaint and the nurse was sacked as result. The doctor self-identifies as a woman.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrqjyxzwnro

What exactly is a changing room? Is that like a locker room in the US? Was this some kind of athletic team and they had a doctor in the locker room caring for athletes? Because that is odd since at least over here men serving as team doctors isn't unheard of for a woman's athletic team. Many WNBA teams have men serving as their team doctor, for example.

I mean many OBGYNs are men and if that is allowed why would a transwoman doctor in a locker room be some kind of scandal?

But it is rather absurd a nurse got fired for just that.

[crazy canuck]

fyi, if the posts we now know about were the reason for his arrest, that would not come close to violating Canada's hate speech law.

That's fair, the UK seems worse on this front than Canada. Which is why American celebrities love suing people for libel in UK courts.

I think our defamation laws are similar on the question of establishing liability, with the exception of protection of the Press which I think is stronger in Canada. The big difference is the quantum of damages - in Canada a plaintiff is rarely going to be awarded damages that make the litigation worth while.

I am not sure why our law developed that way, but hazarding a guess it could be because a lot of our judges came from small town Canada where you have to develop a fairly thick skin to survive even the friendly banter.  Kind of like languish

[crazy canuck]

I think its in response to a well-known (ongoing) case in Scotland where a female nurse objected to the presence of  a trans doctor in the female changing rooms. The doctor filed a harassment complaint and the nurse was sacked as result. The doctor self-identifies as a woman.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrqjyxzwnro

What exactly is a changing room? Is that like a locker room in the US? Was this some kind of athletic team and they had a doctor in the locker room caring for athletes? Because that is odd since at least over here men serving as team doctors isn't unheard of for a woman's athletic team. Many WNBA teams have men serving as their team doctor, for example.

I mean many OBGYNs are men and if that is allowed why would a transwoman doctor in a locker room be some kind of scandal?

But it is rather absurd a nurse got fired for just that.

According to the article Gups linked, the termination was not because "the nurse objected" as Gups claimed.  It was because of a "Row" at a Christmas party.  The details of what happened at the Christmas party are unknown, but it is not hard to imagine the nurse drinking too much and acting in a manner which gave grounds for termination.

[Gups]

I think its in response to a well-known (ongoing) case in Scotland where a female nurse objected to the presence of  a trans doctor in the female changing rooms. The doctor filed a harassment complaint and the nurse was sacked as result. The doctor self-identifies as a woman.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrqjyxzwnro

What exactly is a changing room? Is that like a locker room in the US? Was this some kind of athletic team and they had a doctor in the locker room caring for athletes? Because that is odd since at least over here men serving as team doctors isn't unheard of for a woman's athletic team. Many WNBA teams have men serving as their team doctor, for example.

I mean many OBGYNs are men and if that is allowed why would a transwoman doctor in a locker room be some kind of scandal?

But it is rather absurd a nurse got fired for just that.

It's a room for hospital staff to get changed from their normal clothes to their scrubs plus showers etc. important to know that Scotland at the time allowed self-identification so you were a trans woman if you just said you were.

[Sheilbh]

What exactly is a changing room? Is that like a locker room in the US? Was this some kind of athletic team and they had a doctor in the locker room caring for athletes? Because that is odd since at least over here men serving as team doctors isn't unheard of for a woman's athletic team. Many WNBA teams have men serving as their team doctor, for example.

I think probably. Similar to a locker room is maybe the comparison. It's not for athletes but for medical staff in a hospital to change in and out of scrubs. I'm not sure what you'd call that in the US?

The incident was one of a few about the changing room and generally the nurse left if the doctor was there. But I believe on the one that caused all the issues she'd had a problem with her period and needed to change as a bit of an emergency.

But it is rather absurd a nurse got fired for just that.

But this comes back to UK equalities legislation which is really complicated. The NHS is legally required to provide single sex changing facilities (they're one of the areas where it's mandated) because staff need to get changed in NHS facilities. That means they must provide single sex facilities - but not that they are required to only provide single sex facilities.

Those types of single sex facilities are one of the exceptions in UK equalities law where it is lawful to discriminate on the basis of sex (this is part of why this sort of issue ended up in the Supreme Court). The policy in the NHS before the Supreme Court decision was that a transwoman was a woman - that means the nurse's objection to her presence in the changing room was not on the basis of sex (because it's between two women - though that would be lawful). Instead it was on the protected characteristic of the transwoman's trans identity which is discrimnation.

The nurse made comments (which are disputed) asking the doctor to leave and she didn't. The doctor then complained to their employer (the NHS trust) of discrimination and bullying, the nurse was suspended by the Trust pending a disciplinary investigation. That then resulted in a claim in the tribunal by the nurse.

It's where I think there are real issues that need working out of competing rights and characteristics within equalities law.

According to the article Gups linked, the termination was not because "the nurse objected" as Gups claimed.  It was because of a "Row" at a Christmas party.  The details of what happened at the Christmas party are unknown, but it is not hard to imagine the nurse drinking too much and acting in a manner which gave grounds for termination.

Not sure where you got that from. It wasn't at a Christmas party it was working on Christmas eve - and there'd been a few run-ins before. So previously the nurse had complained to her line manager (NHS Equality and Diversity guidance was that staff should use the changing room that aligned with their gender identity), then there'd been an incident where she basically walked out because the doctor was changing, then on Christmas Eve they ended up being the only two people in the changing room and words were exchanged - what was said is disputed.

The Trust took the view that it was a "she said/she said" situation, but following the doctor's complaint suspended the nurse. I think the initial plan was to try and just make it so their shifts didn't overlap.

[Sheilbh]

I think our defamation laws are similar on the question of establishing liability, with the exception of protection of the Press which I think is stronger in Canada. The big difference is the quantum of damages - in Canada a plaintiff is rarely going to be awarded damages that make the litigation worth while.

I am not sure why our law developed that way, but hazarding a guess it could be because a lot of our judges came from small town Canada where you have to develop a fairly thick skin to survive even the friendly banter.  Kind of like languish

There's been amendments to defamation law here in the last 10 years or so which actually offer more protection for the press and free speech - and better defences.

On damages I think this has changed to try and bring the quantum down, but libel is/was the only civil claim where the jury also assessed damages (I think there are circumstances where you can still end up with a jury trial). The judge gave guidance on that and there were some powers to reduce an award. But it is interesting because I think it's part of why the damages could be so massive. Juries that had decided that someone had defamed or libeled another person could be pretty exemplary in their decision on what the consequences should be And it's worth noting that is the opposite of the position everywhere else in English law - we don't have exemplary damages - damages are to restore you to the position you would be without the harm. That was always the case with libel and what judges guidance to juries was, but I think juries did feel there was an element of punishment in their decisions.

I'd add that a lot of heads of damages are converging in the UK and actually in the last decade or so (since the Defamation Act) libel is seen as far less of a problem by media lawyer (at least that I've spoken to) than claims under the Human Rights Act/ECHR on the right to a private life. As I say normally will include both, but there's fairly robust defences for libel now while breach of right to private life and misuse of personal information are a lot more challenging for the press (not least because there's not really any of the standard libel defences).

[crazy canuck]

Gups, you are right, I misread it

[Sheilbh]

Total aside - but just a follow up on the way Reform are doing media totally differently for a political party.

The eco-populist candidate won the Green leadership with 85% of the vote. One of the first things he's announced:

Zack Polanski
@ZackPolanski
Leading a political party means leading the political conversation, being available and being heard on the platforms people actually use. 

Join me every Wednesday on my new podcast: Bold Politics. The only podcast led by a current party leader in the UK. Link in bio.

Different from previous Green strategy which is hyper-local. But interesting. And I think whether it's Reform livestreaming their own events (which they have proper set design for) with commentary, or getting a daytime TV to "host" their conference, or the leader of the Greens launching a weekly podcast - I think we're moving past the comms techniques and style of the 90s. The two big traditional parties still need to keep doing what they're doing but also move past the off-the-record anonymous briefings to lobby journalists, focus on leading the Today program on Radio 4, and the big broadcast shows on Sunday morning etc.

I'd add to that Corbyn and Sultana's party which is very online.

Also incidentally gain the trans debate is proving quite challenging for Your Party and the Greens. Your Party has all of the Gaza independents in the party, these are all (male) Muslim MPs who are fairly socially conservative; with the Greens one of the new deputy leader Mothin Ali refused to make pledges to any groups within the party (I actually quite liked his reasoning explaining this quite a lot), including the LGBT+ Greens and is coming under a lot of pressure on this issue, he's also been attacked for comments he made on October 7th. The flipside of that is he was one of the running mates of the Greens' new gay Jewish leader which makes those attacks more challenging.

[Tamas]

Well the sooner the break between progressive leftists and conservative Muslims come the better. It is an unholy alliance.

[Richard Hakluyt]

A totally splintered political scene and first-past-the-post electoral system is going to lead to some wacky election results......its going to be interesting but in a disturbing way.

[crazy canuck]

Brilliant Pythonesque - what has the ECHR ever done for us



https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOAmhDbCMQV/?igsh=NHh1MHI5Ymw0Y2Vx

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well the sooner the break between progressive leftists and conservative Muslims come the better. It is an unholy alliance.

Amazing how green/progressive parties are such willing vectors for reactionary islam. It's as if they don't understand that they'll hang like the rest of us as soon as they're no longer useful to the islamics