Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour party councillor calls trangender tory councillor a " man " Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)

    I'm not talking about socially here i am talking about the state's power in this scenario.
    rather the state than a mob....
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    rather the state than a mob....
    Both of those things should not be deciding what people can and cannot say.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    trans-phobic bullying is the same as racism
    but so now you've gone form thought crime to 'he should be allowed to express his views'
    Should a person be allowed to stand on the side of the road shouting 'n igger' at black people passing by?
    Can we remember that even without hate crime laws, people can still be arrested for harassment, incitement to violence, assault, public order offences, and many other kinds of unacceptable behavior regardless of the motivation. Standing on a roadside and shouting n***** at passing black people would obviously fall under public order offences, which include threatening and intimidating behaviour and carry a sentence of up to two years in prison.

    Misgendering doesn't convey the same sense of subhumanism, hate and fear that the N word can. The latter has next to zero risk of being used by someone who isn't truly hateful and intentionally trying to intimidate, which is why we legitimately respond strongly when it is used.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. Black people can do it, so others must be allowed to as well, as long as there is no incitement involved, of course.
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    then I'll have to disagree
    as does the law....................
    What i'm about to say is a bit off topic and an anecdote. But anyway, the law does not disagree. I was once taken to court for using the term, 'My n1gger' (in the way as I would say 'My bro', to a white person. He being quick to be offended reported me to the police, where I got taken to court and was found not guilty.

    So the law allows the term 'N1gger' to be used depending on context.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    Can we remember that even without hate crime laws, people can still be arrested for harassment, incitement to violence, assault, public order offences, and many other kinds of unacceptable behavior regardless of the motivation. Standing on a roadside and shouting n***** at passing black people would obviously fall under public order offences, which include threatening and intimidating behaviour and carry a sentence of up to two years in prison.

    Misgendering doesn't convey the same sense of subhumanism, hate and fear that the N word can. The latter has next to zero risk of being used by someone who isn't truly hateful and intentionally trying to intimidate, which is why we legitimately respond strongly when it is used.
    If there was a transsexual civil rights movement, I can imagine the speech that the transsexual version of Martin Luther King would say:

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the use of their pronouns."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Does being a **** warrant the police being called?
    No, I don't think so. But she has every right to be angry and upset. If he had used slurs and blatantly transphobic language when talking about her, then I think it'd be right to involve the police. But this incident I feel should still be dealt with severely in the form of making it CLEAR that what he did to that woman is wrong.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Don't worry. The police aren't treating this criminally (they have more sense than some people on this thread).
    They are using restorative justice i.e mediation. They get the community bobby to sit them both down and say stuff like, "Consider each others feelings".
    That's not really the point.

    The police should have precisely 0 involvement of the use of a pronoun.


    The use of a pronoun, accurate or not, desired by the target or not, meant with an edge of disrespect or not is not a crime.

    Not a sane one anyway. .
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Dat feel when 90% of those saying it's no thing would be going nuts if it was a Conservative counsellor.*

    Dat other feel when 90% of those outraged would be saying it's no thing if it was a Conservative counsellor.*
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Just to join in with this part of the debate, no I don't think simply saying the word 'n1gger' should be illegal. It's a word... making a word illegal is absurd. If, however, the aggressor repeatedly shouted it in a threatening/aggressive way at passing black people then that of course is justifiable terms for harassment charges, but the utterance of the word itself should never, ever be illegal, and the same applies for ANY other word.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsbillie)
    No, I don't think so. But she has every right to be angry and upset. If he had used slurs and blatantly transphobic language when talking about her, then I think it'd be right to involve the police. But this incident I feel should still be dealt with severely in the form of making it CLEAR that what he did to that woman is wrong.
    Really? Because I don't. I think there is a distinction as people have alredy pointed out between free speech and harassment. But do you seriously think the police should get involved because someone says a bad word, or a word the other person doesn't like?**
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Really? Because I don't. I think there is a distinction as people have alredy pointed out between free speech and harassment. But do you seriously think the police should get involved because someone says a bad word, or a word the other person doesn't like?**
    I think if a purposeful hate crime and had taken place in which he was openly transphobic and made the woman feel unsafe, there would be cause to involve the police. In this instance, I don't think there's a need to. But he is still in the wrong.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    'You say that again and you'll be going home in an ambulance"😅
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    He is a man, everyone actually knows he is a man. Even the people who say he is a woman and passionately argue for it don't really believe it and are lying to themselves. You cannot change reality and saying something enough times doesn't make it true. You can "identify" as whatever you like but but don't expect people not to call you out on your mental illness. The fact the people want to use state violence to enforce this retardation is so woefully pathetic. Where is the dignity? Where is the truth? We live in a sick world of lies. It's all so repulsive and suffocating.
    i love dicks like you <333
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsbillie)
    I think if a purposeful hate crime and had taken place in which he was openly transphobic and made the woman feel unsafe, there would be cause to involve the police. In this instance, I don't think there's a need to. But he is still in the wrong.
    Well by definition if a crime of ANY nature had taken place then yeh the police should be involved.

    Being openly transphobic though ought not necessarily be a crime, especially if our benchmark has something like using the 'wrong' pronoun being considered transphobic. Likewise I don't think someone feeling unsafe necessarily means something is criminal or deserving of police intervention, there are some people who feel unsafe if they hear someone speaking arabic in public, I think you'd agree that it doesn't mean the police should be involved every time someone doesn't feel comfortable with someone speaking in their native language.

    You may believe that he is in the wrong on a moral level, and sure his party should be free to discipline him, or kick him out of the party for this, the electorate are perfectly within their rights to decide not to vote for him for this, they are within their rights to criticise him etc. But police involvement here, or any attempt to try and fashion this sort of thing into a crime is sinister and wrong.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    You may believe that he is in the wrong on a moral level, and sure his party should be free to discipline him, or kick him out of the party for this, the electorate are perfectly within their rights to decide not to vote for him for this, they are within their rights to criticise him etc. But police involvement here, or any attempt to try and fashion this sort of thing into a crime is sinister and wrong.
    Absolutely this. People so often fail to distinguish between the government and society when it comes to punishing people's views and speech. They're unwilling to condone something they feel is wrong, like misgendering, so think making it illegal is the right or only way to deal with the situation. But they forget that society itself punishes people who commit social wrongs, without needing to send in the scary men with handcuffs and tazers.

    Like you say, people can simply choose not to employ him, choose not to elect him, or choose not to spend time around him. They might even convince him to change his views - which is a lot less likely if we lock him in a cell.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    It wasn't accidental

    the councillor has never know her as a male so there was simply no need other than to be offensive.
    But surely he might have just made a pronoun mistake? It's easy to do, shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt?

    I don't think it's an unfair assessment to point out that it's likely the criticism from the right on this subject would be much more muted if it were a Conservative councillor who said the wrong thing. If anything, we'd be hearing about "PC gone mad" and so on
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine the scenario:
    You go to a bar after a tough day at work.
    Whilst sitting at the bar you notice a beautiful woman who then smiles at you.
    You decide to mosey on over and strike up a conversation.
    You really like her and you think she likes you.
    She plays with her hair, strokes your hand.
    The moment takes you both.
    You both go back to your place, kissing as you go through the door.
    In the darkness, she falls onto the sofa and you fall on top on her.
    You kiss her lips, her neck her chest, her stomach, working your way further down, intending to please her nether regions with your lips.
    You undo the buttons on her skirt and pull it down then ... thump...
    You've just been hit in the eye.
    You turn on a lamp and then see that you've just been poked by a huge erection that would make any Ron Jeremy jealous.
    You recoil in horror but the 'woman' says, "Oh, that. Don't worry about that. I identify as female and use female pronouns and everything."...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    ...Not one straight male SJW here would think to themselves, "That's a good point", and then go onto noshing on that erection.
    So, everyone on this thread knows the difference between a man and a woman.
    Now, you can go all 'Crying Game' but most likely you'd be throwing him out of your house and you'd probably be angry that he deceived you into thinking he's a woman.
    Likewise, the councillor who identifies as a woman is actually a man and everyone needs to accept that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    But surely he might have just made a pronoun mistake?
    No he didn't make a mistake.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    What he did was wrong but I don't see the need for police involvement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)

    So the law allows the term 'N1gger' to be used depending on context.
    An act does not make a person guilty, unless the mind is guilty. This allows, thankfully, for intelligent discretion in sentencing.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 11, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.