Catholic journalist gets visit from police after ‘misgendering’ a trans person

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Misgendering? My goodness, did she misread the DNA results?
Click to expand...
The way I understand it…

Gender is a biological, psychophysical, sociological, psychological, subjective construct.

DNA is determinative, significant, peripheral, an irrelevant consideration.

And you could be sued, fined, and/or jailed if you don’t accept the findings of the progressive ideologues who say so.

When in Rome…

Live and let live!

Tolerance is a virtue

Love trumps hate!

Submit or die!

Fun times! :confused:
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
I think I read it in the Yahoo article, you can check that one out. I’d give you the link but Yahoo wants a data agreement or something now which I don’t feel inclined to give. But if you search for This lady’s name and Yahoo is sure it will come up. 🙂
Click to expand...
I did, but all I found on Yahoo was a link to the Telegraph story. But since you have already read the story and are apparently satisfied, can you just tell me in your own words who in the police department was quoted and what that police spokesman said?
 
From the front page of The Daily Telegraph for those not wanting to magnify:
Last September, she [Farrow] appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain with Susie Green, a transgender rights campaigner, to discuss the Girl Guides’ policy of not telling parents if a transgender child joins. Following a heated on-air debate, Mrs Farrow allegedly continued the spat on Twitter, during which she was accused of using the wrong pronoun in an exchange over Ms Green’s transgender daughter.
Click to expand...
Ms Green, who made the complaint, insisted the comments had been “distressing and spiteful”.

A police spokesman said:
“A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offences have taken place.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don’t remember if it gave a name, but it did say that the police department confirmed that it had requested an interview with Mrs. Farrow at the station. Sorry, I can’t give you anything more detailed than that.
 
A different publication:
Surrey Police confirmed that an investigation is indeed underway, and has been for some time:

‘We received an allegation on October 15 2018 in relation to a number of tweets which were posted in October 2018.

‘A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offenses have taken place.

‘A 44-year-old woman has been asked to attend a voluntary interview in relation to the allegation as part of our ongoing investigation.’
Click to expand...
Susie Green has publicly stated the fact that Jackie Green was born physically male, and publicly used a male pronoun in reference to Jackie Green on at least one occasion.

Meanwhile, Caroline Farrow says she is under investigation by the police for referring to Jackie Green as Susie Green’s son.

Since the investigation is ongoing and some of the details remain unclear, I will say no about this for now, other than to repeat the core fact of the case:

A British police force is investigating a journalist because of words that she published.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
^ That’s the one I read where the police requested an interview.
 
ATraveller said:
A different publication:
Surrey Police confirmed that an investigation is indeed underway, and has been for some time:

‘We received an allegation on October 15 2018 in relation to a number of tweets which were posted in October 2018.

‘A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offenses have taken place.

‘A 44-year-old woman has been asked to attend a voluntary interview in relation to the allegation as part of our ongoing investigation.’
Click to expand...
Thank you for the details. So it appears that someone complained and the police are investigating. There are several possibilities as I see it:
  1. The person complaining has no case and just wants to make trouble. However, the police are going forward with charges based on these complaints, resulting in unjust persecution of the Catholic journalist.
  2. The person complaining has no case and just wants to make trouble, but the police, after a brief examination of the tweets will conclude there is no case and drop the investigation.
  3. The person complaining does have a case because the content of the tweets have been misrepresented.
I would hope it turns out that #2 is the case. Although at this point we can’t rule out #1 or #3.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
Do I have to commit to what I will condemn before I can know what happened with the police?
Click to expand...
No but I want to find out your principles here. I can tuck that away in the back of my mind for the future.

These draconian measures will get worse.

Then you will either be as concerned as I am, or you will defend it.

But either way, it would be good for me to have an understanding of how you are thinking and WHY you are thinking the way you are.

The more I understand about how others think, the more I can derive ideas from other thoughts from them.

I think it is good that we have an understanding of one another in this world even when we disagree.

So “no” you don’t have to tell me where you are at in this story.

And “no” you do not have to tell me where you are in principle.

I think this woman getting threatened by her Government for this, is a miscarriage of justice and is yet another barometric indicator of more cultural clash troubles to come.

(These kind of issues with the left RE-defining terminology and pretending things are not what they are, based upon their “feelings”, are not going to evaporate any time soon.)
 
Last edited:
People get persecuted for things like this.

PS: Your old style of writing is much, much, better. Also, the rabbit was much more appropriate.
 
Ben Shapiro gets told on national TV no less . . .
You cut that out now! Or you’ll go home in an ambulance.
Click to expand...
See it at 2:00 here and beyond . . . .


And here . . .


Has anyone here expressing concerns about alleged “Christian behavior”, ever posted any outrage here over this threat against Ben Shapiro?

As far as I know, Tur had no accountabilty for this threatening behavior anywhere so far except Mr. Shapiro just saying the truth.
 
Last edited:
Zerg said:
People get persecuted for things like this.
Click to expand...
It’s a tough life in the permanently indignant trade.
Zerg said:
PS: Your old style of writing is much, much, better. Also, the rabbit was much more appropriate.
Click to expand...
My old style of writing would mean I’d be suspended every post and the current icon suits my mood.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
Do I have to commit to what I will condemn before I can know what happened with the police?
Click to expand...
OK, here it is. If this Catholic journalist is punished for merely proclaiming Catholic teaching in her tweets, I would call that unjust persecution and a disregard for religious freedom. I would speak out against it as such.

However I got caught once before jumping to conclusions that excited my principles in the case of the Covington boys at the March for Life. Like many others, I assumed the first reports of boys mocking a native American drummer adequately displayed what was going on. I called the main boy a spoiled brat. As we learned later, those first videos were far from adequate, and when the complete picture came out, the boys were actually defending the drummer from others. My principles on mocking others have not changed. I still think it would be wrong to do what I assumed was happened. But that isn’t what was happening in that case. I don’t want to make that mistake again.

Now let’s discuss the role of tweets in this story. But let’s make up a different hypothetical story. Suppose a Catholic journalist had tweeted the following:
Hypothetical Journalist tweet:
“God’s laws forbid the taking of innocent life, especially life in the womb. Therefore abortion is an abomination to the Lord.”
Click to expand...
Any official censure of the Hypothetical Journalist would be an attack on religious freedom, and should be opposed by all faithful Catholics. But now let’s change the tweet a little bit:
Hypothetical Journalist tweet #2:
“Cecilia Marie Adams got an abortion last week, which is the taking of an innocent human life and an affront to God’s laws.”
Click to expand...
Do you feel just as comfortable supporting tweet #2 as an example of religious freedom as you do supporting the first tweet? Do you think Cecilia Marie Adams might have a case against the Journalist who did this? This is why the details of the tweet are important in deciding if the police action in the OP are warranted or are an unjust intrusion into religious freedom.
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
You are not saying the Catholic journalist did anything wrong nor anything to justify being arrested, merely that she shouldn’t complain or raise a fuss about being arrested and potentially fined or jailed BECAUSE “Matthew 5 tells us to love our enemies and to do good?”
Click to expand...
I am claiming that there is more to this story than we know (as is the case with news stories). In the US, we are able to read the charges and police documents. Not sure in the UK, however, in the US reading the source docs is always more enlightening than what was in the paper.

I am claiming that Catholics do not get a “get out of jail free” card when they break civil laws. Should we choose to break a civil law because we feel that there is a moral imperative, we must also be willing to pay the price. I’ve been involved in pro-life activism and believe me in that time in my life I kept an attorney on speed dial.

People were willing to be arrested to change Civil Rights laws in the US, in order to secure the vote for women. If one chooses to be that sort of activist, then, continue to love your enemies, love the police and the lawmakers.
 
Last edited:
You really think it is ok for the force of law to be brought to bear on expression of factually based ideas because someone might be “insulted”, as Christians we must speak truth clearly, say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no. Truth and love are not in conflict. This trend threatens the liberty of us all.
 
My point is, this trend of overt cultural and increasingly legal hostility to anyone who questions the majority’s orthodoxy on gender theory is happening in equal measure across the english speaking world. We need to understand that, and be prepared to to defend minority viewpoints right to be heard, for the sake of the rights of the Church, and all of our neighbors of all viewpoints. There can be no illegal thoughts, and precious few illegal words, it is sad that many of my friends at the Bar on the left don’t believe that anymore.
 
I am frankly flabbergasted that so many here support laws against wrong ideas.
 
(name removed by moderator) . . .
Having actual opinions that are strongly on one side or another on any issue is a bad thing there.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But I am much more concerned about . . .

Having actual opinions that are strongly on one side or another on any issue is an ILLEGAL thing there.

I don’t want to see innocent people with strong opinions getting arrested or intimidated by Governments who have such disproprtionate power over their people, that escalation of differences could more easily occur.
 
Last edited:
Something seems amiss when the mere “bad feelings” of some can result in the full force of the law being brought down on others.
 
One can justify civil laws which penalize liars.

One cannot justify laws which require one to lie.

Anorexics are not well served if one tells them, “Yes, you are fat.”

So too, transgenders are not well served if one tells them a lie.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top