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.
Last edited:
These laws are ridiculous and honestly unjust. I fail to understand how the Queen can sit there and keep her mouth shut.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
Mum to be questioned for 'using wrong pronoun for transgender girl'

“I have pointed out to the police that I am a Catholic journalist/commentator and it is my religious belief that a person cannot change sex.”
…
“I have done nothing wrong, nothing illegal and will happily do jail time for my right to say that people cannot change sex.”
Click to expand...
May God Bless this living martyr for the faith!
 
Last edited:
And yet being a member of a different religion screaming in the streets for the heads of soldiers to be cut off is apparently free speech according to the police.
 
Last edited:
Duplicate thread:
40.png
Catholic journalist gets visit from police after ‘misgendering’ a trans person World News
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And some people worry about a theocracy. This is, by definition, pure lunacy imposed against the common sense of the people. Pray.
 
Last edited:
This thread is still young. I’m sure the “transphobic” police will be along soon…
 
Last edited:
But speaking to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme, Ms Green said the comments had gone much further than that.

She said: "It’s not just the misgendering, it’s actually the context that she puts it into, and that she calls me a child abuser.

“She constantly refers to my daughter as a boy but that’s not… the key issues here weren’t those. It was the really damaging things that she said about me and my actions that made me decide that this was an appropriate course of action.”

Ms Green said she withdrew her complaint on Tuesday, partly because she did not want Ms Farrow to continue to have a platform on the issue and to stop the “constant referencing of herself as a victim when in actual fact she’s used her platform to deliberately go after myself and my daughter”.

A spokesman for Surrey Police said the investigation remained open, but could be closed if the complainant signed a statement formally withdrawing the complaint.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Second woman is investigated by police over transphobic comments

A second woman is being investigated by the police following allegations that she made transphobic comments on social media, the Telegraph can reveal.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Sounds more like a civil matter and not a criminal one and even that seems ridiculous if Green is telling the truth.

About the second woman. Guess who was behind the complaint that sparked two different police investigations involving two different police forces at opposite ends of England?
The 44-year-old was first interviewed by West Yorkshire Police last year, on suspicion of malicious communication, following a complaint from Ms Green, who runs the Mermaids charity.

Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where she lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.

That case was eventually closed with no further action, despite officers undertaking a victim’s review following a request by Ms Green.

But she has revealed that she is now the subject of a second police investigation, this time by the Wiltshire force.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Click the top right v icon to expand without having to go to the thread in the world news forum.
40.png
Catholic journalist gets visit from police after ‘misgendering’ a trans person World News
But speaking to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme, Ms Green said the comments had gone much further than that. She said: "It’s not just the misgendering, it’s actually the context that she puts it into, and that she calls me a child abuser. “She constantly refers to my daughter as a boy but that’s not… the key issues here weren’t those. It was the really damaging things that she said about me and my actions that made me decide that this was an appropriate course of action.” Ms Green sa…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Notwithstanding her strongly held religious beliefs, I don’t understand why somebody would wish to be so ill mannered as to persist in referring to somebody in a manner other than that which is their clearly stated preference. That is not to say that I think that people should face criminal prosecution for saying things that other people don’t like, but I really do not understand why this woman is going out of her way to be offensive.
 
Last edited:
Nelka said:
And yet being a member of a different religion screaming in the streets for the heads of soldiers to be cut off is apparently free speech according to the police.
Click to expand...
That is certainly not the case in the UK. Inciting others to engage in murder and terrorism is a very serious criminal offence. If I went into the street tomorrow and started inciting people to behead soldiers I’d be looking at a one-way ticket to HMP Belmarsh. Free speech does not extend to criminal incitement.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
I fail to understand how the Queen can sit there and keep her mouth shut.
Click to expand...
That is almost literally the Queen’s constitutional role.
 
Last edited:
Londoner said:
I really do not understand why this woman is going out of her way to be offensive.
Click to expand...
I don’t either, and I don’t like it when someone goes around announcing they are Catholic and then goes out of their way to be offensive, especially towards a child. So they had a debate on TV, fine. Was there any reason to continue this on Twitter? No.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t either, and I don’t like it when someone goes around announcing they are Catholic and then goes out of their way to be offensive, especially towards a child. So they had a debate on TV, fine. Was there any reason to continue this on Twitter? No.
Click to expand...
It is quite annoying when someone delivers a message that is more or less correct in the most deliberately abrasive way possible.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
I fail to understand how the Queen can sit there and keep her mouth shut.
Click to expand...
What would you like the Queen to do about it? You realize the monarchy has virtually no actual power, right?
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. The child is male but considers himself female. And everyone accepts him as being female except for the Catholic journalist who rightly refers to the kid as male (I’m assuming he hasn’t had surgery to make the sex change official). And the Catholic journalist is the one accused of misgendering?

There’s something wrong with this picture. And it isn’t on the part of the Catholic journalist.
 
CCHcolonel said:
Because indulging their fantasy is part of the problem.
Click to expand...
There is always space for debating an issue in an abstract setting. I don’t think anything should be off-limits because of fear of offending people. For this reason, I’ve never agreed with some countries that make Holocaust denial a crime. If David Irving wants to indulge in pointless debates about how long it takes to walk from one end of Auschwitz to the other or whether a spyhole in a door was intended for looking in or out or why Hitler didn’t leave a signed confession taking personal responsibility for the murders of 6 million Jews, why should any state try to stop him?

So, if people want to debate on an abstract level whether a human being can in some ontological sense transition from one sex to the other, that’s fine. But what I do not understand is the desire to give personal offence. If you are talking about somebody who has identified as female from age 4, began hormone treatment at 14, had gender reassignment surgery at 16, and was a finalist in Miss England at 19, somebody who uses a female name and pronouns and is recognised as female under British law, what is to be gained by referring to that person as male? It’s just going to offend and upset people. Calling that person female is not indulging a fantasy. It’s recognising something that has become a reality.
 
Last edited:
I do have to admit to an equal opportunities prejudice against the terminally enraged that has grown as middle age has progressed.
 
Whether it’s rightist, Empire2 Leavers or those Corbyn-supporters who haven’t realised it’s not Petrograd 1917, it’s all just terribly, suicidally, bonkers.
 
From what I understand this Susie Green lady is particularly famous because her son was the first minor to be allowed to undergo transition surgery in the U.K. about 10yrs ago. So it has been legally done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top