Please join me in reporting this video for targetted harassment, hate speech & gaslighting.
This is totally unacceptable fascism. https://t.co/TCk6oFpala
— Frances Leader – Activist #FUEU (@2013Boodicca) February 25, 2020
Hope not hate going all Harry Miller. The ooh er missus face of fascism.
Redolent of the Two Ronnies The Worm that turned.
To whom was Her Majesty referring in her Christmas broadcast?
My own group, Keep Talking, has no political axe to grind other than investigating what is going on behind the scenes on issues of war, terrorism and propaganda. According to Jewish News, The Campaign Against Antisemitism claimed responsibility for closing one of our meetings down. The venue people told me they were closing the meeting on ‘police advice’. The talk was to have been on Princess Diana, though the speaker was to have told us why he stopped investigating her death. There was nothing in this meeting that had anything at all to do with antisemitism, or as far as we were aware, of Jews, Zionism, Israel, Mossad or anything else to do with the Israel lobby. The very first suggestion I heard of any possible link with Mossad was from the ‘journalist’ from Jewish News who contacted me before publishing an article headed ‘Far-right meeting to discuss how ‘Mossad murdered Diana’ stopped on police advice: Secretive “Keep Talking” group’s scheduled gathering in Holborn cancelled by venue after authorities intervene’. I filed a Freedom of Information request to the Charity Commission, who recognise the CAA as a charitable organisation, even though it engages in such political campaigning, and is protecting its trustees by withholding their names. I also filed a Freedom of Information request to the London Metropolitan Police to find out just what ‘police advice’ they had given the venue regarding Keep Talking. The Charity Commission just explained their system, and the police are in gross breach of the law in delaying, delaying and delaying.
The Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles: Introduction
1. In his unpublished introduction to Animal Farm (1945) George Orwell wrote:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
2. In R v Central Independent Television plc  Fam 192, 202-203, Hoffmann LJ said that:
“… a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which ‘right-thinking people’ regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute.”
3. Also much quoted are the words of Sedley LJ in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 7 BHRC 375, :
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having … “
4. In R v Shayler  1 AC 247, , Lord Bingham emphasised the connection between freedom of expression and democracy. He observed that
‘the fundamental right of free expression has been recognised at common law for very many years’ and explained: “The reasons why the right to free expression is regarded as fundamental are familiar, but merit brief restatement in the present context. Modern democratic government means government of the people by the people for the people. But there can be no government by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for and against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments. The business of government is not an activity about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and express opinions. It is, or should be, a participatory process. But there can be no assurance that government is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known, the issues publicly ventilated …”.
241. It is very important to recognise that the Claimant was not tweeting in a vacuum. He was contributing to an ongoing debate that is complex and multi-faceted. In order to understand the contours of that debate I have been assisted by the first witness statement of Professor Kathleen Stock, Professor of Philosophy at Sussex University. She researches and teaches the philosophy of fiction and feminist philosophy. Her intellectual pedigree is impeccable. She writes: 55 “4, In my work, among other things I argue that there’s nothing wrong, either theoretically, linguistically, empirically, or politically, with the once-familiar idea that a woman is, definitionally, an adult human female. I also argue that the subjective notion of ‘gender identity’ is ill-conceived intrinsically, and a fortiori as a potential object of law or policy. In light of these and other views, I am intellectually ‘gender-critical’; that is, critical of the influential societal role of sex-based stereotypes, generally, including the role of stereotypes in informing the dogmatic and, in my view, false assertion that – quite literally – ‘trans women are women’. I am clear throughout my work that trans people are deserving of all human rights and dignity.”
242. Professor Stock co-runs an informal network of around 100 gender-critical academics working in UK and overseas universities. Members of the network come from a wide variety of different disciplines including sociology, philosophy, law, psychology and medicine. She says that many members of the network ‘research on the many rich theoretical and practical questions raised by current major social changes in the UK around sex and gender’. 243. Professor Stock then describes the ‘hostile climate’ facing gender-critical academics working in UK universities. She says that any research which threatens to produce conclusions or outcomes that influential trans-advocacy organisations would judge to be politically inexpedient, faces significant obstacles. These, broadly, are impediments to the generation of research and to its publication. She also explains how gender critical academics face constant student protests which hinder their work. 244. At  she says: “As also indicative, since I began writing and speaking on gender-critical matters: the Sussex University Student Union Executive has put out a statement about me on their website, accusing me of ‘transphobia’ and ‘hatred’; I’ve had my office door defaced twice with stickers saying that ‘TERFS’ are ‘not welcome here’ …” 245. I understand that ‘TERF’ is an acronym for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’. It is used to describe feminists who express ideas that other feminists consider transphobic, such as the claim that trans women are not women, opposition to transgender rights and exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces and organisations. It can be a pejorative term. 246. She concludes at : “… there are also unfair obstacles to getting gender-critical research articles into academic publications, and in achieving grant funding. These stem from a dogmatic belief, widespread amongst those academics most likely to be asked to referee a project about sex or gender (eg those already 56 established in Gender Studies; those in feminist philosophy) that trans women are literally women, that trans men are literally men, and that any dissent on this point must automatically be transphobic …” 247. Also in evidence is a statement from Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of Index on Censorship. Index on Censorship is a non-profit organisation that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. It publishes work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. She deals with a number of topics, including the Government Consultation on the GRA 2004. She explains at -: “10. The proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act involve removing the gender recognition procedures described above and replacing them with a simple selfidentification process (self-ID). Self-ID means the transitioner does not have to undergo medical or other assessment procedures. 11. Many in the UK are concerned that the proposed reforms for self-ID will erase ‘sex’ as protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 by conflating ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. There are concerns that single sex spaces with important protective functions (women’s prisons or women’s refuse shelters for victims of domestic violence or rape) will be undermined. The UK government has said it does not plan to amend the existing protections in the Equality Act; however, this is not convincing to those who see self-ID in any form as fundamentally incompatible with legal protection for women and girls.” 248. She goes on to address gender criticism and Twitter and explains that there is on-going concern that Twitter is stifling legitimate debate on this topic by its terms of service which apparently treat gender critical comment as hate speech. She then gives a number of examples where the police have taken action because of things people have posted on Twitter about transgender issues. 249. She concludes at -: “27. Index is concerned by the apparent growing number of cases in which police are contacting individuals about online speech that is not illegal and sometimes asking for posts to be removed. This is creating confusion among the wider population about what is and is not legal speech, and – more significantly – further suppressing debate on an issue of public interest, given that the government invited comment on this issue as part of its review of the Gender Recognition Act. 28. The confusion of the public (and police) around what is, and what is not, illegal speech may be responsible for 57 artificially inflating statistics on transgender hate crime … Police actions against those espousing lawful, gender critical views – including the recording of such views where reported as ‘hate incidents’ – create a hostile environment in which gender critical voices are silenced. This is at a time when the country is debating the limits and meaning of ‘gender’ as a legal category. 29. It has been reported that the hostile environment in which this debate is being conducted is preventing even members of parliament from expressing their opinions openly. The journalist James Kirkup said in a 2018 report for The Spectator: “I know MPs, in more than one party, who privately say they will not talk about this issue in public for fear of the responses that are likely to follow. The debate is currently conducted in terms that are not conducive to – and sometimes actively hostile to – free expression. As a result, it is very unlikely to lead to good and socially sustainable policy.” 250. I take the following points from this evidence. First, there is a vigorous ongoing debate about trans rights. Professor Stock’s evidence shows that some involved in the debate are readily willing to label those with different viewpoints as ‘transphobic’ or as displaying ‘hatred’ when they are not. It is clear that there are those on one side of the debate who simply will not tolerate different views, even when they are expressed by legitimate scholars whose views are not grounded in hatred, bigotry, prejudice or hostility, but are based on legitimately different value judgments, reasoning and analysis, and form part of mainstream academic research.
259. Mr Auburn and Mr Ustych both sought to play down the police’s actions. They said that there had been no interference with the Claimant’s free expression rights or, if there had, it was at a trivial level. In my judgment these submissions impermissibly minimise what occurred and do not properly reflect the value of free speech in a democracy. There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence. The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.
“Hardening the Sides”