The press watchdog has been branded “outrageous” and accused of having a “chilling effect” on free speech after it ruled that the phrase “a man who claims to be a woman” is discriminatory. The Telegraph has more (note some sex-specific terms in the below have been corrected).
An article in the Spectator magazine about Nicola Sturgeon was investigated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) after it described a trans author as “a man who claims to be a woman”.
Author Juno Dawson complained the description amounted to discrimination. Ipso has now issued a rare ruling that it breached the Editor’s Code of Practice and forced the Spectator to publish the ruling on its website.
Michael Gove, the new editor of the Spectator who was not at the magazine at the time of publication, described the ruling as “outrageous”.
“I am in no doubt this is an outrageous decision, offensive to the principle of free speech and chilling in its effect on free expression,” he said.
Free speech campaigners such as MP Rosie Duffield and Maya Forstater have also defended the article and criticised attempts to prevent authors expressing gender-critical views.
Mr. Dawson complained over the reference within an online comment piece published in May by Gareth Roberts, titled: ‘The sad truth about “saint” Nicola Sturgeon.’ Ipso said the comment article breached clause 12 of the Code, which deals with discrimination.
The article focused largely on the former Scottish First Minister’s stance on transgender rights and at one point described Ms. Sturgeon as having been interviewed “by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman”.
Mr. Dawson, who writes young adult novels, was legally declared a woman by the gender recognition panel in 2018. The author complained the description in the article was both inaccurate and discriminatory, and the Spectator had deliberately misgendered him with the intention to cause offence, which Ipso upheld.
Writing in the Spectator, Mr. Gove set out a strident defence of Mr. Roberts’s article, arguing the journalist was exercising his right to free speech.
He said: “When Gareth Roberts wrote that Juno Dawson is a man who claims to be a woman, he was exercising his right to free speech and indeed expressing a view that many would consider a straightforward truth.
“Dawson may have a gender recognition certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson’s Y chromosome.” …
Ipso required the Spectator to publish the finding online to remedy the breach of the code.
The Spectator had argued it had not breached the Code because the reference to Mr. Dawson’s gender was “was relevant, as it put the remarks made by Ms. Sturgeon into context”. It “did not consider this to be either prejudicial or pejorative”.
But the Ipso finding, published on Tuesday, stated that the language used was “personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial of the complainant due to her [sic] gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express his views on the broader issues of a person’s sex and gender identity given that this targeted her [sic] as an individual”. …
Toby Young, the Director of the Free Speech Union, told the Telegraph that it was not the press regulator’s role to “enforce gender identity ideology”.
He said: “Ipso is supposed to make sure newspaper and magazine articles are fair and accurate. It shouldn’t be in the business of trying to enforce gender identity ideology.
“Punishing the Spectator for publishing something factually accurate about a trans woman risks turning it into a laughing stock.” …
Ipso did not uphold Mr. Dawson’s complaints of inaccuracy or harassment.
Worth reading in full.
In a separate leading article, the Telegraph, which is regulated by Ipso, called the ruling a “regrettable overstep“.
The issue of gender identity is highly contested, and Roberts should have been entitled to express his view. By deciding to rule in favour of Dawson on this matter, Ipso risks a chilling effect on the ability of gender critical voices to express their views and make the strongest arguments available to them, including the argument that a legal change of gender does not alter biological reality.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This really is bloody woke madness ! The police need sorting out ..
Doesn’t anyone wonder how we got here?
It’s all very well saying the police need sorting out, which I’m sure it does.
But isn’t it worth trying to get to the bottom of how our society has got to the point where we all have to play along with the deluded claims of an individual and if we don’t we get arrested?
Otherwise it’ll just go on and on.
Yes Stewart. Got any ideas as to who’s to blame for all of society’s woes?
I don’t know about ALL of society’s woes – there you go setting up a strawman again.
I don’t know about you, but, I believe the world is a far better place if people are judged based on their individual merits, not based on what category of person they belong to.
That goes for every and any category. And any category of person that wants to receive special treatment because they belong to that category, for what ever reason, be it real or imagined, historic or current, is undermining a better society.
Do you think we can agree on that?
What strawman Stewart? Why do you have to twist a simple question into some sort of attack or trap? How can a single question be construed as a “strawman”? Another of your favourite accusations, I note..
You can play your games of ‘one upmanship’ with yourself. Not interested. What a strange one you are..Do you speak to people like that in real life?
Try to find common ground with people?
Yes, thats pretty mich what I try to do in real life.
So you don’t even agree wthat the general idea that we shouldn’t treat categories of people with favouritism, but rather judge them as individuals?
Surely you agree with that?
Hi Stewart , thats a very good question but like all this crap it starts at the top ie Government .Our useless and uninterested MPs wave through laws without understanding them in order to get back to the bar .The Police/CPS then “interpret ” the badly drafted legislation so you end up with section 4A which can be interpreted so widely that you get nicked for hurty words …!!!
The Police/courts CPS etc should be focussing ONLY on real crimes .in the old sense Robbery , murder , drugs etc
Hurty words etc should all come under “Sticks and stones ….. and never even be touched by the law. The root cause is Parliament whose members pass crap in order to get a good headline in Daily Wail in shortterm.
I hope this guy sues the bollox off them …
It’s got so bad that the police now have tools to shut people up.
But I think political correctness predates any of these laws or police powers.
Despite having a system for a long time that pretty much treats everyone equally under the law, certain groups have insisted that they are discriminated against and should be given special treatment. It is their relentless campaigning that has produced these laws, not vice versa, in my opinion, anyway.
I think the problem is that there are too many groups within society that have seen there is mileage in being part of a category that claims some form of victimhood as a means to obtain favourable treatment.
And so we get the crazy situation where you can say all manner of things about Christians, white people, heterosexuals but are hateful if you say the same things about Muslims, black people, homosexuals etc. They’ve managed to get special, favourable treatment through highly motivated and powerful lobbies.
I won’t say which is the most powerful of all those lobbies by a country mile, because I’ll get shouted down (evidence if you need any more of how these groups get their way). I’ll leave you to guess.
Yes invent your own victimhood and the law will follow walking backwards and throwing rose petals .
Importing victimhood is even madder !!
I think the problem is that there are too many groups within society that have seen there is mileage in being part of a category that claims some form of victimhood as a means to obtain favourable treatment.
The problem with this statement is that it implies that these groups are heterogenous wrt what’s claimed to be the problem while they are not. There are political lobbying groups – often well-funded – who claim to be speaking for this or that group despite they certainly haven’t been elected to which act in this way.
^^
Should have been homogenous.
I think the problem goes way beyond lobbying groups. In schools, for example, you will find many teachers now teaching children about gender fluidity for example. Or the terrible problem of racism in Britain. Or toxic masculinity. And for sure about climate change and how if we don’t stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere the world is going to be destroyed.
There are the lobbyists and self appointed, self serving leaders, but then there are the armies of mindless idiots that follow them quite willingly.
But at the heart of it all, there is this notion that has taken hold that there are categories of people that need special treatment beyond simply being treated equally under the law. That idea is really toxic and ruining society.
Would other religions get the same treatment?
Better question: Would people like the guy whose heroic deeds in the name of equality have been told here dare to do the same to preachers of said other religions? I think not. Abusing the relatively defenseless is always great, especially when you know the police is on your side. But taking any kind of personal risk while being true to one’s most heart-felt convictions, now, that’s an entirely different conversation!
When Lauren Southern tried something similar (likewise with the apparent intention of causing trouble) with another religion she was permanently banned from the UK.
The overt war against Christianity. So this preacher is now on the terrorist watch list? For defending natural biology and his Christian beliefs?
And the Churches say what? Will any help this preacher? Will any Christian come to his aid?
If it still has a penis attached, it’s a bloke. Should have been pretty straightforward to check I’d have thought.
I dunno man..but this sounds like a job for Alex Stein to me;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i-UmCQ-X-U&ab_channel=AlexStein
Fight insanity with insanity
He’s got balls, I’ll give him that.
Bonus points for not bothering to tidy up first plus for having a cat!
“He’s got balls, I’ll give him that.”
So had the lady that shopped him!
In my observation, magistrates do this, when the police pass an absurd charge to them they just ratify it, and it’s necessary to appeal to a judge to get sense.
Totally agree, and this is all intentional. Although he was always likely to win on appeal the punishment is the process. This is designed to put everybody off from saying the same things and going through the same process. He should sue the police for wrongful arrest.
14 hours in a cell overnight means 14 hours in a brightly lit room where nobody can possible get any sleep (unless he’s very drunk or drugged). But that’s just done for the safety of the incarcerated, it’s by no means forced sleep deprivation. They’ll have a water tap there with a big No drinking water sign on it. That’s for thirsty people. And technically, temporary inmates are supposed to get something to eat as well. Which doesn’t mean this will actually happen.
I don’t know how much has been won by preachers in damages from police forces so far. I think it would amount to quite a lot. But then who pays? Us, presumably.
Maybe a complaint to IOPC would get the police officer concerned to go through a process that he/she/they would not enjoy to even the score.
This is just extraordinary! We know mis-gendering merits losing your job, that’s just normal now, but is it actually a crime?? The conviction seems to have been as a public order offence. If “public order” now includes not saying anything that someone else considers offensive, that is just ludicrous. Our laws seem to have gone down the very dangerous path of controlling thought and speech, rather than actual harm.
Section 4A is committed when a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour [towards a stranger in public] Whether words or behaviour are threatening, abusive or insulting will depend on the facts of the case.
That’s a license to prosecute anyone for anything provided the police desires such a prosecution.
Would anyone care to give chapter and verse on what law this man was prosecuted under.
Judging from the article,
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#_pub127
Thank you RW. The relevant bit as I understood it is
“this offence involves the intention to cause (and thereby causing) harassment, alarm, or distress to a specific victim by words or behaviour. This offence could be appropriate for single incidents involving sexually threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour directed towards a stranger in public.”
The essence of this is intent, which I don’t believe can be shown, and it seems to me that a distressed and alarmed victim is unlikely to stay and join in the singing and laughing.
This is utterly ridiculous. Let’s imagine for a moment a Muslim having a disagreement on this sort of topic in the street, the police would suddenly vanish. It’s Leftist hate of white Christians, that’s been the Marxist plan for decades.
Get rid of the Equality and Diversity Act along with a load of other laws, purportedly brought in to protect us from ourselves, which can only be achieved by dismissing the LibLabConGreenSNP single Party that is running this country into the ground. Support the Heritage Party; help it grow with your individual skills and expertise.
Start a “fundme” page and I like many others, will support you.
Ps: The country is policed by a woke mob akin to the Keystone Cops. I laugh at law enforcement. How did lockdowns pan out?
You may identify a Leopard as an Elephant and that is entirely up to you. But to me it is still a Leopard.
He was convicted of having the ‘wrong, non-govt approved’ thoughts.
You have the right to request to be addressed by any gender you want but you do not have the right to be forced to address someone by the gender you do not think is appropriate.
In other words, the other person’s rights should stop at your mouth, where your rights take over.