strichener Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I don't deny your right to believe things. I merely reserve my right publicly to ridicule your expressions of stupid beliefs and to shame you into changing your mind. Really? I think that the posts on here that are deserving of ridicule come from those that have showed least tolerence. That would be you and your ilk. Whilst trying to show others to be intollerent, you are displaying the same traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Pretty ironic that people defending transphobia and bigotry are crying about tolerance. We have to tolerate other people's right to be prejudiced!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 What a ridiculous statement to make. One person's experience is not identical to others, and this doesn't at all stop the fact that the government is misgendering a transwoman here. Your 'clear and predictive consequences' don't mask that this is completely transphobic - I shouldn't have to spell it out again. When you are arguing that "poor wee oppressed Tara" (no apologies, I see for belittling a transwoman who is being sexually harassed in prison) should have "known the consequences", you are justifying inequality in the extreme. Cis female or male prisoners do not need to worry about going to a prison which is not their assigned gender in the most part. Tara has. You are trying to excuse this. ie you think it's apparently "not transphobic" that a transperson is facing discrimination based on their gender that non-trans people would not experience. This is a mind-numbingly simple concept. Apparently not for those fighting tooth-and-nail for a bigoted position, but it's okay because their union pals think they're left-wing. What you, and all the other posters championing this offender, are missing, is a wee bit of perspective. The most pertinent part of Tara's character is not her gender, but that she is a violent offender. You do understand that there's a bit of a possibility that other prisoners may be in danger from her? By concentrating on the gender issues, many appear to lose sight of the fact that Tara has already created a number of victims, acne could potentially create more. Should consideration not be taken of their human rights? In summary,I have no problem with how people wish to see themselves - unlike some on here, who wish to argue with how I define myself, but that's apparently alright. What I do have a problem with is people of whatever stripe who inflict harm upon others, then immediately seek sympathy when they perceived themselves to be victims. No matter what their self-determination, or their legal status, an arsehole is an arsehole. Our prison system is full of people who are, for the good of society, segregated from that society for a period. I and my colleagues treat these people with respect, whether that respect is merited or not. That's what we do. In even simpler terms... Tara appears to be a violent, aggressive woman who possess a danger to innocent people. Tara has been sentenced accordingly. The Prison Service does its best, given budgetary and legal constraints, to serve the courts, public, offenders and employees - in that order. The Prison Service is a long way from perfect. No doubt, once a coherent and acceptable strategy is implemented, new challenges will arise. And, equally inevitably, that will add a further burden to the NOMS budget, leading to further erosion of the care available to all in the CJ system. Unless, of course, we'd like to pay more taxes or cut funding to the NHS and education? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 What you, and all the other posters championing this offender, are missing, is a wee bit of perspective. The most pertinent part of Tara's character is not her gender, but that she is a violent offender. You do understand that there's a bit of a possibility that other prisoners may be in danger from her? By concentrating on the gender issues, many appear to lose sight of the fact that Tara has already created a number of victims, acne could potentially create more. Should consideration not be taken of their human rights? And this is why you are being accused of being right-wing. Human rights do not stop because someone has committed a criminal offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 You also seem to know nothing about the case aside from the 'guilty' verdict. Will you also apologise for belittling a transwoman who is being sexually harassed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Pretty ironic that people defending transphobia and bigotry are crying about tolerance. We have to tolerate other people's right to be prejudiced!! Actually, one of those things which is pretty high on most human rights campaigners' agendas is freedom of expression. The answer to that is not repetitive abuse, but rather offering a reasoned argument in response. Narrowing down this discussion to "TRANSPHOBIA!" while refusing either to acknowledge some of Tara's less admirable characteristics, or the actual logistics and finances necessary to deal with trans and other minority groups within the CJ system, is making you seem more and more like a screaming single-issue zealot, demanding that everything should be formulated with reference to this particular issue. I've tried to point out that, like most things in life, there is more than one side to this story, and improving one group's lot may be to the detriment of others. I've also done this from what, compared to many on here, is an informed position. Might I ask, with the greatest of respect, what is your knowledge of trans offenders in our prison system? Scotland has its own service, of course, but it's still under MoJ control, so I would assume it's broadly similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 All you've pointed out is that you support an unequal system based on your reading of "guilty" in a few news articles. Excuse me if I'm not willing to hear your conservative, bigoted explanation for the nth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 You also seem to know nothing about the case aside from the 'guilty' verdict. Will you also apologise for belittling a transwoman who is being sexually harassed? I actually became aware of the case when listening to her mother being interviewed on 5 Live the day of her sentencing (Tuesday?). The account her closest relative gave of her progress towards re-assignation was in marked contrast to the interpretation being promulgated in most media since. Her mother said the treatment so far consisted of "a boob job and some hormone tablets". Being sexually harrassed is indeed unpleasant, as I know - I would love you to point out where I belittled any victim of such. . It is, however, not in the same ballpark as having shit and piss thrown over you, being physically beaten, or having to wait months for the all-clear after being bitten by an HIV_Positive prisoner. Prisons are not nice places, and if some offensive verbals were the worst you could expect, they would be almost idyllic, and we could get on with the job of rehabilitation. We're a long way away from that, though - maybe violent, selfish people with a disregard for others' feelings may have something to do with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Really? I think that the posts on here that are deserving of ridicule come from those that have showed least tolerence. That would be you and your ilk. Whilst trying to show others to be intollerent, you are displaying the same traits.It is not "intolerant" to chastise and ridicule bigots.Tolerance does not mean acceptance. I am not calling for the state forcibly to change the views of bigots. I am calling upon all those who are not bigots or less bigoted to use their freedom of speech to call-out and challenge bigoted and transphobic views of others exercising their right to free speech. Free speech is of course a qualified right, not an absolute or unencumbered one. It is appropriate to seek to restrict it where it comes into conflict with the rights of others. When the effect of you exercising your freedom of speech in a specific way is that another person is denied respect for their right to self-determine on an equal basis compared to others, free from harassment and physical abuse, then it is entirely reasonable for society to pull you up for it and to deter others from doing the same using social opprobrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 All you've pointed out is that you support an unequal system based on your reading of "guilty" in a few news articles. Excuse me if I'm not willing to hear your conservative, bigoted explanation for the nth time. 1. Tara was found guilty of a violent assault. 2. Her previous convictions include possession of an offensive weapon, and assaulting a constable. I assume you believe that 1. The judge was a transphobic bigot. 2. She was only carrying a weapon to defend against transphobics, and the policeman (or prison officer - same offence) was denying her her essential freedom of expression? Tara could be trans, cis, gay, straight, an amputee, black, Muslim, old or young. None of these things would detract from the fact that, on the evidence available, she is a violent individual who is a risk to the safety of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 And this is why you are being accused of being right-wing. Human rights do not stop because someone has committed a criminal offence. Show me, do, where I have advocated the withdrawal of anyone's human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 It is not "intolerant" to chastise and ridicule bigots. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. I am not calling for the state forcibly to change the views of bigots. I am calling upon all those who are not bigots or less bigoted to use their freedom of speech to call-out and challenge bigoted and transphobic views of others exercising their right to free speech. Free speech is of course a qualified right, not an absolute or unencumbered one. It is appropriate to seek to restrict it where it comes into conflict with the rights of others. When the effect of you exercising your freedom of speech in a specific way is that another person is denied respect for their right to self-determine on an equal basis compared to others, free from harassment and physical abuse, then it is entirely reasonable for society to pull you up for it and to deter others from doing the same using social opprobrium. I was recently in Salem and your campaign appears very similar to what happened there in the 1600s. The only difference here is you accusation of bigotry instead of witchcraft. Of course you could completely reverse positions just as easily but that would require an open mind which, in the case of this issue, is completely closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Actually, one of those things which is pretty high on most human rights campaigners' agendas is freedom of expression. The answer to that is not repetitive abuse, but rather offering a reasoned argument in response.No one is abusing you. Calling you a transphobic bigot when you are a transphobic bigot, and providing reasons for believing that you are a transphobic bigot, is not abuse. Ample reasoned argument has been given against your attitudes and position.Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with abusing bigots. You are not a disempowered minority. Your freedom of speech is not being restricted by the state nor are you prevented from espousing your bigoted views. We are merely increasing the social cost of your doing so. The right to express views does not mean the right to have those views afforded respect. Narrowing down this discussion to "TRANSPHOBIA!" while refusing either to acknowledge some of Tara's less admirable characteristics, or the actual logistics and finances necessary to deal with trans and other minority groups within the CJ system, is making you seem more and more like a screaming single-issue zealot, demanding that everything should be formulated with reference to this particular issue. I've tried to point out that, like most things in life, there is more than one side to this story, and improving one group's lot may be to the detriment of others. I've also done this from what, compared to many on here, is an informed position.Tara's "less admirable characteristics" are irrelevant. Straight up. Irrelevant. I don't care if she's Mother Theresa or the Yorkshire Ripper. Her conduct and criminal record are only relevant to two questions: (a) should she go to prison and (b) does she pose a risk to other prisoners justifying further restrictive measures on her liberty.The complaint about her assignation to a men's jail was not relevant to those two questions. It was relevant to a third question, on which her conduct should have no bearing, which is "is it a discriminatory interference with her rights not to be harassed, physically abused, or to have her gender identity respected, for the prison service to place her in a men's jail instead of a women's one?" The answer to this question is clearly "yes" which is why she has been moved to a women's jail. If she poses a threat to other women prisoners, the option is there to place restrictive covenants on her liberty within the confines of that jail to which she has now been assigned. Notice that in this analysis, the fact that she's a violent thug is an irrelevant consideration as to whether a men's prison is appropriate for her. This is how human rights work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Great news just in that Tara's being moved. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/30/breaking-trans-prisoner-tara-hudson-to-be-moved-to-female-prison/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 1. Tara was found guilty of a violent assault. 2. Her previous convictions include possession of an offensive weapon, and assaulting a constable. I assume you believe that 1. The judge was a transphobic bigot. 2. She was only carrying a weapon to defend against transphobics, and the policeman (or prison officer - same offence) was denying her her essential freedom of expression? Tara could be trans, cis, gay, straight, an amputee, black, Muslim, old or young. None of these things would detract from the fact that, on the evidence available, she is a violent individual who is a risk to the safety of others. Now look who's showing an ignorance of the justice system. The judge had no say as to the prison Tara was sent to. The appeal was against the length of her sentence. The Prison Service decides what type of prison she goes to. They apply the prison regulations in discharging their functions. No one is suggesting that she should not be jailed. No one is suggesting that she was justified or right in any of her criminal acts. She's clearly a thoroughly unpleasant human being. All that is being said here is that she has human rights. Art 3 protection against inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (absolute) and Art 8 respect for private and family life (qualified) with respect to which the state may not disproportionately interfere by treating here in a discriminatory way on the basis of her gender (Art 14). If the prison service fails to protect those rights by refusing to recognise her transition, they are violating her human rights. It doesn't matter what she's done to deserve prison. Those rights cannot lawfully be violated. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 You also seem to know nothing about the case aside from the 'guilty' verdict. Will you also apologise for belittling a transwoman who is being sexually harassed? Great news just in that Tara's being moved. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/10/30/breaking-trans-prisoner-tara-hudson-to-be-moved-to-female-prison/ News which I referred to over an hour ago, and was mentioned before that by another poster. Shame I'm so ignorant of the case, isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 You clearly are, which is why Ad Lib has had to explain everything to you for the hundredth time. I just happened to provide a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Being sexually harrassed is indeed unpleasant, as I know - I would love you to point out where I belittled any victim of such. "Tara Tara Tara show us your tits" being screamed from the cells. That's sexual harassment and intimidation: plain and simple. Jesus. That'll have NOMS rushing to build her her own prison, right enough. You casually dismissed this as something worthy of a response. Right there. It is, however, not in the same ballpark as having shit and piss thrown over you, being physically beaten, or having to wait months for the all-clear after being bitten by an HIV_Positive prisoner. Prisons are not nice places, and if some offensive verbals were the worst you could expect, they would be almost idyllic, and we could get on with the job of rehabilitation. We're a long way away from that, though - maybe violent, selfish people with a disregard for others' feelings may have something to do with that? Yes it fucking is in the same ballpark, and it's not for you to decide that this suffering is insignificant or unimportant because of how you, as a male born man, don't think it's serious enough. The point is Tara is being treated differently than a woman who was born female would have been had they behaved in the same way. That's plainly discriminatory. If a female born woman committed the crimes Tara committed, there is absolutely no suggestion that she would have been placed in a male prison. None at all. Because it is recognised that women, however violent and unpleasant they may be, are systematically at greater risk of abuse, harassment and violence in prisons where there are lots of (violent) men. To impose an additional burden on her, to take into account her violent past as a reason not to respect her gender identity and the risk factors associated with it, is transphobic discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 No one is abusing you. Calling you a transphobic bigot when you are a transphobic bigot, and providing reasons for believing that you are a transphobic bigot, is not abuse. Ample reasoned argument has been given against your attitudes and position. Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with abusing bigots. You are not a disempowered minority. Your freedom of speech is not being restricted by the state nor are you prevented from espousing your bigoted views. We are merely increasing the social cost of your doing so. The right to express views does not mean the right to have those views afforded respect. Tara's "less admirable characteristics" are irrelevant. Straight up. Irrelevant. I don't care if she's Mother Theresa or the Yorkshire Ripper. Her conduct and criminal record are only relevant to two questions: (a) should she go to prison and (b) does she pose a risk to other prisoners justifying further restrictive measures on her liberty. The complaint about her assignation to a men's jail was not relevant to those two questions. It was relevant to a third question, on which her conduct should have no bearing, which is "is it a discriminatory interference with her rights not to be harassed, physically abused, or to have her gender identity respected, for the prison service to place her in a men's jail instead of a women's one?" The answer to this question is clearly "yes" which is why she has been moved to a women's jail. If she poses a threat to other women prisoners, the option is there to place restrictive covenants on her liberty within the confines of that jail to which she has now been assigned. Notice that in this analysis, the fact that she's a violent thug is an irrelevant consideration as to whether a men's prison is appropriate for her. This is how human rights work. Calling me something when you believe it is entirely different from calling me something which is provable. The referral to a male establishment is absolutely, and incontrovertibly, relevant to the question of risk to others. To deny this is to demolish your entire theoretical argument. As for the answer to your "look at all the big words I know" question, the answer is actually "yes, assuming that sufficiently thorough checks have been made as to the veracity of her claim and that the relevant risk assessments have been carried out." She may well pose a risk to other female prisoners - you will no doubt find some way of finding a bigoted angle to my pointing out she was sent to jail for assaulting a man. The assessment would decide whether she posed a risk to others. Get that? "to others". I would hazard a guess the answer to that, very simple, question would be a simple " yes ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 The embedded intelligentsia have certainly displayed that they are cutting edge and for that and their shared knowledge I suggest that we should all be grateful. As a bonus, we have learned that as well as lying, Ad Lib approves of bullying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.