This week in the animated corpse of Scotland: Feminist campaigner charged with 'homophobic' and 'transphobic' tweets

[Metaphor]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19351235.joanna-cherry-says-feminist/

THE prominent SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC has given her tacit support to a feminist campaigner charged with a "hate crime" over social media posts. Ms Cherry, a former justice spokesperson at Westminster, retweeted a news story about Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant who could face two years in jail if convicted.

Ms Cherry said she was drawing attention to the story “without comment” as proceedings were active.
However she went on: “I’m aware of the case & taking an interest as someone who is passionate about #CivilLiberties & #WomensRights.”

She added the hashtag “#WomenWontWheest”, which Ms Millar popularised and is used by her supporters.

Ms Millar, 50, was charged on Thursday with malicious communications after posting allegedly homophobic and transphobic material onlline in 2019 and 2020.

It is understood one tweet included a picture of a ribbon in the purple, white and green of the Suffragettes.

Ms Millar is a supporter of sex-based rights for women, and opposes simplifying transgender self-identification.
Her critics claim she is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, or Terf.

After a two-hour interview at Coatbridge police station, Ms Millar, who has autistic twin boys, was bailed to appear to Glasgow Sheriff Court on July 20.

She has not been charged under the recent Hate Crime Act passed at Holyrood, but under a different law with a “hate crime aggravator”.

...

 

[Politesse]

I'm suspicious of the way the actual tweets aren't reported on in the reporting. What are the actual offending messages at issue?

 

[Metaphor]

I'm suspicious of the way the actual tweets aren't reported on in the reporting. What are the actual offending messages at issue?

It's possible Millar herself has not been told, which would suit the Kafkaesque climate in Scotland. I've read multiple stories on the issue and only one Tweet (not the tweet itself, but a description of a picture) is identified. Either the Tweets have not been made available to the media or the media is actually afraid to publish something that is already under investigation as an illegal act to publish.

 

[Politesse]

Either the Tweets have not been made available to the media or the media is actually afraid to publish something that is already under investigation as an illegal act to publish.

Reasonably enough, if so. But it leaves us with little to really discuss. I'm not going to take it on faith that none of her tweets constituted an immediate threat to anyone, simply because those who support her say that they did not. But, nor am I willing to opine on someone's guilt for a crime whose specifics have not been disclosed to me or anyone else. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that this woman will actually be convicted of a crime, but Scottish law is not a topic I know a great deal about. Is there any past precedent for assuming that a maximal sentence will be rendered in this case?

 

[Bomb#20]

Is there any past precedent for assuming that a maximal sentence will be rendered in this case?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks&ab_channel=artanis2alatariel[/youtube]

 

[Politesse]

Is there any past precedent for assuming that a maximal sentence will be rendered in this case?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks&ab_channel=artanis2alatariel[/youtube]

You know, I meant in reality, but I do appreciate when conservatives just admit that they're devoid of any real understanding of the former, so I'll take it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is there any past precedent for assuming that a maximal sentence will be rendered in this case?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks&ab_channel=artanis2alatariel[/youtube]

You know, I meant in reality, but I do appreciate when conservatives just admit that they're devoid of any real understanding of the former, so I'll take it.

You wouldn't recognize a conservative if you tripped over one; you don't recognize a liberal when you're tripping over one; and history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

And in case you still aren't getting the point...

Show

The Life of Brian was banned in Glasgow. In reality.

 

[Politesse]

You know, I meant in reality, but I do appreciate when conservatives just admit that they're devoid of any real understanding of the former, so I'll take it.

You wouldn't recognize a conservative if you tripped over one; you don't recognize a liberal when you're tripping over one; and history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

And in case you still aren't getting the point...

Show

The Life of Brian was banned in Glasgow. In reality.

Under this same law? And the creators were jailed?

 

[Bomb#20]

Under this same law?

Under this same enthusiasm for stomping on one's fellow Scots' free speech rights.

And the creators were jailed?

What's your point? That censorious Progressives are even more fascist than censorious Christians?

 

[Politesse]

Under this same law?

Under this same enthusiasm for stomping on one's fellow Scots' free speech rights.

And the creators were jailed?

What's your point? That censorious Progressives are even more fascist than censorious Christians?

I was trying to help you demonstrate how your response might be considered in any sense a meaningful answer to the question you were ostensibly replying to. Alas, it clearly never was, and you were, in fact, citing a now-reversed former censorship case, that happened forty-two years ago for entirely different reasons and within a different jurisdiction, as precedent for the present legal question.