Trans soldier demands State-enforced financial compensation for being misgendered

[Metaphor]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...orter-misgendering-people-Facebook-posts.html

A transgender ex-Greens candidate and former soldier is suing a journalist over a series of posts calling transgender people men.

Bad reporting from the Daily Mail here. I'm sure Beth Rep said transwomen were men, not 'transgender people'.

Bridget Clinch, 39, has filed four anti-discrimination complaints in Queensland and Canberra against those she believed have misgendered her and others like her.

Her most recent has been with drive-time radio journalist and feminist Beth Rep, with their dispute going before the ACT Human Rights Commission in July.

But the two were deemed unable to conciliate, and now they are disagreeing over the definition of vilification.



Former soldier and ex-Greens candidate Bridget Clinch (pictured) who has transitioned to a woman is suing a journalist over a series of posts calling transgender people men

Imagine how vilifying it is to be called a man! Quelle horreur!

A vilification and victimisation complaint was mediated between the two at the ACT Civil and Administrative Affairs Tribunal but Ms Clinch claimed the anti-transgender rhetoric from the reporter continued.

The most recent post by Ms Rep on the matter of transgender woman was a compilation of headlines including 'salon that refused trans woman waxing stands by its decision'.

The Brisbane woman told Daily Mail Australia: 'Since then she has continued to vilify trans people regularly.'




Ms Clinch said all but this particular complaint had been settled by simply sitting down with the other party and talking the issue out, but that had not been possible in this case.

The 2016 political candidate has now decided to pursue Ms Rep for damages.

Ms Clinch said she hoped the matter could be resolved so both parties could move on.

Well yes. When you've used State apparatus to forcibly extract money from people and you are successful, you do tend to be satisfied and move on.

Ms Clinch said most of her complaints had been settled by simply sitting down with the other party and talking the issue out, but that had not been possible in this case


She said: 'I want to move past this. I'm tired of people messaging me and saying have you seen that someone's said this on Reddit.'
The 39-year-old said her issues with the anti-transgender community began earlier this year, when her organisation Queensland Rainbow Greens withdrew their support from the International Women's Day due to a visible anti-transgender presence.
When contacted by Daily Mail Australia for comment, Ms Rep confirmed Ms Clinch was seeking financial compensation from her - with the next hearing scheduled for February

She said: 'I disagree with her definition of vilification. She has decided that me continuing to question transgender people breaks the agreement.
'We're really keen to have a conversation about it and start some dialogue.'
The reporter said her questioning of transgender women stemmed largely from the fact they have different experiences to her.


Ms Rep said she also paid for Ms Clinch's flights from Brisbane to Canberra for their earlier legal proceedings.
The journalist has also already responded on Facebook following an interview by The Australian with Ms Clinch.
She said: 'Looking forward to all the positive energy and love letters about to be sent my way after being labelled a (gasp) 'feminist' in this article.'

Ms Rep isn't a real feminist, she's a TERF, obviously.

 

[Metaphor]

Update: Beth Rep was fined AUD $10,000 - for 'liking' facebook posts critical of Clinch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ld-to-pay-transgender-activist-10000/12642722

 

[skepticalbip]

I suppose anyone calling someone a poo-poo head in Australia would receive a stiff prison sentence.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Update: Beth Rep was fined AUD $10,000 - for 'liking' facebook posts critical of Clinch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ld-to-pay-transgender-activist-10000/12642722

It wasn't for liking posts critical of Clinch. It was for liking posts deemed to have passed the threshold for vilification. And even then, it wasn't for liking them per se. I don't know what all of those posts said as they aren't all included in the ruling. Some of the examples Clinch provided were deemed not to have violated discrimination laws. Other examples were.

The ones I did read don't seem to warrant $10,000 in compensation. I can't say I agree with the result with what I know currently. Still, your characterization is, if I am being generous to you, disingenuous.

https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/...H-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf

 

[Metaphor]

Update: Beth Rep was fined AUD $10,000 - for 'liking' facebook posts critical of Clinch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ld-to-pay-transgender-activist-10000/12642722

It's wasn't for liking posts critical of Clinch. It was for liking posts deemed to have passed the threshold for vilification. And even then, it wasn't for liking them per se. I don't know what all of those posts said as they aren't all included in the ruling. Some of the examples Clinch provided were deemed not to have violated discrimination laws. Other examples were.

The ones I did read don't seem to warrant $10,000 in compensation. I can't say I agree with the result with what I know currently. Still, your characterization is, if I am being generous to you, disingenuous.

https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/...H-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf

The tribunal makes it clear that Rep had a responsibility to delete or disable comments that 'reached the threshold', even ones she had not made. If she'd done that the tribunal would have found differently.

None of the comments, however, warrant $10,000 in compensation, because there is literally no possible comment that can be uttered where you deserve money for hurt feelings. And example comments that the Tribunal itself thought warranted compensation were listed, as you say:

We do not repeat every comment in these reasons but consider the following examples are consistent with our finding:I just went Bridget’s page[sic]. Penis people once again bullying women. Biology is reality.#istandwithbeth27

Bridget Clinch is a male bully, and the Greens letting him swing his dick like this?I am showing this to every female supporter I know –my bother may suck, but he still used to be a politician –of all three parties.Certainly none of the older women in any of my craft classes, or support groups for fibro or endo believe that Bridget is a woman.All women should see the Green’s misogyny and contempt for women.I was about to update my membership but instead I’m leaving.28

I’m not entirely [sic]what has happened but it seems to me as though through some sort of legal process Beth has been made to deny reality.Your sisters stand with you and support you Beth.29

The $10,000 is, of course, an unjust absurdity, but the tribunal also ordered Rep to delete all the offending posts.

Hurray for censorship!

 

[Trausti]

As we have the First Amendment in ‘merica, this idea that someone could be fined for a post, liking a post, or not monitoring comments is just bizarre.

 

[Jarhyn]

Update: Beth Rep was fined AUD $10,000 - for 'liking' facebook posts critical of Clinch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ld-to-pay-transgender-activist-10000/12642722

It wasn't for liking posts critical of Clinch. It was for liking posts deemed to have passed the threshold for vilification. And even then, it wasn't for liking them per se. I don't know what all of those posts said as they aren't all included in the ruling. Some of the examples Clinch provided were deemed not to have violated discrimination laws. Other examples were.

The ones I did read don't seem to warrant $10,000 in compensation. I can't say I agree with the result with what I know currently. Still, your characterization is, if I am being generous to you, disingenuous.

https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/...H-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf

Holy shit I just skimmed that ruling.

The defendant singled out, repeatedly called out, and made public information about the defendant's genitals and repeatedly vilified them.

All I can say is, it makes more sense now as to why Metaphor spends so much time looking up and attacking foreigners: if they attacked Australians the way they attack foreigners there is a law against it!

Of course the OP yet again grossly mischaracterizes in the title what actually happened. It is not over being "misgendered" but rather a concerted effort to harass and attack a specific individual for having a penis.

Australian law makes it illegal to harass and victimize someone over their genitals.

I can't say that I agree with the idea that Australia criminalizes speech. I think if any crime has been committed from an ethical point of view it is the publicization of private medical information (what the claimant's genitals are). It is a violation of medical privacy.

The claimant here had her medical privacy blithely and repeatedly violated by the defendant.

Metaphor apparently doesn't believe that people have a right to medical privacy.

 

[Metaphor]

Update: Beth Rep was fined AUD $10,000 - for 'liking' facebook posts critical of Clinch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ld-to-pay-transgender-activist-10000/12642722

It wasn't for liking posts critical of Clinch. It was for liking posts deemed to have passed the threshold for vilification. And even then, it wasn't for liking them per se. I don't know what all of those posts said as they aren't all included in the ruling. Some of the examples Clinch provided were deemed not to have violated discrimination laws. Other examples were.

The ones I did read don't seem to warrant $10,000 in compensation. I can't say I agree with the result with what I know currently. Still, your characterization is, if I am being generous to you, disingenuous.

https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/...H-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf

Holy shit I just skimmed that ruling.

The defendant singled out, repeatedly called out, and made public information about the defendant's genitals and repeatedly vilified them.

All I can say is, it makes more sense now as to why Metaphor spends so much time looking up and attacking foreigners: if they attacked Australians the way they attack foreigners there is a law against it!

Of course the OP yet again grossly mischaracterizes in the title what actually happened. It is not over being "misgendered" but rather a concerted effort to harass and attack a specific individual for having a penis.

Australian law makes it illegal to harass and victimize someone over their genitals.

I can't say that I agree with the idea that Australia criminalizes speech. I think if any crime has been committed from an ethical point of view it is the publicization of private medical information (what the claimant's genitals are). It is a violation of medical privacy.

The claimant here had her medical privacy blithely and repeatedly violated by the defendant.

Metaphor apparently doesn't believe that people have a right to medical privacy.

No private medical information was made public. Try again.

The claimant's natal sex was referred to; he was not 'harassed'. To call yourself a transwoman is to out your own natal sex. To have people post comments on a Facebook page without contacting you at all is not harassment.

The comments that referred to the claimant's natal sex were made by members of the public, in response to a forced apology that the Australian state demanded from Rep. It is clear that Clinch was interested in humiliating Rep and forcing her to utter words that Rep did not believe.

In any case, Clinch was not 'harassed' for having a penis. I don't know if he has a penis. He may have had it surgically fashioned into a pseudovagina.

The entire affair is a travesty of the free speech and free conscience rights (or indeed, lack of rights) of Australians.