To ascertain what your thinking was
When the police drop by to check up on your thinking:
Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust [which she founded] that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).
Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”
Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.
It’s the inverse of support for abortion, in a way, but just as necessary. Many women in India are forced to abort female fetuses, as we’ve seen.
She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.
In case it’s not enough that a pretend-woman was appointed CEO of a rape crisis centre in the first place.
In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”
Naturally the police accepted the challenge.
Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’”
If her tweets were threats of violence and murder I could see it, but of course they weren’t anything like that.
“They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’
“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’”
Why? Why do they need to do that? In the absence of violent threats, why do they need to do that?
Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”
Well, not if the people reporting are women they won’t.
To my mind, speech can only be considered a hate crime if there is a call to action for violence based on an ascribed status – meaning race, religious belief, sex, etc. I follow Nicola, and she’s never done that and certainly not in the tweets listed.
Her declaration may hurt religious feelings, but I had thought that Scots were made of sterner stuff than to consider her tweets hate.
That’s just out of fucking control. Come on Scotland, have some self respect.
This is strongly reminiscent of PC Gul’s words to Harry Miller:
The officers from Edinburgh have been on the same course as PC Gul from Humberside. Their visit to Nicola Murray took place just over six weeks before the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in the case between Harry Miller and the College of Policing.
The officers from Gwent who took away Jennifer Swayne’s annotated copy of Transgender Children and Young People a week ago have evidently had the same training, and they are still operating without any regard to the Miller judgment.
But the officers who decided to harass and intimidate Murray, to investigate her for thought-crime, had ALREADY DETERMINED that there was no hate, and no crime. According to the ACC’s own stated criteria, there was already NOTHING TO INVESTIGATE. So WTF were the police doing there?
Advice from a QC on Twitter: