Targeting yourself
The Good Law Project responds with name-calling:
Are you disappointed with the outcome?
The LGB Alliance has a free speech right to attack trans people. But its activities should never have been subsidised with public funds – or recognised as in the public interest – by the Charity Commission. This felt to the sector – and to Good Law Project – like a very important line in the sand to defend.
But the LGB Alliance doesn’t “attack trans people.” It’s not attacking people to say they’re not the sex they’re not. It’s not attacking a man to tell him “You’re not a woman.” In some contexts, as we know all too well by now, it’s necessary, for the sake of women’s safety or privacy or fair sports or prizes or awards or a whole long list of situations, to say that men are not women and thus should not be violating women’s privacy or invading their sport or taking their prizes. Lesbians aren’t attacking men by not coupling up with them even when they try to look like women. The LGB Alliance isn’t attacking trans people by spelling all this out. The Good Law Project, in short, is telling a whopper here.
[The case] was supported by the LGBT Consortium, of 525 LGBT+ organisations, who were deeply concerned that an organisation whose actions are about excluding trans people would be able to obtain charity status, with all the benefits this brings.
Listen here – gay groups are allowed to “exclude” straight people. Feminist groups are allowed to “exclude” men. Reading groups are allowed to “exclude” people who hate to read. Labor unions are allowed to “exclude” people not in the relevant industry. Schools are allowed to “exclude” adults as students. The list is pretty much infinite. People are allowed to form groups based on an array of commonalities. I daresay The Good Law Project “excludes” various categories of people.
The Charity Mermaids was the Claimant because it had been repeatedly and explicitly targeted by LGBA.
The Charity Mermaids urges children to take puberty blockers. It merits “targeting” if by “targeting” we mean criticism and dissent. The Good Law Project also merits “targeting” in the form of criticism and dissent. Here’s mine.
Translation: we are very worried that our donors (most of whom are regular working people, not fabulously rich like Jolyon) will start wondering why we don’t ever seem to win any cases, and consider whether there are better causes to support with their money.
Guess I am guilty of “attacking” Jews who keep kosher when I buy bacon for myself.
Bad attempt at humor aside, how does a society exist when a new cult is being allowed to accuse people of “attacks” when all people are doing is not obeying the edicts of the new dogma? Guess it would not be so worrying for the UK if the police were not running around looking like complete idiots with rainbow and fetish symbols all over them.