Does the SNP really want to copy Norway’s gender revolution?
The Spectator, Debbie Hayton 16th February 2021
The article strongly suggests that Transgender women are really men and that they are a physical danger to other women.
The proof they use comes from an anonymous Norwegian source and is as follows
‘She told me that between 2015 and 2017, the number of women reported for rape increased by over 300 per cent. But, since it is impossible to disentangle transwomen from women in the data, Norwegian women now face the indignity of being blamed for the crimes of those born men.’
(Transgender women have never been men. They were born female and are women!) I wrote that bit later. It is easy to understand why some people hear the conspiracy theory and tend to believe the misinformation but unforgivable for MSM and politicians who are able to avail themselves of the truth to pretend the Conspiracy theory is based in fact because it suits their own cause.
The article also reinforces negative stereotypes of Transgender Women (Transwomen in the article). The U.N. have recently warned the Scottish Government to beware of the very anti Transgender/anti Human Rights propaganda being touted by MSM. I believe this article in The Spectator to be such propaganda and is designed to perpetuate hatred and fear of Transgender Women. The proof that ‘Transwomen’ are dangerous sex predators rests in their being no proof available and an assumption that the rise of 300% proves that Transgender Women are a danger to other women.
I have a link to the letter from the U.N. sent to the Scottish Government here. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27757
You will see that the U.N. data from many countries which already allow self identification of gender contradicts the findings of The Spectator and I believe shows the article written by Debbie Hayton to be hate speech.
Please also note that Self Identification is for the purpose of correcting a persons Birth Certificate and does not affect anyone else’s Human Rights nor grant any new rights to anyone other than to allow equality for Transgender people so they can have their real gender recorded on their marriage certificate and death certificates which must match their gender recorded on the birth.
I knew what the outcome would be but really wanted to know how they would word it.
Our reference: 15507-22 (spectator.co.uk (The Spectator))
Dear Miss Stoker,
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Does the SNP really want to copy Norway’s gender revolution?”, published by spectator.co.uk (The Spectator) on 16 February 2021.
When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.
You said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it implied transgender women were really men, and encouraged negative stereotypes. The article reported the Norwegian teacher’s views against self-identification. We should note that the Editors’ Code of Practice makes clear the press has the right to be partisan, to give its own opinion and to campaign/to publish individuals’ views, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. In this instance, the opinions reported were clearly presented as comment, and attributed to the individuals responsible for them. We recognised that you disagreed with the opinions and views which were published; however, this did not in itself mean that the article was misleading to report them. Your complaint did not give us reason to consider that the article was misleading, and we did not identify sufficient grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1.
You said that the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against transgender people. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. Your concern that the article discriminated against transgender people in general did not relate to an individual. We did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 12.
For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.
I should also make clear that the Editors’ Code does not address issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between the newspapers’ rights to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy. Newspapers and magazines are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on.
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
Best wishes,
Alice Gould
Thank you Alice,
Attributing your own quotes to anonymous sources seems a simple enough way of avoiding any breach of the code I suppose. Thank you for taking the time to look into this little matter for me. I have learned a great deal from your reply.
I was only prompted to complain after reading a recent letter from the UN to the Scottish Parliament warning about the dangers of believing MSM anti Transgender propaganda.
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27757 paragraph 3, but it’s not a new phenomenon. I dare say you had to explain to a lot of complainants that smearing the leader of Her Majesties Loyal Opposition was acceptable for some reason. I don’t think he was a commie, Nazi, Anti Semitic spy who was in the pocket of Putin but obviously it was alright to somehow paint him as such.
Thank you again,
Yours sincerely
Pauline Stoker. xx
Ccspectator.co.uk (The Spectator)
page counter
