Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

LLMMLL wrote: »

You didn't say someone CLAIMED to be a victim of sexual assault. You said "if a victim of rape or sexual assault....". So it absolutely is the question whether that person is actually a victim of rape or sexual assault based on the belief they were having sex with a cis person.

You can pretend that the only relevant matter in law is what a jury might decide as you have before but you are completely wrong. There is a whole.process involved in deciding whether a case is taken. You seem to think the only thing that matters in legal cases is whether a jury would convict. It's not.

Until you can show a precedent of a trans person in Ireland being successfully convicted under that law then your fringe interpretation is just plain wrong. It is not rape it sexual assault.to not tell a sexual partner you are trans. Just as it's not rape or sexual assault to tell your partner your name is Bob when it's really Mike.

You can play around with language as much as you like LM, but as I pointed out, it’s not an exhaustive list regarding what constitutes consent, and whether a person is charged with rape or assault will be dependent upon what the DPP recommends the person be charged with if they decide to proceed with a prosecution. One of the factors in deciding whether or not to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not the DPP is confident that they can secure a conviction.

At all times I said that a person who is transgender who does not disclose the fact could find themselves facing charges of either sexual assault or rape, and that would have happened because their victim makes a complaint to the Gardaí that they were either raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint that they have been sexually assaulted or raped will be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of the person who they are claiming raped or sexually assaulted them.

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

There are intersex people too, as well as male and female, but plenty of intersex people are very loud about being fed up to the back teeth of having been hijacked by trans ideologues to ''prove'' that any person's sex can be ambiguous.

I know, it's a certain direction in politics which tries to hijack almost everything.

They blatantly say they want us all to be equal.

But yet they've created so much lables, supposedly I'm a cis male now.
No longer a man in these people's eyes.

Any one who's supporting labeling society, gender's, beliefs or lack of thereof, are creating divisions left right and centre.

And it's about time the left stop hijacking sexuality, gender's, ethnic groups, and other strand's of society.

Instead of bringing us all together, they're creating division.

Men cannot be men and talk about pussy, getting a Shag, hunting, being lads anymore.
Because it's offensive.

A good psycho therapist could sort out a lot of people, they would accept life on life's terms and not be offended or triggered 1023 times a day.

It's all in the head this nonsense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve read them, my point still stands.

So all the children's organisations who submitted their view on the review of the Gender Recognition Act were biased, gotcha! :rolleyes:

klaaaz wrote: »

So all the children's organisations who submitted their view on the review of the Gender Recognition Act were biased, gotcha! :rolleyes:

Eh? I didn’t say that. Don’t be putting words in my mouth now at all. I said that the review process was obviously biased when the Chair of the review board is also the executive director of an organisation that has an interest in seeing the proposals they came up with being written into the legislation! Given their position, and their obvious bias, they simply ignored any submissions which they didn’t agree with already.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that I was already familiar with the process long before you brought it to anyone’s attention in this thread.

Zorya

Muckka wrote: »

I know, it's a certain direction in politics which tries to hijack almost everything.

.

I agree with your general opinion, Muckka...though I am suspicious of you with your spare time willow sculpturing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I didn’t say that. Don’t be putting words in my mouth now at all. I said that the review process was obviously biased when the Chair of the review board is also the executive director of an organisation that has an interest in seeing the proposals they came up with being written into the legislation! Given their position, and their obvious bias, they simply ignored any submissions which they didn’t agree with already.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that I was already familiar with the process long before you brought it to anyone’s attention in this thread.

Have you any idea how review boards work? You know that there is more than one person involved?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At all times I said that a person who is transgender who does not disclose the fact could find themselves facing charges of either sexual assault or rape, and that would have happened because their victim makes a complaint to the Gardaí that they were either raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint that they have been sexually assaulted or raped will be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of the person who they are claiming raped or sexually assaulted them.

Though just to put these things in context, having had a few decades of transgender people in Ireland and a couple of years of self-identification, these issues have never arisen here.

Muckka wrote: »

Instead of bringing us all together, they're creating division.

Men cannot be men and talk about pussy, getting a Shag, hunting, being lads anymore.

Muckka

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any idea how review boards work? You know that there is more than one person involved?

Though just to put these things in context, having had a few decades of transgender people in Ireland and a couple of years of self-identification, these issues have never arisen here.

Brilliant I love it.

Best ever, nothing like a good response.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

You didn't say someone CLAIMED to be a victim of sexual assault. You said "if a victim of rape or sexual assault....". So it absolutely is the question whether that person is actually a victim of rape or sexual assault based on the belief they were having sex with a cis person.

You can pretend that the only relevant matter in law is what a jury might decide as you have before but you are completely wrong. There is a whole.process involved in deciding whether a case is taken. You seem to think the only thing that matters in legal cases is whether a jury would convict. It's not.

Until you can show a precedent of a trans person in Ireland being successfully convicted under that law then your fringe interpretation is just plain wrong. It is not rape it sexual assault.to not tell a sexual partner you are trans. Just as it's not rape or sexual assault to tell your partner your name is Bob when it's really Mike.

You can play around with language as much as you like LM, but as I pointed out, it’s not an exhaustive list regarding what constitutes consent, and whether a person is charged with rape or assault will be dependent upon what the DPP recommends the person be charged with if they decide to proceed with a prosecution. One of the factors in deciding whether or not to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not the DPP is confident that they can secure a conviction.

At all times I said that a person who is transgender who does not disclose the fact could find themselves facing charges of either sexual assault or rape, and that would have happened because their victim makes a complaint to the Gardaí that they were either raped or sexually assaulted, and their complaint that they have been sexually assaulted or raped will be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, and regardless of the gender of the person who they are claiming raped or sexually assaulted them.

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

You then presented whether they were convicted of sexual assault as being based on a potential jury verdict alone. I pointed out the error there.

Now you're implying that the prosecution decision to prosecute is based on where they think they can get a conviction. But there are other reasons why the prosecution may not prosecute. They may believe themselves that there has been no breach of the law even if they believe they could get a conviction by jury.

There is no word play here. Just the realities of the legal process.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I didn’t say that. Don’t be putting words in my mouth now at all. I said that the review process was obviously biased when the Chair of the review board is also the executive director of an organisation that has an interest in seeing the proposals they came up with being written into the legislation! Given their position, and their obvious bias, they simply ignored any submissions which they didn’t agree with already.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that I was already familiar with the process long before you brought it to anyone’s attention in this thread.

You said:

One eyed Jack wrote:

It wouldn’t have mattered because there was an obvious bias in the review process -

Moninne Griffith is chairwoman of the review group of the Gender Recognition Act and executive director of BeLonG To Youth Services.

Because one person of about 10 was involved in the review process, this person you stated had a bias.
You pointedly ignored the countless positive submissions from children's organisations on the gender recognition matter because they disagreed with yours and Zorya's view.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem isn't about people having the vote. The problem is about votes being bought and sold using Facebook and other technologies.

It’s a two way street.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It’s a two way street.

not sure what this means in this context.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any idea how review boards work? You know that there is more than one person involved?

I’m very familiar with how review boards work, and I’m very familiar with the functions of the chair of the board, and there is an obvious conflict of interest when the chair of the review board also has a stake in seeing the proposals that they came up with passed.

Though just to put these things in context, having had a few decades of transgender people in Ireland and a couple of years of self-identification, these issues have never arisen here.

That we’re aware of. What you’re saying is that because you aren’t aware of something happening in the past, there is no chance of it ever happening in the future, which is simply ridiculous.

The whole reason why issues related to transgenderism in Irish society are being discussed more often than they were in the past is because transgenderism is becoming more prevalent in Irish society in recent years and we have international evidence on which we can base our opinions of how these issues are playing out in other countries.

The Gender Recognition Act for example is only in existence since 2015, and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act is only in existence since 2017. Like any legislation they are reviewed regularly as society changes, and society is undergoing constant change, so why would we not be discussing transgenderism in the same way as we discuss any other social issue?

You would prefer that people stay silent on the issues so as not to upset individuals, but that’s no different to people who are opposed to certain policies which they feel will have a negative effect on society demanding that anyone who disagrees with them should stay silent. Why would you expect anyone should stay silent when they disagree with a policy which if introduced in legislation applies to everyone in society and future generations of society?

I do not want my child exposed to certain ideologies and beliefs in school, and that is one of my fundamental constitutional rights, a right which certain ideologies would wish to take away from me. You really think I’m going to stay silent about that?

I don’t care that my next door neighbour hangs her fake tits out to dry as long as she’s not hanging them out on the balcony, I don’t care that she chases children around trying to kiss them, I don’t care that she tries to flirt with me as I’m standing in the queue in the shop to buy a loaf of bread and she’s standing behind me. She’s basically harmless, she’s no threat to me personally or to anyone else whatsoever.

What I do care about, is talk of policies which would compel me by law, to refer to her as her preferred gender and to treat her as though I agree with her that she is a woman. What I do care about, are policies which would supersede parents rights to raise their children according to their values and their beliefs, or risk social services calling to their door, or risk having to appear in Court, or risk having their children removed from their care because they do not consent to their children being permitted to undergo a process of transition to their preferred gender.

klaaaz wrote: »

You said:

Because one person of about 10 was involved in the review process, this person you stated had a bias.
You pointedly ignored the countless positive submissions from children's organisations on the gender recognition matter because they disagreed with yours and Zorya's view.

I didn’t ignore anything, I read them. I pointed out that any negative submissions were ignored because the chair of the review group is also the executive director for the organisation which made the proposals. It doesn’t get more biased than that.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

not sure what this means in this context.

You seemed to be implying that people are being fooled into a more conservative view by media and social media. As I said, it’s a two way street.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

You seemed to be implying that people are being fooled into a more conservative view by media and social media. As I said, it’s a two way street.

Except that it's the conservatives who have the money to buy the election results.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that it's the conservatives who have the money to buy the election results.

You don’t need money to stage a photo if you... I don’t know... wanted to push immigration?

Muckka

Im aware the thread's going in different directions, but I like Zora know people who just want to be accepted as part of the population without any lables such as trans,gay, religious, atheists, cis, femminists, and all the 999 different lables the left are pushing.

It was much easier when we had men and women.

We all have our skeletons in our closest, I'm coming to terms a man who's into men and women but I don't identify as bi, cis or whatever.

Men and women who swing both ways for years called selfish from the gay community, how's that for being accepted.
The straight community said you're either Gay or straight....
It's ok I'm dealing with it, actually enjoying the freedom of the choice of two dates.

Didn't Wodden Allen say something similar...

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

What? No. the majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't result in a conviction. That doesn't mean they didn't happen and that the person isn't a victim.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

What? No. the majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't result in a conviction. That doesn't mean they didn't happen and that the person isn't a victim.

Absolutely but in those cases it is clear that if the incident happened as the complainant stated then a rape or sexual assault did occur. The issue there is whether it can be proven.

In the case of a trans person not disclosing that they are trans it is not clear that the law applies here.

It's two completelt different situations and everything I say should be taken in the context of the trans situation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t ignore anything, I read them. I pointed out that any negative submissions were ignored because the chair of the review group is also the executive director for the organisation which made the proposals. It doesn’t get more biased than that.

Seeing as you are still ignoring the submissions of the children's organisations, here are some of their recommendations which oppose your view and others here. There are no negative views from children's organisations.

Ombudsman for Children
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053A-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053B-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053C-GRA2015.pdf

National Youth Council of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub059B-GRA2015.pdf

Children's Rights Alliance
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub085-GRA2015.pdf

Union of Students of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub078-GRA2015.pdf

Spunout.ie
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub065-GRA2015.pdf

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not playing around with language. You described the person presenting at a Garda station as being a victim of sexual assault. They are not a victim of sexual assault until their sexual partner is convicted.

That’s utter nonsense. In a previous thread you tried to use the number of women on social media who claimed to have experienced sexual assault as evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in society, and when it doesn’t suit your purposes then, you try and claim they aren’t victims of rape and sexual assault until the person who raped or sexually assaulted them is convicted? Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape doesn’t mean they didn’t commit sexual assault or rape, and if a person walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, their complaint will be taken seriously.

You then presented whether they were convicted of sexual assault as being based on a potential jury verdict alone. I pointed out the error there.

You didn’t point out any error. Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape is based upon the verdict of the jury in any case upon hearing the evidence presented in the case.

Now you're implying that the prosecution decision to prosecute is based on where they think they can get a conviction. But there are other reasons why the prosecution may not prosecute. They may believe themselves that there has been no breach of the law even if they believe they could get a conviction by jury.

I’m not just implying it, I’m stating it as a fact that one of the factors in whether or not the DPP decides to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not they are confident they can secure a conviction. I never said there weren’t other reasons they would decide to proceed with a prosecution, but being confident that they can secure a conviction is the foremost reason. The reasons for not proceeding with a conviction are a different matter entirely.

I’m even being polite enough with you to ignore the stupidity of your assertion that the DPP may not proceed with a case if they decide that there has been no breach of the law in spite of the fact that they are confident they could secure a conviction. If they are confident they could secure a conviction, then obviously they are of the belief that the accused committed an offence.

There is no word play here. Just the realities of the legal process

The reality of how the legal process should be according to you, because that’s certainly not the reality of any legal process I’m aware of, especially the bit about if a person is not convicted of rape or sexual assault, then their victim was never raped or sexually assaulted.

klaaaz wrote: »

Seeing as you are still ignoring the submissions of the children's organisations, here are some of their recommendations which oppose your view and others here. There are no negative views from children's organisations.

Ombudsman for Children
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053A-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053B-GRA2015.pdf
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub053C-GRA2015.pdf

National Youth Council of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub059B-GRA2015.pdf

Children's Rights Alliance
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub085-GRA2015.pdf

Union of Students of Ireland
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub078-GRA2015.pdf

Spunout.ie
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Sub065-GRA2015.pdf

I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.

Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?

Will I Am Not wrote: »

You don’t need money to stage a photo if you... I don’t know... wanted to push immigration?

Indeed, but you do need money, large amounts of money to get your photo to appear in people's news feeds.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Absolutely but in those cases it is clear that if the incident happened as the complainant stated then a rape or sexual assault did occur. The issue there is whether it can be proven.

In the case of a trans person not disclosing that they are trans it is not clear that the law applies here.

It's two completelt different situations and everything I say should be taken in the context of the trans situation.

It’s absolutely clear that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of their gender.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, but you do need money, large amounts of money to get your photo to appear in people's news feeds.

Don’t know about you but my Facebook newsfeed was polluted with both repeal and save the 8th sponsored posts for months in the lead up to the referendum.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not ignoring them. I’ve told you already I read them. I’m aware that I’m opposed to their views. What’s your point? The point still stands that the review process was nothing more than a crock as the chair of the review group is also the executive director of the organisation which came up with the proposals! An objective review would have employed an independent review group such as the Citizens Assembly or the Law Reform Commission conduct a review of the legislation, not the actual stakeholders who were pushing for the proposals to be introduced.

Is it any surprise that the people who introduced the proposals would be gushing over how great they were?

The point is that the Children's organisations who actually work with children are more qualified to have an opinion than a random boards poster who opposes their view.

klaaaz wrote: »

The point is that the Children's organisations who actually work with children are more qualified to have an opinion than a random boards poster who opposes their view.

They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion. I’ve worked with a number of them and I’m aware of the politics and the collective bargaining and backslapping and political lobbying that they do.

Using your rationale, the heads of religious organisations have the most experience of anyone when it comes to children, and they have the most experience of how children should be educated, because they too work with children and have done for decades before any of these groups were ever even heard of, and that includes GLEN who recently had to shut down due to the misappropriation of HSE funds to support the founder of the organisations campaign to become a Senator :pac:

See how stupid your attempt to argue from authority sounds now?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion. I’ve worked with a number of them and I’m aware of the politics and the collective bargaining and backslapping and political lobbying that they do.

Using your rationale, the heads of religious organisations have the most experience of anyone when it comes to children, and they have the most experience of how children should be educated, because they too work with children and have done for decades before any of these groups were ever even heard of, and that includes GLEN who recently had to shut down due to the misappropriation of HSE funds to support his campaign to become a Senator :pac:

See how stupid your attempt to argue from authority sounds now?

You'd want to reread how silly your post is. According to you we should just discard qualification for any job in the land and allow unqualified people take the helm.
Have a look at the Children's ombudsman for example. https://www.oco.ie/about-us/the-ombudsman/

My background is as a clinical psychologist and I’ve worked in the area of child protection for almost 20 years

Why are you One Eyed Jack the random poster on boards not in his position instead as you say you have equal if not more qualifications? :rolleyes:

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s utter nonsense. In a previous thread you tried to use the number of women on social media who claimed to have experienced sexual assault as evidence of the prevalence of sexual assault in society, and when it doesn’t suit your purposes then, you try and claim they aren’t victims of rape and sexual assault until the person who raped or sexually assaulted them is convicted? Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape doesn’t mean they didn’t commit sexual assault or rape, and if a person walks into a Garda station claiming to have been the victim of sexual assault or rape, their complaint will be taken seriously.

That thread was about whether the women were telling the truth or not. Completely different situation. I think we would have both agreed in that thread that if things occurred as the women said they had occurred, the they were victims of rape/sexual assault, regardless of whether their assaulter was convicted or not.

In the case of a complainant not being told that their sexual partner was trans it is not clear that the law you've pointed to applies here at all. It is not clear what the intent of the legislators was, it is not clear whether a prosecution case would even reach a jury.

In that case it is crucial whether a conviction takes place to determine whether someone is a victim of sexual assault/rape or not.

You didn’t point out any error. Whether or not a person is convicted of sexual assault or rape is based upon the verdict of the jury in any case upon hearing the evidence presented in the case.

IF a case makes it to court. If I made a complaint that I had been raped, based on the fact that I couldn't consent as my partner had misrepresented his identity by telling me his name was Bob when it was actually Mike, a potential jury verdict would be irrelevant. The case would never get that far.

I’m not just implying it, I’m stating it as a fact that one of the factors in whether or not the DPP decides to proceed with a prosecution is whether or not they are confident they can secure a conviction. I never said there weren’t other reasons they would decide to proceed with a prosecution, but being confident that they can secure a conviction is the foremost reason. The reasons for not proceeding with a conviction are a different matter entirely.

I’m even being polite enough with you to ignore the stupidity of your assertion that the DPP may not proceed with a case if they decide that there has been no breach of the law in spite of the fact that they are confident they could secure a conviction. If they are confident they could secure a conviction, then obviously they are of the belief that the accused committed an offence.

Sorry Jack but you have no idea what the foremost reason the DPP do not proceed with a complainant's potential case is. The idea that they would not first assess a complaint on its own merits regardless of which way a jury might decide on it is simplistic nonsense.

The reality of how the legal process should be according to you, because that’s certainly not the reality of any legal process I’m aware of, especially the bit about if a person is not convicted of rape or sexual assault, then their victim was never raped or sexually assaulted.

I've explained above what I meant by that. When the definition of rape and sexual assault are expanded in legislation, and some randomer (yourself) gives their opinion on the interpretation of that legislation, and there is little or no case law to aid in forming an opinion, then yes, a compaint does not equal a crime.