Bryony. Hate speech is always a bad thing. Period. It doesn't matter if it is enabled, empowered, and propagated by the press. Even if the press outlet is recognized to be a hate speech panderer.
Spinning things so the victim is at fault is also never a good thing. Identifying ways for them to avoid being victims is misdirection, and I'm a little surprised to see it coming from you. That is usually a tactic of those who believe might makes right.
I can't believe you think that because the health service isn't very enlightened that she should have stayed in hiding. This goes to the core of what our group is about. The right to decide for ourselves who and what we will be without fear of reprisal unless we do something to harm others. The ones you are exonerating are the ones who are using that "freedom" to harm others for their own personal and corporate gain. I take real exception to you supporting the hate mongers and denigrating someone who I'm sure was a wonderful person with every right to a safe and happy life.
The faith school argument is a red herring. It is at best part of the problem, not the solution.
The freedom of the press thing is not applicable, hate speech is not protected and shouldn't be. Equally, freedom of the press is not freedom to stalk someone, harass them and people they know, and interfere with anyone's life. Reporting by definition is documenting observation, not an intrusive act to create observation. Their definition of reporting coincides with the military's view that sending in drones, satellites, wiretaps, and spies is just reporting on things.
Saying the school should have tried harder to tell her she was wrong to make the change is barbaric, and just another path to suicide which doesn't help.
Saying there are other hate mongers doesn't excuse one of the worst from responsibility for his own actions.
The response "fire him!" is a valid response to someone who does something harmful to their employer without regard for the company. If the company wants him to do this, then they need to be given all the backlash that can be generated to show them why their behaviour is not acceptable. Corporations are not people. They require external forces to guide their actions past the bottom line. And why would you describe this as an "instant response"? It is simply the right response. Unless a significant numbers of their actual subscribers sign it, it likely won't mean much to them though. That's why there has to be legislation. Because people who behave like Littlejohn and his supporters at the Daily Mail never act for any purpose but their own greed and require daddy or mommy to make them stop misbehaving.
The suicide note likely didn't point to just one person being at fault because she knew there were many people contributing to the situation. Having more than one person misbehave in the same way doesn't exonerate any of them.
I'm astonished at your continual advocacy for the idea that anyone who isn't "good-looking" should not be seen. Makes me very sad and rather angry. Put the burque over your own head if it bothers you so much.
The photo link you posted shows to me a beautiful woman. What's your problem? That there might be a woman whose facial structure or hair or skin doesn't meet covergirl standards?
I seriously disagree that she looks male, even in the photo you linked.
You need to get over your knee-jerk reaction to what you call "political correctness". Some of it is what enlightened folk call progress. Although like everything else, it should be examined on the merits of every instance, not judged by how it looks at first glance.
The therapists and counselors are highly unlikely to be able to advise them what will happen as they go through this. They don't know. I very much doubt that she and her family did no investigation of the possible consequences of this path. And I also seriously doubt that anyone would have predicted this kind of criminal behaviour on the part of the press. Are you really suggesting this is normal and expected when anyone does anything to deviate from the social norms? Presumably it is actually similar to the USA where there is no shortage of vocal nutjobs, but the majority can recognize it for what it is.
And last, but far from least, how dare you try to stir up controversy and derision about her family life? Do you know anything about her family? How they actually felt? What it was like for them to deal with the changes to their world, before the hate mongers got involved and made the situation 10,000 times more difficult and genuinely harmful? Do you plan to supply the Daily Mail and their ilk with ideas for who to harass to the point of suicide next? It's outrageous to blame the victim for things you don't know even exist, just to support a view that hate mongers should be free to destroy anything they like for fun and profit.
Spinning things so the victim is at fault is also never a good thing. Identifying ways for them to avoid being victims is misdirection, and I'm a little surprised to see it coming from you. That is usually a tactic of those who believe might makes right.
I can't believe you think that because the health service isn't very enlightened that she should have stayed in hiding. This goes to the core of what our group is about. The right to decide for ourselves who and what we will be without fear of reprisal unless we do something to harm others. The ones you are exonerating are the ones who are using that "freedom" to harm others for their own personal and corporate gain. I take real exception to you supporting the hate mongers and denigrating someone who I'm sure was a wonderful person with every right to a safe and happy life.
The faith school argument is a red herring. It is at best part of the problem, not the solution.
The freedom of the press thing is not applicable, hate speech is not protected and shouldn't be. Equally, freedom of the press is not freedom to stalk someone, harass them and people they know, and interfere with anyone's life. Reporting by definition is documenting observation, not an intrusive act to create observation. Their definition of reporting coincides with the military's view that sending in drones, satellites, wiretaps, and spies is just reporting on things.
Saying the school should have tried harder to tell her she was wrong to make the change is barbaric, and just another path to suicide which doesn't help.
Saying there are other hate mongers doesn't excuse one of the worst from responsibility for his own actions.
The response "fire him!" is a valid response to someone who does something harmful to their employer without regard for the company. If the company wants him to do this, then they need to be given all the backlash that can be generated to show them why their behaviour is not acceptable. Corporations are not people. They require external forces to guide their actions past the bottom line. And why would you describe this as an "instant response"? It is simply the right response. Unless a significant numbers of their actual subscribers sign it, it likely won't mean much to them though. That's why there has to be legislation. Because people who behave like Littlejohn and his supporters at the Daily Mail never act for any purpose but their own greed and require daddy or mommy to make them stop misbehaving.
The suicide note likely didn't point to just one person being at fault because she knew there were many people contributing to the situation. Having more than one person misbehave in the same way doesn't exonerate any of them.
I'm astonished at your continual advocacy for the idea that anyone who isn't "good-looking" should not be seen. Makes me very sad and rather angry. Put the burque over your own head if it bothers you so much.
The photo link you posted shows to me a beautiful woman. What's your problem? That there might be a woman whose facial structure or hair or skin doesn't meet covergirl standards?
I seriously disagree that she looks male, even in the photo you linked.You need to get over your knee-jerk reaction to what you call "political correctness". Some of it is what enlightened folk call progress. Although like everything else, it should be examined on the merits of every instance, not judged by how it looks at first glance.
The therapists and counselors are highly unlikely to be able to advise them what will happen as they go through this. They don't know. I very much doubt that she and her family did no investigation of the possible consequences of this path. And I also seriously doubt that anyone would have predicted this kind of criminal behaviour on the part of the press. Are you really suggesting this is normal and expected when anyone does anything to deviate from the social norms? Presumably it is actually similar to the USA where there is no shortage of vocal nutjobs, but the majority can recognize it for what it is.
And last, but far from least, how dare you try to stir up controversy and derision about her family life? Do you know anything about her family? How they actually felt? What it was like for them to deal with the changes to their world, before the hate mongers got involved and made the situation 10,000 times more difficult and genuinely harmful? Do you plan to supply the Daily Mail and their ilk with ideas for who to harass to the point of suicide next? It's outrageous to blame the victim for things you don't know even exist, just to support a view that hate mongers should be free to destroy anything they like for fun and profit.