June 30, 2021 - 11:00am
Transgender activists who think they can libel and defame women with impunity were served notice earlier this week when a High Court judgment awarded damages of £45,000 to a women’s rights campaigner who is known publicly as Jean Hatchet.
For far too long, far too many people — mostly male — have hidden behind transgender-identification in order to bully, harass and intimidate women who stand up for their sex-based rights. The website terfisaslur.com documents the sickening and ongoing tirade of abuse against women, slurred as “TERFs.”
But this case was personal. On 10 October 2018 – almost three years ago – defendant Shanu Varma published two tweets:
- “Now you know where @jeanhatchet’s fundraising has gone !”
- “I raised this with her as my boss donated £1000 to her charity but the charity apparently only received a much smaller amount so she blocked me”
At the time, Hatchet was fundraising for a domestic violence charity. Those tweets attacked her integrity. Like me, Hatchet is a teacher; our careers depend on our reputation.
Hatchet told UnHerd that, “for more than two years my reputation and my work for women has been dragged through the mud since Shanu Varma’s tweets.” She was in no doubt why she had been singled out:
“This happens to feminist women on a regular basis because of our views on single-sex space for women which are perfectly legitimate and worthy of respect. It is a legal reminder to those aggressive trans activists and others that women not only “won’t wheesht” but sometimes they will also make you pay for the lies you tell about us.”- Jean Hatchet
The bill is eye-watering. Including costs, Hatchet’s calculation reached £115,595.40. But the accusation was serious — theft — and public defamation. Transgender people have significant rights in the UK. We have our own protected characteristic — gender reassignment — but that covers us against less favourable treatment; it does not permit us to defame others and get away with it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI was going to complain about the term “ mostly male” ( it seems all the worlds problems are to do with being “mostly male”, maybe it would be far less so if there weren’t so many fe-males pushing those self same males forward). However, the phrase, in this instance, might actually be instructive. There seem to be a fair few social justice causes that get away with blue murder, and it’s been going on for a lot longer than the last few years might suggest. Maybe, just maybe, the veil is starting to slip, as men get involved in the act, that standing up for any perceived injustice does not give a person the right to take on the mantle of the worst aspects of the people or institutions they themselves accuse them of, without being held to account themselves.
Anyway, I’m glad some obnoxious bully has had their comeuppance, although I doubt it will have much of an impact. Acceptance of what is right, or wrong, still seems very much dependant on the attitudes of the (lynch) mob.
I don’t know why they say mostly male, with criticism of women it is mostly other women, particularly social justice stuff, which in my feed is entirely propagated by female converts.
There are plenty of females involved in the bullying of feminists who stand their ground on things like women’s safe spaces and women’s sports. Other than that point, thanks once again Debbie for being a solid voice of reason in this piece.
Is she still 70k out of pocket, or are the 45k on top of the expenses incurred?
Anyway, what I didn’t understand is who this Shanu person is, the motives s/he might have had to say something libelous and the link the trans agenda.
UPDATE
Ah, the case is summarised in the judgement, and the 45 k are ON TOP of the expenses.
I also note that the case was not defended. I wonder… will she ever see any of that money, then?
In the common law system if you win the case you usually have costs awarded in your favour. However, this won’t guarantee full recovery of all costs incurred, but based on the numbers quoted she should come out ahead. Enforcing these orders is a separate issue.
In the blue corner, the feminists who want to put down any attempt by men to sneakily join the female ranks.
In the red corner, the men who want to join the female ranks so that they feel mentally satisfied.
Let battle commence!!!
If it wasn’t sponsored by the neoliberal global corporations, “trans”, like LGBT, woke and identity in general, would be a minority sport that had no effect on anyone.
Good luck with fighting it. You will need deep pockets.
Men are more frequently attacked and harassed on social media.m; this is widely documented. Why is there a separate law for protecting women?
Many feminists would call themselves ‘radical’ and seek to exclude male-to-female transgendered people from women’s changing rooms and toilets. For them, ‘TERF’ is an accurate description. Whether or not it is a slur depends on whether or not you agree with them.