by Julie Bindel
Tuesday, 9
March 2021
Reaction
16:09

The Miller case exposes the tyranny of trans activism

Is chasing hazy 'non-crime hate incidents' really a good use of police time?
by Julie Bindel
Police visited the workplace of former cop Harry Miller to “check his thinking”. Credit: PA

Miller versus The College of Policing will take place at The Court of Appeal, and although it is being hailed as a case about freedom of speech, it is, in fact, about the demand for unwavering control by trans activists.

In February 2020 The High Court ruled that Humberside Constabulary had acted inappropriately when they visited the workplace of former police officer Harry Miller to “check his thinking”. Miller had reposted a song lyric on Twitter that stated the well-known biological fact that males do not have female genitalia.

Humberside maintain that they were merely complying with the Hate Crime Operational guidance published by The College of Policing. The College of Policing agreed. In a bizarre judgement, the High Court ruled that the guidance is legal — although following it is not.

What this means is that if a complaint is lodged by, for example, a transgender person who claims to have been ‘misgendered’, a record of this complaint will remain on the database for six years and may be revealed to a potential employer at the discretion of the Chief Constable.

During the two years since Miller was visited by police, over 120,000 ‘non-crime hate incidents’ have been recorded. The police claim this is ‘essential’ to prevent ‘escalation’ into criminality.

I have been subject to a complaint under this ‘non-crime hate’ nonsense. One Sunday in January 2020 I was visited at my home by two young female police officers. They had come to inform me that a trans man had reported an ‘offensive’ tweet that had apparently caused him distress. The tweet in question was something along the lines of, ‘biological sex is not why we are oppressed, but it can be used against us.’ It was actually one of my more boring attempts at explaining why biological sex matters.

The police officers were clearly embarrassed because they told me that they had been issued with guidance regarding this ‘non-crime hate’ approach, but did not seem to understand it at all. They admitted that they had only come across complaints under this banner by “trans people and their friends”. I told the officers I would fight tooth and nail if they took the complaint any further, and the next day I was informed that no further action would be taken.

In February this year, Merseyside police were forced to apologise after using an advertising van to inform residents that ‘being offensive is an offence‘. The van was adorned with a huge sign with the wording: “Hate Crime: a crime against: sex workers, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, race, ethnicity or nationality, Religion, faith or belief,” and a phone number for members of the public to call to report being ‘offended’. But being offensive is not an offence and this fact must be recognised.

Therefore there’s a lot riding on the Miller case. If it goes the right it way, it would represent a long overdue turning in the tide of state-enforced trans activism.

Join the discussion


  • Miller versus The College of Policing … it is being hailed as a case about freedom of speech, it is…about the demand for unwavering control by trans activists.”
    Not so fast. It is perhaps about demand for control – but it is not just about trans activists. Consider, for example, that the same “hate incident” law can be applied to wolf-whistling.
    

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up