Twitter Silencing Gay Men (again)
In which Kavanagh fights ANOTHER homophobic pile on
CC:
Equality and Human Rights Commission,
Mr. Elon Musk
Re: Account “Dennis Noel Kavanagh (@Jebadoo2)
Dear Twitter Support,
Introduction and outline
1. I write in respect of the above account which was permanently suspended for a second time on 9.05.2022 following what appears to be a second orchestrated and homophobic attack on it and the wider principle of free speech in the context of the ongoing gender debate. Given your company granted my last appeal, I am surprised that I find myself once again explaining basic principles of free speech and reading comprehension. As before, I shall make this letter public so persons similarly targeted can hold your company to the values of free speech it aims to espouse. For the avoidance of doubt, any person reading this letter on my substack is free to use any of the prose or law herein.
2. I ask again that this letter be placed in its entirety before your new owner, Mr. Elon Musk, who I understand has grave concerns as to your company’s claims to support the principle of freedom of speech sufficient to buy a stake of it to ensure that principle. He should be made aware please that the view I express in this letter as to your company suppressing “gender critical” opinions on Twitter are widely held in the United Kingdom and beyond. I would remind you your new owner said during a TED interview that your application should be “an inclusive arena for free speech” given its status as “the de facto town square[1]”. You may also wish to reflect on Mr. Musk’s comments to the effect that “Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam account[2]”. As I will demonstrate, the decision taken in respect of the above account again falls very far short of those ideals. Instead, it appears to be the result of a “pile on” by ideological opponents seeking to silence freedom of speech rather than engage in debates.
3. As with my last appeal, I decline to name such opponents as I do not believe in “cancelling” or “pile ons” but you will no doubt have identified the leading accounts who make a habit of agitating for permanent suspensions rather than engage in free speech and debate. You may note such accounts confine their supposed expressions of concern regarding your rules to ideological opponents. I note that few of my opponents appear to have a difficulty with clear death threats being made to women such as JK Rowling. You may find that instructive in evaluating whether the reports you receive are genuine expressions of concern[3].
4. As this matter touches on the vital and fundamental principle of freedom of speech, I shall be CC’ing this to statutory bodies who guarantee the protected characteristic of belief in respect of “gender critical” views (see Mr Justice Choudhury’s remarks in Forstater v GCD Europe & Others[4] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ) and such others as regulate the technology sector as appropriate in due course.
5. I set out the case in my previous letter for indirect discrimination as against gay men making the point that as a minority group, we are more likely to participate in this debate and more likely to face antagonists who prefer to silence than engage in debate. I would have hoped that concern was taken more seriously that the most recent suspension suggests. This appeal involves comments regarding two biology denier charities who claim to speak for gay people. I would hope in the future your company recognises those most likely to criticise them come from the very constituency they claim to represent (as a brief survey of quote tweets on any of their output will confirm).
6. To set out the case for appeal:
(i) I will first set out the context of the debate, my place within it as a gay activist and why it is so many gay men feel strongly regard the worldwide mass medicalisation of children on the basis they (a) have a gender soul and (b) may require surgical intervention and lifelong medicalisation. I will, as before, make reference to relevant free speech law in this area.
(ii) I will then deal with the tweets in questions and demonstrate why I am entitled to hold strong opinions about the two relevant organisations and the social harms I believe they cause. You may find Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions[5] [2000] HRLR 249 of assistance on this point. I will further demonstrate that the tweet in question (which I appears to have caused the pile on) quite obviously used a metaphor. I will then justify my views in respect of both organisations and why, in my personal opinion, both should face legal consequences of one sort or another.
(iii) In consequence, I will demonstrate that the mass reporting of the account can only be attributed to either a basic failure of reading comprehension or the targeted harassment of my account by opponents. In this vein I will draw your attention to a spreadsheet which seems to suggest “gender critical” accounts are being targeted.
Part I - General context of the gender debate
7. As I explained in my last letter, but I reproduce for completeness, you will be aware that Western democracies are presently struggling with a number of issues arising from an unevidenced and novel belief that humans possess a gendered soul. Biology denial / gender ideology theory dictates that where such a soul is mismatched to human biology a lifetime of medicalisation is necessary and should be encouraged among children.
8. I am one of the many homosexuals who regard this belief as an existential attempt to medically correct homosexuality as gender non-conforming behaviour among the young correlates strongly with homosexuality. Evidence abounds for this proposition but was most clearly recognised in the case of Mrs S Appleby v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (2204772/2019[6]) in which the claimant raised homophobia as a driver for children being referred for lifelong medicalisation. The Times Newspaper reported on the wider circumstances of the case thus (emphasis added):
“So many potentially gay children were being sent down the pathway to change gender, two of the clinicians said there was a dark joke among staff that “soon there would be no gay people left. It feels like conversion therapy for gay children. One clinician said “I frequently had cases where people started identifying as trans after months of horrendous bullying for being gay. Young Lesbians considered at the bottom of the heap suddenly found they were really popular when they said they were trans”.
9. I trust the above rather speaks for itself but for the avoidance of doubt, I consider it my moral duty as an adult male homosexual (particularly a legally qualified one) to speak up against homophobia and to offer such protection as I can to children who are being medicalised because they are gay. More widely I regard biology denial / gender ideology as discordant with the law and fundamentally homophobic particularly insofar as it elides gender non conformity (which is common among gay people) with membership of the opposite sex. This seems to me no more than the recycling of an old homophobic trope to the effect gay men are “not real men”. I also regard the relentless focus on lesbians and compromising their sexual boundaries as a quintessentially heterosexual endeavour and one I oppose because it is simply an attack on female homosexuality. I also agree with the late Magdalen Berns that this is a manifestation of wider rape culture and male entitlement.
10. In keeping with the above, I do not regard organisations who promote these ideas as beyond criticism, quite the opposite. Gender clinics have seen an explosion in vulnerable young people who genuinely believe they have the wrong body. I believe this to largely be the work of social contagion and material produced by the organisations I criticise and their media proxies. There is simply no scientific explanation other than this and the figures in referrals are quite extraordinary. Organisations responsible for driving such enormous social consequences cannot be placed beyond criticism.
11. So you have the full context of my contributions to this debate you should be aware that I was the legal commentator at Lesbian and Gay News covering free speech/gender legal stories. I obviously write/speak on television on the subject and I am one of the three directors of the “Gay Men’s Network”, a not for profit company which engages in activities to advance and protect the interests of male homosexuals such as our recent contribution to the governments conversion therapy ban[7]. I engage in all these activities without remuneration because I believe in advocating for homosexuals.
12. I also make the same point I did on GB news on 10.04.2022[8]; the mass marketing and indoctrination of children into biology denial / gender ideology is placing enormous strains on gender clinics to the point trans people now face a service not fit for purpose as recognised in the 2020 Care Quality Commission report grading the Tavistock as “inadequate[9]”. I believe in the protections for trans people according to law as per the Equality Act 2010 and regularly speak with gender critical / pro biological reality trans people as is obvious from my social media presence.
13. You will be aware that while my views on this subject are protected in law following Forstater, a censorious and anti-freedom of speech culture pervades gender with women subject to “cancellation” and attempts to force them from their jobs (frequently lesbians like Professor Kathleen Stock or barrister Allison Bailey which I regard as no coincidence). Those who subscribe to biology denial / gender ideology tend to subscribe to a philosophy espoused by the former gay rights (now trans only) charity “Stonewall” called “no debate”. This is a nakedly anti freedom of speech position that prefers to silence and cancel opponents often by misrepresenting their positions and falsely claiming such to be “hateful”. That context is particularly important given the subject of this letter.
Part II – The tweets complained of were a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech
14. On 07.05.2022 I expressed the opinion that two biology denier / gender ideology charities should be “nailed to the wall”. In the next line of the same tweet the word “legally” was used to describe the manner of challenge these organisations ought to face. The tweet also used a profanity which is not against your company terms of service. The case for my appeal is fundamentally this: (a) I am entitled to use metaphors and (b) I am entitled to hold and express such views in accordance with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (Freedom of expression) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as supplemented by the caselaw on section 10 (protected characteristic of belief) of the Equality Act 2010.
Reading comprehension and use of metaphor in the English Language
15. A charity is an incorporeal legal concept like a company, a private trust or a partnership. It is a legal fiction. A concept. As such it cannot, by definition, be the subject of any physical contact because it cannot be touched. It is an abstract. It is therefore not just unlikely or speculative that such could not be nailed to anything, it would be logically impossible to do so. The tweet in question plainly used a metaphor. I make this point as some of the more grandiose claims involving the use of this obvious metaphor have grotesquely misrepresented it in a way that suggests dishonesty.
16. Metaphors are frequently deployed in opposition to abstract concepts. Those who call for the “death of capitalism” are not calling for actual death because “capitalism” (like a charity) is a concept. The sentence, in and of itself, is therefore incapable of being anything other than a metaphor. Were there any genuine doubt, the use of the word “legally” in the next sentence should make the meaning plain to any struggling with this point. The suggestion that the active verb in the first sentence was anything other than a metaphorical device is therefore quite ludicrous (or an example of bad faith misreading) on a basic parsing of the text.
17. I note some of the more febrile accounts have encouraged police involvement in respect of this tweet. I regard that as unwise. The police are not ideological enforcers and tortious remedies are available at law for (a) the misuse of powers and (b) incitements therto. I note in passing your application now hosts a wide variety of libellous material regarding this tweet the consequences of which I have explained to you in my previous letter.
18. You may also find the wider context of the tweets in question instructive, shortly before the account was suspended on 9.05.2022 I was remarking that serious consideration should be given as to prosecutions contrary to the forthcoming ban on gay conversion therapy. Given the vast number of children presenting at gender clinics go to grow up to be adult homosexuals, I consider this a legitimate and proper consideration from those charged with child safeguarding and organisations capable of private prosecutions. In the context of the meaning of tweet, it is plainly further evidence that the real meaning was (as set out above) the prospect of those found to harm the gay community facing legal consequences. You may think on reflection that some of the more grandiose claims are so ridiculous they can only be politically motivated, rather than any serious concern for your terms of service.
19. It seems to me trite law and a basic principle of freedom of speech that I am entitled to hold a view as to an ideology and further I am entitled (particularly as a gay man) to take hold the views I do regarding the two organisations. I remind you of the law in this area, particularly the well-known remarks of Lord Justice Sedley’s remarks in Redmond thus:
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speaker’s Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.”
This statement of the law echoes that which was said by Lord Justice Hoffman in R v Central Independent Television plc [1994] Fam 192, 202-203:
“… a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which ‘right-thinking people’ regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute.”
20. My opponents may dislike my opinions or the fervour with which I hold them. They are entitled to say they find my use of metaphor contentious or uncomfortable. What they are not entitled to do is misrepresent an obvious use of metaphor and seize upon it as a spurious basis to exclude me from debates because they would sooner not face me as an opponent. No good faith reading of the tweet in question, particularly set in context could possibly give rise as to a genuine concern as to your terms of service or unlawful free speech.
21. As before, it follows from the above that if your company took a decision to suspend my account on the defamatory and false bases as outlined above it did so, once again, in error having been misled as to the meaning of the tweet. This is unfortunate at the syntax makes obvious a metaphor is deployed and many might think your company ought to have been better prepared for bad faith attacks on this account given the recent history.
Why I am entitled at law to hold the views I do
22. To the extent your company requires me to justify why I believe the two organisations I cite ought to face serious legal consequences I am content to do so here (though, as I remarked previously it does seem odd that a private company should adjudicate on such matters). You may find it helpful to read these observations in the context of why I believe biology denial / gender ideology to be racist, misogynist, homophobic, authoritarian and disruptive for the gay community as to which please refer to paragraphs 17 a-e of my last public letter entitled “Twitter is silencing gay men[10]”).
23. Fundamentally, both organisations promote the message that people (including children) have gendered souls which, in the case of a body mismatch, can be corrected with surgery. I, and many lesbians and gay men, believe this to be a pseudo religious conceit which has no place in modern medicine. Further, as I opined in my last letter, we believe the analysis of gender non-conforming behaviour in youths as a diagnostic criteria for being a lifelong medical patient to be fraught with the real and dangerous risk of homophobia as a safeguarding concern.
24. I take the view I entitled to hold the views I do in respect of the organisation calling itself “Mermaids” because the following are matters of fact:
a. Paragraph 21 of Appleby v Tavistock (Employment Judge Goodman) reads as follows (emphasis added):
“In the background was an increased politicisation of the issue, amplified by both social and traditional media, as trans people asserted their rights, feminists responded defending women-only spaces, and gays expressed concern that sexual orientation was being mistaken for gender identity. External pressure from campaigners (including a group called Mermaids) and some parents made difficult clinical decisions more difficult, and in consequence there were staff who sometimes found detachment difficult. Accusations of transphobia and homophobia were made.”
I do not accept “campaigners” of any kind have any proper place in paediatric care of any kind. Medicine should be above ideology. I am particularly surprised given the concerns raised by “gays” above that a charity supposedly regulated by the charity commission is described here as it is with reference to clinical decisions becoming “more difficult”.
b. In the same judgment at paragraph 30 Mrs. Appleby, in an email of 17.10.2017 described “challenges regarding mermaids” and went onto say “team members feel they are coerced into not reporting safeguarding issues and to do so is ‘transphobic’”
I repeat, I do not accept it is right for any national charity to be causing “challenges” in paediatric care.
c. On 08.10.2017 The Times reported “A taxpayer-funded transgender charity has been banned by the High Court from any contact with a family after the mother, who was being advised by the group, forced her seven-year-old son to live as a girl.” This claim was apparently disputed by this organisation, but the Times article reads “Yet in a separate Facebook post it has now emerged that the charity admitted it had been ordered to have nothing to do with this child following their removal[11]”.
I do not accept that it is right for this charity to involve itself in paediatric care/welfare in the manner reporter here.
d. On 04.05.2022 James Esses[12], (a campaigner for child safeguarding) tweeted:
“The day I discovered that Mermaids send breast binders out to young, vulnerable girls, behind their parents’ backs, was the day that a fire was lit in my belly. That our children need to be protected from a ‘charity’ is unconscionable.”
A similar concern was expressed by Dr. Debbie Hayton here[13]. Mr. Essess and Dr. Hayton frequently draw attention to what many consider to be basic safeguarding concerns regarding this organisation. These seem to me to be entirely reasonable.
e. On 09.07.2021 media reported this organisation was fined £25,000 following a significant data breach[14]. Given the nature of this organisation such data would inevitably relate to children. You may think this matter is particularly relevant given the tweet in question here referred to legal consequences.
25. I should add that the above list is not exhaustive and ample material amounting to serious questions over the regulation and activities of this organisation is available online some of which (as is evident from the above) can be obtained from UK law reports. At base, as I do not accept children have “gender souls”, and as there is no reasonable explanation for the vast increase in vulnerable children presenting at gender clinics (a 5000% rise was observed for females between 2009-2019 at the Tavistock), I do not accept the evangelical promotion of biology denial / gender ideology to children is appropriate nor do I regard it as free from the suggestion that it simply amounts to gay conversion by gender.
26. Returning to the subject matter of the tweet in question, I believe this organisation should face legal consequences for the behaviour I identify, and I believe I am entitled to use a metaphor to say that it ought to.
27. In respect of the former gay rights (now biology denier only) organisation “Stonewall”, the following are matters of fact (emphasis added):
a. The current CEO of Stonewall said of lesbians, “Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren’t attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions”
I, and many lesbians and gay men, regard this statement as homophobic. Our same sex attraction is protected at law by s.12 Equality Act 2010 is not a matter for discussion or modification. We are frankly shocked to see the leader of a charity which claims to represent us equate our same-sex attraction with a prejudice. In terms of legal consequences, it is difficult to reconcile the stated charitable objects of this organisation with statements such as this. It is also possible to construe such language as analogous to gay conversion therapy rhetoric which often deprecates same sex attraction as morally wrong.
b. Stonewall is currently behind a campaign it misleadingly calls “#BanConversionTherapy”. This campaign urges the government to press ahead with legislation on treating vulnerable children with gender dysphoria without waiting for an independent expert medical review to conclude. This organisation has been warned that homophobia has been identified as a safeguarding concern at gender clinics but seems unresponsive on this issue.
I, and many lesbians and gay men, regard this as fundamentally failing our minority community. All safeguarding concerns should be taken seriously, and we would expect this organisation to take homophobia seriously. We see no evidence that this is the case and again, it is difficult to reconcile the charitable objects of this organisation with this stance. As above, ignoring gay conversion by gender and promoting medical pathways in ignorance of an independent medical review on the subject risks promoting gay conversion by gender.
c. Having failed domestically to persuade the government to rush conversion therapy ban legislation and extremist changes to the Gender Recognition Act this organisation took the extraordinary step of reporting our national Human Rights regulator to a UN committee comprising members (inter alia) with poor records on gay rights such as Uganda and (at the time) Russia. This eccentric and extraordinary move attracted unsurprising criticisms from former EHRC chair Sir Trevor Phillips in an article entitled “Stonewall’s disgraceful attacks on the EHRC[15]”.
I, and many lesbians and gay men, regard these antics as wholly unacceptable. We agree with Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Kemi Badenoch’s understated but robust view in committee that such actions “do this country no favours at all”. In terms of legal consequences, it is extremely difficult, (again) to reconcile these eccentric foreign legal adventures with the charitable objects of this organisation.
d. Former founders of this organisation now regard it as having fundamentally lost its way, Matthew Parris has previous written to that effect and more recently Simon Fanshawe did so in an article entitled “By claiming there’s no such thing as male and female bodies, trans activists have wrecked all the good work of the gay rights charity I helped found[16]”. Mr. Fanshawe goes onto consider the Allison Bailey trail which he describes as a “spectacle of ludicrousness”.
I, and many lesbians and gay men agree with Simon and Matthew. We are surprised at an organisation finds itself in the position described above and we are desperately concerned that the eccentric and dangerous preoccupations of this charity now obscure a credible public voice for gay people.
e. This organisation provides incorrect legal advice (see the Reindorf report into Essex University[17]) and has recently (and unilaterally) redefined homosexuality in it’s materials and glossary as “same-gender” attraction. This is now in open tension with the law (by s.12 Equality Act 2010 the protected characteristic is same-sex attraction). I understand this organisation says of such measures it goes “above and beyond” the law.
I, and many lesbians and gay men regard “going above and beyond the law” as a synonym for “unlawful”. We do not accept it is proper for charities to provide material capable of misrepresenting the law, nor do we think it is proper in this case for this organisation to summarily redefine who and what we are. Many of us note that this organisation does not treat us equally to heterosexuals in this regard where its material defines that protected characteristic as “opposite sex” and not “opposite gender” attraction. We wonder why our definition has changed and what that says about us as a target for this linguistic and conceptual creep.
28. As before, the above list is not exhaustive and ample material amounting to serious questions over the regulation and activities of this organisation is available online and as before, (returning to the subject matter of the tweet in question), I believe this organisation should face legal consequences for the behaviour I identify and I believe I am entitled to use a metaphor to say that it ought to.
29. I add this point, yet again, I have no formal clear communication from you as to the reasons for your decision. Were you a public body in the UK that would render your decision (i) irrational, (ii) apparently not taken on the basis of evidence and (iii) not taken on the basis of a clear policy - all of which would found a cause of action for judicial review. It seems to me an elementary unfairness to expect those appealing to guess at what has led to your decision. I have had to do so here (again) and you may wish to urgently review this.
30. As with my last letter, you will note increased calls in public debate and in the passage of the Online Safety Bill for external regulation of your platform. It seems to me that it does not assist any arguments you wish to muster in favour of your continued self-regulation for you to behave in the manner of a Star Chamber where the accused has no idea of the charges, process, rules said to be broken, evidence or reasoning. As an elementary matter of free speech you may wish to look closely at the proposed legislation and what is said about transparent appeal and decision making processes.
Part III – the mass reporting of my account
31. Your own data will show that my account was subject to a pile on and mass reporting with ideological opponents encouraging as much. I note the tweet stayed up for over 24 hours while a “pile on” intensified. I accept that such behaviour is a reality of speaking in this debate. I do not accept that it is right accounts are suspended based on how intense a “pile on” biology-deniers can generate.
32. In my previous letter I said, “I have demonstrated above that the mass reporting of my account was an exercise in bad faith and mendacious misreading of a perfectly legitimate point of view. I was making a serious and nuanced point. No doubt your own records will show certain ideological opponents agitating for silencing and suspension as is so often the case. In order to improve measures at your company that guarantee freedom of speech you may wish to look more closely in future at instances where mass reporting occurs and those directing it. You may also wish to consider whether the defamatory misdescription of tweets is itself a matter where you wish to take action. I repeat my surprise that you are apparently permitting tweets defaming me to remain public and will take advice on further steps in that matter”. These matters bare repetition here.
33. I also repeat “You should be aware that as biology denial / gender ideology loses purchase in the national public debate (as is the case in the UK with conversion therapy / women’s sports / EHRC pronouncements) agitators and ideologues increasingly retreat to a digital space to silence opponents. Please be aware I am but one of many accounts targeted because we are homosexuals who do not subscribe to biology denial / gender ideology nor do we believe our right to speak on gay issues should be conditional upon accepting it. There are examples too numerous to mention but you will be aware you have upheld appeals in respect of similarly targeted contributors to this debate such as detransitioner Sinead Watson, feminist Helen Staniland and perhaps most similarly to my own case, Shay Woulahan, a lesbian who speaks out on this issue. You may think it is no accident all three share my views and like me all three have been subject to suspensions then overturned”.
34. You may also be aware that a spreadsheet of “gender critical” accounts to target has emerged since my last letter[18]. I would hope your company recognises the “pile on” / mass reporting behaviour I identify in this letter is entirely consistent with the approach that spreadsheet seems to imply.
35. I once again ask you to urgently review whether your freedom of speech policy is now compromised more generally such that it discriminates against the protected characteristic of gender critical / pro biological reality points of view. In the past few weeks, the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture Media and Sport expressed the view that biological males could not compete fairly in women’s sports[19]. You may wish to ask yourself whether she would have been free to say this has she done so on your platform. Similarly, The Secretary of State for Health compared “political fears over the trans issue to silence during the Rotherham scandal[20]” (a child grooming scandal). Again, you may wish to reflect on whether a second cabinet member could have done so on your application.
36. Knowing the law in this area and having formed the preliminary view that your company is discriminating against homosexuals expressing gender critical / pro biological reality points of view I have obviously taken some time to write a letter you will no doubt pass to you legal department (which I strongly recommend you do). I am acutely aware in this respect I have an advantage other people do not so it would be remiss of me not to draw your attention to several other cases of what I consider to be clear examples of the same misuse of your reporting function to chill and extinguish freedom of speech. In particular, I urge you to review your permanent suspensions of the following people:
a. Holly Lawford Smith (@aytchellesse)
b. Fred Sergeant (@FredSergeant)
c. Claire Graham ( @MRKHVoice)
d. Stuart Campbell ( @WingsScotland and @RevStu (both verified))
e. Graham Linehan (@glinner)
f. EDI Jester (@theedijester)
Matters relevant to the EHRC
37. I will again cc’d this letter to the EHRC because I believe the contents thereof raise a clear prima facie case of s.10 belief discrimination. I would ask that the commission consider broadly whether the Twitter and other tech companies are in effect operating a private permitted speech policy apparently operating beyond the reach of British law.
38. Further I would ask the commissioners to consider the extent to which the facts disclose indirect discrimination based on s.12 sexual Orientation and s.11 sex. The case for this is that homosexuals are more likely to engage in the gender debate because (i) our former charities now aggressively pursue this agenda against our own interests (ii) gay people are more likely to speak out on issues such as homophobia as a safeguarding concern (iii) gay men in particular are more likely to wish to see legal consequences follow from safeguarding concerns.
39. The EHRC have emphasised the need for an open debate where all sides area heard in respect of conversion therapy[21] and academic freedom/freedom of speech[22] in higher education. The commissioners may wish to further this valuable public work by examining the digital landscape. Much public debate over these vital issues of concern takes place online and the commissioners may well wish to reflect on the matters in this letter and on the question of whether the time has come to ensure that Twitter and other social media platforms adhere to British law and the Equality Act 2010.
Matters relevant to Mr. Elon Musk
40. I have cc’d this letter to Mr. Musk given his ownership stake in your company and his declared (and much needed) aim of restoring freedom of speech to your platform. I note that Mr. Musk has previously tweeted to the effect that he believes “pronouns are nonsense”. He will recognise that his view in saying so places him at risk of precisely the sort of mendacious mass reporting my account was subject to. I urge Mr. Musk to consider my case but more broadly as he seeks to affect freedom of speech reforms to look more broadly at the United Kingdom gender critical / pro biological reality debate and the various parties I have referred to silenced as a result of mass reporting.
Conclusion
41. This is now the second time I had had cause to explain to your company how to parse a sentence including a metaphor in the face of bad faith misrepresentations. This should not be a task put in the way of gay men who do not agree that little children have gender souls which might necessitate surgical correction. It is the second time I have had cause to identify and explain a pile on and how malicious mass reporting works. It is the second time I have had to point out elementary matters of freedom of speech in respect of the biology denial / gender debate.
42. You may wish to consider carefully how your company treats the accounts of gay men and women who are targeted by ideological opponents who mendaciously misrepresent tweets. I remind you Mr. Musk is of the view that permanent suspensions should be rare and confined to bots and scams. It seems the case your recent decisions fall short of those statements.
Dennis Noel Kavanagh
16.05.2022
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/14/elon-musk-ted-talk/
[2] https://www.ft.com/content/50d2861e-fdeb-487c-b052-f2021558e87d
(example tweet of clear personal death threat said not to break Twitter rules at bottom of page)
[4] https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj
[5] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/733.html
[6] https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-s-appleby-v-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust-2204772-2019
[7] https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/GayMensNetwork_ConversionTherapy_ConsultationResponse.pdf
[9] https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/care-quality-commission-demands-improved-waiting-times-tavistock-portman-nhs
[11] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mermaids-uk-charity-ban-as-boy-forced-to-live-as-girl-dvx3j99cn
[13] https://debbiehayton.com/2021/11/16/why-is-mermaids-promoting-breast-binding-at-events-for-young-people/
[14] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9768875/Trans-charity-Mermaids-fined-25k-CEO-published-emails-parents-discussing-children.html
[15] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-s-disgraceful-attacks-on-the-ehrc
[16] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10811203/Trans-activists-wrecked-good-work-Stonewall.html?fbclid=IwAR0LPArkCxT2p4CmyN7oIelLlguqLbOeVo9d_Yn4CcdJdOQlb8gf6pn_kh8#l33zsmhh7vpa4ihi71r
[17] https://www.cloisters.com/reindorf-review-on-no-platforming/
[19] https://tdpelmedia.com/nadine-dorries-says-its-impossible-for-transgender-athletes-to-compete-fairly
[20] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sajid-javid-inquiry-into-gender-treatment-for-children-wc3r3d9sn
[21] Available at www.equalityhumanrights.com
[22] Such as in https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/freedom-of-expression-guide-for-higher-education-providers-and-students-unions-england-and-wales.pdf
It seems readily apparent that Twitter doesn’t ‘get’ metaphorical language, or other linguistic devices. And, they appear overly reactive to flash mob tactics.
I was hoping you were ok after this latest suspension, but see you were hard at work writing another excellent letter! 👏