A general one from @humzayousaf & one from @liamkerrmsp which covers many of the topics women feared might result in prosecution - thank you!
Back in the mists of time, we suggested that the proposed Scottish Hate Crime bill might be used as a stick to beat women who wanted to discuss the GRA, sex-based rights, & welfare of gender confused children.
We were told we were being silly: no one would do that.
Thread/
A general one from @humzayousaf & one from @liamkerrmsp which covers many of the topics women feared might result in prosecution - thank you!
She's also furious a Labour MSP has the temerity to suggest that advocating for women's rights should not carry penal sanction.
Thank you @RhodaGrant for this amendment
And Tristan is really hitting his stride now...
No one suggested removing transphobia from hate crime, they are merely saying that it is not covered by women arguing that sex exists &we have rights, and that we shouldn't be punished for belief in science. Tristan clearly wanted to use this to persecute women.
He also thinks the amendments now legalise hate crime.
Not sure reading & comp are a strong suit!
Hate crime "doesn't protect" them. Well, it really doesn't protect women, but Engender's guest "feminist" thinker isn't really stopping to think about us...
She was also hoping to use the stirring up offence to prosecute Joanna.
https://t.co/ksN2nll3V4
Don't be like Gregor.
Saying women might be able to talk about rights = "bowing to terfs".
"Horrifying"
Apparently this means "transphobia is permitted". It's pronouns (again).
This is the monster this bill has fed, and all MSPs should be very wary.
They want a new blasphemy law. At least the old one wasn't used!
https://t.co/01sMQWaawH
People have seemingly confused our amendment with Liam Kerr's amendment on Freedom of Expression clause in relation to Transgender Identity. For avoidance of doubt his amendment is not one Govt will be supporting
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) January 27, 2021
I believe our FoE clauses (all four of them) strike right balance
More from Law
This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Witness explaining that on electronic ballots (QR code ballots), it's impossible to determine voter intent. The machine decides the intent, whereas, with paper ballots, a human can double-check the ballot. https://t.co/kkhamio2Je
— The Election Wizard (@Wizard_Predicts) December 30, 2020
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
