Mother who called a transgender woman a “pig in a wig” has been convicted of sending offensive tweets
A mother of two who called a transgender woman a “pig in a wig” was convicted of sending offensive tweets while protesters gathered outside the court.
Kate Scottow, 39, was found guilty today of continuing to use a public communications network to cause Stephanie Hayden, 48, between September 2018 and last May annoyance, inconvenience and concern.
The “radical feminist” was accused of deliberately “abusing” Mrs. Hayden by referring to her as “he” or “him” during a period of “significant online abuse.”
Scottow was arrested last year by police officers at her home in Pirton near Hitchin, Hertfordshire, in front of her daughter, 10 and son, 20 months.
Although Ms. Scottow’s lawyer, Diana Wilson, claimed that Ms. Hayden was a “serial complainant” with previous convictions, and had benefited from an alleged police failure to properly investigate the case, the judge found Ms. Scottow guilty.
Kate Scottow (photo) was found guilty today of continually using a public communications network to cause annoyance, discomfort and fear for transgender woman Stephanie Hayden between September 2018 and last May
District Judge Margaret Dodd told Mrs. Scottow that she deliberately and consistently made use of masculine pronouns and had caused Hayden “unnecessary fear.”
In a statement, Ms. Hayden said: “There are no winners today. Although I am satisfied with the outcome of the criminal prosecution, the fact remains that it should not have been necessary to ever file a complaint with the police.
“Online abuse of transgender people must stop.”
She added: “Today’s verdict shows that such behavior has consequences that could be life-changing. I want to continue now.
“With this in mind, I wish Mrs Scottow all the best for the future and hope that she will learn from this experience.”
Mrs. Hayden (photo) told her judge about the gender recognition certificate how Scottow was legally obliged to refer her to her as a woman. She argued that the defendant was guilty of “harassment” and that her “wrong” was “just” to annoy people like me ”
The supporters of Scottow gathered in front of the court of St. Albans Magistrates to protest against the verdict and to sing “a wig” and “he is a man – prosecute me”
This is because a Supreme Court judge today ruled that the tweets of a former officer were lawful, and the police had violated his right to freedom of expression by acting as “the Stasi” when they appeared at work to be tweeting a ” hate incident.
Harry Miller, 54, had heard from the police that the 30 “transphobic” messages he had tweeted or retweeted were recorded as a “hate incident.”
The businessman’s “transphobic” tweet was LEGAL and the police violated his right to freedom of expression by acting as “the STASI” when they came to work to call it a “hate incident,” the judge said
By Joe Middleton for MailOnline
The ‘transphobic’ tweets of an ex-officer were allowed and the police violated his right to freedom of expression by behaving like ‘the Stasi’ when they came to work to call it a ‘hate incident’, a judge has decided.
Harry Miller, 54, who founded the Fair Cop campaign group after talking to an officer in a Tesco parking garage, said police actions had a “significant cooling effect” on his right to freedom of expression.
The married father of four, who is from Lincolnshire, claims that an officer told him that he had not committed a crime, but that the 30 messages he had tweeted or retweeted were recorded as a “hate incident.”
The complaint was received by Scotland Yard from a “victim,” who in turn asked Humberside police to interview Miller after tracing him to his machinery and equipment factory.
Mr. Justice Knowles announced the court’s decision and said that Mr. Miller’s tweets were “legal” and that the impact of the police popping up at Mr. Miller’s workplace “should not be underestimated because of his political views.” .
He said: “I think the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s workplace, and their subsequent statements regarding the possibility of prosecution, is a disproportionate violation of the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potentially horrifying effect. “
The guidance of the College of Policing defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident that is motivated by the victim or another person by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or is considered transgender.”
In a ruling on Friday, the High Court in London found that the actions of the Humberside police were a “disproportionate interference” with Miller’s right to freedom of expression.
But Mr. Justice Julian Knowles rejected a broader challenge to the lawfulness of the College of Police Counseling and ruled that it “serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate.”
Rules concerning ‘hate incidents’ are laid down in guidelines drawn up by the College of Policing.
It defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident that is motivated by the victim or another person by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or is considered transgender.”
This is different from a hate crime, which is a crime.
The definition of a hate crime is according to the guideline: “Any crime that is motivated by the victim or another person by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or is considered transgender.”
But the judge ruled that his tweets were “legal,” slamming the police for behaving like the Stasi, and warning, “We never lived in an Orwellian society.”
While Miller celebrated the steps of the High Court today, Scottow was found guilty of sending offensive tweets.
Her supporters gathered today before the court of St. Albans Magistrates to protest against the verdict, while “pig in a wig” and “he is a man – prosecute me.”
With banners saying ‘we love free speech’, the crowd tied scarves in the purple, green and white of the Suffragettes to lampposts outside the courthouse.
Mrs. Hayden argued that the defendant was guilty of “harassment” and had “misapplied” her to annoy people like me, and added: “It’s calculated to violate my dignity as a woman.”
By issuing her gender recognition certificate, the complainant told the court how Scottow was legally obliged to refer her to her as a woman.
Scottow received a conditional dismissal for two years and was ordered by the court to pay damages of £ 1,000 within six months.
The judge said: ‘Stephanie Hayden described the court’s cruel remarks. Article 10 accepts freedom of expression, but I do not find your comments part of that debate.
“I think it was unkind and offensive. I notice that you were well aware of what you were doing. You do not refuse the responses. You started the tweets, you could have stopped them. Little on the internet remains secret. You caused unnecessary annoyance and anxiety.
“You said in your proof that you knew it would reach Stephanie.
“It wasn’t just the content, but the choice of one of the usernames was intentionally annoying her.”
She added: “You could feel personal and offensive comments about her. It was abusive for the sake of it.
“Your comments have not contributed to a debate. We teach children to be kind to each other and not to name each other in the playground. ”
Mrs. Hayden was not in court today to hear the judge’s verdict.
Hayden had provided evidence and complained that Scottow was an internet role that had set up multiple Twitter accounts to ‘abuse’ her.
Despite the organization of a “compromise” agreement in response to aspersions voiced by Mrs. Scottow, because Mrs. Hayden was “racist,” the “abuse” continued.
When she discovered that a second Twitter account had been set up, of which the mother-of-two caused the “pig in a wig” to be “wrong,” Hayden reported the incident to the police.
An arrest was made at Mrs. Scottow’s house, where the suspect was then taken to Hatfield police station seven hours later for questioning.
The court heard how Mrs. Scottow admitted in her police interview that she was “immature” for Mrs. Hayden, and knew that her tweets would “come to Stephanie.”
She added, “I don’t think it was fun to do, but it is something that I did. I think it’s because I felt that I was being harassed, I felt that I was being bullied.
“I responded in an immature and small way.”
Mrs. Scottow’s defense, Mrs. Wilson, had previously told the court how the transgender woman had been 11 times in 21 criminal cases and had spent six months in prison for cheating.
Her points were rejected by Mrs. Hayden as “tittle tattle raised to put me out”.
The complainant had also been confronted with questions about whether tweets she had sent to a black person, who have since been removed, were “racist.” She denied any misconduct, objected to the use of the term outright, and instead claimed that she was harassed by a person who would be “black.”
Today Wilson abused procedural arguments and claimed that the police had started a one-sided investigation based on Mrs. Hayden’s testimony.
After the verdict, she said to the court: “She is in constant fear. This lady is deeply affected. She did not believe she committed a violation.
“She came from Twitter and is not concerned with this.”
It is understood that Scottow will appeal.
This case is the latest in a series of judgments by British judges on transgender cases.
Last December, an employment court ruled that the think tank of the Center for Global Development (CGD) rightly dismissed the visit to colleague Maya Forstater for making ‘gender-critical remarks’ that were ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’.
Mrs Forstater’s contract with the institute was terminated after she was accused of using “offensive and exclusive” anti-trans language on Twitter.
Opposite government proposals to amend the gender recognition law that would allow transgender people to allocate their own gender, Ms. Forstater claimed that sex, unlike sex, was a “biological fact and unchangeable” ‘ used to be.
Judge James Taylor, however, took the CGD to court and ruled that her own opinion did not “have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.”
The judge stated that Mrs. Forstater’s “absolutist” view was “incompatible with the human dignity and fundamental rights of others” in his 26-page summary.
He concluded: “The claimant [Ms Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core part of her belief that she refers to a person by the gender she deems fit, even if it violates their dignity and / or creates an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, humiliating or offensive environment .
“The approach deserves no respect in a democratic society.”