How Laws on “Hate Speech” and “Hate Crimes” Affect Lesbians

WHEREAS, the enshrining of so-called “gender identity” in law has resulted in the erasure of lesbian-only spaces and the demonization of lesbians who, recognizing that homosexuality is based on sex, refuse dating and sexual relationships with men who say they are lesbians

---

1. ‘Woman’ means adult human female;
2. ‘Girl’ means minor human female;
3. ‘Lesbian’ means a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex
   attracted;
4. ‘Gender’ means sex-based stereotypes whose purpose is to force all women into a subordinate
   position in relation to all men;

The Lesbian Bill Of Rights

Introduction

Threats to freedom of speech in democratic societies are not just internal political struggles, but concerted actions by international players as well. For instance, in May 2019, then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron founded the global organization “Christchurch Call,” a major lobby for online censorship and new “hate speech” legislation. Countries have different justice systems; however, in the face of global actors threats to democracy should not be considered in isolation.

Current supporters/funders of the Christchurch Call include 55 nations¹ as well as inter-governmental entities such as the European Commission, major corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, and a large network of NGOs that include global think tanks like the Brookings Institution, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), as well as groups set up specifically to combat “hate,” like the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE). All of these groups promote gender identity ideology, which harms women and children, including lesbians. In response, LBOR International presents below a summary of “hate” law as it is rapidly developing in several sample countries, along with our recommendations for legislation to resist dangerous censorship and protect women and children, including lesbians.

Norway

“Gender identity” and “gender expression” were added to the hate speech section (section 185 of the Criminal Code) of the Norwegian Penal Code in 2021. Violators of the law can face fines or up to three years in prison. In 2014, the prosecutor’s office of Norway made hate crimes one of the priorities of the police.

The inclusion of gender identity into Norwegian laws and guidelines is problematic to many lesbians because it usually involves a conflation of sex and gender stereotypes, as well as the normalization of the idea that heterosexual men become lesbian women by claiming to have a female gender identity. In our experience, men who make such claims and those who support them often express extreme anger at assertions that it is not possible for males to become lesbian and have for many years claimed that such assertions are hate speech.

As predicted by the women’s rights activist group WDI Norway as well as the LGB organization LLH2019, the inclusion of gender identity into the hate speech paragraph immediately escalated the harassment of women, including lesbians, campaigning for the reaffirmation of women’s sex-based rights.

Most notably an employee at Norway’s leading LGBT organization reported every single interaction he had with women’s rights activist Christina Ellingsen over the year following the inclusion of “gender identity” into the paragraph, as well as a hearing referencing the lack of evidence in Norwegian guidelines for “gender affirming care” and a statement made on national television that men cannot be mothers. The police investigated Ellingsen over 8 months before concluding that none of the 159 reported statements was in fact criminal.

Lesbian rights activist and artist Tonje Gjevjon was similarly placed under investigation over statements where she asserted that to claim heterosexual men can self-identify as lesbian women is in and of itself a sexual assault on lesbians. Gjevjons stated that: “Men who permanently role-play that they are lesbians and women are, as I see it, discriminating against women and are perverted fetishists,” and “It is as impossible for men to become lesbians as it is for men to get pregnant.” Men are men, regardless of their sexual fetishes.

In A perverted view on women and lesbians Gjevjon explained her statement: “I don’t believe in the concept of gender identity. This means that I relate to men being men regardless of what they identify as, what fetishes or diagnoses they have. And when I and WDI Norway claim that men cannot be or become women or lesbians, we have the science behind us. Men who claim to be lesbians are acting out a perverted definition of woman.

Sex is not a protected characteristic in Norwegian criminal law. Section 185 of the Criminal Code does not recognize derogatory statements made on the basis of sex as hate speech, even though the prevalence of sex-based hate speech especially against women is well documented. There have been proposals to extend the provision to include hate speech based on sex, most recent being the proposal which resulted in the inclusion of gender identity and gender expression.

The proposal to include sex as a protected characteristic was rejected on the grounds that the provision should be limited to vulnerable minority groups, and even though women in particular are vulnerable to sexism, women cannot be considered a minority. There has been a shift in the interpretation of protected characteristics in Norway, where legal protections against discrimination are increasingly contingent on the additional status of minority. Since women are not a minority, sex-based violence or hate crimes against women are not recognized in criminal law. Sex-based discrimination including sexual harassment is, however, recognized in civil law.

The United Nation’s Committee on Discrimination against Women has recommended that the Norwegian authorities include sex among the grounds in Section 185 of the Criminal Code.

Women as a sex class were not protected by the hate speech law in 2021, even though the expert opinion suggested they should be. According to the police, hate speech against women is so widespread and common in Norway that it would require resources the police do not have to deal with legislation that criminalized hate crimes against women.

Before the last amendment to the law, Christina Ellingsen, representing WDI Norway, participated in a hearing where she predicted that this would mean that women would no longer be able to criticize men who call themselves women, because it would be criminalized.

Our opinion is that Norway has a penal code that is discriminatory, because it gives men who claim to be women stronger legal protection than women, including lesbians.

Several women have been reported for hate crimes and two women (one a lesbian) reported and investigated by the police. In general, the inclusion of “gender identity” in the hate crime law has a deterrent effect on women and lesbians who believe that sex is real and that “gender identity” is not.

Germany

Since 1 October 2023, Germany has had regulations on hate crimes² that expressly include, among other groups, women and “LGBTI” individuals. Hate crimes against women and “LGBTI” individuals have an aggravating effect on sentencing (Para. 42 (2) Penal Code). The presence of the elements ‘sex specific’ and ‘sexual orientation’ play a decisive role here: Acts directed against women because they are women are to be given special consideration in the assessment of the offender’s motives and objectives when deciding on the sentence. Likewise, acts directed against lesbians and gay men because they are lesbian or gay are to be given special consideration. So far, so good.

But: Hate crime against trans-identified individuals is also taken into account by means of the characteristic “sex-specific” as an aggravating factor, conflating sex and gender identity.

The legislator refers to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) to legitimize this conflation. However, the BVerfG used the term “third sex” to refer exclusively to intersex people, and the ECJ applied the ban on sex-based discrimination in employment to a man claiming a woman identity who had undergone surgery to disguise his sex.

The explanatory memorandum to the law states:³ “Therefore, a subsumption of these…case constellations under the concept of ‘sex-specific’ motives appears to be possible without further ado, especially since the adjective ‘sex-specific’, especially with regard to transgender people, should even more easily allow a broad understanding that encompasses both the biological sex and the perceived gender than one based solely on ‘the sex’ of the victim.”

LAZ reloaded stated in a public participation of associations with the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ):⁴

• The equation of sex and gender identity is supported neither in the coalition agreement of the Federal Government nor in the German Constitution (GG); there is also no (scientific) source for this in the explanatory memorandum to the law.
• Moreover, the “parallelism” of sex-specific protection against discrimination that is automatically likely to provoke conflicts of interest between women and trans-identified men is ignored to the detriment of women, especially homosexual women. Under the aspect of autonomy, protection, and participation, ‘sex-specific protection against discrimination’ for lesbian women, which they have to share with men who claim a woman identity, thus becomes a farce and ‘sex’ an empty formula. This violates women’s entitlement to equal rights, the right to protection against discrimination, Art. 3 (2), (3) GG, women’s right to free speech, art. 5 (1) GG, as well as women’s right to physical integrity, Art. 2 (2) GG.
• LAZ reloaded therefore firmly rejects this reference to sex-specific hate crime, which in reality only affects the sex class of women.

In addition to the Sanctions Act, which contains tougher penalties for acts of violence against women, homosexuals, and people with a “gender identity” different from their sex, Germany has a law that penalizes verbal hatred against national, racial, religious, or ethnic groups.(“Incitement to hatred”, Section 130 Criminal Code).

There is no specific law against “hate speech,” but the injured party can send a warning letter to the perpetrator claiming false allegations (e.g., criminal “defamation,” Section 186 Criminal Code”). The aim: a declaration to cease and desist, with costs and the threat of civil action. This option is also open to women/lesbians, for example if they are insulted as TERF, Nazi worshippers, or right-wing extremists (this has already happened to LAZ reloaded e.V.).

The so-called “Self-Determination Act”⁵ (expected to come into effect on 1 November 2024) provides a completely new sanction option for men who claim a female “gender identity.”  If their correct sex is disclosed “with the intention of causing harm,” a fine of up to €10,000 can be imposed. Here is an excerpt from the legal opinion of LAZ reloaded e.V.,⁶ addressed to the Federal Ministries on Justice and on Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth.

Section 13: Prohibition of disclosure

After a person’s sex entry has been changed, the previously registered sex and the first names registered before the change may not be disclosed or researched without the person’s consent (Section 13 para. (1)).

According to the authors of the draft bill, the target group of this prohibition of disclosure is to be extended to cover not only State bodies, but also private individuals. With its amendment request,⁷ the Family Committee has also subjected close family members to the prohibition against disclosure and investigation, subject to fines if they act “with intent to cause harm.”

The prohibition of disclosure means that freedom of the press and of opinion are severely restricted by the ban on disclosure, and that individual cases are left to be decided by the judiciary. Due to the arbitrary nature of changing sex entry by any woman or man, this is such a far-reaching restriction that it is difficult to reconcile with Article 5 para. (1) Grundgesetz (GG).

However, the explanatory memorandum to the draft bill did not discuss at all whether women who are harassed by men claiming a female “gender identity” in their designated safe spaces, and point out the men’s sex, are also addressees of the prohibition of disclosure. Here, the draft bill creates a factual dilemma: On one hand, the prohibition of disclosure should not apply if the previous sex entry is generally known or known to the addressee. Does this also apply to the obvious appearance? On the other hand, the rejection of a person in the context of domiciliary rights must not refer to “gender identity.“

Apart from these ambiguities, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of women and lesbians are not even discussed, as was the case with press law and general freedom of opinion in the “political battle of opinions.“ However, women’s freedom of opinion is jeopardized by the prohibition of disclosure, which is therefore incompatible with Article 3 para. (2) and para (3) and Article 5 para. (1) sentence 1 GG.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of the press are disproportionately curtailed by the ban on disclosure, and individual cases are shunted off to the judiciary. Factual ambiguities in obvious cases (domestic law, expression of opinion) violate the constitutional principles of truth and clarity of norms and, as they are particularly detrimental to women and lesbians, violate Article 3 paras. (2), (3) and Article 5 para. (1) GG.

Section 14: Fines

Violations of the prohibition of disclosure (Section 13 para. (1)) should be punishable as an administrative offense if the person concerned is “intentionally harmed“ by the disclosure, since, according to the legal memorandum, the prohibition of disclosure “does not have sufficient effect without the imposition of a fine….“

The “(right) to informational self-determination in a particularly intimate and therefore sensitive area of the persons concerned, as well as in the resulting violation of material and non-material interests that the perpetrator was interested in,” should be protected. 

Deliberate behavior with intent to cause damage and corresponding success is punishable in accordance with Section 14 para. (2) with a fine of up to € 10,000.

The penalty of “up to ten thousand Euros“ represents a considerable threat, and an attack on freedom of expression (see also Section 13). The “chilling effect“ as a deterrent effect of a state measure causes self-censorship, intimidation, and conformist behavior not only among individuals, but also groups.

This particularly affects women and lesbians as those primarily affected by the legal effects of the arbitrariness of changing sex entry. If they criticize a change of first name and sex entry by someone’s self-declaration, or the opening of women’s and lesbian spaces to men claiming “female gender identities,” and consequently base the form of address to a trans identified man on his correct sex, they risk becoming subject to fines, and could reasonably decide to waive their freedom of opinion as a precautionary measure. The imposing of fines should therefore be rejected.

The “chilling effect“ of a high fine is a State measure that leads to self-censorship, intimidation and conformist behavior, and represents an attack on freedom of opinion that particularly affects women and lesbians. The imposition of fines as a draconian “deterrent effect“ is therefore incompatible with Article 5 para. (1) GG because it constitutes an attack on democracy itself.

Italy

In Italy there is a law (no. 205 of 25 June 1993, “Legge Mancino”) sanctioning, as an aggravating circumstance, speech and actions aimed at inciting hatred, discrimination, and violence based on race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality. This law does not cover sexual orientation or “gender identity.”

Since the nineties the Italian homosexual movement has asked for a specific law sanctioning hate speech and actions against sexual orientation and “gender identity” or the extension of the Legge Mancino.  Activists thought that in Italy, with the strong influence of the Vatican, this law would be more likely to be passed than a law on same-sex marriage. Moreover, activists thought that such a law could be used to spearhead all other requests of the LGBT movement which, at the time, were focused on obtaining the same rights as straight people, and did not include self-ID and surrogacy.

In 2016 a law about civil unions was passed and the requests of the LGBT movement changed, as the movement clamoured for what radical lesbians call false rights: legalisation of surrogacy and “sex work,” self-ID, and medical procedures to disguise the sex of minors.

In the course of the years, various laws on hate speech were discussed in parliamentary commissions, but only one came close to approval in 2021, the so-called Legge Zan. The left supported it, and with a bit of clever maneuvering it could have passed, but the people proposing it were not willing to compromise on the concept of “gender identity.”  They repeated that “gender identity” was the core of the proposal, forget about lesbians and gays, “trans people” are the really vulnerable group to be protected. The definition of “gender identity” was particularly confused and the law did not pass.

As radical lesbians we spoke out about the danger of that law.  We could support a law against discrimination against lesbians and gays, but could not accept the concept of “gender identity” being enshrined in Italian legislation because this would have paved the way to self-ID. We pointed out that under that law it would not be possible to criticise surrogacy or medical procedures to disguise the sex of children.

In a detailed document we sent to leftist MPs, we wrote with reference to “gender identity”:

The first consequence is to introduce such an ill-defined concept as to be unusable in real cases. It is so totally vague and wooly as to be against our Constitution. The second consequence is opening a conflict between the rights based on gender identity and the rights of women that are based on sex, not gender (which is a set of imposed cultural norms).

We now have a very right-wing government; therefore the danger of self-ID being passed is not imminent, even though local policies and best practices of various associations very often go in that direction. It is therefore important to keep raising consciousness on the dangers of a hate speech law which can become a gag order for women and lesbians, especially if it introduces the concept of “gender identity” as a protected characteristic.

New Zealand

To date, New Zealand has no specifically designated hate speech laws, nor specifically designated hate crime legislation. But in effect, both types of legislation exist.

Protections under current law

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act grants “freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference” and “freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form” (Part 2; 13 and 14)

Most offences that might be considered under hate speech or hate crime laws can be prosecuted under a range of laws, for example the Summary Offences Act, which deals with offences against public order, intimidation, assault, obstruction and the like. However, critics note that for these offences, a hate motivation is usually not considered. Other applicable laws include the New Zealand Human Rights Act, the Sentencing Act, and the Harmful Digital Communications Act. With the exception of the Human Rights Act, none of these laws provide protection on the ground of “sex.”

Human Rights Act 1993

This act protects “sex” and “sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.” Section 21 (1) (a) and (m). Gender is not mentioned.

Section 61 of the act deals with “Racial disharmony” and prohibits written words, electronically distributed words, or spoken words that are deemed “threatening, abusive, or insulting” on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins (Part Two, Section 61). Over the past two decades, many arguments have been brought forth to change the Human Rights Act to include “gender,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” as protected characteristics.⁸ If these categories are ever introduced in place of or even alongside sex, provisions for the safety, dignity, and privacy of women and girls will be lost.

Sentencing Act 2002

Aggravating factors in determining sentence include “hostility towards a group of persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability;” Section 9 (1) (h). Sex is not mentioned. Hostility is not defined.

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015

The Act’s purpose is to “deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications;…”. “A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.” Note, “his or her,” but sex is not mentioned. “Harm” is defined as “serious emotional distress,” the nature and severity of which is presumably determined by the distressed person.

Current push to change laws and policies to include “hate”: A brief timeline

On 15 March 2019, an armed man entered two mosques in Christchurch, killing 50 people. This triggered not only calls for tighter gun laws, but also renewed the call for specific “hate speech” and “hate crime” legislation, and a wide range of proposals for law and policy change.

In April 2019, a Royal Commission of Inquiry was set up to investigate the circumstances that led to the attacks and develop a set of recommendations for the prevention of such attacks in the future.

In May 2019, then NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron founded the already mentioned Christchurch Call, 

In November 2020, the report of the Royal Commission and a summary of the report were released. Part 9/4 of this report sparked a separate document, expanding on Hate speech and hate crime related legislation,

In 2021, then Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, released Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination for discussion. Proposal 6 specifically singles out “trans, gender diverse, and intersex people” for protection in law. The public submissions on those proposals were released later that year. The next Minister of Justice, Kiri Allen, opined that hate speech legislation would not have prevented the mosque attacks, but would serve to protect vulnerable and marginalised people.

Famously, in 2022, Jacinda Ardern delivered a speech at the United Nations in which she compared “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology” to “weapons of war.”

There are several other government agencies involved in the push to change current law and policy. For example, the New Zealand Police are encouraging people to report any “hate motivated” incidents, even if they are not illegal;⁹ and in 2023, the Department of Internal Affairs released a 90-page discussion document on Safer Online Services and Media Platforms,¹⁰ which the Free Speech Union of New Zealand described as an “online censorship plan,” A summary of submissions was released in April 2024.

In September 2023, New Zealanders voted against the previous leftist and for a new centre-right government (if these locations are, indeed, still in existence). For now, the new government has shelved the proposed introduction of “hate speech” laws, but continues to consider the introduction of specific “hate crime” laws.

Cancel culture and current push back

Due to the sparse media coverage the public is very slow to become aware of the threats to their democratic right to free speech.

Even without specific “hate speech” legislation, people have already lost their jobs because they hold opinions and values their employers deem hateful or bigoted. Many have told us they self censor for fear of being socially isolated and singled out for abuse. New Zealand has such a small population that we cannot name persons, employers or locations without endangering individuals.

A number of employers already compel speech by “encouraging” their workforce to use “preferred pronouns” (especially government departments and the well over 100 “rainbow tick certified” companies). Not mandatory, but the consequences of non-compliance can be severe. So severe that some people we have spoken to would rather leave (or already have left pre-emptively) their jobs than be subjected to ostracisation, subtle demotion, or constructive dismissal. The fear is so great that they would not even consider taking a case against their employer for fear of destroying their chances of future employment.

In the face of this “cancel culture” and the overwhelming might of well-funded and often government-backed groups, the non-partisan Free Speech Union of New Zealand is a small, but growing voice specifically for those who have been affected by the un-mandated, pre-emptive and in some cases legally questionable curtailing of free speech. To date, they have successfully represented many individuals and groups who have lost jobs or were censored.

Gender Identity Ideology through the back door

All Western democracies are facing challenges to their right to speak freely, and many, if not most of the law and policy changes – proposed or already actioned – are flying under the radar. Major initiatives like the ones mentioned above are producing reams of White Papers and reports destined to influence policymakers and lawmakers globally. One example: In 2023, the ISD published a chilling report on “Misogynistic Pathways to Radicalisation: Recommended Measures for Platforms to Assess and Mitigate Online Gender-Based Violence.” In it, the abolition of sex has already been completed and all findings, responses and recommendations are based on the made-up notion of “gender identity”. This means, “misogyny” is no longer discrimination and violence against the female sex, but unironically includes men as victims.

Lesbians are affected by “hate speech” legislation as are all women: We are employees, athletes, business owners, consumers, patients, social media users, etc. and as such we should pay close attention to the above mentioned initiatives that seek to censor and control speech. However, as lesbians who do not subscribe to the idea of men as women through self-ID or simple declaration and who don’t recognise men as lesbians, we are particularly vulnerable: Already, we are called anti-LGBTQIA+ or anti-drag and are listed alongside right-wing extremists, antisemites, white supremacists, racists, and anti-democratic actors.¹¹

Whatever the intentions of those who want free speech curtailed, in our opinion the current push to prohibit words that are deemed “hateful” will be used to enshrine through the back door the nebulous concepts of “gender,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” in law, which will erase lesbians as same-sex attracted females.

 “The simple truth is that women are female and men are male. The “gender identity” industry is working hard to obscure that truth in furtherance of its goal of abolishing sex.”

Kara Dansky¹²

United States

Women’s sex-based rights in the US have been undermined considerably by the transgender industry. Based on President Biden’s Executive Orders (and now final rule changes), federal agencies have reinterpreted longstanding legislation and regulations originally created to protect women and girls (the sex) so that they now protect “gender identity” at the expense of sex.

One bright spot, however, is that attempts to limit free speech about the reality of sex have so far been remarkably unsuccessful in the federal courts. With respect to bans on “hate speech” per se, this lack of success makes the US an outlier among the countries whose laws and policies are examined in this article.

The reason for the contrast lies in the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”

It is no accident that free speech is listed in the First Amendment; its position signifies its importance, which is reflected through US jurisprudence since the founding of the nation. US judges continue to champion free speech for reasons other than transgender ideology. The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus sees no reason to expect this to change. Here is a brief discussion of two recent federal appeals rulings that upheld free speech specifically in the context of transgender ideology.

Meriwether v Hartop was a 2021 ruling in the 6th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Meriwether was a professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio who refused to use either a male student’s requested pronouns or the title “Ms.” He did offer to address the student using only his last name, and avoid use of pronouns when referring to him; but the university rejected that compromise, and issued an official written warning that appeared on Prof. Meriwether’s record. 

In reversing the trial court, the 6th Circuit opened its ruling by stating that the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.” This was a quote from a 2017 case, and it is consistent with the long line of free-speech rulings in the US. 

Meriwether made other arguments in addition to free speech, including the argument that it would violate his religious beliefs to refer to a man as a woman. But what concerns us here is his winning free-speech argument.

Following that ruling, which sent the case back to the lower court for proceedings consistent with it, the school district wisely chose to settle with Prof. Meriwether. The university agreed to remove the warning from his record, to remove any mandate that he use language that contradicts sex, and to award him $400,000 in compensation.

Parents Defending Education v Linn Mar was a 2023 case in the 8th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Linn Mar school district in Iowa had instituted a set of rules designed to support “transgender students,” including the prohibition of an “intentional or persistent refusal to respect a person’s gender identity.” Plaintiffs were parents of children in that school district; and among the allegations was infringement of a student’s First Amendment right to free speech, i.e., that a student’s speech on “gender identity” was chilled by the threat that intentional and/or persistent refusal to respect another student’s “gender identity” would be treated as a violation of school rules, possibly punishable by suspension or expulsion.

In ruling in favor of the parents, the 8th Circuit stated: “A school district cannot avoid the strictures of the First Amendment simply by defining certain speech as ‘bullying’ or ‘harassment.’” It sent the case back to the lower court with directions to grant a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the policy prohibiting an “intentional or persistent refusal to respect a person’s gender identity.”

The ruling was followed by a settlement in which the Linn Mar school district agreed to rescind and not reinstate the policy in question. 

Democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, including ideas that may seem to some citizens to be offensive or even hateful; because citizenship in any democracy requires the ability to tolerate hearing such ideas expressed. Even in countries without a right to free speech enshrined among the first enumerated rights in its Constitution, it is the belief of the WDI USA Lesbian Caucus that the preeminence of free speech is a principle that should prevail in all nations that either see themselves as democracies or aspire to be democracies.  

Conclusions

The members of the LBOR International network have reached consensus on the following issues with respect to hate speech and hate crimes legislation:

• Speech alone, not combined with a criminal act, should generally not be criminalized. Our reasoning is that speech that is untrue or offensive can best be rebutted, and its harmful effects neutralized, with more speech in opposition. Suppressing speech does not provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or for rebuttal of the rebuttal; and the public is deprived of a full airing of pros and cons, necessary for making informed judgments.
• Criminalizing speech alone harms women generally and lesbians in particular, as recent developments have made clear: Saying that men aren’t women should not jeopardize the speaker’s employment, parental custody, or incur any other chilling effect – regardless of whether some consider the words hurtful, and regardless of claims that the speech might at some future time encourage violent acts against a vulnerable minority.
• We think the line of criminality should be drawn at criminal acts; or at speech that is in effect part of a continuous criminal act (e.g., to an assembly: “Kill that TERF right there, right now”).

Lesbian Bill Of Rights International, consisting of:
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
LAZ reloaded (Germany)
Lesbian Resistance NZ
WDI Australia/NZ Lesbian Caucus
Lesbian Action Group (Australia)
Lezbicon (Norway)
ArciLesbica (Italy)

Footnotes

1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium , Bulgaria , Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia,
   Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece,
   Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States. ↩︎
2. German Hate Crime Regulations ↩︎
3.  Exploratory memorandum on the German hate crime regulations. In contrast to this for the area of international law, see Reem Alsalem, position paper on the definition of “woman” including lesbian women (re amicus brief in the case of Roxanne Tickle vs. Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd&Anor (NSD1148/22). ↩︎
4. Statement of LAZ reloaded to BMJ: ‘Draft bill to revise the law on sanctions – alternative custodial sentences, sentencing, conditions and instructions and placement in a detention center’. ↩︎
5. The German Self-Determination Act. See this also.  [last accessed: 17 April 2024]. ↩︎
6. Legal opinion on draft bill [last accessed: 09 May 2024] ↩︎
7. Explanations of amendments [last accessed: 09 May 2024] ↩︎
8. For example, in 2002: Heike Polster “Gender Identity as a new prohibited ground of discrimination” and in 2021, former MP Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s Member’s Bill: “Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill” ↩︎
9. What is a hate-motivated incident?: This is when something happens to you that was motivated by hate that was not ok, but it is also not illegal. If you are unsure if your report will be considered a crime, you should still report it. What is hate speech? Broadly understood as harmful speech or writing that targets a person (or group) because of their identity.” ↩︎
10. As of 12 May 2024, the DIA has scrapped the project. ↩︎
11. See the chapter “Trends in online gender-based violence” in the ISD “Misogynistic Pathways” paper. ↩︎
12. Kara Dansky, The Abolition of Sex, p 118. ↩︎

Subscribe