advertisement


Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".

Again that’s a bit of a right-wing trope. The reality is we live in a marketplace and as an example I have the absolute right to refuse to drink in a Wetherspoons, complain to advertisers who advertise in bigoted hate publications such as the Daily Mail etc. We have as much right to call out and boycott as others do to speak. As a platform owner/publisher I also have a right to define the parameters of what I am prepared to host, e.g. any racists and other bigots are out the door here pretty fast. I support ‘no-platforming’ racists, fascists etc. If I’m not prepared to do it here why should I expect a student union, public venue or wherever to?

PS I’m deliberately staying at a safe distance from JK Rowling’s postings as I’m obviously not in any credible position to mansplain her position and views as a woman/feminist, especially her perspective as a survivor of abuse. I will just walk quietly backwards Homer Simpson-style into the hedge whilst trying my best to upset neither the radical feminists or the trans community, both of whom I would happily defend and welcome here. I genuinely support both, but they really need to sort this one out between them IMHO.
There's a world of difference between expressing a view about something and hate speech. Unfortunately, all too often when a view is expressed, rather than arguing against that view, those on the other side respond with a stream of hatred. JKR has given her views on many things. Frequently the right wing attacks her for those views. On this occasion, a section of the left is attacking her. I would rather they sought to change her mind rather than demonising her.
Similarly with so many things that crop up in these pages. Let's discuss our differences, not attack the other side.
 
What baffles me is that, having signed a declaration about free speech with which you are in agreement, you 'un-sign' because someone with whom you disagree on other issues has also signed it. That seems to be a textbook example of 'gesture politics'.
 
Precisely. "I don't like Section A of the population" is acceptable. Bigoted, but if I want to be a bigot that's up to me. "I don't like Section A of the population, let's kill them" is incitement and rightly illegal.

“I don’t like (racial or other minority group)” is unacceptable and certainly wouldn’t be tolerated here.

JKR has given her views on many things. Frequently the right wing attacks her for those views. On this occasion, a section of the left is attacking her. I would rather they sought to change her mind rather than demonising her.

I agree entirely. FWIW I like JKR, and I’m honestly baffled by her stance here. Some of the hate and abuse she has received is absolutely unacceptable and should really be a police matter. I’ve seen examples which are as bad as the stuff you’d find in Diane Abbott’s inbox on a daily basis. Just vile abusive shit from morons. I am in no way condoning that behaviour.
 
What baffles me is that, having signed a declaration about free speech with which you are in agreement, you 'un-sign' because someone with whom you disagree on other issues has also signed it. That seems to be a textbook example of 'gesture politics'.
I quite like the term ‘no effort activism’
 
“I don’t like (racial or other minority group)” is unacceptable and certainly wouldn’t be tolerated here.
.
That's up to you on here, you own the site, but if I or anyone else wants to walk down the street telling anyone I pass "I don't like (name minority group)" then that's up to me or them. It's my right of free speech, however wrong I may be. I'm not inciting anyone, it's my or their opinion.
 
That's up to you on here, you own the site, but if I or anyone else wants to walk down the street telling anyone I pass "I don't like (name minority group)" then that's up to me or them. It's my right of free speech, however wrong I may be. I'm not inciting anyone, it's my or their opinion.

I’m not sure where exactly the law stands with regards to racism etc. I know it is illegal to express that as a business policy, e.g. a ‘No Blacks, No Irish’ sign or whatever on your shop. By saying that I’d not knowingly platform or sell records to an EDL, BNP or NF member. I just don’t want their business.
 
I’m not sure where exactly the law stands with regards to racism etc. I know it is illegal to express that as a business policy, e.g. a ‘No Blacks, No Irish’ sign or whatever on your shop. By saying that I’d not knowingly platform or sell records to an EDL, BNP or NF member. I just don’t want their business.

The law (or rather laws, because several are relevant) is very hazy, because it centres around the definition of 'hate speech'. The law was softened in the light of some fairly ludicrous cases (eg the bloke who was arrested for calling a police horse 'gay'), and because of fears that legitimate criticism of religious groups could be stifled. The central question is whether the words in question are intended to 'stir up hatred' towards a group, or 'cause alarm or distress' to an individual. These are obviously subjective issues, so have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
 
I’m not sure where exactly the law stands with regards to racism etc. I know it is illegal to express that as a business policy, e.g. a ‘No Blacks, No Irish’ sign or whatever on your shop. By saying that I’d not knowingly platform or sell records to an EDL, BNP or NF member. I just don’t want their business.
Businesses are treated differently to individuals. "I don't want Group A in my house", is up to me, "I don't want Group A in my shop or pub" isn't. This doesn't have to apply to a minority group, it's any discrimination. When a girlfriend and I were tipped out of a pub on Manchester's Canal St because we were apparently heterosexual ("I'm sorry Sir, we won't serve you here. This is a Blokes Only pub") that's just as unacceptable as a pub saying "no gays".
 
The HRC response is disappointing in its lack of substance, but a far more detailed response is a couple of clicks away on Twitter here from Andrew James Carter, someone I’ve never heard of but who appears to be a lawyer. He does at least break-down JKR’s response and the counter-points in a way those of us somewhat baffled by the whole thing may be better able to grasp.

I think the advice I would give to JKR is the same as it was for Rebecca Long-Bailey (and, indeed for everyone else): a) get off Twitter, b) stay off Twitter*. What value does it add, compared to the grief it brings?

* Apart from posting funny videos of cats, of course.
 
The law (or rather laws, because several are relevant) is very hazy, because it centres around the definition of 'hate speech'. The law was softened in the light of some fairly ludicrous cases (eg the bloke who was arrested for calling a police horse 'gay'), and because of fears that legitimate criticism of religious groups could be stifled. The central question is whether the words in question are intended to 'stir up hatred' towards a group, or 'cause alarm or distress' to an individual. These are obviously subjective issues, so have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately that doesn't cover some of the most insidious racism; the first time i encountered real racism was in a restaurant where a customer had absolutely no concept of how offensive his behaviour was.

This was in Nairobi and clarified for me why whites were chucked out of large parts of Africa; no respect, just some sense of entitlement. Probably a better place before we returned.
 
Businesses are treated differently to individuals. "I don't want Group A in my house", is up to me, "I don't want Group A in my shop or pub" isn't. This doesn't have to apply to a minority group, it's any discrimination. When a girlfriend and I were tipped out of a pub on Manchester's Canal St because we were apparently heterosexual ("I'm sorry Sir, we won't serve you here. This is a Blokes Only pub") that's just as unacceptable as a pub saying "no gays".

When I was at a conference That Manchester many years ago, a group of us (one woman, three blokes) were all set to go out drinking. Unfortunately, the woman felt ill, so I nobly escorted her back to the hotel, not being much of a drinker anyway. The two other blokes, both old-school Cockney geezers, went from pub to pub, and ended up in one in which all the customers seemed to be female. It quickly dawned on the two blokes that the other customers were, in fact, all transvestites. They weren't made to feel uncomfortable, but decided to leave anyway. As one of the blokes told me 'Bob wanted to scarper straight away, but I said I wouldn't go until I'd finished my pint'.
 
When a girlfriend and I were tipped out of a pub on Manchester's Canal St because we were apparently heterosexual ("I'm sorry Sir, we won't serve you here. This is a Blokes Only pub") that's just as unacceptable as a pub saying "no gays".

That surprises me. I’ve found gay pubs and clubs friendly places, e.g. The Lisbon in Liverpool was always a safe place for goths and other outsiders to hang out as the scallies, football thugs etc just wouldn’t go there. I regularly went there with some goth mates. I went to Trade a few times in That London too as the music was great and I knew some folk in the club DJ scene so we went when specific DJs were playing (e.g. Tony De Vit). It was always a cool place and certainly not ‘blokes only’ by any stretch.
 
whilst trying my best to upset [...] the radical feminists [...] whom I would happily defend and welcome here.
Good on you Tony, and I am certain you will try your best not to upset them. Still, personal attacks against you - for merely being a non-female - will certainly increase. I wish you great fun moderating that bunch. Ban some of them, and after a detour through Twitter etc. you might land in the newspaper with the word 'bigotry' in the title.

Everything radical is a no-no for me. Everything, no matter what.
 
The term JKR used was "people who menstruate", at 55 she either doesn't, or shortly will cease to.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think JKR was challenging the use of the term 'people who menstruate', not using it herself. My recollection is that she replied to a Tweet which used that term, by saying something like "ie, women" or something to that effect. I'm not sure she intentionally wanted to marginalise Trans women who had never menstruated, so much as lampoon the clumsiness of the term. That's how I read the original exchange, anyway. It seems to have blown up out of all proportion. I imagine (though we'll never know) that a more measured response, along the lines that 'in this day and age there are women who have never menstruated, please don't sideline them, they're already marginalised enough' would have made the point far more constructively and probably invited a far more enlightening debate without repelling people like me who fear to enter this territory. As Kris says, upthread, the black and white mentality is unhelpful here. It also suggests, to me, that the people holding those positions lack intellectual depth.
 


advertisement


Back
Top