On ‘free speech victims’.

66 comments on “On ‘free speech victims’. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Psycho Milt 1

   1 October 2019 at 8:40 am

   The judgement says:

   Its decision was … founded on legitimate security concerns.

   Or in other words, it was founded on "thugs' veto." Somehow I'm not seeing that as a great victory for civil discourse.
   • lprent 1.1

     1 October 2019 at 8:49 am

     So? Any meeting has those security issues. That is the inevitable side effect of having freedom of expression.

     Personally I was planning to attend to heckle and make loud comments. I’m not exactly a ‘thug’. I was considering doing it inside the theatre

     My biggest concern was that there would be people in the audience who’d take offense when I started to describe the types of people I thought the speakers were and the kinds of arseholes some of the audience were.

     This would have been me expressing my opinion. Any violence would have had to come from those who would have been offended. However that is exactly where it has come from in the past.

     So tell me how that makes me a ‘thug’.
     • roy cartland 1.1.1

       1 October 2019 at 9:16 am

       "Heckle"

       That's what I would have liked to have done. But of course we would have been manhandled and thrown out or worse.
       • lprent 1.1.1.1

         1 October 2019 at 9:23 am

         Depends how you heckle.
       • lprent 1.1.1.2

         1 October 2019 at 9:25 am

         Depends how you heckle. I have to say that generally protesters in meetings just aren’t very good at it. Too interested in what they have to say and not interested enough in making the speakers have to justify themselves.

         But also – a public lecture with a small audience – just pay the fee and stack the audience.
     • Gosman 1.1.2

       1 October 2019 at 9:34 am

       Of course you don't think you are a thug. Not many people do think they are.
       • mac1 1.1.2.1

         1 October 2019 at 9:57 am

         The same with fools, and with saints.
         • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1

           1 October 2019 at 3:14 pm

           and tory arseholes – they tend to self-identify as "centre-right", where the line between "centre right" and "far right" is "happy to let people die through your own negligence" vs "intentionally murdering them"
       • mpledger 1.1.2.2

         2 October 2019 at 9:26 am

         Of course people know when they are thugs. Haven't you heard of people glorying in "thug culture".
         • Gosman 1.1.2.2.1

           2 October 2019 at 9:39 am

           Note I stated not many people thinks they are not nobody thinks they are.
     • Formerly Ross 1.1.3

       1 October 2019 at 10:38 am

       So Lynn, you were going to heckle and make loud comments. Hmmm I am not seeing any threat to safety there. Citing a threat to safety is simply a bullshit excuse from organisers who disapprove of a speaker’s point of view. I would have a little more respect for the organisers if they had said that they don’t like the Canadians’ views.
       • Dukeofurl 1.1.3.1

         1 October 2019 at 11:41 am

         The security concerns by the venue were essentially for the surrounding streets and premises in that area and crowd control rather than 'hecklers'
         • weka 1.1.3.1.1

           1 October 2019 at 11:43 am

           what were the concerns?
           • Dukeofurl 1.1.3.1.1.1

             1 October 2019 at 11:54 am

             Just from reading the Judges decision
             • weka …

               1 October 2019 at 12:07 pm

               do you mean the judge didn't say, they just said there were concerns but not what they were?
     • Psycho Milt 1.1.4

       1 October 2019 at 12:44 pm

       So tell me how that makes me a ‘thug’.

       I find it unlikely either RFA or the judge had you personally in mind when referring to "legitimate security concerns." However, they did have the potential for violence arising from opposition to the event in mind, hence the term "thug's veto."
       • McFlock 1.1.4.1

         1 October 2019 at 3:24 pm

         But the violence needn't have only come from the opposition to the event – it could also have come from the reaction to the opposition to the event, i.e. the intended audience getting violent at legitimate protest to the talks.
       • lprent 1.1.4.2

         1 October 2019 at 6:42 pm

         Really. You need to look at the provisions of the BORA more often. Protests in public places are just as legitimate as assembling to listen to Canadian bigots. But the question of safety for all concerned including protesters is just as paramount both for the police and for the venues.

         Have you ever been to Bruce Mason Centre? It really isn't the place for a safe large protest outside. It isn't even really that safe for a small protest.

         And the BORA right to assemble and express is just as strong for protesters as it is for attendees. This isn't exactly hard to see try looking at protest footage some time. The police usually try to take a reasonable level of care to make sure that protests are safe for all concerned. They arrest people walking over the edge (and sometimes well before it), but they try to protect most of all.

         If you actually read the decision, the security of the protesters was probably as much in consideration by the RFA decision as any other factor.

         There are fuckall ‘thugs’ at any protest I have been around in Auckland. Offhand the only ones I have really seen were some of the protesters at the 1981 springbok tour.

         But on the other hand so were the police and the rugby thugs attacking peaceful protesters. I still carry the scars to prove it. In Auckland, there was a pretty strong attempt by the police after their fuckups in Auckland and the Queen Street ‘riot’ to never let it get to that place again. Thy just arrest people for daft reasons instead.
         • Psycho Milt 1.1.4.2.1

           1 October 2019 at 8:20 pm

           Venue owners have a natural reluctance to host events that will attract protests and therefore the possibility of violence. "Thug's veto" refers to using the threat of such protests to de-platform speakers you don't like. No actual thuggery is necessarily involved. Dress it in whatever fancy clothes you like, that's what happened in this case.
           • McFlock 1.1.4.2.1.1

             1 October 2019 at 9:01 pm

             So it's a "thugs veto" even when the protestors aren't the thugs?
             • Psycho Milt …

               1 October 2019 at 9:15 pm

               Was there something about my comment that was difficult to understand? I thought it was clearly expressed.
               • McFlock …

                 1 October 2019 at 9:36 pm

                 I'm unclear as to whether you think venues should cancel speakers whose audiences are likely to be violent thugs if someone happens to disagree with the speaker.

                 I normally read things like "thugs veto" to mean peaceful presentations are cancelled because of the thugs outside, not because the nature of the likely audience does themselves out of a gig.
                 • Psycho Milt …

                   2 October 2019 at 6:11 am

                   Same here. In this case, it's unlikely that the RFA were concerned that the well-heeled ACT fanciers who forked out money to hear Southern and Molyneux might go on a rampage at the venue. The concern that cancelled the event was about the protest, hence the term "thug's veto." A paying audience doesn't veto the performance they've paid to see.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 October 2019 at 2:46 pm

                     Because well-heeled people don't get violent (even to their personal detriment) when faced with protests? What planet do you live on?

                     Not to mention the angry young men who flutter between white supremacism and incel culture.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     2 October 2019 at 6:44 pm

                     Unlikely != impossible. More to the point: absent a protest, security risk approximates to 0; given a protest, security risk makes cancelling the booking look attractive. Which means anyone who can arrange a protest can have a veto over speaker engagements due to the risk of violence, hence the term "thug's veto." If the term "thug" bothers you that much, the term "heckler's veto" is also available.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 October 2019 at 8:43 pm

                     So we use the term "heckler" to recognise that the protestors are not necessarily the source of the violence. Seems a bit odd to say "heckler's veto" if the safety problem could well come from people taking offence to the hecklers, rather than the hecklers who take offence to the speakers.

                     Of course, another option is for the speakers' business model to not include being so objectionable that an outbreak of violence becomes a realistic safety hazard at a talkfest. Even Nats and ACT manage that.
     • William II 1.1.5

       2 October 2019 at 10:33 am

       So can anyone point me to anything that the Canadians have said that is white supremacist I have been looking and can't find any.
       • phillip ure 1.1.5.1

         2 October 2019 at 10:45 am

         why is yr logo a swastika..?
       • Incognito 1.1.5.2

         2 October 2019 at 5:13 pm

         We already have a long-term (but infrequent) commenter using the same handle here. Therefore, could you please change your handle? Thanks in advance.
2. Tiger Mountain 2

   1 October 2019 at 8:55 am

   Good decision by Justice Jagose.

   Obviously the Canadian duo did not have the bottle or inclination to reach out to those interested in hearing them in other ways. There were numerous public spaces in Auckland, and other potential venues for hire. And the old standby–portable speaker on back of a utility vehicle!…but of course that would be harder to monetise…
   • Obtrectator 2.1

     1 October 2019 at 11:07 am

     Harder to monetise …. plus in some places (and there's getting to be more of them) you can be prevented from doing it at all. Because what's popularly believed to be public space is actually privately owned, and thus within the jurisdiction of the owners' private police force a.k.a. security guards. Some particularly egregious examples here https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map – in the UK it's true, but what they do today tends to get done here tomorrow.
   • greywarshark 2.2

     1 October 2019 at 12:02 pm

     Where are our regular soapbox corners as in London's Hyde Park? Where someone can stand and spout and know how to handle hecklers. That surely is free speech and mostly free from violence, but probably not rudeness. You might put some koha down but I don't remember there was much emphasis on that.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner

     Public riots broke out in the park in 1855, in protest over the Sunday Trading Bill, which forbade buying and selling on a Sunday, the only day working people had off. The riots were described by Karl Marx as the beginning of the English revolution.

     The Chartist movement used Hyde Park as a point of assembly for workers' protests, but no permanent speaking location was established. The Reform League organised a massive demonstration in 1866 and then again in 1867, which compelled the government to extend the franchise to include most working-class men.

     Our listing – New Zealand

     Speakers' Corner in Auckland

     There is a Speakers' Corner in Albert Park in Auckland at Princes Street, opposite to the University of Auckland.
     • greywarshark 2.2.1

       1 October 2019 at 12:22 pm

       There are some 1971 photos by Ans Westra of the Albert Park Speakers Corner Auckland. Use those keywords and you will see the 'full monty' of men's hair fashion then. Compare with the shaved skulls so often seen now.
3. Sacha 3

   1 October 2019 at 8:58 am

   These frozen peach snowflakes want a society they do not even believe in to indemnify them against the personal consequences of their public speech. Fuck em.
   • Dukeofurl 3.1

     1 October 2019 at 11:58 am

     Remember when Farrar was praising the so called 'Thugs Veto'.

     Thats when Hone Harawira , a sitting MP, wasnt welcome at Auckland University Law School after the Blue Shirts University Young Nats announced their protest

     https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/05/the_right_to_protest.html
     • David C 3.1.1

       1 October 2019 at 5:14 pm

       you have it arse about face.

       Farrar states that Hone was too chicken shit to turn up and the protestors were not even coming inside to scream at him as some of the heros (above) have said they would with the Cannucks.
       • lprent 3.1.1.1

         1 October 2019 at 6:35 pm

         Why bother screaming.

         The loud comments of 'complete bullshit', 'fatuous twaddle', and 'who is this idiot' is usually enough to disrupt.
4. Pat 4

   1 October 2019 at 9:12 am

   Andrew Geddis has an excellent piece which lays bare the irony of the courts decision….and the neoliberal dogma that gave it birth.

   https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/like-saturn-thenbsprevolution-devoursnbspits-children
   • lprent 4.1

     1 October 2019 at 9:27 am

     https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/moncrief-spittle-v-regional-facilities-auckland-limited/@@images/fileDecision?r=899.151441935

     Just reading it now.
   • ianmac 4.2

     1 October 2019 at 9:27 am

     And good to see Andrew revisiting his original opinion and revising it in accordance with the reasons for the "cancellation." Pity some politicians fail to self-correct eh?
     • Pat 4.2.1

       1 October 2019 at 9:42 am

       I guess thats why they are politicians
   • weka 4.3

     1 October 2019 at 9:54 am

     does that mean if the hiring of its venues was still in direct control of council, rather than a CCO, then BORA would have been relevant?
     • Pat 4.3.1

       1 October 2019 at 10:04 am

       that would be my understanding…though because it wasnt the courts didnt need to rule on that so we'll never know.
       • weka 4.3.1.1

         1 October 2019 at 10:19 am

         it does raise some interesting issues about our longstanding problem with trying to run public services using a business model.
         • Pat 4.3.1.1.1

           1 October 2019 at 10:23 am

           or a country even
           • Dukeofurl 4.3.1.1.1.1

             1 October 2019 at 11:53 am

             The difference seems to be RFA isnt required to 'consult with the public' on its hiring decisions. Im sure they would have to do so on the 'big ' decisions regarding venues
             • lprent …

               1 October 2019 at 6:32 pm

               They do on facilities expansion and changes in usage (along with their shareholder).

               But I guess every commercial organisation does that as well.
     • lprent 4.3.2

       1 October 2019 at 6:28 pm

       Not really. However it might have been arguable. They may have gotten to looking at the question. Certainly in the case of the Bruce Mason Centre you'd have had to argue that the inevitable large protests would always have been a public danger. Same with the Powerstation where it was initially booked.

       If you look at my comment at 4.4.1 you can see a bright light as I realise why this daft legal approach was taken. Every litigant involved apart from some lawyers seems to have been from outside Auckland.

       Offhand I can't even think of any theatre style venues that are council operated. Some of the halls perhaps. But they're damn hard to book and kind of spare.
   • Dukeofurl 4.4

     1 October 2019 at 11:48 am

     Excellent piece ?

     Where he admits he got everything , including the law wrong. Its quite common for him to quaffle on various legal matters he has no competence in.

     "you did read my internet hot-take for free, and so you got what you paid for…"

     His further analysis that Regional Facilities Auckland, as set up by Hide and Co, is required to act 'commercially' and not as a public body, and is out of Politicians hands- QED its not reviewable by the Courts
     • lprent 4.4.1

       1 October 2019 at 6:21 pm

       I'd be more charitable. I guess that it does seem pretty weird to out of Aucklanders. But I guess they don't live with it quite as check and jowl as we do.

       The strange thing for me is that I simply couldn't figure out why people were saying that it was a 'public space' when it so clearly was not. The controlling organisation was a city council owned organisation – not a council operated one..

       I have now figured out that from the Geddis piece was that many thought that to be council owned was council controlled. Moreover that most of those with that misapprehension are out of Auckland – including now I look at it – most of the litigants. duh!

       You can see from my post that I hadn't even considered that others wouldn't understand that.

       In Auckland, most of the facilities that the RFA operates were originally paid for using rates or council debt. But since 2010 they are operated from a separate organisation from the council and the council has virtually no control on their operation. Which is why there is no public duty.

       This applies to almost every space in Auckland except for some council directly operated parks and recreation centres. Some of the halls like the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall are operated by the council. However they are heavily used and booking them is usually done well in advance. They also aren't exactly set up as anything except community halls.

       Similarly the other stadiums and venues like Eden Park, Vector Arena, Powerstation, and other smaller venues from churches to gyms are privately owned and have no public duty. The school halls are the same and usually pretty spare as well.

       Which was why I didn't think that this court action had any chance. There are few venues that are set up for the relatively small crowds as lecture theatres and offhand I'm failing to recall any other them that are council operated.

       The Bruce Mason Centre where the talk was scheduled is on a small yet widely used street around which means that even smallish protests will spill on to the street. It simply isn't a good place to have large protests. That is the Aotea square – also RFA owned and operated – but designed for public speaking.
   • McFlock 4.5

     1 October 2019 at 3:32 pm

     lol now that's some poetical context
5. Paul Campbell 5

   1 October 2019 at 10:16 am

   And a reminder to those in Dunedin, please rank Mr Spittle lowest or not at all on your ballots this month
   • Dukeofurl 5.1

     1 October 2019 at 11:55 am

     A spitton maybe ?
6. formerly ross 6

   1 October 2019 at 10:45 am

   Meanwhile a controversial blogger, incidentally from Canada, has been invited to speak at Massey University. The university has carried out a risk assessment and has a safety plan in place.

   https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/education/116144130/banned-from-twitter-but-welcome-at-massey-radical-feminist-group-to-host-event
   • JohnP 6.1

     1 October 2019 at 12:52 pm

     The organisers claim there will be no hate speech or violent speech at the event.

     But then again, they advertise the event by claiming the speakers are De-Platformed and Banned (from Twitter, for breaching their terms of service), Censored (although there's no evidence that speaker has been censored) and Harassed (which I assume is because they're the spokesperson for a lobby group who have focused their campaigns entirely against trans women).

     Seems very similar to the alt-right playbook around Milo Yiannopolous, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneaux – claim you're being censored and then charge $40 a head for people to come and hear you speak.
     • weka 6.1.1

       1 October 2019 at 1:26 pm

       Have you listened to any of the previous SUFW meetings? Or read the speakers?

       SUFW (the organisers) and Holly Lawford-Smith haven't 'focused their campaigns entirely against trans women', that's a gross misrepresentation of what they say and do. I don't think Megan Murhpy has either, although she's more in your face in her politics (I don't know Melissa Derby's work). They are concerned about the impact on women's rights from changes to legislation supportive of trans people. The extent to which they may or may not be casually or seriously transphobic might be up for discussion, but it's not the focus of their work.

       This becomes apparent when one looks at the work of UK politicians and academic philosophers on women's rights in relation to trans rights. Most of the people I follow are sympathetic to the rights of trans people.

       SUFW are largely left wing women. This is true of their counterparts in the UK (I'm less clear about Canada). The comparison with the alt-right is specious. The politics and social dynamics are very different. The cost of the SUFW event is $25 – $40, to cover the costs of 4 speakers, two of whom are from overseas. The tickets to Molyneux/Southern were $99, or $749 for the dinner.

       I think the way the SUFW event is being promo-ed is a mistake, but it's still a pretty superficial comparison. Watching women being deplatformed, banned and harrassed is gross and alarming, especially coming from the left and/or liberals. The most alarming thing about the new gender wars is the extent to which many women are being stopped from talking about how this affects them. That is serious shit when we consider various governments are in the process of writing laws that impact on women.

       It's hard enough being on TS as a feminist as it is. I'd appreciate it if more care was taken in talking about this issue. This also applies to discussing trans politics.
       • JohnP 6.1.1.1

         1 October 2019 at 2:05 pm

         Ok, thanks weka. If you could ban me, that'd be great. Cheers.
   • Psycho Milt 6.2

     1 October 2019 at 12:59 pm

     The university management must be livid. Can't use the H&S excuse they used to cancel Brash's speech because the organisers have done a proper risk assessment and security plan, and can't even complain about the event because it's run by feminists. Awesome work by Speak Up For Women.
     • greywarshark 6.2.1

       1 October 2019 at 1:10 pm

       It will be awesome if the feminists can speak up for poor mothers and women beneficiaries. They can't always find the energy to speak up for themselves and get the feeling often that no-one cares and if people do, it shows as hostility. Having sisters address their situation squarely would be such a boost.
7. greywarshark 7

   1 October 2019 at 1:02 pm

   I thought I had put up some comments here relevant to free speech and what has been done over the years, in having a space for it, – and they have gone……

   I have put up one that had a photo on it of the Speakers Corner in Albert Park and refers to the Hyde Park one in London. I referred to some of the outrageous subjects addressed in London in earlier days – reform, the Chartists etc. Perhaps the photo was a mistake, they are so heavy with code. I won't bother to do that next time as I probably should be using another form.

   But here's one of the pieces – just a bit of social history.

   There are some 1971 photos by Ans Westra of the Albert Park Speakers Corner Auckland. Use those keywords and you will see the 'full monty' of men's hair fashion then. Compare with the shaved skulls so often seen now.

   [lprent: The photo at 2.2?

   Images have a mandatory moderation – so it depends when a mod releases them. One did that for you earlier today.

   Obvious in a way. The places we allow video or facebook or twitter in from are relatively constrained. But images could be from anywhere. ]
   • Stuart Munro. 7.1

     1 October 2019 at 6:52 pm

     Good point – it's a handy litmus test of whether free speech is really the issue.
8. DS 8

   2 October 2019 at 1:47 am

   I think people are missing the forest for the trees here.

   The court's ruling is that council-owned (but not operated) venues have no wider public obligations. Which basically means… they've been privatised in all but name. That is not a happy development.
   • Pat 8.1

     2 October 2019 at 6:56 am

     Not missed at all…highlighted by Andrew Geddis' piece…but then privatisation of public assets isnt really news to anyone but maybe some of the legal nuance is
9. soddenleaf 9

   2 October 2019 at 11:35 am

   So if your so successful in your speeches, that your banned from risky venues due to the crowds, then you can argue loudly your freedom of speach is being curtailed. Sad their audiences don't have the money… …oh they do. Oh, I get it, free publicity, self victimization, legal fees, all to get yet more rage going. Rage sells. Well until it's just rage for its own sake, they have nothing actually to say, white people's are global the majority and the wealthiest, deadliest armies too. It was never a risk, whites under a track, it's all snake oil. Wow, two canadians found a living being dicks.
10. Jane B 10

    22 October 2019 at 10:00 am

    Let's look at free speech and some of their fiercest advocates.

    Recently, a petition was submitted to Massey University to cancel a booked venue by the so-called "Stand up for women" group. Most of us are aware that this is a fringe group of faux feminists and other assorted moral conservatives who are fixated on transgender men and women (always trans women, actually)

    The petition has over 6000 names last time I looked. Massey University cancelled the booking. Note: the booking was cancelled. SUFW can hold their event elsewhere.

    Martyn Bradbury on the Daily Blog has been a staunch advocate for SUFW. He recently published three blogposts on the issue, including a scurrilous pierce by transphobic journalist Rachel Stewart that was declined by her former employer (she resigned in a huff when they rightly rejected her story). Fair enough. Bradbury can publish whatever he likes, I guess, it's his forum. Plus he's such a staunch advocate of free speech./

    Right?

    Not quite.

    Yesterday I left six comments critical of SUFW and challenging Martyn's dogma that its "up to women to decide who can enter our spaces".

    I provided a link & quotes from a recent article by a lesbian group, supporting our trans women sisters. I asked Martyn to explain how he can follow the lead of SUFW and thinking they represent us when this article (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116716803/listen-to-the-feminists-doing-the-real-work-not-the-distractions ) disputes that.

    Martyn published 3 of my less critical comments. The other 3 have not appeared, I assume they've been deleted.

    So there we have it. Free speech is fine unless it embarrasses a free speech advocate. What a surprize.

    I'm reprinting a comment I've left this morning on the Daily Blog. It probably won't be published.

    Not that we're silencing women, eh, Bradbury?

    ==========

    "too spineless for free speech"

    Really Martyn?

    I left 6 comments on this issue on three of these related blogposts. You published 3. What happened to the others?

    I quoted a recent mediastory "Listen to the feminists doing the real work, not the distractions" https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116716803/listen-to-the-feminists-doing-the-real-work-not-the-distractions where a lesbian women's group condemned the so-called SUFW minority engaging in transphobic hate speech.

    The lesbian group was unequivocal: "Speak Up for Women claim to speak on behalf of women, feminists, and frequently, lesbians.

    They haven't asked us what we think about the things they say on our account. They've even blocked a number of us from talking to them at all, showing an astonishingly low tolerance for women who don't immediately fall in line with their ideology and who dare to demonstrate independent thought."

    The group also stated; "Speak Up for Women, their supporters, and the speakers they've invited to present at their Feminism 2020 event can all spin a good conspiracy theory and many will happily tell you about the well-funded trans lobby (somehow linked with Big Pharma and George Soros), which has plans to steal everyone's womanhood before Christmas."

    You didn't publish those comments I made, with the quotes, and asking you to reconcile with your assertion that its up to women to decide these issues.

    So much for free speech.

    [In the interests of not so much free speech but robust debate (the kaupapa of this blog), I was going to post a link to Jenny Whyte’s dissection of the Stuff article and the ways it misleads readers about Speak Up For Women. Unfortunately Whyte’s piece was on Medium and has been suspended, almost certainly from complaints to Medium by activists that it was anti-trans (which is a now routine part of the gender wars on social media that includes taking out dissenting opinion). We can’t judge that for ourselves, because it’s gone, nor can we inform ourselves of what the issues are.

    This is the state of ‘free speech’ in NZ and internationally within gender discourse online. People feel free to provide highly biased opinions (such as the comment here) and then take down those that disagree with them. So I’m a bit dark at having to write a mod comment on someone complaining about not having free speech on another blog while taking part in activism that seeks to suppress dissent, information sharing, and political analysis. If it’s valid for SUFW to not be allowed to hire a Massey venue, why would it be valid to expect blog owners to publish every comment made irrespective of its value?

    I’m not surprised that TDB didn’t publish your comments, because they’re inflammatory and extremely misleading. Hopefully this will sink to the bottom of TS’ comment list without much response, although I will link to Whyte’s piece if/when it reappears. TS’ Policy page is unavailable currently, but this is probably the most relevant bit,

    
    What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

    As I said above, it’s hard enough being on TS as a feminist as it is. I don’t consider TS to be a particular safe place for women to discuss their politics, likewise for others including trans people. I’d appreciate it if more care was taken in talking about this issue all round – weka]
11. Priss 11

    24 October 2019 at 11:22 am

    " I’m not surprised that TDB didn’t publish your comments, because they’re inflammatory and extremely misleading. "

    I don't think so. Jane is young, passionate in her beliefs. Dismissing her comments as "inflammatory and extremely misleading" (which parts?) is a none-too-subtle way of silencing women's voices.

    Didn't think it would happen here on The Standard?

    Anyway, thought I'd let you know that as well as Jane and others, I've also had comments censored (ie, not published) recently on the Rachel Stewart/Feminism2020 issue. The common thread? We disagreed with Bradbury!

    That would be fine, except that Bradbury holds himself up as a paragon for free speech.Not seeing much of that on his blogsite.

    Do with this as you will.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS