Disruption at Book Fairs

[Rob Ray]

People have always complained about "hur dur anarchist censorship" when they don't get their own way, I've even seen it from people decrying libcom - on the libcom forums. More than one person has ended up begging to be banned, presumably so they could be a proper free speech martyr and not look quite so silly.

It's a weird bit of leakage from the right-wing moral panic about student politics that we're suddenly expected to take such pompous self-entitlement seriously.

 

[LDC]

Nobody in this situation at the Manchester bookfair on either side involved had anything to say about freedom of speech/censorship, so while it does happen that's the line of argument sometimes taken, it doesn't seem to be at all in this case from what I've seen.

 

[Pickman's model]

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of a particular situation, something that is really starting to fuck me off is the idea that freedom of speech means the right to a platform. It doesn't .

Maybe a scaffold could be organised

 

[Rob Ray]

Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.

 

[LDC]

Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.

I do think that is the case sometimes, but given the people involved at the weekend do you really think they're being that Machiavellian about it, and have no genuine political concerns? And that none of the people (mainly women) wanting to discuss this stuff have any either, and that it's all some huge plot to provoke reactions to then be able to claim victimhood?

 

[Rob Ray]

Of course they are, its a tiny crew of people and this is the fourth time (to my knowledge) that they've tried it at anarchist bookfairs, three of which had clear policies on the subject. Helen has publicly suggested trans advocacy is a Big Pharma / Secret State conspiracy. Another of them was literally filmed screaming "penis" at a trans woman on a national panel show. These people aren't "reasonably" doing anything.

It's no big conspiracy (and honestly that insinuation is a poor showing, I never mentioned "huge plots" or Machiavelli), it's simply a bunch of activists using standard tactics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Four TERFS showed up and started handing out leaflets. As soon as the venue's management were informed they were asked to leave to which they repeatedly refused. Two of them eventually left, with the other two needing to be carried out. Was awkward as it was men physically removing women, few bystanders got involved on the side of the TERFS because of this.

Apart from that yesterday's book fair in Manchester was a success, some good stalls and cracking speakers.

I do not want to get into a right or wrong debates - merely recognise a pattern.

In brief, a group of TERFs arrived and began handing out a package of leaflets. They were asked to leave. A lengthy "dialogue"
took place that used up considerable time and space.

You know what's great? The way you apply an abusive, inaccurate label to gender-critical women. What a pair of heroes you are, the kind of people that make anarchist gatherings so fucking tedious nowadays.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They were anarchist women (and one man I think) wanting to discuss issues with aspects of some trans perspectives. They asked for a talk/discussion beforehand (one of their speakers was planned to be a trans women) and they were refused. They asked for a stall, they were refused. So a few of them gave out a few leaflets at the Bookfair. They were asked to leave having given out some leaflets when they were sitting down talking to each other. They were told a variety of reasons for having to leave including, 'You're TERFs', 'You're the same as racists', 'You've broken the safer spaces policy', and 'that the leaflets were violence' although people were also repeatedly saying they didn't have to have read the leaflets to know they should leave. They refused and were physically carried out by a few men.

I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence". If people become emotionally-disturbed by written or spoken words, they really shouldn't go to venues where they'll be in a position to be offended. I'm a Jew, yet anti-Semitic speech or writing doesn't make me (or most of the Jews I know) want to self-harm or commit suicide (two of the justifications I've heard for closing down gender-critical comment), it just makes me roll my eyes, and think "fuck off, you dull Nazi cunt".

 

[Rob Ray]

You know what's great? The way you apply an abusive, inaccurate label

I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence

K.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No they didn't. They knew full well that they were breaking the Manchester bookfair's very clear ban on transphobic propagandising. They did it anyway to cause a scene so they could then claim victimhood when they were removed from the premises. Again. I see Helen's given up on pretending she's not a core participant btw, very sad that she's got mixed up with this manipulative bullshit.

Who gets to quantify what is and isn't transphobic?

 

[ViolentPanda]

K.

Selective quotation. Who do you think you are, a journalist for The Sun?

 

[Rob Ray]

Yeah I'm totally misrepresenting you .

 

[Rob Ray]

Who gets to quantify what is and isn't transphobic?

In this case, the bookfair crew/collective. You can of course criticise them for that, but it's ultimately their call.

 

[Shechemite]

You know how in shared flats there’s always some cunt who never does any housework, but then kicks off when they’re inconvenienced by the state of the place?

I’ve always found that with people who play the ‘words are violence’ thing - utterly unconcerned about their offensive behaviour/statements, but will go on about how they need to be respected/protected from others views.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence".

What if they're the words/leaflets of people who claim that being trans is an act of violence?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm a Jew, yet anti-Semitic speech or writing doesn't make me (or most of the Jews I know) want to self-harm or commit suicide (two of the justifications I've heard for closing down gender-critical comment), it just makes me roll my eyes, and think "fuck off, you dull Nazi cunt".

So other people's reactions to hate speech are invalid because you're merely irked by it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So other people's reactions to hate speech are invalid because you're merely irked by it?

Did I say that?
Nah, I didn't. I made the point that personally it "just makes me roll my eyes". I also made the point that IF you get emotionally disturbed by printed or spoken words, you shouldn't put yourself in the position to be disturbed. That was in the bit of my post you didn't quote, because it didn't suit your purposes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah I'm totally misrepresenting you .

You keep rolling your eyes like that, they'll get stuck.

You selectively quoted me. People usually do that so they can de-contextualise what you've written, and attempt to spin what was said into something else. If you are, as butchersapron claims, a journo, you'd have learned to do this long ago. I know I did. It's why I hardly ever selectively quote people.

Remember, too much eye-rolling, and your eyes will get stuck.

 

[Pickman's model]

oh this is going well

 

[SpookyFrank]

Did I say that?
I also made the point that IF you get emotionally disturbed by printed or spoken words, you shouldn't put yourself in the position to be disturbed. That was in the bit of my post you didn't quote, because it didn't suit your purposes.

OK let's address that bit then. Let's follow it to its conclusion. Let's tell people to avoid anywhere they might run into racist graffiti, or hear homophobic slurs shouted at them in the street.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You know how in shared flats there’s always some cunt who never does any housework, but then kicks off when they’re inconvenienced by the state of the place?

I’ve always found that with people who play the ‘words are violence’ thing - utterly unconcerned about their offensive behaviour/statements, but will go on about how they need to be respected/protected from others views.

The last time I thought that "words are violence" was when someone hit me with a "Unite Against Racism" placard, after I called the person holding it a dupe for the Socialist Workers Party.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Another Trans/TERF thread? Jolly good.

 

[Pickman's model]

Another Trans/TERF thread? Jolly good.

it's terftranstic

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I don't think that anyone here would argue that the NF doing a paper sale in Brick Lane in the 1980s was anything other than an act of violence. It was designed to make most of the people who lived in that area feel intimidated. And indeed it was the daytime respectable shop front for the acts of vandalism and violence that was also happening after dark.

So leaflets (and the context around them) can be perceived as aggression.

I'm not entirely convinced that the current leaflets are the same as that, but it is worth (lol) discussing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

OK let's address that bit then. Let's follow it to its conclusion. Let's tell people to avoid anywhere they might run into racist graffiti, or hear homophobic slurs shouted at them in the street.

That's not "its conclusion", that's merely an avenue you want to push this argument down. If, as has been stated as though it were holy writ across social media, transwomen are driven to self-harm and suicide by violent words against them, then why would you, if you believe that such words could cause you to do that, put yourself in a situation where that violence would definitely be done to you?

As for graffiti, and name-calling, people endure such "violence" every day, and that's the point - people endure, and they do it because they HAVE to, IF they're going to live our lives and not let "the other side" win.

And let's not get into the physical violence threatened on gender-critical women - so-called "TERFs" - for daring to have an opinion, eh?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.

Quite apart from being a deliberate tactic for upsetting people, this sort of shit does great harm to those with actual reasonable questions. We've seen on these forums, and I've been guilty of it myself, that those reasonable questions are sometimes associated with this small minority of acid-spitting firebrands. This again is deliberate. It's about polarisation, about creating a situation where nobody is having open discussions in good faith. The reason for this is that TERFs know they can't win a fair and open debate, they know that they ultimately what they feel is hatred and they can't defend it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That's not "its conclusion", that's merely an avenue you want to push this argument down. If, as has been stated as though it were holy writ across social media, transwomen are driven to self-harm and suicide by violent words against them, then why would you, if you believe that such words could cause you to do that, put yourself in a situation where that violence would definitely be done to you?

As for graffiti, and name-calling, people endure such "violence" every day, and that's the point - people endure, and they do it because they HAVE to, IF they're going to live our lives and not let "the other side" win.

Hold up a second, so are people supposed to avoid hatred or just put up with it?

Can you provide a list of places where trans folk aren't at risk of discrimination, persecution or abuse because of who they are? I'm sure that would come in handy.

 

[Shechemite]

Is ‘trans women are women’ (alongside implication - or explicit claim - that women should accept men with dysphoria into their spaces) an act of violence?

 

[SpookyFrank]

And let's not get into the physical violence threatened on gender-critical women - so-called "TERFs" - for daring to have an opinion, eh?

And 'ACAB' is just the same as racism.

I've not threatened any TERFs with violence, nor defended anyone who has, nor has anyone here to my knowledge. Try again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think that anyone here would argue that the NF doing a paper sale in Brick Lane in the 1980s was anything other than an act of violence. It was designed to make most of the people who lived in that area feel intimidated. And indeed it was the daytime respectable shop front for the acts of vandalism and violence that was also happening after dark.

So leaflets (and the context around them) can be perceived as aggression.

I'm not entirely convinced that the current leaflets are the same as that, but it is worth (lol) discussing.

As you say, they're probably not the same thing. With the NF selling their shit in areas with large Asian populations, it was part of a deliberate strategy of intimidation in several major cities, and they were opposed physically by anti-fascists. There's no strategy at play here. The "movement" of GC women that some claim to exist is a bunch of disparate small organisations that not only barely communicate, but in some cases actively dislike each other. Their words aren't born out of nationalist or racist sentiment that sees others as less-than-human. Their words mostly - and there are a few extremists who chat nasty shite that provides fuel for people to point and exclaim "ooh, look at the nasty TERFs!" - express concerns about the erosion of sex-based rights and exemptions.