Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Julie Burchill's attack on transsexuals...

the lulz continue, Moore's now threatening to sue Pink News on twitter


suzanne moore@suzanne_moore
Read this piece of shit and Pink News will hear from my lawyers in the morning http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/16/reports-brazilian-transwoman-shot-dead/ …

The self styled working class journalist Suzanne Moore has got her own team of lawyers. Mind you they could be legal aid (yeah). Healy Connor Mulcahy in Rochdale do a good line in criminal defence, their office isn't much to write home about but they do a good job. Especially Mr Mulcahy.

E2a - Didn't Chris Morris dis Suzanne Moore ages ago in the 90's sometime? Can't remember why but I'm sure he did, called her a fraud or somesuch.

E2a I thought she'd latered herself off twitter - Didn't last long.
 
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/17/supporting-freedom-makes-me-opponent-equality

Dig UP Lazarus! UP!

How has the left ceded the word "freedom" to the right? It maddens me. We can argue about sexuality and gender till the sacred cows come home. Obviously my politics come out of feminism and did I need to say that I have never personally condoned the murder of a single woman, Brazilian, trans or otherwise? Nor did I make up stuff; I merely reported what is actually happening in Brazil. According to an Associated Press report: "The trans-models have a proverbial leg up on their female colleagues. Unlike even the thinnest of women, without cellulite and stretch marks ... once they've lasered away facial and body hair, they can look more feminine than models who were born female." This description has as much to do with the average transgender person as I do with Naomi Campbell, but the artificiality of femininity is something I often write about.

She reported fuck all, she used the words as a punchline. Yet another expansion of the boundaries to dilute the actual event. But what about x, y and z!
 
More and more I realise I am on the side of liberation, which seems so often to be on the opposite one to equality. That makes me sad. As Labour became increasingly authoritarian and took us to war in the name of "freedom", many turned to the Lib Dems to protect our civil liberties. They turned out to be as liberal as Ann Widdecombe on Advocaat.

:D
 
Being for liberation doesn't make you an enemy of equality. And being angry about one topic doesn't give you the right to demean fellow strugglers.
 
She was hounded off by a drooling, slathering trans mob cabal hybrid. Because she wouldn't apologise.

She apologised by the way, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/1...-apologises-for-brazilian-transsexual-remark/

.... then wrote todays article, which is a row back from her apology.

It's cos not only did she not apologise, she lashed out and unsurprisingly got jumped on and, yes, insulted to fuck.

Very few people coming out of this very well, eh. To Rid Liddle's delight (I'm not going to link to that piece of shit's article, but it's in the Speccie today)
 
Doesn't seem to be anything in that you could hang a case of libel on.

It's hilariously dark how she genuinely believes the freedom of speech of people with newspaper columns is under attack.

And how to avoid any blame it's now about freedom vs equality, sexual liberation vs equality. Kicking up dirt to create a dust cloud which allows her to continue unabated.
 
gotta say,i really cannot understand what was wrong about Suzanne Moores original article

The article's subject was fine, solidarity against cuts. She made a punchline out of something, someone pointed out that it wasn't that appropriate but unintentional, Moore decided to then be intentionally offensive using the same language.

Her twitter meltdown and language used there is what sparked this, but as twitter isn't a column on a national paper - Moore and others got to set the terms of what the issue was. Which is even more hilarious now she's complaining about her freedom of speech being attacked.

It wasn't the two words, it was the torrent afterwards.

;)

(The reason I am terrier/posties leg on this is because language, freedom and that are my catnip)
 
It's hilariously dark how she genuinely believes the freedom of speech of people with newspaper columns is under attack.

Does she have a similarly passionate and deeply held conviction about the well-being of ordinary people on the receiving end of newpaper columnists' freedom of speech? The ones who also lack either the cash to sue for libel or an equivalent media profile through which to exercise their right of reply?

Come to think of it, she's banging on about her freedom of speech and then threatening to sue people for exercising their own because they've done so in a way that offends her. The words 'Does not compute...' spring to mind.
 
Does she have a similarly passionate and deeply held conviction about the well-being of ordinary people on the receiving end of newpaper columnists' freedom of speech? The ones who also lack either the cash to sue for libel or an equivalent media profile through which to exercise their right of reply?

Come to think of it, she's banging on about her freedom of speech and then threatening to sue people for exercising their own because they've done so in a way that offends her. The words 'Does not compute...' spring to mind.

A ZX Spectrum approach in a digital age. One tape can be played at a time. Non-sequiter of the week from our second wave columnist...

We need both love and anger to be free, to be human. Take that away and who really wins?

You do Suzanne. With your comfortable platform.
 
Interesting to watch a left of centre columnist realise she's past her political ideology sell by date and drift into 'I will be offensive as it's about freedom' attitudes.
 
It's hilariously dark how she genuinely believes the freedom of speech of people with newspaper columns is under attack.

Though it seems normal to believe the freedom of speech of authors was under attack when Salman Rushdie got death threats.

I mean, he was a still a big-name author and could still have said whatever he liked from his police-protected safe house, so where's the beef?
 
Though it seems normal to believe the freedom of speech of authors was under attack when Salman Rushdie got death threats.

I mean, he was a still a big-name author and could still have said whatever he liked from his police-protected safe house, so where's the beef?
Yeah... yeah, that's the same. It's the same thing.
 
I think if someone is being hounded and getting menacing threats then they have cause to complain, though being (verbally) slapped down for talking shit is something a columnist should be able to handle.

I think Burchill's attempt at a 'defense' was far worse than the original hoo ha.

Moore's conflated the two though - saying it's entirely unfair for the people to attack her, when it was Moore who went on the attack first to what was justifiable criticism. No, it's not acceptable for people to use menacing threats etc, but in her apology she says "But I am not ladylike when attacked and fight with fire" which fails to address that she was the one firing up the flamethrower first. Her subsequent articles all failed to mention the twitter meltdown, and tried to centre the debate around two words - which was a part of the discussion, but not the main cause of the ire against her. Excusing herself.

I don't think it's entirely fair that she's going to be under the spotlight from now on though, but then again if she continues with the apology/de-apology approach she's taking - apologising in a small distribution forum like pink-news, then using her media platform at the guardian to absolve herself - Moore deserves it.

In fact, the whole 'freedom vs equality/sexual liberation vs equality' shit is exactly the kind of binary bollocks that got her into the trouble in the first place.
 
Moore's conflated the two though - saying it's entirely unfair for the people to attack her, when it was Moore who went on the attack first.

Unfortunately her original article has been taken down (I know someone has probably kept it somewhere), but from the single quote I've seen it's hard to see that she was gunning for transexuals - I agree it was a poor choice of words, though.

Burchill, on the other hand...

I don't think it's entirely fair that she's going to be under the spotlight from now on though, but then again if she continues with the apology/de-apology approach she's taking - apologising in a small distribution forum, then using her media platform to absolve herself - Moore deserves it.

I think you can apologise for something you've done and still be angry at the excesses coming from the other side, but I agree she should be aiming for some kind of consistency under the circumstances.
 
http://storify.com/leftytgirl/suzanne-moore-timeline-of-trans-misogynistic-twitt

Have a gander at that though - she was certainly gunning for trans* people in her tweets about it.

Fair point, she's hardly making things better with that - I still don't think it merits an mass-abuse circlejerk, though.

I don't really get the transphobic hostility in some feminist quarters - it's been explained to me as something akin to the women in false beards at the 'men only' meeting in Life Of Brian, but 'the patriarchy' persuading a squad of men to cut their nobs off in order to eavesdrop on some wayward women would surely be too implausible for even Python to run with. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom