London Anarchist bookfair 2020

[LDC]

This isn't how it happened at all, there were no leaflets.

Helen and friend went in, pretty much went to a table after a quick browse and sat down.
The organisers spoke with the venue and the venue decided to eject summarily as HS had made her position on trans people quite clear since prior events.

They asked her to leave, she refused.
They told her exactly how they were going to remove her.
They removed her.

Source; my own eyes.

You're wrong.

I was there, and I chatted to some of the people giving out the leaflets (and I saw and read them) that then went and sat down and were then thrown out, and I watched the whole thing and talked to people involved from different 'sides'.

Also if there were no leaflets being given out why were the other 3 people thrown out with Helen as well then? Associating with the wrong person?

 

[LDC]

Perhaps worth remembering that one of the original non anarchist GC disrupters gloated about being responsible for the demise of the bookfair on twitter. On the recent mumsnet thread about the Owen Jones attack it moved from I dont like him but I condemn violence to he's lying, exaggerated, lefties have it coming because milkshakes and antifa are the real terrorists within a few pages. There are people explicitly opposed to everything anarchism stands for now embedded within GC circles who would delight in being able to destroy another bookfair. There are wider considerations about whether this political grouping should be given a presence and as there is no openly anarchist GC group I'm aware of then excluding them seems entirely uncontroversial to me.

For sure, but what you're doing is what loads of people do which is mix up GC people outside (and who are hostile to) the anarchist scene with GC people within the anarchist scene, of which there are quite a significant number, but who are finding themselves told that their positions on this subject are not welcome in movements and groups they've been involved with for decades in some cases, despite the fact that their views are not contrary to also being anti-State or anti-capitalist.

 

[Pickman's model]

For sure, but what you're doing is what loads of people do which is mix up GC people outside (and who are hostile to) the anarchist scene with GC people within the anarchist scene, of which there are quite a significant number, but who are finding themselves told that their positions on this subject are not welcome in movements and groups they've been involved with for decades in some cases, despite the fact that their views are not contrary to also being anti-State or anti-capitalist.

it is perfectly possible to be anti-state and anti-capitalist and still hold a number of views many people would find distasteful, for example racist, sexist, homophobic or indeed transphobic notions. i don't see why long involvement should protect people from being called out when their views fall short of what the group feels are relevant core beliefs.

 

[LDC]

it is perfectly possible to be anti-state and anti-capitalist and still hold a number of views many people would find distasteful, for example racist, sexist, homophobic or indeed transphobic notions. i don't see why long involvement should protect people from being called out when their views fall short of what the group feels are relevant core beliefs.

And again, there's no consensus on what those core beliefs are, even within trans circles.

 

[Pickman's model]

And again, there's no consensus on what those core beliefs are, even within trans circles.

you say this like it's some sort of trump card, but it isn't. there doesn't need to be any consensus about this, save within the groups you're on about. there's no actual consensus about many aspects of anarchism, but we don't wait for everyone to agree before getting together. if a group feels that a view is anathema, then it's imo fine for that group to say to people who hold that position that they're no longer welcome. how else would you have it done, long involvement gives you a pass if you hold views the group as a whole finds objectionable?

 

[Athos]

you say this like it's some sort of trump card, but it isn't. there doesn't need to be any consensus about this, save within the groups you're on about. there's no actual consensus about many aspects of anarchism, but we don't wait for everyone to agree before getting together. if a group feels that a view is anathema, then it's imo fine for that group to say to people who hold that position that they're no longer welcome. how else would you have it done, long involvement gives you a pass if you hold views the group as a whole finds objectionable?

Who is 'the group' though? Are the organisers the group, or the anarchist attendees?

 

[sunnysidedown]

It's not like we're going to have mind readers at the door is it.

i'm sure you would, if you could.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Who is 'the group' though? Are the organisers the group, or the anarchist attendees?

Those enforcing the rules from the top down it seems.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who is 'the group' though? Are the organisers the group, or the anarchist attendees?

i worry you may be overthinking this. no one's mentioned organisers. i am thinking, as i imagine LynnDoyleCooper is thinking, of discrete organisations acting within their own purview. as ldc introduced the matter being discussed it might be better if you raised it with them.

 

[smokedout]

For sure, but what you're doing is what loads of people do which is mix up GC people outside (and who are hostile to) the anarchist scene with GC people within the anarchist scene, of which there are quite a significant number, but who are finding themselves told that their positions on this subject are not welcome in movements and groups they've been involved with for decades in some cases, despite the fact that their views are not contrary to also being anti-State or anti-capitalist.

It seems to me in some cases they've mixed themselves up, and thats part of the problem. What is being argued here? That people who hold GC views be admitted, which they will be presumably, as long as they are not openly transphobic on the day, or that GC groups should have a political presence? And if the latter who? And who gets to walk through the door with them?

 

[Athos]

i worry you may be overthinking this. no one's mentioned organisers. i am thinking, as i imagine LynnDoyleCooper is thinking, of discrete organisations acting within their own purview. as ldc introduced the matter being discussed it might be better if you raised it with them.

It's obvious from the context what I was getting at. But I'll make it clearer. Do you think the organisers of the bookfair have a right to exclude other anarchists with whom they disagree (where the point of disagreement isn't one on which the is a buried consensus amongst anarchists)?

 

[Athos]

It seems to me in some cases they've mixed themselves up, and thats part of the problem. What is being argued here? That people who hold GC views be admitted, which they will be presumably, as long as they are not openly transphobic on the day, or that GC groups should have a political presence? And if the latter who? And who gets to walk through the door with them?

That gender critical anarchists are allowed a political presence (so long as they don't threaten or abuse trans people, obviously).

 

[Athos]

i don't see why long involvement should protect people from being called out when their views fall short of what the group feels are relevant core beliefs.

Do you consider that supporting the right of women to organise their resistance to patriarchy based upon the material reality of their own biology offends any relevant core beliefs of anarchism?

 

[Pickman's model]

It's obvious from the context what I was getting at. But I'll make it clearer. Do you think the organisers of the bookfair have a right to exclude other anarchists with whom they disagree (where the point of disagreement isn't one on which the is a buried consensus amongst anarchists)?

i think it's obvious that ldc and i weren't talking about the bookfair but the right of anarchist organisations to organise themselves and ask people involved - even those of long standing - to depart if their views are thought objectionable. i don't see how you're connecting what we were talking about to what you want to talk about. it's entirely dishonest to start asking me about a term another poster has introduced.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The thread is about the book fair though, and not anarchist orgs.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you consider that supporting the right of women to organise their resistance to patriarchy based upon the material reality of their own biology offends any relevant core beliefs of anarchism?

i fail to see the connection of the question to the comment you quote

 

[Pickman's model]

The thread is about the book fair though, and not anarchist orgs.

yes. but LynnDoyleCooper raised an issue about people being told they were no longer welcome in groups or movements in which they had been active for some time, so we were on something of a small sidetrack.

 

[Athos]

yes. but LynnDoyleCooper raised an issue about people being told they were no longer welcome in groups or movements in which they had been active for some time, so we were on something of a small sidetrack.

Clearly, that's applicable to attendees of the bookfair being excluded, now, by the new organisers. I think you're ducking the question.

 

[Pickman's model]

Clearly, that's applicable to attendees of the bookfair being excluded, now, by the new organisers. I think you're ducking the question.

now: 23 august 2019

bookfair: sometime in october 2020

no one can be an attendee today of an event which is anticipated to occur more than a year from now

 

[Athos]

now: 23 august 2019

bookfair: sometime in october 2020

no one can be an attendee today of an event which is anticipated to occur more than a year from now

No, but a decision to exclude them can be made now. This is desperate.

 

[andysays]

No, but a decision to exclude them can be made now. This is desperate.

A decision to exclude whoever could be made now, but there is also, presumably, an opportunity to discuss the issue, including the basis on which people and groups are to be excluded, because the one thing that should be obvious to everyone is there is little or no agreement or consensus on this issue

 

[Fozzie Bear]

This is actually worse than the microscopic dissection of possible interpretations of the word “premeditated”.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, but a decision to exclude them can be made now. This is desperate.

i am quite happy for the bookfair organisers to make any decision they wish to to ensure the event is a success. if they decide that certain groups or individuals who might attend would do so to disrupt the event, and determine they should be barred, so be it. however, any such decision is certain to rely greatly on the feelings of the visitors on the day, and so i'd advise them to use their authority to do so sparingly, if at all.

 

[Athos]

i am quite happy for the bookfair organisers to make any decision they wish to to ensure the event is a success. if they decide that certain groups or individuals who might attend would do so to disrupt the event, and determine they should be barred, so be it. however, any such decision is certain to rely greatly on the feelings of the visitors on the day, and so i'd advise them to use their authority to do so sparingly, if at all.

There. Wasn't that hard, was it?

 

[Pickman's model]

There. Wasn't that hard, was it?

now it's your turn

 

[Athos]

now it's your turn

For what?

 

[Pickman's model]

For what?

for you to do what you most hate, express an actual opinion on the question you raised.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This isn't how it happened at all, there were no leaflets.

Helen and friend went in, pretty much went to a table after a quick browse and sat down.
The organisers spoke with the venue and the venue decided to eject summarily as HS had made her position on trans people quite clear since prior events.

They asked her to leave, she refused.
They told her exactly how they were going to remove her.
They removed her.

Source; my own eyes.

Source: Your own eyes, and your pre-established prejudices.

They also had a anti transphobia policy and aside from that incident it was a pretty good day.

The fascist/Transphobe parrallels are unfortunatly quite strong, not just in the intensity and furiousity in which some of them act but for some transphobic people and groups it is a full on connection, politically and economically. Remember this isn't a "we don't like HS policy" it's a policy against transphobes. Many of whom have strong ties to right wing Christian movements fromt he states and who share fascist ideologies / Free Tommy shit. Some of the people that get lumped into "feminists concerned about womens spaces" are full on out right bigots and even in that realm many women have noticed the extremly dodgy shit their peers are saying.

So, Posie Parker and - quite literally - a couple of other gender-critical feminists have links to the Christian right, and that means everyone who shares that philosophy is collectively guilty of the crimes of a few, and you don't see parallels between your own behaviour and that of fascists? FFS!

I mean I don't know if any of you kept up with things at the time but after 2017, the transphobes not only called the police but they gloated about wrecking the bookfair.

They arn't comrades.
That others such as Helen ended up in their camp is really dissapointing and a lot of people were really hurt by that and subsent slides into transphobia to the point where upon our announcing, the day after she shared posie's meme that amounts to "trans women are men" and that shit.. that shit aint cool.

Genetically, trans women ARE men, a fact that needs to be marked with regard to future medical treatment, medication dosage, post-middle age health checks etc. Forgetting that isn't cool, and neither is traducing someone who's done more for the people than you'll ever achieve.

An Anti-Transphobia policy (or any anti bigotry position) is not about specific people, it's deeply problematic to reduce it to that. We are all quite differant. HS isn't Posie Parker or Graham Lineham, HS also isn't Steve from Slough who "just doesn't get the trans thing". We can't write a policy for everyone and their cat, so we have broad sweeps. I don't know if Luke sharing the "Stronger borders" leaflet is in the EDL but he's going to get ejected anyways.

The fact that you're blind to the parallels of your "broad sweeps" with authoritarian catch-all rule-making and the fact of hierarchism in your behaviour, makes you little different from "Luke".

Anarchism is about sharing ideas and winning people over yes, and there will be talks and workshops no doubt for that very purpose, but if your political starting point is one entrenched in bigotry or you come to protest trasn rights or share transphobic leaflets you can fuck off.

Anarchism is about coming together as equals, talking out differences and reaching a consensus, not about pointing fingers and shrieking "you're banned" at anyone who thinks slightly differently - and seemingly, more rationally - than you. If you think that what you're doing is anarchism, then I strongly suggest you therapeutically twat yourself in the head with a lump hammer.

This policy seems pretty clear and you know what, there is SO MUCH MORE interesting stuff about Anarchist Bookfairs than having a shitty disengenous discussion about the nuance of a broad policy.

Truly, If any of you happen to be transphobic, just stay at home or sort out another event or whatever. This is a space that will be welcoming to the trans community. It will also be a space where we protect other vunerable members of the Anarcho scene by not allowing bigots of any fashion to occupy and disrupt the space.

If for a moment they were actually Anarchistic they would accept our choice of free association. Women's Place or whoever are more than welcome to rent a space in London on the same day and share their ideas whatever, none of our bees wax really.

It's not like we're going to have mind readers at the door is it. Most people who might be "not cool" with the trans stuff who might attend will have the decency to respect the space and just go about enjoying the other 99% of Anarchistic shit that they care for.

I think that policy is pretty clear and it's the last I'll go on about it, accept it or don't that's readers choice. It's just how it is.

Bunch of hierarchists imposing their views on others.
You're shit, and you know you are, hence the semi-incoherent, repetitive self-justification for being cunt.

Out of interest.

Can anyone name an distinctly Anarchist organisation/network that does not believe transphobia to be counter to Anarchism? I'm aware of a few individulists who are anti-trans but not any one that would want a stall. Just curious really.

"Anarchist organisation".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyone who's familiar with even the basics of anarchist theory knows prejudice is not as simple as 'hating X'.
The people that I consider comrades (and yes I DO still consider them comrades) are opposed to the physical/verbal abuse of transpeople, want equality for transpeople but they disagree with others about what the equality actually means in practice. They have some concerns and the GR act, they believe that cis/natal-women sometimes have the right to organise in cis/natal-women only spaces, they sometimes have issues with transwomen appearing on all women shortlists. Now you might agree or disagree with those positions but they are clearly (a) more complex than simply 'hating transpeople' and (b) not remotely equivalent to fascism.

Frankly I don't for a minute believe you are not aware of this. You know full well that the people that you've blocked on twitter/facebook are not calling for transphobia to be acceptable, rather what they see as transphobia is different to what you see as transphobia. We all all know that there are gray-zones where there will be differences of opinion over whether something is prejudiced or not. No one doubts abusing someone as a kike Is anti-semitic but clearly opinions differ as to whether BDS or being opposed to a Jewish state are anti-semitic. The pretence that having an anti-transphobia policy is a problem is totally disingenuous, you know that is not what people are taking issue with.

Said much better than I could have.

Conflation of philosophical differences, with hatred or phobia, has meant years in which even a debate on terminology hasn't been able to take place.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i'm sure you would, if you could.

"Eject that one. They had a non-vegetarian breakfast".
"That one too. They think Furries should be liquidated".