[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)
- Thread starter Kate Sharpley
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
bimble
floofy
How patronising. If you're talking about Helen Steel here's her statement again, I don't get the impression she's been 'duped' by anyone.
SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL
Last edited:
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Go on...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Is this a ‘which of these statements is true?’ game?
Well, I felt all of them were, but YMMV.
The activist was defending the rights of people to promote homophobic and transphobic hate speech. Read the first paragraph on page 2 of the M4W leaflet.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
What the fuck has that got to do with handing out leaflets/stopping people handing out leaflets at an Anarchist book fair???
Athos
Well-Known Member
How are you defining hate speech?
It was a reference to the on-going issues around trans rights campaigns and campaigners and the reactions to those campaigns from some people identifying as liberals .
Much the same way as I define pornography. You?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Come on. You're the one asserting hate speech. What do you mean by that term?
In this case, the assertion that the creation of transgender rights will eliminate the human rights of women, and the statement that the transgender politic is the anti-female politic. Plus of course "and as such receives blanket support from all male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females: the state, the conservative politic, the liberal politic, the gay politic, the 'queer' politic".
So that's directing hate against identifiable minority groups by claiming that they (a) seek to remove the rights of women, (b) profit from the removal of women's rights, (c) cannot have rights without women's rights being eliminated.
The factsheet from the ECHR is pretty informative on this stuff:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf
Athos
Well-Known Member
Whilst I don't agree with the leaflet, it's a stretch to describe it as hate speech (which you still haven't defined).
nyxx
*
Do you think it is valid to direct any attention to the leaflets which caused the controversy, or not?
Indeed, have you even read the material in question?
I believe that it represents hate speech. I'm sure there's a definition somewhere if you want to have a legal argument with someone about whether or not it is precisely hate speech. I'm not sure why you don't think it's hate speech - it directs hatred against a group on the grounds of a property of the group and a statement about their collective intentions - which would seem to me to be hate speech?
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Yes thanks. Have read the leaflets, was at the bookfair, and witnessed the mess and am involved in some of the ongoing discussions. And yes, valid to criticize the leaflets, but reducing the conflict to just being about trans/terf politics is missing the more complex dynamics that have been bubbling along both in and out of the bookfair for a while.
Did you miss the issues raised about the "Religion is Stupid" banner for example? Do you think that's a distinctly separate thing, or something that has common underlying perspective that might also overlap with the other issues?
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
What does "directs hate" mean? Because I suspect that the authors would say that their position isn't an expression of hatred of trans people. They see women as adult female humans, and argue that, if you redefine that group to include some males, women (as they see them) cease to exist as a group; a consequence being that, as a group, they cease to have rights. Whether or not you agree with that line of thought, it's hard to say it's unequivocally hate speech. And there's compelling arguments (based on the right to freedom of expression) not to expand the definition of hate speech to marginal cases.
Which is why I referred you to the ECHR factsheet on hate speech.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Which doesn't take us anywhere.
Do you know what virtue signalling is?
Yes, they say they have trans friends even. I suspect they are equivocating and some of them do in fact want to stir up hatreds. Do your "suspect" and my "suspect" cancel each other out?
Yes, thanks.
Which is what you’re doing. Fair play that you’re aware you’re doing it.
I also aspire to "champagne socialist".
nyxx
*
How is actually debating the content of the leaflets “reducing the debate”? Is there a context in which you do think it’s acceptable to discuss them?
What are you actually getting at with the first post I quoted anyway - is the actual incident and specific campaign group which sparked this off somehow off limits except in specific circumstances now?
I can’t see what else you mean by it, given the placing of it, but if I’ve misunderstood you please elaborate.
Similar threads
