[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Pickman's model]

ok right you are. Not enough campainging or too much pointless froth, hard to know which is worse really.

i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.

Yet, that’s pretty much what this entire thing is about. Strange world.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yet, that’s pretty much what this entire thing is about. Strange world.

as was clear from my observation of leafletting before i got to the bookfair, when someone was leafleting the pub opposite, the purpose of the leafleting was to provoke a response rather than raise awareness / strengthen a campaign etc.

 

[stethoscope]

i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.

This.

 

[TopCat]

Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists.

But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.

You don't want any dissent at all. Or discussion. Nor debate. Just acceptance when you go into bullshit mode.

 

[Athos]

... when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman, and I'm not worth even talking to then fuck that thread.

Why should the measure of whether a thread ought to be binned be the extent to which contributors to it share your conception of your gender/wish to engage with you?

 

[Athos]

I tried really hard to take part in a reasonable discussion and to keep it focused on the actual issue - that of streamlining and fixing the way that trans people can obtain a revised birth certificate - but it was a shit show of personal abuse, and lies about trans women that went completely unchallenged most of the time.

It's not possible to fully discuss the GRA without discussing gender. And that's something you're not willing to debate. For instance the question of 'what is a woman'? It seems to me that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your definition is someone you consider a transphobe, and who should be silenced, and that any expression of such an opinion is personal abuse.

 

[belboid]

Why should the measure of whether a thread ought to be binned be the extent to which contributors to it share your conception of your gender/wish to engage with you?

On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.

 

[Athos]

On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.

She can take part or not, as she pleases. But the fact that she doesn't want to when it goes places she doesn't like is not to say it ought to be closed. If she was abused, then those doing so should have been dealt with. It just seems a little convenient that the claimed abuse was the pretext for the whole thread being closed

 

[DotCommunist]

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward

 

[Athos]

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward

Yeah, shit like that is completely unacceptable. But I'm not sure why the small number of offenders can't be dealt with, rather than the whole thing shut down.

 

[Pickman's model]

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward

Whatever points, genuine points, there may be are lost in the exchange of vitriol.

 

[TopCat]

On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.

Unless they are Miranda Yardley?

 

[andysays]

Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists.

But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.

The fact that you stood as a candidate for the Green Party in the last GE and the recent council elections is absolutely relevant on this, the Anarchist Bookfair thread. Whatever the participation of Anarchists and/or Socialists in groups you may have been involved in in the 90s, your current political choices mean that you are not "invested in" the Bookfair in the way that many others here are.

Your claims not to ally yourself with ID politics are nonsense, your behaviour over numerous threads speaks for itself, as does your repeated focus on who is speaking rather than what they are saying.

And your behaviour in throwing around baseless accusations of transphobic bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with you has contributed hugely to the toxic level of debate on numerous threads, including the ones you have actively called for the closure of. So while you're not the only one responsible, you're as responsible as anyone for the fact that there are currently no threads existing where trans issues can be debated.

We've already seen last year's ABF disrupted by the behaviour of zealots from both sides of the Trans/TERF feud, and the future of Bookfairs is in question as a result. I really can't see why those of us who do have an interest in the original subject of this thread should have to put up with you and others dragging your toxic feud here and poisoning yet another thread as you have done previously.

 

[andysays]

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward

I'd forgotten about that comment and it was a fucking disgrace.

There was cuntish behaviour on both sides frankly, and given how much shit was flung around, I can sympathise with whoever decided enough was enough and closed the thread.

 

[emanymton]

,but when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman

I'd be interested to know which posters denied you are a women. Can you please provide links to the appropriate posts?

 

[bimble]

#coward

I think what you're saying is the opposite of cowardly tbh, in this climate to say no thanks i'm not going to just 'pick a side' and pretend it's all simple.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I'd be interested to know which posters denied you are a women. Can you please provide links to the appropriate posts?

I think there’s been one who said so when pushed for an answer and a handful of others who perhaps think the same but haven’t expressed it outright. Certainly not ‘most’ posters though, not even close.

 

[Edie]

I think Sea Star is a trans woman. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Voley]

when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman

A sweeping statement that seems wildly inaccurate to me. I've seen one person say this to you and that was when you repeatedly asked her for her opinion.

 

[Sea Star]

tbh if any of you were interested in having a debate about the gra then you'd be having a debate about the gra and not a general slag off contest of each other which isn't from my pov about informing people.

oh, is that what you think is going on?

if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen.

Then you're blind or you don;t want to see it.

 

[Sea Star]

I think Sea Star is a trans woman. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm a woman.

I'm also trans - but that's not as important as the first bit (above).

 

[Pickman's model]

oh, is that what you think is going on?

the tenor of what's passed for debate has been more generally characterised by 'terf cunt' and comments about how trans women are men than by anything passing for a reasoned exchange of ideas - it's much more reminiscent of the auld euphemism 'a frank exchange of views occurred' than by any attempts to really discuss the issues, where the issues got lost in a fog of insults and abuse.

Then you're blind or you don;t want to see it.

yes. this point has been addressed above but your contribution, including that portion about visual disabilities, is noted

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeh. But when asked what the larger issue is iyo after more than a month of posting you say oh noes I can't be answering that without a load more thought. So what you've been saying doesn't seem like it's based on anything. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for what I think, I'm a plague on both your houses person, as it shouldn't be beyond people's wit to resolve these issues within the bookfair space without resorting to the sort of immature shite we saw on the day and have seen since. If people have a right to distribute leaflets, they have a right to be challenged for it, but I would have hoped that would be in a comradely manner. Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.

Sea Star i haven't seen anything in the past six months to persuade me to reassess the view i held at the start of december

 

[andysays]

Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...

Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.

I agree that it's for the Bookfair organisers to come to a collective decision about how to act in response to disruptive behaviour, but I was also hoping some here might be willing to discuss the issue, even hypothetically, and explore what some of their options might be and what people thought of them.

One obvious option would be to ban someone who had seriously disrupted from attending future Bookfairs, though I can see that some might have reservations about that.

General question: is there any precedent for people being banned from attending Bookfairs?

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...



I agree that it's for the Bookfair organisers to come to a collective decision about how to act in response to disruptive behaviour, but I was also hoping some here might be willing to discuss the issue, even hypothetically, and explore what some of their options might be and what people thought of them.

One obvious option would be to ban someone who had seriously disrupted from attending future Bookfairs, though I can see that some might have reservations about that.

General question: is there any precedent for people being banned from attending Bookfairs?

i expect any bans to have a) been informal, and b) rarely communicated to the organisers.

 

[TopCat]

Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...



I agree that it's for the Bookfair organisers to come to a collective decision about how to act in response to disruptive behaviour, but I was also hoping some here might be willing to discuss the issue, even hypothetically, and explore what some of their options might be and what people thought of them.

One obvious option would be to ban someone who had seriously disrupted from attending future Bookfairs, though I can see that some might have reservations about that.

General question: is there any precedent for people being banned from attending Bookfairs?

People were made aware their presence might provoke a scuffle. The odd one or two exiled.

 

[andysays]

i expect any bans to have a) been informal, and b) rarely communicated to the organisers.

People were made aware their presence might provoke a scuffle. The odd one or two exiled.

So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.

 

[TopCat]

But mostly for appaling personal behaviour rather than politics.

Given the range of views on offer at the bookfair, I would assert it has been characterised by tolerence and co operation.

That wannabe poisonous shit Sam Ambreen did a good attempt at disrupting the bookfair a few years back with her KILL ALL MEN intersectionalist chirping.

Her attempt to kill off the bookfair failed as people showed cool heads and solidarity.

 

[TopCat]

So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.

No there is not a precedent. I'm thinking more of threats of violence that would have been unknown to the organisers and would have upset them. This was the 80's to be fair.