When the speech is an encouragement to use violence
Reading the Essex Report Universities’ Legal Obligations in the Context of Trans Inclusion, Trans Equality,
and ‘Gender Critical’ Activities on Campus [pdf]. It’s as annoying as I expected (and probably more so).
The right to freedom of expression, established under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that individuals can access information in order to form their opinions and identity…
Already we’re talking about idenniny.
Freedom of expression does not exclusively protect a monologue: it protects the exchange of ideas and opinions, including both speech and counter-speech…
That’s a stupid and tendentious way to put it. Of course it doesn’t exclusively protect a monologue; who said it did? That’s like saying “There will be no throwing of alligators at this table” before starting dinner with friends.
Public debates in the context of trans rights tend to focus on the (often ‘gender critical’) speaker’s right to freedom of expression.
Guess why! It’s because of those shouting screaming window-banging “protesters” who gather whenever a feminist dares to open her mouth. Trans “activists” are hell bent on removing freedom of expression from feminist women. Trans ideologues aren’t the ones being silenced and shouted down in this controversy.
Freedom of expression is also restricted when the expression violates criminal law: for example, because the speech is an explicit or implicit threat or encouragement to kill or to use unlawful violence against a particular (type of) person or group.
The threats and encouragements to kill are not coming from the feminists. These three should watch videos of trans “activists” confronting feminists as a matter of urgency.
There was a segment on The Telegraph’s Ukraine podcast the other day about sexual violence in war, specifically in that context. It reminded me of the story Julie Bindel shared, and that you posted, about her experience at a conference on the trafficking of women and girls at a UK uni, where “activists” were banging on doors and windows screaming “blow jobs are real jobs” as a Black African woman who had been raped and prostituted was speaking (the banging was due to Bindel’s presence, as I recall). If you don’t mind, could you provide the link to that story/post? Thanks!
Access information in order to form one’s identity?? Oh kay….
clamboy, I don’t mind a bit but I don’t know where all my posts are from memory. She mentions the phrase in this piece –
https://unherd.com/2020/02/feminisms-job-is-far-from-finished/
– which I found by Googling the phrase. If that’s not it you can probably find it by Googling more easily than I can because you know what you remember.
I take it back, I could find it. (No I haven’t been looking for the past 45 minutes.)
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/the-all-too-familiar-chants/
Examples please? From actual statements by actual feminists. Let’s see all those threats and encouragements that render people unsafe and facilities “contaminated.” If they had any, they would use them. They would lovelovelove to be able to use the actual words of feminists to bolster their case. It would enable them to raise this from whiny, transperbolic fantasy to something much more concrete. Put up or shut up.
And are they talking about real criminal law, or the “law” as seen through Stonewall’s trans-coloured filters? As I wouldn’t trust them with defining anything, I’m also assuming that “unlawful violence” will include misgendering and the failure to use preferred pronouns. Anything less than submission is a provocation, an assault. Otherwise the violence incited by “Gender Critical” speakers is going to be so “implicit” as to be invisible. Nothing as blatant as a “KILL THE TERFS” t-shirt.
Except the monologues of TRAs, of course.
Unless, of course, the counter-speech is ‘counter’ to the speech of TRAs.
Thank you so much, Ms. Benson!!!
You’re welcome!
I’ve seen them use this line of reasoning: because GC encourage ppl to believe that TW aren’t women, they explicitly or implicitly encourage people to challenge them in women’s facilities. Now they and everyone else knows that some people are going to get violent here, or use “protecting little girls from nasty men” as an excuse to hurt TW. THIS EVEN INCLUDES VIOLENCE TOWARDS CIS WOMEN WHO LOOK LIKE THEY MIGHT BE TRANS WHICH COULD BE ANYTHING. So the natural consequence of “protecting women’s spaces” when the law says TW are allowed is physical violence.
It’s a bad argument. It rests on the idea that the violence might even be the desired outcome.
That might depend on how Down-Home-Southern your cooking & kinfolk are.
If someone makes the allegation that TWAM, you are not allowed to throw the allegator.