Public debate is expensive
Now there’s a genius heckler’s veto.
Parents have been issued with a demand for £600 to cover the cost of hiring private security guards before a public debate over gender ideology in schools.
But why do they have to hire private security guards?
The group, Concerned Adults Talking Openly About Gender Identity Ideology, plans to hold a meeting at Portobello Library in Edinburgh on March 14 but it has prompted anger among trans activists who are trying to force its cancellation.
That’s why. Because many “trans activists” and their “activist” allies get violent.
Making the objects of the violence pay for security is an ingenious way to silence the objects of the violence, which of course is the goal of the people who resort to violence.
The parents’ group had hoped Edinburgh city council would defend their right to discuss their concerns and were stunned to be asked to pay for security guards.
It is indeed pretty god damn stunning.
Marie Mamulova, its spokeswoman, said: “The council is unreasonably trying to hold us responsible for the maintenance of public order in the face of threats of disturbance if the meeting goes ahead.”
Which is not how this is supposed to work. At all.
“If there is any genuine threat to public order, we are the victims not the perpetrators and we should not have to pay a premium just to enjoy our rights as local residents.”
The council says yeah you should because we hate you.
Cammy Day, leader of Edinburgh city council, said: “When considering whether any proposed event should go ahead, we’re clear that everyone has the right to freedom of expression — but, equally, that this must be done within the law and in line with relevant public safety requirements. This applies to meeting attendees, council staff, potential protesters, library users and the wider community.
“For the purpose of this event, our public safety team have set out our requirements for it to go ahead safely and are awaiting a response from the organisers.”
So if a lesbian/gay group scheduled a meeting and a group of religious zealots promised to attend and make trouble, the council would tell the lesbian/gay group it had to pay for security?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if CATOAGII (catchy!) gets a discreet cheque in the post with a “hope this helps, love Jo x” note. Despite being crapped on from the left and the right, we somehow ended up with a patron who has the riches of Croesus and no fucks left to give.
I bet that if this was a trans-friendly group’s meeting, police protection would be being offered. Gratis.
Imagine if someone called for the police because their house was being broken into and being told that they first had to pay for the police to come. That’s why we pay taxes, so they are already paid to come. So for the Edinburgh city council to insist on prepayment for this meeting is ludicrous and an insult to those paying taxes for police protection to be freely provided.
@J.A.,
That’s pretty much how firefighting worked in the early days of the US. Fire brigades would be paid by insurance companies if they put out a fire, a system which led both to too much and too little coverage. Too much because there were competing brigades that would rush to the fire trying to be first and often getting in each others’ way (and getting into fights). And too little because if you didn’t have insurance coverage (indicated by a plaque on the front of your house), the brigades would either ignore your property completely or extract payment in the form of anything removable.
A libertarian’s paradise it was.
Fighting Fires was a way that many men’s social clubs funded their activities. If two clubs answered the call to the fire, there would be Fighting over who would put out the fire. If the fight went for too long, the property would be destroyed.
I learned this from reading “Gangs of NewYork.”
Upon reconsideration, I can understand why the Edinburgh city council might view the security requirements of an event to be above and beyond the norm. Rock concerts come to mind, where the promoter pays for additional security for the event. It’s when an otherwise quiet event being held in a public space is threatened by protestors where there’s a problem. One option that comes to mind would be to hold the meeting in a church that’s willing to host it, which wouldn’t involve the city as it wouldn’t be held in a space owned by the public. Meetings of those in the civil rights movement in the U.S. were often held in churches which was vital to its eventual success. If there’s a disturbance of the peace by the protestors at the meeting, then the city would lawfully have to respond to it, and couldn’t ask those holding the meeting to pay for it. Thoughts?
J.A., you don’t have to go back to the 1960s-era civil rights movement. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 is a 1992 case that struck down a Georgia county’s ordinance because it allowed a state official discretion to assess a fee of up to $1,000 for processing permit applications for demonstrations and other events, which was inevitably going to be a “content-based” restriction on speech.
You will all be shocked of course to learn that Justice Thomas was among the four dissenters.
Obviously I’m aware that Edinburgh is not in the United States!
Protecting the rights of ordinary citizens is (in part) what government is for. That’s what police are for.