Northumbria University - Sarah Phillimore and Harry Miller 'seen as a 'safety and wellbeing' risk to an entire university.'

suggestionsplease1 - You've posted that link based from the US on other threads, where its various deficiencies have been pointed out ad nauseam. The situation in the UK is not comparable.

Again, there is an amazing amount of non sequiturs in this thread.

GC feminists often seem to to tout their logic and reason, but on this thread can not respond with sound reason or logic to the point of whether that tweet is acceptable.

I don't really want to get off topic like everyone appears to want to do, but of course people are asserting a lot of misleading nonsense about rates of victimhood, so just to address that in passing; in the largest database that has ever been examined for crime against trans people (consisting of interviews with hundred of thousands of people), it was found that trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than non trans people.

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

You seem to have a very low opinion of the intellect of others, which, given your posts here, is strange.

That's fine for you to say for yourself, but have you no understanding or appreciation of how others may be influenced by expression of views?

I think you're reaching a fair bit there.

If I attended a presentation that turned out to be racist and offensive as per your example, I would either leave, or challenge the presenter on their views. I would not blindly take one person's view and immediately start acting differently to people depending on their skin colour. If the presentation said 'all people with blue eyes are of low intelligence' I'm not going to think 'Oh well, despite evidence to the contrary, actually I must be stupid because that is another person's opinion'. So while I see the point you are trying to make, I think it's a bit of a stretch. Your phrase 'they are told to think that....xyz' is rather telling. To blindly do as you are told, to think what you are told to think without question is to make yourself very vulnerable to other people's will, don't you think?

People get their beliefs challenged all of the time. I don't think Sarah Phillimore was invited to whip up a frenzy of people to go and attack those with different views, do you?

Trans identifying males in the UK would appear to be more likely to murder someone than to be murdered.

We see all the time the ugly threats made by trans males on Twitter; this pretence that they are marginalized or threatened just isn’t tenable, and can’t be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Why, out of all the psychological issues that people experience are we being told to pander to this one, and accept such lies?

So we have to ignore the women, and the girls, the lesbians, the gays; and the in your face woman-hating 'trans' police officers who literally stick a gun our way; just so that we can allow the police to virtue signal about how caring they are to a small population of people who are actually the least likely to be murdered in the UK?

There are more trans murderers than there are trans people murdered.

Imagine if there were more female murderers than females murdered.

They would be legistlating [even more than they are now] to remove all our rights. But here, they are flying multicoloured flags celebrating it.

Now imagine being someone who has lost a female loved one (women murdered at the rate of 2 a week) and being so disheartened to see the time that the police force are wasting over ribbons and such like. But had no time to respond when someone is attacking them.. (not all police....)

Imagine being the relative or friend of a loved one who has lost their life in a transphobic hate crime

What a weird thing to get exercised about. There are zero of these people in the UK. Zero.

None of the dozen or so trans people who’ve ever been murdered in the UK were killed in hate crimes.

Please stop with the emotional manipulation. As a debate device it has been over deployed.

Imagine being the relative or friend of a loved one who has lost their life in a transphobic hate crime, and then feeling a little bit relieved to see a police force honouring and remembering those who have lost their lives or experienced crime against them because of their trans status.... and then seeing that post from Fair Cop encouraging people to 'Say Yes to Hate'

Tweet

>That she has the intelligence and can appreciate that this tweet has the potential to endorse and encourage people with transphobic views, and she supports the tweet anyway?

I would just like to point out that your posts on this thread also have the potential to “endorse and encourage” people with “transphobic views” (e.g. by being anti-persuasive) and yet you “support” them anyway. Why do you do this? Could it possibly be that your accusations are so ridiculously loose and vague that they could be levelled at anyone who ever engages in any kind of public speech?

Do they teach critical thinking? Debating? How to take apart the opposing argument, or if that is not possible, how to learn from it and change one's opinion? How to debate honestly and courteously, without always assuming only evil inventions from the opponent?

Sadly, I don't see a lot of evidence on this question. That tweet seems to be countering the idea that people's inner thought should be policed, not just the actions they take. It's a rather outrageous way of making that point, but then it's also outrageous that the police was/is recording something called non-crime hate incidents.

It seems like they don't teach literary modes at university any more, either. Goodness knows why the students pay for it.

I’d say so yes. That’s probably in part because I attended a very good university which didn’t try to shield anyone from views that they may disagree with.

They’d likely have even allowed people to speak who believed in an innate gender or that a man could become a woman by fiat, should anyone have been foolish enough to invite them to speak.

I would not be keen to invite someone who maintained their right to support such a tweet on such an occasion to speak at a university.

Fair enough, but she was invited and no-one was "harmed" or "unsafe". She hasn't committed any crime - although she has been accused of Orwellian thought crimes hence the reason that Fair Cop exists in the first place. Interesting that Craig McLean failed to respond to Sarah Phillimore's request for comment on her critique of his woeful report - engagement with the actual arguments would have been a good place for him (and the university) to start.

"Thanks, but no thanks. Hate is as legitimate an emotion as love or indifference and, like our thinking, our emotions are not a police matter. Of course, say we say No to criminal behaviour. But we #SayYesToHate."

A tweet by WeAreFairCop on 20/11/2020
Which is the one I think you are referring to although please do post the correct one if this is not it.

This is a bit of a strange blog.

It follows the same initial tack as @viques post of 22.15 - to distract from the issue at hand by bringing up tragic, but irrelevant circumstances. It is horrific that SP experienced abuse and hate for a disability but it does not follow that because you have experienced hatred yourself that you are incapable of being hateful.

She then appears to imply that this tweet was 'stupid' (she earlier asserts she did not tweet this herself but supports it). I don't really follow why she would continue to support what she describes as a stupid tweet. Why not just say she doesn't support it?

She then goes on to assert that there are a number of reasons a person might be hateful, which is of course perfectly true. But the law doesn't (usually) preoccupy itself with the reasons someone might come to be hateful - it has to to deal with the facts, and concern itself with harm caused to others, regardless of the individual history and psychology of perpetrators. It should act as a deterrent to others when it judges a communication has gone beyond freedom of expression to become a hate crime.

So all in all, it sounds like does recognise that the tweet was problematic, but stands by the right to post problematic tweets. Everyone has got their line, but for me I would not be keen to invite someone who maintained their right to support such a tweet on such an occasion to speak at a university.

I believe she has the intelligence and insight to recognise that tweet has real potential to endorse and encourage people with transphobic views and that she should disavow it, but she does not, and persists in her support for it.

Very interesting questions. I hope we get the answers.

You will know the other tweet made with that hashtag by Fair Cop in response to West Yorkshire Police's tweet supporting the Transgender Day of Remembrance.

There you @suggestionsplease1 The tweet itself. Clearly made to highlight the College's position on recording hate crimes. Not an attempt to incite hate towards the trans community at all.

You misrepresented, or someone else did and you parroted their view. what a surprise

"#SayYesToHate is a statement of defiance against the utterly ludicrous
@CollegeofPolice definition of recordable hate. We are seeking to have this overturned. @SVPhillimore and @HarryTheOwl101"

The content of a tweet by WeArwFairCop on 20/11/2020.

Yes I know she is in faircop - that's not in dispute. What is being disputed is whether that hashtag came from them. You say it did. Others say someone else falsely attributed it to faircop. (It was me that called her intelligent and articulate btw ).

The thread is about an attempt to no platform her. You have repeatedly asked whether I and others would support her speaking at a uni event. The answer, irrespective of whether the tweet came from faircop or not, is emphatically yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I hope that is clear. I do not support no debate. I support everyone's right to voice their legitimate views, even those I vehemently oppose. I particularly encourage debate of those views in a university setting.

A reminder of the Fair Cop attitude to hate, since this seems to have been repeatedly overlooked: "Don’t tell me about hate" www.faircop.org.uk/dont-tell-me-about-hate/