Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

Excellent points @CryptoFascistMadameCholet

Blimey, that Eliza Mondegreen thread is quite something, isn't it?

Forgot the link for the screen shot definitions!
They are from Habitat for Humanity (who must be secret nazis, I guess 😝)

https://www.habitatforhumanity.org.uk/blog/2016/09/refugees-asylum-seekers-migrants-crucial-difference/

People who work with refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants don’t want migrants lives being put at risk by human traffickers operating in the Channel! Mainland EU countries are ‘Safe’ and there is no Human Rights justification for setting off in these boats.

Family reunification procedures should be sped up though, because that’s a morally understandable reason why people might be ‘desperate’ enough to risk it, despite it not being legally permissible.

and if France isn’t working out well surely it’s much safer to go to a country that shares a land border? There are loads of countries on the European mainland and getting passage on a small boat costs a fortune (paid to human traffickers). Wouldn’t it be better to spend that money on a train to a border and just cross by foot?

Unlike the US, free movement in the EU means anyone can walk over any border whenever they like, no check points, no documents to show, no chance of getting shot by border control.

Risking your life by getting into a shitty little vessel makes sense when you are setting off from a war zone and heading for the nearest safe land mass, it makes no sense when you are in already in a safe country and the water you are about to cross is the busiest shipping lane in the world and really fucking cold.

We need policies and laws that dissuade this route of entry because it’s really fucking unsafe, both for the people who are on the boats and for other vessels in the channel. The people who benefit from this human misery are the traffickers!

https://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/about-us/a-to-z-of-trinity-house/dover-strait

I want the UK to welcome migrants - I want asylum seekers to be properly supported, housed and helped to participate in their communities while they await their refugee status to be granted. I want the draconian rules over spousal visas to be revisited, I want justice for the Windrush generation and their descendants. I want people to want to come here for career or study reasons and for work and student visas to be a fair, accessible and reasonable process.

I don’t want human traffickers taking advantage of people and putting their lives at risk, whether that be via suffocation in the back of haulage trucks or drowning in the sea.

There is no reason for anyone to risk their lives in the channel. They are safest on mainland Europe (and the U.K. should do more to share responsibility via taking a quota of asylum seekers who have registered in their first safe country and speeding up the process from asylum seeker to refugee).

I get really annoyed at people saying that Ukrainians are given special treatment due to being white. This is inflammatory race baiting.

Migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are three distinct categories in international human rights law.

They are being treated differently due to arriving in the country after their refugee status has already been granted (which is why they can work and claim benefits) rather than entering as asylum seekers (who have limited access to public funds while their claims are processed) or migrants (migrants are two categories, those with valid legal visas and those whose legal visas have expired/those who entered the country without visas).

Saying you don’t want migrants being illegally trafficked across the channel does not mean you hate immigrants!

The same mechanism that is used to denounce GC feminists as fascists and Nazis is used to shut down people who are making perfectly reasonable points about safe and legal immigration routes.

(one of my best friends is an expert witness for asylum seekers coming to the U.K. and EU from a particular region in South America - she supports those who are fleeing gang violence, including, interestingly, lots of male transsexuals who are genuinely persecuted and whose lives are at risk, the kind of trans people the scary murder rates actually apply to, basically. Even she’s been called a terf and a rightwinger, simply because she believes in International Human Rights Laws on refugee status and that humans can’t actually change sex!)

There's always room for a quirky cat! I'll read Squeaky's link later, there's a four letter word preventing me at present. Starts with w, ends with k.

Yes, work!

Cracking thread here from Eliza Mondegreen about the hyperbole of the GI movement:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1534586567859257344

Found it - looks like the title change broke the link: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/the-college-of-policing-consultation-on-non-hate-crime-incidents

That thread does seem to have gone @SqueakyDinosaur . Here's the actual consultation: https://www.college.police.uk/article/recording-non-crime-hate-incidents-have-your-say

Wheeeeeeeee! 🏄

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn that link isn't working, for me at least.

The entire concept of the non-crime hate incident really boils my piss. It just diminishes the idea of hate in such a childish, pathetic way. Hate is serious. Hate is not tying fucking ribbons to a fence or putting stickers on mirrors. If t'other side have successfully defined transphobia as "anything I disagree with related to gender ideology", then at least let's not let them have hate. I don't hate people, I just want them to leave me and other women alone.

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1641192094445232131?s=19

I am shameless and using this thread as a dumping ground for this. As it's just to cute to lose in the mass of other tweets.

Thanks, have done this.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · Today 08:55

That's what I was thinking of, among other things. I've seen her on panel shows and she's very contemptuous about poor people, as well.

I'm entirely happy to slag off men, too. Blair and his lies told to invade Iraq.

Johnson, where to start? Lying, homophobic hypocrite, with his lockdown parties. The way he's treated his various wives, a serial cheat. Trying to give his woman beating father a seat in the HoL.

Cameron, the despicable millionaire, who claimed every penny available in benefits for his disabled son, then cut them off for everyone else.

Consultation on the recording of non-crime hate incidents: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4773979-the-college-of-policing

I just typed out a big long post and now see that we are agreed that we are allowed to view people's actions as vile and abhorrent. TF for that. I'm in a really bad mood and would probably have made an arsehole of myself by arguing the toss.

I only know of two men over here. That's probably a good sign if i can't tell you're a man!

Thanks 😊 I appreciate you saying so!

Yes. I'm happy to condemn people's actions as vile and abhorrent, if they are.

Then I fully agree with your amended view Beastly 😁

Okay. Let me amend my view then. If you want to use that kind of language to describe someone's views, as opposed to their person, then I accept that is reasonable.

However, I think in most discourse, the two things are conflated, I.e. the idea is that JHB is vile because she says vile things. No one is making a distinction.

And I think this language is used to shame and silence women. As we have seen in this thread, many comments have said JHB's view is vile, and only one has actually qualified that statement with an argument. I believe that it makes a huge difference to say, I find this a vile opinion because... and set out your reasoning.

Otherwise I'm afraid it does come over as attempts to shame and silence.

Of course I can't tell anyone how to conduct themselves. I'm merely trying to set out logical reasons why it's better to construct coherent arguments than to rely on emotive characterisations.

Personally I fully accept that some people find my views that people cannot change sex vile. It’s when they say I am a vile person for having that view that I would be pretty unhappy. I don’t know enough of JHB’s views to have an opinion right now (not very familiar with her work) - and this probably isn’t the thread to discuss migrants crossing the channel (probably there are dedicated threads for that?). I stand by my statement though - I personally find holocaust denial to be a vile view, likewise racism, homophobia etc, but again that’s the view and not the person.