Bash Back (again). How are they not proscribed as terrorists?

Further to this: just had a poke around on Google and found various tweaks to the men's property qualification in 1832, 1867 and the 1880s. All men over 21, without any qualification, got the vote only in 1918, at the same time as some women got it. So the women's campaign was fought at a time when property qualifications were the norm.

If I remember rightly, there was originally a property qualification on male voting too. Not sure when that was abolished, but even if it had gone by the late 1800s, it may well have seemed like a realistic " thin end of the wedge" tactic to the Suffragettes and more likely to go through than an immediate demand for full female suffrage.

Agreed.

A lot of the original suffragettes were wealthy women and I'm not convinced they were fighting for their maidservants to get the vote too? Weren't they originally trying to get the vote solely for property-owning women?

Unfortunately there is a long-standing tradition of leftists being enamoured by 'freedom fighters' who are/were actually violent thugs. I think that the suffragettes were in a different position to many because they did not have any democratic power and indeed, that's what they were seeking. Even in that context I would never condone violence against people.

But in a democracy, there is no excuse for this. There are many democratic means to effect change and if those have failed, it means that rest of the population doesn't agree with you and you have to give it up or campaign to win hearts and minds.

If you accept the premise that violent/destructive protest is acceptable in a context where everyone has the right to vote, you accept that people you vehemently disagree with also have that right. And then you end up with people throwing paint on mosques or synagogues, or burning down gay bars.

Indeed

whether you agreed or disagreed with their methods, I think their contemporaries were totally clear about what suffragettes wanted

it would be interesting to see a clear statement of what Bash Back want. What would make them put down the hammer in the picture upthread?

So what rights are transpeople fighting for that they do not already have and everyone else has?

What, just walked in casually asking what was for tea? I’d be very impressed at her resilience….

It is in a similar vein to " wanting single sex spaces is just like apartheid".

Yes, ban them. They’re thugs. Although I think Mumsnet can go too far on trans people , not that I’m up for another endless debate about it.

Yes. 😂
The toddler levels of debate are quite something aren't they?

Hang on

is the argument ‘being a violent extremist is ok ‘cos suffragettes’?

Sorry, teach 🤪
You have receipts for your Trumpian level hyperbolerly no doubt.

And it's "all you've got'. 😉

Well, yes, literally speaking she would go to hospital, Einstein. It was a figure of speech.

It's not whataboutery at all. The suffragettes blinded innocent postal workers with their letter bombs. I doubt the families of said postal workers were very empathetic to the suffragettes cause after that. It probably caused significant financial hardship for said families as you probably couldn't be a postal worker without being able to see.

If your daughter came back from work missing half her face or permanently blinded I don't for a second think you'd be talking about 'proportionality'.

I'd be amazed if she came home from work, I'd expect her to go to hospital if she'd had half her face blown off.

What an overblown, hyper exaggerated piece of whataboutery crap, if that stupidity is all you got to make your case, you have no case to make.

Yeah, but the suffragettes were trying to burn down theatres full of innocent women and children, and blinding/maiming innocent postal workers with their letter bombs.

If your daughter came back from work missing half her face or permanently blinded I don't for a second think you'd be talking about 'proportionality'.

The only ‘right’ they want is the right to go into all the single sex spaces, everywhere, whenever they want to. Which no one else has the right to. I don’t have the right to go into men’s spaces, men don’t have the right to go into women’s spaces. Or groups, or sports, or teams or whatever. They want double the rights of everyone else.

Women were fighting for fundamental rights. What are these people fighting for that they don’t already have? This organisation threatens people. Is that ok?

Extreme misogyny is now being taken seriously by Prevent, and this would definitely fall into that category. But yes, this organisation should be proscribed. I suspect they are being monitored.

Trans people have the vote.

And they can open bank accounts in their own name.

And take out mortgages.

And they don’t have to leave work when they marry.

And they can still own property in their own name after they are married.

And get paid equally for equal work.

They are explicitly protected from discrimination in employment, and provision of goods and services on the basis of “gender reassignment”.

So what do they want that provokes all the violent threats?

It seems they want the privilege of accessing spaces and services set up for the opposite sex.

They want to replace “sex” with “gender identity” in all aspects of life where we provide services separated by sex.

And they want to do this regardless of any detriment to female people for whose protection single sex spaces were often set up.

And they want NO DEBATE. Just in case people pay attention to what is being demanded, and can see the obvious problems.

They already have the same rights as everybody else, they're not actually campaigning for anything, their just threatening people who they think are taking away the special rights they think their entitled too. They're committing wanton acts of violence and all under the cloak of anonymity.
Not the same, not the same at all.

"Bash Back" have posted a long waffle reply on Instagram that runs to six pages. Sorry I have to head but do look it up.

I think we need the Ann Widdicombe trial brought forward (if it is possible for the lawyers).

There's rumours that there is a link in their post which they are denying. But that's just rumours.

If you can expedite riot trials, you can and should expedite trials of murders of politicians.

It doesn't sound like it will be a long trial as there's video evidence, she has CCTV plus the car. Then the press will be free to report.

It's set for June 2027 but I can't see how many weeks they've earmarked.

Smashed windows at FiLiA and Wes Streeting's office.

The thing is, they already have all the same rights as the rest of us, don’t they? So it’s not really the same thing as what the suffragettes did.

Well that's a first isn't it? A trans extremist organisation being held to the same standards as everyone else.
Progress .