To be shocked that this is happening in Britain in 2018?

[Spending2muchtimeonMN]

Masked men try to prevent women from attending a lawful, public meeting to discuss the impact of proposed changes to the law on women's rights:

www.facebook.com/julie.bindel/videos/pcb.10160135970780316/10160135907955316

It was intimidation and it could have become violent. Let's not minimise either @BertrandRussell

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248752/01_HARASSMENT_OR_INTIMIDATION_WEB.PDF

The Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) could be used if a victim was
subject to behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress, and the perpetrator had been convicted in court for an offence, whether or not that offence was related to their intimidation or harassment of another person. In most cases, however, it is expected that the harassment or intimidation will have formed part of the evidence for the criminal conviction. Intimidation or harassment may also constitute a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That Act also provides for a civil injunction to prevent harassment, breach of which is a criminal offence.

For your information *BertrandRussell

“It was intimidation and it could have become violent. Let's not minimise either @BertrandRussell”

I have no desire to minimize. And of course it could have become violent. But, unless there is more than is shown in the videos it was not violent. And saying it was will be counter productive.

And yes it was intimidation, and the police should have been involved. But it was not violent.

In the USA if you are intimidated and you perceive there to be an act of violence as a result of the intimidation then it is a criminal act.

I would say that deliberately causing alarm and distress is an act of violence.

AIBU for having no clue about what is going on? Who are the people preventing entry? Who are the people trying to enter? What is the meeting about? And why are they trying to prevent entry? What is "sisters uncut"?

People trying to enter = speakers at a women's meeting.

Meeting about = opposing the proposed move to make legal sex change a matter of self-identification instead of medical diagnosis.

People preventing = transactivists supporting the proposed move.

Preventing entry because = words are literal violence and anyone opposing the proposed move is the same as a Nazi.

Sisters Uncut = began as a feminist anti-male violence against women campaigning group. Is now a pro-self-ID transactivist group, supporting violence against women.

But it was not violent

Just curious - what do you see as 'violence' Bertrand? (Open question).

How did they manage to get up the stairs? Does anybody know? Did the venue sort it out?

Bertrand,

Is it literal violence to deliberately misgender someone?

Blocking access to a room is potentially intimidating. But not violent.

“Bertrand,

Is it literal violence to deliberately misgender someone?”

No.

I was expecting to see hordes of masked men and violence. Instead a tiny handful of people. Huge exaggeration. You must be very easily shocked.

Masked men blocking entrance to a public meeting is intimidating.

If my partner blocked my entrance to a room I would find it intimidating and see that action as violent.

The very fact that anyone would try to prevent a speaker attending a meeting is shocking. The very fact that they were masked is shocking. The very fact that the police apparantly wouldn’t get involved is shocking.

There is no need to exaggerate.

@Viviennemary, so if you were booked to speak at an event and found your way blocked by people, you wouldn't be shocked? All very well viewing it after the event from the comfort of your own home, but at the time it would be very intimidating with the threat of violence. I'm not easily shocked, but know just how quickly violence can arise in situations like this.

If I went to a public meeting in my local town hall and there were masked men blocking my entrance to that meeting you can be sure the police would be involved.

It is not up to the masked individuals whether or not other people attend meetings that they don't approve of, and they have no right to block access.

If anyone thinks that's reasonable behavior then I'm not quite sure what to say.

Anyone trying to minimise this is has a reason to do so.
It was appalling and anti democratic. Anyone who watches these videos can see that.

The very fact that anyone would try to prevent a speaker attending a meeting is shocking. The very fact that they were masked is shocking. The very fact that the police apparantly wouldn’t get involved is shocking.

I agree, Bertrand, but equally, anybody who watches that and thinks, 'oh they were exaggerating about the violence what was the problem?' and misses the wider point about freedom of speech probably isn't going to have much help anyway?

(be much help, not have much help)

The very fact that anyone would try to prevent a speaker attending a meeting is shocking. The very fact that they were masked is shocking. The very fact that the police apparantly wouldn’t get involved is shocking.

There is no need to exaggerate.

You're right, there's no need to exaggerate because the actions of the masked men speaks for themselves. Terrorists wear masks. People who are intending to do something that might get them arrested wear masks. People who want to intimidate others wear masks.

I watched the video and there didn't seem to be any violence on that. But I agree people shouldn't be blocking access to a meeting. So I'm sorry if I've got it wrong.

This is probably all a consequence of the NUS' 'no platform' policy. It started off not wanting to allow racists or fascists a voice, and ended up here.

Sad to read about Bristol University's feminist society's views in march, wonder if they'd be different now:

The university’s feminist society said that opinions expressed at the meeting “amount to hate speech” and the promotion of such views “endangers trans women”.

“Allowing events that put trans students’ safety at risk is in direct violation of the aims outlined in the Code of Conduct,” the society said in a statement on their Facebook page.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/

It was not reasonable behaviour. It was anti democratic. I do not seek to minimize. It was intimidation. The police should have been involved.

But it was not violence.