The Home Secretary "jokes" about spiking his wifes drink with Rohypnol

[cakeorwine]

As the other thread has been automatically hidden

"James Cleverly has apologised for joking about spiking his wife’s drink with a date rape drug in comments made at a Downing Street reception.
The home secretary’s remarks came just hours after the Home Office announced plans to crack down on spiking, when someone puts drugs into another person’s drink or directly into their body without their knowledge or consent.

Cleverly told female guests at the reception that “a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”, the Sunday Mirror reported.
He also laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was “someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there”."

So much to say about this

Well indeed.

In the world of employment, people can lose their jobs for inappropriate comments in the workplace. Does the Prime Minister think that the Home Secretary is fit for his role after making jokes about drugging and raping women, especially as the 'jokes' were told at a Downing Street event?

And also:

What message does it send to women of the country if on the same day your party announces measures to tackle drink spiking and sexual assault, one of the most senior cabinet members in the same party makes jokes about drink spiking and rape at a Downing Street event?

Schools are trying to crack down on mysogynistic comments in the classroom. What message does the Prime Minister thinks it sends when the Home Secretary makes so called jokes about spiking his wife with date rape drugs?

Waffle, waffle, obfuscate

Exactly @cakeorwine

Still waiting to hear from posters who think these sort of jokes are fine, what schools should be doing or should girls should just accept male ‘banter’

It's good to see that women's groups are speaking out. From the Mail:

"James Cleverly is facing calls to quit after joking about spiking his wife's drink with date rape drug as domestic abuse campaigners blast 'sickening' comments and say 'no wonder women don't feel safe'"

"But women's rights group the Fawcett Society said the comments were 'sickening' and called for Mr Cleverly to resign."

"Domestic abuse charity Women's Aid said it was vital for ministers to take the problem of spiking seriously."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12898169/James-Cleverly-facing-calls-quit-joking-spiking-wifes-drink-date-rape-drug-domestic-abuse-campaigners-blast-sickening-comments-say-no-wonder-women-dont-feel-safe.html

I've just been reading the thread and finding it interesting that a staunch feminism poster has been tying themselves in knots to try and minimise what he said, or try to pass off as.a joke /free speech
I get you want people to be free to say what they like when it's something you agree with like trans issues, , interesting it doesn't seem to stretch when it comes to matters of racism free speech for example. The silence /vagueness/pretending they're suddenly busy with Christmas stuff when challenged despite regularly posting speaks volumes.

Staunch feminism poster or Tory supporter?

@TooBigForMyBoots Indeed. Not sure you can in fact be both? I'm definitely one but definitely NOT the other, and what James Cleverly said is both abhorrent and unacceptable.

So he could tell a joke about Saville and Maddie McCann and that would be ok? as its "just a bad joke".

Thats the problem with your argument, the bar isn't low, its not there, the Health sec can make jokes about the disabled, education sec raise the roof with some crackers about kids and SENDs.

With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility & jokes about rape and drink spiking are just as offensive.

You've not really developed your argument, you've just moved the goal posts as each part of your defence of Cleverly becomes more and more ridiculous.

Oxymorons. Much like the increasingly embarrassingly named Mr. Cleverly.

I haven't moved the goalposts. My view is based on the principle of freedom of speech. He hasn't broken the law, incited criminality, or proposed these things as policy. He made a joke. Okay, some people were highly offended and fair enough. But that's the problem with freedom of speech. People are free to say things that others find offensive. Even things they find absolutely horrendous or revolting. Unfortunately, that is the price we have to pay in return for our own freedom of speech.

To me, freedom is a more important and significant value than offence. Someone could be offended by the things you say - should they have the right to shut you down? Should you be at risk of losing your job because you make a joke about vegans or something else you personally think is funny, but others disagree? I would say no you shouldn't, and I'd defend your right to make that joke, even if I thought it was unfunny, offensive, inappropriate, rude, or ignorant.

Alternatively, do we say that no one should be allowed to say anything that another person finds offensive? Where would you draw the line? Would you apply this to kids? To under-25s? Should people be allowed to say offensive things in their own homes, but not in public places? Should penalties for offending someone stop at being sacked, or should it become a criminal offence? Is it only some people's offence that matters - should you be allowed to offend men but not women, for example? Tories but not labour voters? Should artists be allowed to make art that offends people? What about the people who are not offended? Do their opinions matter?

What I'm trying to get at is that once you start policing speech and limiting freedom of expression, you risk every kind of speech, for every person. We've already seen some of these examples in real life, e.g. with bills limiting speech within the home, or censoring dramatists and performers in Scotland.

The problem is that, imo, freedom of speech has to be absolute. Either everyone has that right, or no one does. That's why people like me defend the right to speech of people we dislike, even when the content of that speech is offensive or downright repugnant.

So no, not moving the goalposts. Just trying to explain the principle.

I don't know any feminists who are free speech absolutists; because absolute freedom for one group always leads to loss of freedom for another. And feminists are aware that never ends well for women and children.

Sexual harassment is not acceptable. Calling it a joke or a free speech issue doesn't change that.

@beastlyslumber To me, freedom is a more important and significant value than offence. Someone could be offended by the things you say - should they have the right to shut you down? Should you be at risk of losing your job because you make a joke about vegans or something else you personally think is funny, but others disagree? I would say no you shouldn't, and I'd defend your right to make that joke, even if I thought it was unfunny, offensive, inappropriate, rude, or ignorant

But he isn't being shut down, he has the freedom to say these jokes, to make fun of real life situations, jokes about processed food is hardly the same as a woman taken to hotel room and gang raped, with little or no memory but knowing full well she has been repeatedly raped, guilt ridden, shamed & terrified of pregnancy and STI's, with almost zero chance the men involved will never be caught.

Where we differ is that with FoS comes responsibility, i'll ask you again, should he, as Home Sec be free to make horrendous (but legal) jokes about Saville & Maddie McCann, the disabled? (i never mentioned Veganism)

Is the bar you set on FoS whether something is legal or not? which is a bit of a weird bar really, because laws are made to stifle FoS & protest.

Is the bar you set on FoS whether something is legal or not?

That's immaterial in the UK now. Remember thanks to this government "legal but harmful" material is cause for action.

And I certainly consider Cleverlys remarks harmful.

Where we differ is that with FoS comes responsibility, i'll ask you again, should he, as Home Sec be free to make horrendous (but legal) jokes about Saville & Maddie McCann, the disabled? (i never mentioned Veganism)

Is the bar you set on FoS whether something is legal or not? which is a bit of a weird bar really, because laws are made to stifle FoS & protest.

I thought I had answered: yes, he should be able to make an offensive joke. He should not be able to propose such a thing as policy, or to incite criminality. I do appreciate that the context has a bearing; the fact that he has a position of authority, for example. Perhaps he should be held to a higher standard than others. But for me, the problem is still the principle: if he can be sacked for his legal speech, then anyone can, and this is a bigger issue to me than the fact that he's caused offence.

Yes, the bar for me is legality. If speech comes within the law, then it should be free, regardless of offence caused. I'm aware that there are government attacks on free speech all the time, and efforts being made to change the law so that we have less and less freedom in this respect - I mentioned the bills proposed in Scotland, for example. But I think that these attacks should be resisted. We need more freedom of speech, not less. I would rather live in a society where we have to tolerate idiocy, ignorance and offence, than a society where we are not allowed to express our views, make art or tell jokes. (What happens in such a society when you're offended? If this had happened in China, you wouldn't be able to post about it online. You and your family could be punished for you simply expressing your offence and upset. Arguing against free speech is arguing against your own right to protest speech you don't like.)

(i never mentioned Veganism)

I'm aware. I used that as an example when questioning you about your own feelings regarding freedom of speech, because I assume you're not likely to make a racist or misogynist joke and wanted to pick something that you might find more relatable in order to allow you to consider the point.

Yes, the bar for me is legality. If speech comes within the law, then it should be free, regardless of offence caused.

Once again, if there was a point, you missed it by a country mile.

Cleverly is part of a government that has legislated legal free speech out if existence. So he can fucking well be treated as he treats others. Not given a free pass ...

Well, yes, this really exemplifies the problem.

Who gets to decide what's harmful? If it's you, then great! But if it's someone else, that's a problem. Right?

What if your legal speech is considered harmful by someone or some group? What happens when there's a dispute over whether speech is harmful or not? Some people think saying 'men aren't women' or 'meat is murder' is harmful, but many would disagree. Who gets to choose? Why does that person or group of people get so much power over the others? How do they decide what constitutes harm when no laws have been broken? What if someone pretends to be harmed but they're not? Should there be some way of quantifying harm - e.g. loss of income, loss of health, other consequence? But what if someone claims to have hurt feelings? Is that enough? How many people need to have hurt feelings to determine that speech to be harmful?

It's an absolute disaster. Freedom of speech is not without its ethical issues, true. But for me, I see it as a protective mechanism. It defends society as a whole by upholding the principle that every individual has the right to express their views in any way they see fit, as long as they do not incite criminality. Unfortunately it does mean that we need to hear things we find unpleasant or offensive. Luckily, it also gives us the means to argue against those things and persuade others to our view, exposing bad and wrong ideas and stripping them of their power over time.

100%. We know what total freedom of speech will lead to: an environment where women are compelled to put up with a hostile and oppressive environment due to constant male banter. Woman have successfully won sex discrimination cases when they have been forced to work in environments like this.

Nobody thoughtful is a free speech absolutist. There have always been limitations to free speech which are necessary to safeguard everyone's freedoms - eg the European Convention on Human Rights recognises this. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/freedom-of-speech-challenges-and-the-role-of-public-private-and-civil-society-sectors-in-upholding-rights/

And the Home Secretary is not just 'people'. He holds one of the Great Offices of State and has overall responsibility for law & order in this country. Is it too much to expect that he should weigh every word he utters? His joke could lead directly to more such crimes against women as he gives the impression that these crimes are somehow acceptable. Are you seriously arguing that the HS should be free to indulge in saying whatever he wants regardless of the potential consequences?

That's your point? That free speech has been attacked by this government, so he should be hoist by his own petard?

Okay. There is a certain poetic justice to that, I guess.

But for me, it means joining in with the attack on free speech. Siding with the government on curtailing speech. So I'm not going to do that. Because it's a right I think is vitally important. And maybe people like JC will come to understand that when they see their own freedom of speech under attack. It shows clearly that either everyone has the right to free speech or no one does.

Nobody thoughtful is a free speech absolutist. There have always been limitations to free speech which are necessary to safeguard everyone's freedoms

All human rights are qualified. Something the ever dim "what about out rights ?" contingent are unable to understand.

Nobody thoughtful is a free speech absolutist. There have always been limitations to free speech which are necessary to safeguard everyone's freedoms

I'm not an absolutist. I agree that there should be a limit when it comes to incitement to criminality. I also think that pornography should be limited and strictly regulated.

I would love the UK to have something like the first amendment in the US.

Is it too much to expect that he should weigh every word he utters?

To be fair, I do think that he should be a lot more careful. There's a time and place for jokes and he misjudged this. As I said earlier, I think he should be reprimanded and reminded of his position.

His joke could lead directly to more such crimes against women as he gives the impression that these crimes are somehow acceptable.

No, I don't think people are that stupid. I don't think anyone hearing that joke would be persuaded to drug and rape a woman if he wasn't already going to do it. There's no evidence I'm aware of that jokes lead to violent actions.

But let's say you're right. Should all jokes about drugging and raping women be banned, on that basis? What if they are jokes told by women who have been victims of this? Should they also not be allowed to joke about it, in case they influence someone?

Are you seriously arguing that the HS should be free to indulge in saying whatever he wants regardless of the potential consequences?

That's not exactly what I've argued. I've said he shouldn't be sacked for his joke.

He is free to make crass offensive jokes. He is not free from the consequences. He has quite literally been involved in legislation that is meant to tackle this issue and then jokes about it!
THIS culture is precisely why sexual assault is effectively decriminalised.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I'm clearly not dim. Or part of a contingent, for that matter! I'm kind of a lone voice on this thread.

So, you know, maybe try to argue without the use of ad hominem? I've been pretty patient and open to explaining my points and answering questions. Name calling isn't going to change anyone's mind, least of all the person you're trying to insult.

Even in the US free speech is qualified, the classic example is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, because real harm could come of it (stampede). And it has never meant freedom from consequences anywhere.