Westminstenders: Blue Passports

[RedToothBrush]

Yay for the blue passports.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all

May next year bring us £350 million for the NHS, cake, unicorns, financial passporting, access to the single market, Irish love and of course control to the people.

(Apologies been up to my eyeballs. Normal service will resume after Christmas).

As I recall, the Beeb (and others) replaced the hideously harsh accents of Gerry Adams et al, with much more mellifluous Irish accents, making them sound considerably less militant and horrible!

North of Ireland accents sound hideous, harsh, horrible, and militant to you?

But yes, the BBC did use a London-drama school trained Irish actor for Adam's voice, though he tried to do a West Belfast accent.

I tend to agree with misti and bigchoc
There are some issues associated with platforming in that it gives a voice to people who shouldn’t.

If I remember well one way this can be dressed is by letting people say whatever they want but by policing some type of speech.
So if holocaust denying is unlawful (as I’m pretty sure it is in France), as well as encouraging hate, paedophilia, rape etc.... is too, then you can stop ‘extremists’ to have a voice whilst still letting people who might not otherwise have a voice Express themselves.

TBH, atm, in the uk, I think the opposite is happening.
What we have seen (and Brexit is a good example) is some parts of the population been given a voice (let’s say NF) whilst others are always shut down (eg feminist or the Lib Dem and the greens)
So I would really welcome more ‘variety’ in what we are presented (by the BBC for example).

I’m wondering why the plateforming is about Universities though, and only Universities.
In particular, the fact it’s sort of tucked away in a corner makes me think that it would be an open door to more xenophobic and racist talks that would go unchecked and unchallenged because it would be done behind ‘closed doors’ so to speak,

woman No-platforming at unis is only one problem for feminists in getting our voices heard

What is really worrying is what happens at ordinary feminist meetings, in public spaces, i.e. nothing to do with anyone else.
If transwomen disagree with the views, then they often use horrific threats of murder and rape to stop the meeting or scare off some speakers.
They even use violence at the meetings - with male strength against women

There was a recent public meeting of feminists in which transwomen beat up old and young women, for "supporting TERFs"

That's not "no-platforming"
It's violence and intimidation, which has been carried out against feminists for centuries.

On Universities and no-platforming...

To me it comes down to who the decision makers are at Universities. Does anyone remember the scenes outside the Oxford Union in 2007 when Irving and Griffin were invited to speak? IIRC the Union members voted for them to be invited by a decent majority, but the wider student body were very much against it.

I would not be in favour of speakers being pushed onto Universties and that's what I fear from this current government rhetoric. I want the decision for who should be given a platform to rest with wider student bodies - not just the posh kids in the debate societies.

Holocaust denial has been illegal in Germany since the end of WW2

I'm not sure why anyone reasonable would think this is a problem:
the facts are very clear and the holocaust happened.

Those who wish to deny the holocaust are not academics looking at facts, even if the cleverest fascists cloak themselves in academic waffle.

Holocaust-deniers, apart from a few naive idiots, have always been those who hate the Jews, who sympathise with Hitler and the Nazis who carried out the holocaust

• and imo many of them would secretly like to see another holocaust of Jews and other minorities

It's violence and intimidation
I know bigchoc and did you all see the fantastic meeting at which Helen Steele Anne Ruzylo which had to organised in secret and held in Cambridge after a mob of men physically attacked them at feminist book fair.

While we're on about no platforming, the side that's been studiously no platformed since this malarkey started is us.

I can't verify this, but there are reports and pictures of people with EU flags in their front windows having them smashed.

I was certainly told to take off an EU badge in a local authority building at a local authority public meeting.

BBC has been an utter disgrace as we've pointed out for years now.

BBC and Guardian are both under threat of legal action over Panama Papers.

No platforming never used to be a 'thing'.

Political censorship and imprisonment did and does though.

Which is what it is.

But............

One woman's freedom is another man's oppression.

I want the decision for who should be given a platform to rest with wider student bodies - not just the posh kids in the debate societies.

I don't think that you should use what amounts to a referendum to determine who gets a voice and who doesn't. Minorities have a right to free speech too.

The best way to determine the appropriateness of speakers on university premises would be for universities to adopt a charter - after appropriate debate and representations from different stakeholders - setting out the qualifications and qualities required of speakers. If speakers meet the criteria then universities should be prepared to defend them.

I agree, Somerville that decisions to invite / cancel should be a vote by all students and staff, not just a controlling Union clique

I remember in the 1970s that many more students than usual attended a Union mtg to vote against using our compulsory subs to buy medicines for the Viet Cong
(we said donate to the Red Cross instead, so we know exactly where the money is going)

We won the vote by a huge majority, then the Union bigwigs said it wasn't valid - totally spurious grounds - and the vote would be taken again at another mtg.
We all booed, but the next mtg was never publicised and we were rather occupied with being teens at uni.
So, I suppose they got their way

In my experience, Universities tend to invite speakers on the basis of their academic credentials (which doesn’t exclude the possibility of their being horrific bigots).

Student unions and societies may have their own reasons for doing stuff.

The key question is how much influence should a university have over the activities of the student union? You'd want the union to be able to challenge the university, I’d wager, so does it fall to universities to police the union, its societies and their speaker invite lists? Unless it brings the univerity into dispute, I’d suggest not.

A uni charter sounds ok in theory, but would take several years to agree - in the 3 Uk unis I attended anyway !

I'd rather have the freedom to campaign and change minds within a uni, to change the vote
Much more difficult to campaign against a charter

Priority for feminists in this debate is literally "safe space" - protection from physical violence and threats by biological men

I definitely don't want the decision to lie with the govt
That way lies the end of any protest against govt policy and an easier ride for dictatorship

There seems to be a sentiment from most that non platforming is ok as long as it's aimed at the people I detest. And that it's always the other side trying to shut the conversation down or being extreme. But from what I can see there are extremists of all flavours trying to (sometimes violently) shut opposition voices down. Right thugs protesting the the left. Left thugs protesting the right. Trans rights activist protesting the terfs, etc etc. It seems to me most people don't really want an even playing field in terms of political competion. Which I suppose is natural. All cool if you are of the protected political ideology within an institution. An institution that censors and grants access to only approved political voices. But what happens if you suddenly find your voice has become unpopular, like certain feminist perspectives? The frame work then shuts you out. Particulary dangerous in universities that have the power to shape the future of the nation. Theregore I would argue that this is a good move as universities have continued to narrow the political narrative allowed on campus. Protecting the freedom of other voices is very much protecting your own.

Priority for feminists in this debate is literally "safe space" - protection from physical violence and threats by biological men

Absolutely.
And it's no co incidence that many of the strongest voices against trumpbrexit are women.

To whoever is reaching Nicholas Crane, Clear Waters Rising is one of my favourite books. There is a part where he points out that the mountain dwellers in one part of Europe have more in common with the mountain dwellers in another part than with the people of their own country. It makes you realise what an odd construct borders and nations actually are when you really think about it.

Holliewantstobehot should we be drawing our boarders vertically instead of horizontally then?

I'm not convinced on that argument within the modern context. I think we are more socialised by national/regional generic cultural factors that the challenges of our geographical environment. But sounds an intresting book, would like to read it sometime.

I see the merits of charter vs direct student involvement, Mistigri, however my experience is that charters are a very blunt tool and often lead to discrimination against minority voices. For example, setting qualifications that people from marginalised communities are less likely to have had opportunity to achieve.
Whereas I think that having staff and students nominate speakers means a wider variety of influences and opinions on what constitutes a speaker worth inviting. I didn't mean to then put suggestions to referendum though, but rather to listen to wide student-body responses, when they arise, such as with Irving/Griffin; Union members wanted them, but wider student body didn't want to give a platform to the anti Semitism and potential further racism, and indeed managed to stop the main debate, though something went ahead in a smaller side room. I wouldn't want those student protestors to be fined or at risk of being sent down, or anything. Limiting their freedom of speech in order to enable someone else's doesn't seem right.

In other news... I see I'm not the only frequenter of this thread whose political obsession has been recognised under the Christmas tree. I got "Travellers in the Third Reich - the Rise of Fascism through the eyes of Everyday People" from one of my delightful offspring. It definitely beats bubble bath.

realise what an odd construct borders and nations actually are
Yes!
This 'uk' which with its new pass card is only 90 years old. It's a fake place made of 4 countries with almost nothing in common.

No-platforming should be reserved for a very few views which genuinely for the good of society, or the reputation of an institute, shouldn't be debated
e.g.
holocaust-deniers
those who scapegoat racial or religious minorities
the grubby successors of the Paedophile Information exchange
obviously anyone who incites violence, whether against minorities or soldiers or individual public figures

Controversial and unpleasant views should of course be allowed, even if their "morals / science / facts" are very dubious:
e.g.
those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate
those who want capital punishment returned

After all, most of the planet's population believes in one religion or another - hardly based on fact - but there are many interesting and valuable debates related to religion

1dad much as I am wary of universities banning speakers
I would be far more worried about any govt, whether left or right, ordering a uni to invite speakers

We have to rely on persuasion and hope that encouraging wider participation in uni votes will lead to only the most repulsive preachers of hate being banned.

That book sounds good Somerville I might add that to my amazon list.

Yes if you look at borders in a philosophical way you could argue that as citizens of the world we should be able to go where we chose. But modern life is not like that. I suppose if you look at recent European history a lot of troubles have been caused by the arbitrary drawing of borders - Sudetenland, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland...

Agree with what you just said on freedom of speech BCF

Nato to re-establish Cold War-era command post as Russian submarines increase activity around undersea cables

Can you imagine a scenario where those cables are cut or disrupted, which would immediately and potentially catastrophically affect both our economy and other ways of living if they were disrupted

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-fears-heighten-russian-submarines-activity-undersea-data-cables-north-atlantic-a8126681.html

Not to mention vast numbers of funded bots arguing with real British humans about democracy in our own country this evening.

So glad we're not at war.

One possibility is to say that any speaker - who stays within the laws of incitement, slander etc - is by default allowed to participate
but
that any decision to ban a speaker requires a minimum % vote , say 55% of all eligible students and staff - to avoid the usual clique being enough to decide

BigChocFrenzy im more pro a government supportive of widening the debate rather than trying to restrict the access of voices. I am with the government on this one. Altgough the cynic in me suspects that the Tory government is only doing it out of fear of the narrowing left wing agenda and increasing censorship on right voices in universities rather than truly valuing liberal values. Still either way it's a valuable safe guard in our university's that have so much power over the perspectives of our future leaders and innovators.

woman Heave a sigh of relief that Bojo left Moscow without offending anyone enough to start a war.
He's #2 in my sphincter list, with #1 of course being Trump

Practically speaking I just can't see how this business of stopping 'no-platforming' in the university setting can be enforced. Who decides what is an appropriate balance of views? What if a speaker gets booked and nobody wants to go. No tickets are sold and it is clear it will just be a talk to an empty room. Is the university or student union obliged to have the event anyway because they are not allowed to cancel anything? Remember these are not speakers attending as part of a degree, they are optional events that people may choose to attend or not.

My fear is that what this will actually mean is that universities will be less likely to propose potentially controversial speakers at events for fear they will be stuck with them if they later decide the event isn't worth doing.

What is taught as part of a degree will be validated and should be held to high standards of balance, but I just can't see how we can start dictating to an extra-curricular debate club who and what they should be discussing.

any decision to ban a speaker requires a minimum % vote , say 55% of all eligible students and staff - to avoid the usual clique being enough to decide

Who counts as eligible? Is that members of the club or everyone in the university? What is we are cancelling the event because of unavoidable issues? What if I hold a vote but only 15% bother to vote, but 80% of them say cancel?

This seems pointlessly complicated, expensive (because meetings and votes cost money) for something I could just get around by simply having the organisers claim they are all too ill to attend so have to sadly cancel.