Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

[Betti935]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched an inquiry into Freedom of Speech in Universities. It has held four sessions so far to hear evidence, all of which are available online (both as transcripts and videos) and, as you can imagine, the no-platforming of feminists/trans issue has been prominent in the discussions, particularly in the most recent session last week:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/inquiry/

This is really excellent news! No platforming does seem to have disturbed many people.

Thank you. I read with interest. My favourite interchange so far:

Linda Bellos: I disagree. That idiot boy who was a representative of a political party was given the platform of a BBC discussion programme. After it, the party folded because he was so awful and subject to critical scrutiny. That I have forgotten his name is almost deliberate, but others will know.
Chair: Nigel Farage.
Linda Bellos: No, not that idiot—another idiot.
Ms Karen Buck: Tommy Robinson.
Linda Bellos: No, the English one. It was not Tommy Robinson.
Chair: David Cameron.
Linda Bellos: You are being frivolous.

Nice! Who was the English idiot who wasn't David Cameron? Nick Griffin?

Ed National Elf service?

Thank you. I read with interest. My favourite interchange so far:

Yes, mine too!

Who is Peter Tatchell? Is he a TRA?

He's said this:
The first is when they make false and damaging allegations, such as claiming that someone is a child sex abuser, a rapist, a tax fraudster or a war criminal. When that is false, clearly the damage that can be done to the person concerned, not only reputationally but through potential violent retribution, makes it a red line. The second is where someone engages in harassment, threats and menaces against others. The third is incitement to violence. The fourth is when someone demands segregation based on race, gender or other factors.

Surely the fourth point he makes is exactly the sort of thing Linda Bellos is saying should be given oxygen to expose to scrutiny and kill it? or not

Where does he stand on people defending paedophila as just a sexual orientation? Why hasn't he mentioned that?

I'll go back to reading now?

She was referring to Nick Griffin. (fwiw I don't think anyone should be using terms such as 'idiot boy' in a professional discussion but, still the 'David Cameron' did make me laugh)

Nice! Who was the English idiot who wasn't David Cameron? Nick Griffin?

Linda Bellos: You are being frivolous. It was not the English Defence League but the National Front. It was Nick Griffin. It was a real case of “enough rope”.

This appears to be entirely accurate. From a white nationalist website I found on Google about 'What Has Happened to Britain’s BNP?'

"The BNP, on the other hand, was functioning well until the disastrous Question Time appearance of party leader Nick Griffin. Although the show was clearly a set-up, the reality remains that Griffin’s personal performance was dreadful, to put it mildly.

If the BNP’s downfall can be traced to one turning point, it was unquestionably Griffin on Question Time. Any other political leader, having performed so poorly, would have stood down immediately, but, the BNP, being what it is, did not work that way.

Instead of the leader being forced to leave, the leader forced all those dissenting with his leadership to leave, and in this way almost all competent individuals were either forced out or quit in disgust.

This stripping away of talent from all levels of the party, combined with Griffin’s shockingly poor—and completely self-generated—public image, is the cause of the BNP’s decline."

I agree about Tatchell's fourth point WTAF, that struck a wrong note with me as well.

Thanks for posting that, I've finished ploughing through it now.

That was a good read and I think I understood most of it.

I'm really glad that these conversations are being had.

I'm still very concerned about PT's 4th point being conflated with his first 3. They seem totally different to me.

Jane Fae: I am trying to say that, because of that context, people are ultra-sensitive. My view is that a community should have the right to say no to people.. Are woman a community? Do they have the right to say no to people wishing to join that community?

PT later defends exemptions for women/ cases where women’s spaces should exist. He says women should not be excluded from participation on basis of sex (eg religious beliefs about women having to sit apart from men).

Yeah, I read that bit, I'm still uncomfortable with point 4 being put in with the other 3, struggling to articulate exactly why though. Perhaps just feels more open to abuse? What exactly does he mean by the word 'gender'?

Thanks MsB. I've just finished reading it and I see now what PT says at the end:

"The final one is gender segregation. We have not had any examples of that in recent years that I am aware of, but just five or six years ago there were student societies trying to host events and insisting that all women must sit over there, the logic being—again, this was from Islamist extremists—that women are unclean; they contaminate men; they must sit separately. It was shocking, vile misogyny and was often given a free pass, but, thankfully, because of the campaigns, and only because of them, that has now stopped, as far as I know."

So if the invited speaker insists that women should be prevented from attending or segregated in the seating plan, then the speaker is rightfully no-platformed due to this? I agree a university shouldn't spinelessly acquiesce to such a misogynist demand.

Been reading through. Good quality discussions.

Yeo- He has form for conflating sex and gender.
Miranda Yardley blogs about it here:
mirandayardley.com/en/peter-tatchell-and-the-assassination-of-the-womens-liberation-movement/

yeo i agree and I think that clarification at the end was needed because it looked as though he thought no-platforming was acceptable where speakers support the idea groups with a protected characteristic should be able to meet and organise. He actually meant something very different which is more along the lines of segregation based on notions inferior /superior poeple - ie antithetical to equality.

Thanks for that link too, interesting reading

Sex segregation is a very tricky one. Ofsted have pulled up faith schools who are using segregation while at the same time praising schools who are using sex segregation because their own data shows that they get better results that way. Obviously the segregation is done for totally different reasons in these two scenarios.

Yes I think the dichotomy is segregation to promote equality and segregation to promote inequality. Tatchell needs to always specify.

Thank you for finding this!

I'm so pleased this issue is being properly debated. This goes far beyond the trans debate, it affects our ability to have every single difficult conversation we might need to have.

Pretty much all our politicians, lawyers, policy makers, journalists and media producers, medical professionals and teachers go to university. These people all have power and influence over our lives in one way or another. I want all those people (wherever they are on the political spectrum) to be properly skilled in analysing difficult ideas and rationally debating them on their merits. Even when the ideas are offensive. Especially when the ideas are dangerous. I truly fear for the future if we have a generation of policy makers and cultural influencers whose response to an uncomfortable idea is 'make it go away, it's violence to expect me to think about anything that might offend me'.

Every day I trundle past Goldsmiths on a bus and see their marketing banners saying things like 'POLICY MAKERS' and 'THOUGHT LEADERS' and I feel a bit ill.

I'm 1/2 hour into the first video (all 4 sessions here) and have found my christmas binge watch