James Kirkup: On bomb threats to WPUK meetings: apathy or fear or speaking out?

[R0wantrees]

Article in Spectator concludes:

(extract)
"...Yet women turn up anyway, in large numbers. And what does it say about public and political debate about gender issues that this stuff has become normal and almost unremarkable?

In Britain in 2018, women trying to hold public meetings to talk about politics and the law are being subjected to intimidation and threats. The police are investigating a bomb threat against one of those meetings. Yet politicians and large sections of the media are silent. Would that be the case if any other group or community were subject to such threats and intimidation? Why aren’t politicians, of all parties, shouting from the rooftops about this?

It’s not as if they don’t know or don’t care. Since I started writing about the gender debate in February, I’ve lost count of the number of MPs and other political people (of all parties and ranks, from policy advisers to Cabinet ministers) who have privately told me they are worried about the nature of this debate and worried about the implications of policy. Yet almost all of those people have also said they are not willing to talk about this publicly, for fear of the criticism and vitriol they believe they would face from people who believe the interests of transgender people are best served by shouting down questions with allegations of transphobia and bigotry. I understand that silence, but it has costs. When the people who are supposed to speak for ordinary people – and the rules that allow those people to exercise their basic democratic freedoms – stay silent, they leave a vacuum of leadership and moral courage that can be filled with hostility and fear.

I’ll end by repeating the basic facts of this story once more, in the hope that some of the politicians who talk so much about free speech and equality and fairness finally pluck up the courage to talk about this. Some women had a meeting to talk about their legal rights. Someone threatened to blow up the meeting with a bomb. The police are investigating that threat and say it is being “taken seriously”. And this happened in Britain in 2018."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/why-are-women-who-discuss-gender-getting-bomb-threats/

Predatory have hidden in septic tanks to access victims. They've pursued professions that allow them to access victims despite that requiring years of training. Anyone who thinks they won't bother to fill in some paperwork, or will respect a boundary as loose as "well you can only be in this space if you genuinely feel you belong there", is a fool.

MPs can make it as clear as they like, but it won’t stop the TRAs misrepresenting them.

And frankly if an MP is less able to make a point than half thebposters on here, and less able stick to it and explain it in an eloquent and audience specific way then what the hell are they doing in parliament?

They are supposed to be the experts in spin, verbal gymnastics and chat. I do not believe for a second that they’re unable to make their point in a clear, accessible manner that makes it quite clear that they are pro woman and pro child not anti trans.

They simply do not want to because this is an issue affecting women and women do not count. Children count, hopefully.

I’d assumed that MPs were simply not aware of this issue. If they are and if they are privately worried but too afraid to speak out then my respect for them is dead. There are ordinary women putting their careers on the line to speak out about this - there are women facing death threats, rape threats and bomb threats. Westminster needs to pull its finger out and act.

The focus is wrong because MPs (like many) have not been able to step back from the concern about the vulnerablities of people who are transgender enough to also consider the vulnerabilities of others.

MPs can make it as clear as they like, but it won’t stop the TRAs misrepresenting them.

Zero sympathy if that’s what they’re afraid of. Tough cheddar. They’re our elected representatives - they should have the backbone, support, briefing structure and security to stand the fuck up.

MPs get misrepresented about stuff daily. Why is this issue so different?

Do we have a parliament full of invertebrates? Does a bunch of mums on a parenting board have more spinal structure than Westminster? It would appear so.

Get some decent science briefing, talk to the relevant GC feminists to get your facts right and stand up and be counted ffs.

We now know what the other side are saying.

Your average floating voter has no clue what they say, they hear a word salad and they know what sex the person is.

Despite MH issues no longer being part of being trans, the average person will see likely see a mentally ill person asking that safeguarding is removed.

The average person will not listen to the word salad. They will either think poor person or what is that person going on about or laugh at them.

Yes we do have a Parliament full of invertebrates. The last few days have shown that. Public discourse has become so violent and so divisive, it’s become very hard to say anything, and everybody has to calculate the political risk of saying anything meaningful at all. If our MPs are too scared to stop Brexit, despite all the evidence of the damage it will do to this country, what makes you think they will speak up over this?

MPs can make it as clear as they like, but it won’t stop the TRAs misrepresenting them.

Are you suggesting MPs throw vulnerable children under the bus and don't object to liquidating safeguarding frameworks because extremist transactivists might misrepresent them on Twitter?

Because that's what saying nothing does.

As for them banging on about section 28. I have no fucking clue what that is, nor do my teens or retired parents. I don't hang out with people who are LGBT so none of my friends know what it is either. Nobody in my family is LGBT. I doubt many average people know what it is. LGBT activists, people in the community, those with someone close who is LGBT of highly informed will know.

I've sent the extract from this article in an email to my MP with a request to meet him.

Your average working class person hasn't a fucking clue what middle-class people are going on about half the time. The language used is not simple enough. Trump used simple language, learn from that. Heather debating on the Sunday question time in particular was inaccessible linguistically to most people I know.

People know what sex people are and they understand children need safeguarding.

They should be able to dismiss any section 28 talk with a clear, logical soundbite. I just do not believe that an MP cannot talk about this.

This is fear or it is apathy.

Apathy is inexcusable in an elected representative.

Fear - well good god people were standing up to the IRA when I was young, standing up to terrorists, bombers, ETA, apartheid and all manner of truly evil things. And now they’re scared of what? Social media? being flamed on Twitter? I’m sorry but that is pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

Spine. Grow one. Speak up.

There are some important voices which should be listened to recorded on this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines

MPs are paid to represent their constituents. Being afraid is not an excuse not to do their jobs.

I tell a lie, a friend of mine was once bi-curious or is bisexual? She is married to a man and considered it a one off relationship, has zero interest in the LGBT community. She has no clue what section 28 is either. Not many people I know, have a clue what the other side is talking about, they see the sex of the people and I won't repeat what I am told on MN.

The one MP I just don’t understand being swept up in this mess is Sarah Champion, she was willing to put herself out there regarding grooming gangs, I honestly thought she, of all people, would be on our side and unafraid to speak out.

Yet she is absolutely pushing self id - I just don’t get it.

Section 28 was the law brought in by the Thatcher Government which outlawed mention of gay relationships in schools.

It was brutal and abhorant.

It has been appropriated by the Trans lobby. It was about LGB discrimination but even mention of it now refers to LBGT.

LGBT+LibDems twitter feed alleges that Mumsnet arecalling for a 'new section 28'

TransgenderTrend's schoolkit has been 'associated' with Section 28.

It is an anniversary of Section 28 this year.

It has a lot of resonance.

And now they’re scared of what? Social media? being flamed on Twitter? I’m sorry but that is pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I am also appalled by MPs’ silence on this, but Jo Cox’s murder must weigh on some of their minds and many of them have young families. I would never want to return to a situation where only older men were MPs.

There’s a bit of a mixed message here. MPs should speak up because it’s really, really important but st the same time it’s a really, really minor issue that nobody has ever heard of or cares about. I think this is the nub of the problem. MPs will speak up if enough of their constituents want them too, but is this issue worth the aggro and unwanted attention if not enough of their constituents are fussed about it.

That’s why writing is so important and getting everyone you know to write and lobbying in an organised manner.

I totally get the anger here and the frustration. But i’ve worked with MPs and I know what actually gets them to act.

They believe the exemptions will work.

And in the Labour Party this issue is poisonous. I suspect my MP knows full well she would be hounded out of the party if she were to acknowledge-and/or represent the labouring sex class as having a separate and valid political importance from the transpeople who identify themselves into that class.

I also think that the vast majority of Labour is utterly lacking in self awareness, critical thinking and the ability to apply Marxist structural analysis to the situation. We pay peanuts (relatively speaking) so we get monkeys.

That’s the other issue Elletoro - it’s very hard to take a stand against your party. Look at Dominic Grieve yesterday. It’s not just that it’s unhelpful to be seen as going against their Parliamentary colleagues - there will be hundreds and thousands of constituency activists who worked hard to get them elected to represent the party - any disloyalty is a kick in the teeth to those people. But if there is clear evidence that a policy is losing a party support, then MPs will make sure that it’s being debated, even if that debate isn’t visible to the general public.

That’s why it’s so important to keep writing to them.

Agreed

The MPs will be voting on this not us.

I am sorry that section 28 hurt people 40 years ago.

As with the people that are still upset about the Queen having a diamond in her crown from another country, I feel bad for them. It's sad history to me that isn't my thing and there are things that interest me more than these issues. When people talk about this type of thing in debates, I think that's sad. Bringing up section 28 in debates will not have the reaction the other side thinks it will with people outside of the LGBT community.

LoudTrousers

Completely agree.

It is though being used to mobilise the LGB community and also put pressure on MPs and political parties, as well as with younger people who don't actually know what it was (& wasn't about)

It needs unpicking a little bit.

By chance, the first political march I attended was against Section 28 when I was a student.

Like a lot of things, it is being appropriated by some in the TRA lobby.

Your average floating voter will not know what it is and I don't mean this to sound heartless to this who are hurt, most people outside the community will not give it anymore thought that something like those upset about the Queens diamonds.