James Kirkup defends Laura Pidcock

[BovaryX]

Laura Pidcock has been denounced as transphobic for making the following anodyne comment:

The women's movement needs the space to talk about sex and gender without fear of being "no platformed"

Those who specialise in weaponising grievances have taken exception to this and are accusing her of treachery to the socialist cause. James Kirkup makes the point that whatever else Laura Pidcock might be, she certainly isn't Conservative. And he cites the tactical use of 'far right' to denounce anyone making any tremulous suggestion of debate on this issue. Every day, the contempt for freedom of speech, independence of thought and critical analysis is made explicit. It's all very Robespierre.....

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/in-defence-of-laura-pidcock/

Good one, James! Thank you for speaking up.

Well we all know what happened to Robespierre. Hoist by his own petard eventually.

Another really excellent piece from JK

Very good piece. I notice again the use of that sinister phrase: "We warned you about Laura Pidcock." Not so long ago it was doing the rounds in a social media post about JKR: "We warned you about JK Rowling." It has a very strong witch-hunt vibe about it.

Oh my god what a horrible woman, how could she say such a hateful thing, She needs to die in a grease fire because she can't just be nice which would have literally cost her nothing, because that is a ciswoman's job even though nobody can identify who is a woman just by looking at them or indeed define them which is a transphobic question to ask.

Let's keep going; keep speaking out. The more we do, the crazier the genderists begin to look.

It has a very strong witch-hunt vibe about it

Absolutely. But one of the effects of this tiresome fanaticism has been to render certain insults meaningless. 'Conservative?' 'far right?' When these are deployed to denounce anyone who refuses to submit to the #no debate idiocy? This has actually expanded the suffocating idea that the only acceptable political stance is left wing. The critical issue of the 21st century is those who believe in freedom of speech, critical thinking and robust debate. And those who believe in denunciations, witch hunts and hysteria.

The recent warning made by the Govt, to allow free speech in universities, needs to be widened out to every part of society. A great way to do this would be to make misogyny a hate crime.

I would LOVE for misogyny to be a hate crime - but is this doable?

The recent warning made by the Govt, to allow free speech in universities, needs to be widened out to every part of society. A great way to do this would be to make misogyny a hate crime

I totally disagree. The entire hate crime paradigm is profoundly problematic. Adding additional categories to problematic legislation it is not the answer. The fact the police are wasting time investigating limerick and Tweets whilst failing to investigate actual crimes is causing a collapse in public faith in the police. As for the Conservative govt? They have been in power for ten years and they have done nothing to address the existential threat to freedom of speech. Actions speak louder than words and they need to demonstrate that they will defend academic freedom the next time the no platform zealots try to get someone sacked or silenced.

Okay, Bovary has a good point.

I agree with @BovaryX re wasting police resources in general - but what about this:

www.change.org/p/make-street-harassment-illegal-in-the-uk

(I have signed)

These girls aren’t being subjected to a crappy limerick...

James Kirkup keeps relentlessly calling this out with his excellent clear, joined up thinking and writing.
I don't expect to hear any of the candidates for the Labour leadership speaking up for Laura's rights to free speech any time soon. Shame on them.

Thanks for the link and thank you again James Kirkup.

And of course, thank you Laura Pidcock.

I wonder if she would have dared express herself thus if she were still a Labour MP - or even standing for party leader?

I don't expect to hear any of the candidates for the Labour leadership speaking up for Laura's rights to free speech any time soon. Shame on them

Unfortunately, I think that is a correct assessment. Principled politicians are few and far between. Most of them, irrespective of party, are a cabal of craven, pandering, power obsessed mediocrities.

I wonder if she would have dared express herself thus if she were still a Labour MP - or even standing for party leader?

floisme

An interesting question. And I think we know the answer....

The public sector needs to look closely at their relationship with Stonewall and allied organisations. They were the architects of #nodebate and should be considered at least partially responsible for the current toxicity.

There has to be a conflict when a lobbying organisation is also providing policy makers with advice and training. And interlaid it is preventing women’s concerns from being voiced and heard.

"We warned you about..."
It has a very strong witch-hunt vibe about it.

Yes. And apparently talking about women's rights is 'dogwhistle'.

Thank you Laura and James for reporting on it

And I think we know the answer....
Yes I think we do, Bovary although I might be doing her a disservice as I have a vague memory of her speaking up for women before. Can anyone remember?

There has to be a conflict when a lobbying organisation is also providing policy makers with advice and training.

This has happend with a lot of organisations and I think it probably needs to be adressed at a policy level. I remember when the calls were in the other direction, and that was well-meant. People thought that policy makers needed to involve people who would be directly affected, "stakeholders". There was a feeling that these groups contained expertise the policy makers didn't have, and lived experience, and that they represented, at least to some extent, grassroots sentiment.

The NRA is an interesting example in the US, they used to be a hobbyist group, and gave a lot of good advice on safety policy, were involved in training etc. Right up until they essentially became a lobby wing of gun manufacturers.

But in many cases now the agenda is more about keeping the organisation going because it is a job for many people who see themselves as activists. (I wonder if these are the same kind of people who in previous times might have joined the clergy with ambitions? Could someone today write a sj version of Barchester Towers?)

In fact if TRAs had 'warned about her before' it may not be her first time in the stocks.

These girls aren’t being subjected to a crappy limerick...

Who knows, they haven't defined street harassment, it could include crappy limericks.

I can't say I think adding misogyny or street harrassment laws as these girls are envisioning seems like a good idea to me. They could try and convince me, saying something more about laws in other places might be a start. Though frankly I have my doubts that French women are making many complaints about catcalls.

But my general feeling is that these laws are a waste of time and don't really change things, no matter what the "phobia involved is.

In fact if TRAs had 'warned about her before' it may not be her first time in the stocks

You know what's really interesting about this? It is this marching backwards at top speed which has colonised vast chunks of the West. There is a puritanical zeal at the heart of #no debate. It is truly ironic that they use 'wrong side of history' as a weapon to beat people into silence.

There is a puritanical zeal at the heart of #no debate.

Indeed. I often wonder whether identity politics is affluent white mens solution to the modern capitalist world, where traditional sources of meaning have gone.

I am thinking of Anthony Giddens’ arguments that in previous times, people more or less knew what their occupations would be, the institutions of marriage and family were not questioned, and religious communities provided for any needs for spirituality.

With those institutions holding less significance, ‘identity’ is imbued with new meaning. And since affluent white men have fewer axes of oppression to deal with, they jump on make-believe ‘identities’.

This refocuses conceptualisations of where identities are constructed from understanding them as socially constructed, to something deep and mystical and internal.

This then gives meaning to mediocre white men, while simultaneously pushing back at the gains women have made over the years.

It’s a combination of the no-longer hidden desire to put women back in their place, and the desire for some virtuous meaning of their own existence. The religious fervour is no doubt heartfelt for a lot of these men.