Oh Equity - Lawrence Fox... what happened next....

[Lordfrontpaw]

Equity apologises to Laurence Fox, and its Race Equality Committee resigns.

Tweet:

'On 17 January a series of tweets were posted by the @EquityMEM Twitter account about Laurence Fox's appearance on BBC Question Time. We are sorry that in the tweets he was called a 'disgrace' by Equity. Please read Equity's full statement. 'equity.org.uk/news/2020/march/laurence-fox/

Do any posters know anything much about the president of Equity?

That's exactly my point.

It appears that none of the posters know the first thing about the case or about the wider circumstances, and no one has bothered to do even basic research (ie not knowing that all members of the sub-committees are elected in a national election that anyone who holds an Equity card is asked to vote in, not knowing about the racist anonymous tweets made by whoever secretly took over the sub-committee's Twitter account after the original sub-committee resigned).

Yet people are willing to castigate a group of black and Asian people for protesting racism, without knowing any of the facts, simply on the assumption that anti-racism is the preserve of "leftie wokesters" who probably support trans rights when there's absolutely nothing in this case that has anything remotely to do with trans people or trans issues in any way.

Where has the public apology gone?

The link no longer works.
equity.org.uk/news/2020/march/laurence-fox/

I couldn't see anything related to it listed on the News section of the website.

HavartiToSeeYou your posts are all over the place. I had a (quick) scan and noticed only one post mentioning the subcommittee being unelected.

Sorry, who is Daniel? As far as I'm aware, we were talking about Laurence Fox.

If you have news / evidence of sexual abuse at Equity, then it merits its own thread as it is a different topic. Feel free to start one.

Identity politics lumps people into simplistic, one dimensional boxes, and although it might start out with good intentions, it eventually reinforces and strengthens divisions.
It assumes all individuals with a particular 'identity' have the same opinions, viewpoints, attitudes and behaviours. This is the antithesis of what many of us have been striving for - to be free of preconceived notions about people based on their skin colour or religion etc.

HavartiToSeeYou - "Why are you bringing trans issues into a racism case anyway, nothing that happened involved trans people in any way?"

Reading back up this thread, you are the first person to bring "trans issues" into it, ie. by making that statement. Sorry if I missed something but what people seem to be talking about is free-speech and identity politics. Why are you bringing in what you call "trans issues"?

"Very telling that not one poster here has any criticism about Equity’s president posing arm in arm with a man accused of being a serial abuser of women."

What is this new sub-text? - "6 Degrees of Guilt by Association with Not Lozza Fox"??

No, my comments are not "all over the place."

The OP started this thread to slag off the MEMC, yet clearly didn't know the first thing about them -- why would you start a thread about a group of people you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about?? Why would you post false statements about someone without bothering to spend 30 seconds on google first? Even if the OP doesn't care about facts, surely you'd care about your own credibility to make sure your facts were accurate before starting a thread?

There are numerous abusive and name-calling comments scattered throughout this entire thread, for literally no reason other than the fact they've chosen to take offence at a group of black and Asian people objecting to racism within their own organisation. And very very very evidently without bothering to research even the barest bones facts of the case, or as NonnyMouse's comment proves, without even knowing the NAME of the person the thread is about!!

Halfway down page 1, posters linked black and Asian people protesting racism in their own organisation to "identity politics" and this led to numerous comments decrying the concept of identity politics, and this is what led posters to talking about trans issues. No one has yet been able to explain how BAME people protesting racism is "identity politics." I'm not the one who "brought trans issues into it". The first person to mention "trans issues" was nauticant on page 1, and there's more than one post about trans issues throughout this thread. Please do not lie.

Sorry, who is Daniel? As far as I'm aware, we were talking about Laurence Fox.
No, this thread is about the MEMC and their mass resignation. The original post makes very, very clear this thread is about MEMC and the resignation of the MEMC. The fact you're participating in a thread started to bash the MEMC yet do not know the name of the MEMC leader/person behind the mass resignation is pretty shocking! But thank you for admitting that you know slightly less than fuck all about the subject you've decided to jump feet first into.

If you have news / evidence of sexual abuse at Equity, then it merits its own thread as it is a different topic.
No, it is not a different topic. This thread was started to discuss how Equity has handled discrimination against its own members. Equity's current sexual abuse scandal is hugely relevant and is a big part of why so many Equity members and committees have chosen to resign. Anyone who thinks the MEMC resigned purely because of Laurence Fox is ignorant of the facts.

What is this new sub-text?
The subext is: "If you decide to fall all over yourselves defending something just because you perceive them as being a victim of evil "liberal wokesters" maybe it's a good idea to google them first, to make sure you're not accidentally defending a massive sexual predator. If someone who is better informed than you tells you they're a massive sexual predator, it's a good idea to believe that person, not scream at and try to censor sexual abuse victims just because they're interfering in your "MUST DEFEND ANYONE WOKESTERS HATE AT ALL COSTS" agenda.

This thread shows exactly the problem with identity politics. Posters on this thread identify as "anti-liberal" or "anti-wokester." And they're so wedded to that self-identity, they feel it's their moral duty to defend anyone who they perceive as anti-liberal (even if it means defending sexual predators) and attack anyone they perceive as pro-liberal (even if it means attacking victims of racism).

And of course facts go completely out of the window. It's evident most people on this thread don't give a damn about facts.

Meanwhile the wokerati are too stupid to realise that flouncing out and shouting no debate is the main reason the backlash is gaining momentum. You cannot win the argument if you refuse to take part.

You do realise that's the exact opposite of what actually happened, right? They resigned BECAUSE they were being banned from debating. Resigning was the only way they would be allowed to voice any personal opinion. Most of the former members of that committee have continued to actively debate the issue both in meetings, in real-life activism, and online. It simply isn't true to claim they're "shouting no debate", that's the exact polar opposite of what happened!

And they didn't resign just because of Fox. The Fox incident was just the latest in a long line (e.g. the RSC Orphan incident, the Hampstead incident, the the NGA/WC antisemitism incident), and was the one that broke the camel's back. The reason they resigned over this and not over the previous incidents is because they were told they had to choose between staying silent, or keeping their posts.

God, the ignorance on this thread is shocking, it really is. "Who's Daniel?" That's like bashing the Labour Party for their treatment of Johnson, then going, "Who's Keir Starmer?? I thought this was a thread about Boris? Never heard of Keir Starmer, who on earth is he and what's he got to do with the Labour Party??????"

The OP started this thread to slag off the MEMC

I don't think that's true, although obviously I can't speak for the OP.
I think the OP started the thread to celebrate the fact that a respected organization (Equity) has realized that calling someone (Fox) "disgraceful" and attempting to destroy his career and livelihood in response to him being rude to someone on a TV debate show is a disproportionate response.

... My choice of where to move is very long..

Well don't put yourself out on my account just give the first three places on the list. I am genuinely interested in which countries you'd rather live. Who knows I might join you!

God, the ignorance on this thread is shocking, it really is. "Who's Daniel?" That's like bashing the Labour Party for their treatment of Johnson, then going, "Who's Keir Starmer??

😂

People recognise Keir Starmer because his name is on the telly and in the newspapers. You don't need to have specialised, inside knowledge of the Labour Party or even a passing interest in them to know this information.

The tweet indicated the resignation was due to the latest statement published by Equity (which seems to have gone missing from the website now). Not that there were other factors involved in their decision - whether racism or sexual abuse.

Racism and sexual abuse are pretty big issues - genuine integrity requires not staying silent in an effort to keep your post.
It shouldn't have to take an actor making statements on a TV show that some people disagreed with.

Dadq Equity didn't do any of those things, the MEMC did.

NonnyMouse1337 This thread is about the MEMC. Starting a thread about a specific incident from a specific organisation, without knowing the names of the major players involved in that incident, is a gobsmacking level of ignorance.

Okay, forget the Labour Party, choose something more obscure. This thread is the equivalent of starting a thread to attack, I don't know, the Hungarian government, then acting all "OMG who the fuck is that???????" when someone makes a post that includes the name of the Hungarian president. No, ordinary non-Hungarians shouldn't be expected to know the name of the Hungarian president. People starting threads about the Hungarian government certainly should! If you don't know the first thing about a topic, and aren't willing to Google, why on earth start a thread about it?

The tweet indicated the resignation was due to the latest statement published by Equity (which seems to have gone missing from the website now). Not that there were other factors involved in their decision - whether racism or sexual abuse.
You're basing your assumptions on one single tweet? Not the full resignation statement?

genuine integrity requires not staying silent in an effort to keep your post.
But... that's exactly what they did? They resigned their posts BECAUSE the only other option was staying silent. The former members of the MEMC have NEVER stayed silent about any of the previous incidents of racism. Ever. I could point you to at least ten prior incidents where the MEMC (without needing permission from Equity) have released statements decrying racism within our industry. Equity have never gotten involved before, and Equity have always allowed the MEMC to have complete autonomy. That's why Equity releasing a statement decrying the MEMC without even the courtesy of telling the MEMC they were doing it, is so bad. Because it contradicted their own policy of allowing the elected committees to have autonomy and to be allowed to issue statements and share personal opinions. That's censorship. I thought FC was all about free speech?

Havarti - the tweet quoted in the OP is by Equity, not MEMC.
The statement linked to in the OP is by Equity, not MEMC.
It is Equity who have come to the realization that to call for Fox never to work as an actor again is disproportionate, not MEMC.

As I read the OP, it is congratulating Equity for making those (very reasonable) statements.

attempting to destroy his career and livelihood
No one tried to "destroy his career and livelihood." You really think a group of nine unknown black and Asian actors, who volunteer unpaid for an anti-racism committee, sending a tweet decrying Fox's comments from a Twitter account with only 570 followers, is "attempting to destroy his career"? At least half a dozen national press outlets printed far more damning opinions on Fox's comments. Those media outlets are far more influential. Yet Fox didn't try to sue them, he sued one obscure Twitter account run by a volunteer anti-racism group.

Please remember too that Equity lied. They released a statement claiming the tweets had been sent out by "two rogue tweeters" when actually the entire MEMC voted unanimously to decry Fox's comments. At the very least Equity should have informed the MEMC in advance that they were planning to release the statement, and should have asked the MEMC to delete the tweets themselves, not deleted their tweets and changed their Twitter password without warning.

Equity subsequently gave control of the MEMC Twitter account to an anonymous person who not only deleted ALL their prior tweets (literally hundreds of tweets, many containing valuable factual information and support, which many BAME Equity members relied upon), this person also used their access to the MEMC account to post deeply unprofessional and personally abusive tweets about the former members (literally tweets like, "Daniel is a pathetic loser who plays the race card to cover for being a failed actor"). Equity made no effort to delete the abusive tweets or restrict this person's access, and has never apologised. The former MEMC members had to report the account to Twitter and it was Twitter who suspended the account.

Equity has rules and protocols like any other. If your union has rules that committees are allowed autonomy, you can't just go around logging into their social media accounts and changing their passwords without warning, like they're naughty children. It's ironic. the MEMC resigned because they were told they weren't allowed to express personal opinions on racism. How is this any different from GC feminists having their jobs threatened for speaking out about women's rights?

It is Equity who have come to the realization that to call for Fox never to work as an actor again is disproportionate, not MEMC.

Can you please copy and paste the tweet where the MEMC called for Fox to never work again? I have a screencap of all the MEMC tweets about Fox in front of me, and I don't see anything saying this.

Going back to the original Question Time comment, it was very disappointing that Laurence Fox did not acknowledge that a white male actor from an acting dynasty has advantages that other actors from other backgrounds do not. You can’t be racially discriminated against as a member of the dominant culture except in very exceptional circumstances (for example, a white person being racially abused for being in a relationship with a person from a different ethnic group). He then compounded this - in my view - by criticising Sam Mendes for casting a Sikh soldier in 1917. Clearly his expensive education at Harrow did not teach him about the number of soldiers from what was then the British Empire who fought and died in both world wars. He has subsequently apologised for this.

He has also made negative comments about his ex mother in law, being financially disadvantaged in his divorce from Billie Piper and dismissed all women under the age of 35 as too woke.

Those media outlets are far more influential. Yet Fox didn't try to sue them

I still can’t work out if the offending tweet came from the MEMC sub committee or a ‘rogue’ person in charge of social media but it is clear that Equity would be more vulnerable to legal action than a tabloid newspaper.

Mockers put it well upthread. Of course Laurence Fox is entitled to freedom of expression but he does not come out of this well.

Starting a thread about a specific incident from a specific organisation, without knowing the names of the major players involved in that incident, is a gobsmacking level of ignorance.

HavartiToSeeYou it was me that asked the question about 'who is Daniel' in response to your posts, not the OP. I have no idea whether the OP knows all the names of the key players or not.

Nettie, the offending tweet came from the MEMC sub-committee (who voted unanimously to tweet decrying Fox's comments); Equity subsequently released a false statement claiming the tweets were the work of "two rogue tweeters."

Nonny, my point still stands. Coming into a thread in order to argue your opinions about (analogy) the Hungarian government but then being all "Who the hell is Janos Ader?????" isn't a great look. Surely if you're arguing opinions about a case and someone better informed about that case refences a key name you're not familiar with, the sensible thing is to google it?

I mean, I don't know the names of any football players, but if I decided to voluntarily enter a football thread and start voicing opinions about football, I wouldn't act all "WTF who the hell is that???" because someone who was better informed about football than me referenced an England team member by name. Because I wouldn't want to advertise that I'd decided to spout opinions on football without actually being able to name any players.

And I know the OP wasn't the one who made the comment about Daniel, but the OP falsely stated the sub-committee is unelected. I care about facts and I care about objective truth. I believe objective facts are important. The current culture of identity politics often attacks the concept of objective truth, and Feminist Chat is usually great at calling this out. So it discomfits me to come into FC and see people stating opinions/assumptions as fact without bothering to fact-check first.

I agree with your post btw, Nettie.

And for what it's worth, I disagreed with the MEMC tweets. I thought they were ill-considered, rude, and hasty. But I believe in free speech, so I disagree with Equity's decision to take their social media accounts away from them.

Ah right. Thanks Havartitoseeyou. I think an apology for the wording of the tweets should have been sufficient.

HavartiToSeeYou I still have no clue who this Daniel is being referred to. Usually in public discussion threads, the etiquette is to state the person's first and last name so that others understand who is being talked about. The only person who brought up the name Daniel is you, when up until then only Laurence Fox was mentioned. Like there's only one Daniel we're all mates with and supposed to know.

On public threads, people drop in and out of conversations and go on tangents from the original topic. I don't really care much for the Equity related drama, but I do like commenting on identity politics and was replying to someone above me about it. Expecting people to post on a thread only if it is related to the original post or if they are thoroughly knowledgeable on a topic is unrealistic. People make all sorts of statements, conjectures and speculation on this board. Some have evidence to back it up, others don't. When I (and others) see someone stating something known to be incorrect, I provide a description of why what was said was incorrect and try to provide evidence for the correction like a link to a webpage or document as I don't expect people on the internet to take my assertions without proof etc.

This thread is only three pages long. It hasn’t gone off on any tangents.

Knowing the name of the primary person involved in a particular case you are attempting to discuss is not “being thoroughly knowledgable”. It’s literally the most basic, bottom rung level of knowledge.

Like I said, I wouldn’t go into a football thread and start attacking footballers and throwing nasty abusive slurs at them, then admit that I couldn’t actually name a single footballer.

This is why identity politics and the culture of “opinions over facts” is so dangerous.

Read this thread in one go and wow did it get weird fast.

Who is Daniel?

I'm assuming it was Daniel York Loh who was the chair of Equity's Race Equality Committee (REC).