Free Speech Campaign Launched. ‘To combat the rise in identity politics’

[MrsSnippyPants]

Sorry, no share token, but more pressure being put on organisations that no-platform and shut down debate.
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/voters-seek-return-to-common-sense-in-revolt-against-political-correctness-8x8kzcnd8

Beat me to it mrsSnippyPants

I was doing a dance when I read this. I am off to see who Campaign for Common Sense is. I think I came across them in the last day or two.

Here is their site.

campaigncommonsense.com/

The Campaign for Common Sense (CCS) exists to bring together those who want to have a grown up discussion and debate.

We will conduct research, and organise events online and across the country, involving experts in all fields and bring them to the widest possible audience. We will be champions for free speech and tolerance.

We will be asking…

What does diversity actually mean and does it really matter?
Should statues of historical figures be removed because of modern values?
Is there anything that we shouldn’t joke about?
Should the police be prioritising language on social media over fighting street crime?
Are schools there to teach kids what to think, or to help them think for themselves?
Is Britain bigger than Brexit?
Should people be able to speak their mind at work?
Does positive discrimination work?
What views and arguments should be banned from debates?
Can children consent to changing their gender?

While the company was listed in Aug 2019, the blog post with their launch document was published a few days ago.

Toby young has the free speech alliance too I think?

Oh very interesting! I'll have a nosy through the site. :)

Great post MrsSnippyPants. This is a snippet from article:

public speakers have been “no- platformed” by a vocal minority for failing to use its preferred gender terminology, or for defending women’s right to safe spaces. Similarly, in light of the row over whether Oxford University should take down a statue of Cecil Rhodes, 61% agree that “statues of historical figures in the UK, even if they are controversial, should be preserved rather than removed”.Asked about Extinction Rebellion-style protests bringing transport to a halt, 65% agreed that “too often, public protests are disruptive to ordinary working people’s lives”, with 17% disagreeing. On crime, 59% agree that “the police spend too much time investigating things that are not politically correct, when they should be focused on other priorities

I'm really starting to think this is a watershed moment. We either go along with an intransigent minority changing society to the detriment of others freedom or we stand together and firmly say enough. The fact that the CEO is a Tory should be irrelevant.
My fear is if the sensible majority don't do this now the future backlash will be even worse for everyone. Trump, Hungary etc etc

Interesting...

'Should the police be prioritising language on social media over fighting street crime?'

Preach! Also see Derbyshire Police stopping walkers in remote areas regarding social distancing. Both seem to be priorities over, say, investigating burglaries.

Sharetoken/archive:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/76579164-9ccc-11ea-b91f-3ef5a66c08bc?shareToken=f9aa6d4ddc201f61a432a61b43316020

archive.vn/lPVzU

What does diversity actually mean and does it really matter?
Does positive discrimination work?

Does this mean they want to end all-women shortlists?

Does this mean they want to end all-women shortlists? No it means they want to discuss it rationally with evidence. That's fine with me, too often good intentions can backfire, I'm happy with providing evidence and rationale. My answer is yes diversity matters, particularly diversity of viewpoints and experience.

Diversity - but what does this mean? Who chooses, why? Who supports them and promotes them (and finds them)? To what ends?

Surely it is to ensure we have a selection of voices heard that represent society. That we have fairness and equality. That we make sure we have those who have been disadvantaged through their birth or by accident/illness given a fair shake.

We don’t have that for women yet - and we are being forced to over represent particular groups who are forcing speech, thought and ideology on us?

i saw some opinion in reddit,

if anyone can self id woman, then woman shortlist is not just meaningless but also unfair.

and i think all shortlist is kind of unfair.
if people feel need to discuss then have to discuss.

Imnobody4, thank you, that does seem like a very interesting discussion.

"Common sense" always raises huge red flags for me.
Those questions are already loaded in the way they are written. I don't know anything about that org or the people in it but I'd be treating all of this with a huge fistful of salt.

"'Should the police be prioritising language on social media over fighting street crime?'" No, of course not. What metrics are you using to assert that it is prioritised? Link to the data, please.

The questionnaire response “too often, public protests are disruptive to ordinary working people’s lives". Too often for what? For some people's mild annoyance levels? It's not objective but it's framing itself as if it is.
More than six in 10 (64%) agree that there should be"harsher sentences for young people involved in crime". Which sentences? Harsher how? It all sounds like Daily Express headline bollocks. Or, actually, straight out of a Stewart Lee sketch. "These days if you say you're English you get thrown in jail!"

Wasn't Jack Dromey elected off an all-women shortlist? Even worse when he's married to Harriet Harman.

In the Labour leadership battle John McDonnell was saying it was time for a woman leader but it looks like it was an more of an attempt to block Keir Starmer and boost his protegee Rebecca Long-Bailey than a heartfelt conviction about female representation.

That's the problem I suppose - no matter how well-intentioned an idea is, politicians will always look seek to turn it to their advantage.

I think you could say the questions are loaded but that is down to the fact that debate and free speech in these areas is being shut down. We need to open up respectful debate, I'm sure I'll disagree with many opinions of the CEO but as long as my views are represented and I can challenge that's fine by me. I'll criticise loudly if that's not the case.

Agree about common sense, it is a bit of a red flag.

Too be honest I've been impressed with many of the right wing you tube interviewers who've interviewed left wingers respectfully, even saw Jordan Petersen interview Nina Paley for which she was no platformed and criticised.

popehilarious

IA I am skeptical. After all at least until very recently it was “common sense” that children should be raised and educated by their mothers and so women don’t belong in the workforce”. And that “marriage is between one man and one woman”. And that “certain races are biologically destined to a higher crime rate.”

The statue thing is also stupid - this is a USA thing. I do encourage dialogue within local and city governments that make these individual decisions, but this statement is declaring that municipalities should be barred from any city planning change that involves removing a statue or monument. Stupid. If the city decides via a democratic process that they don’t want to keep a statue of a local confederate “hero” built during the Jim Crow era that’s their prerogative. If you care so much then fundraiser to purchase and move the damn thing to your backyard or whatever.

What @popehilarious said

Those questions bring to mind this

Might have originated in US but what about Rhodes must fall, there are other examples, including a statue of Gandhi. Where do they make this statement: this statement is declaring that municipalities should be barred from any city planning change that involves removing a statue or monument.

Do you have a link to the grandiose statue case?

All of the examples of statues coming down I’m aware of were choices made by the city or local government, with plenty of people putting forward their opinions on both sides of the issue. The “protests” seem to be asking for a subversion of the Democratic process.

This quote: 61% agree that “statues of historical figures in the UK, even if they are controversial, should be preserved rather than removed”.

Seems to imply that even if duly elected local govt decides to remove a monument/statue somehow the opinion of this “61%” asked a vague question gets to override that choice.

Again if you want to pay to move and preserve that monument elsewhere, fine, raise the funds and do it. Don’t force people who don’t want your crappy statue to pay for it. Similarly if you want mixed sex DV shelters fundraiser to pay for them - don’t lobby to force your way into women’s safe spaces they built.

Ghandi became grandiose wtf autocorrect

Do you have a link to the grandiose statue case?

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/racist-gandhi-statue-removed-from-university-of-ghana

It seems less incongruous because that the statue was in Ghana and Gandhi wasn't exactly charitable about Africans during his time living on that continent.

Do you have a link to the grandiose statue case?

metro.co.uk/2019/11/21/protesters-call-gandhi-racist-misogynist-call-statue-ditched-11196012/