Baroness Nicholson 'cancelled' by Booker board

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

They will not rest until every disobedient woman is purged from society.

www.thebookseller.com/news/booker-prize-nicholson-barr-1207926

If Booker cared about the Baroness' vote enough to denounce her then they would have done it at the time.

That they would drag it up years later as "evidence" of wrongthink shows two things.

Firstly that they do not believe her alleged crime of "transphobia" is grounds enough in itself. Not reason enough, not publicly acceptable, not effective or believable as a crime in itself.

Secondly that the only people able to pass the Booker "test" of acceptable purity of character are welcome - the conditions of this test can be altered at any time.

Witch hunt.
McCarthyism.
Fascism.

Cara Dune that's a good point, that Baroness Nicholson shouldn't be marginalised or vilified for being on the minority side of the gay marriage debate. It troubles me that GC people seem to have to give a disclaimer that they don't agree with her on this. Even my GC, very politically aware DP said the other day that he was concerned that she wasn't such a good ally to have because of it.

Maybe like Zoikes says it's all part of trying to stay on the right side of the purity test. But if the rules of the test keep changing, we can never pass it. It's mindbending! More and more, I just want to stick two fingers up to purity, and stand up for what I believe is actually real and important.

Bump

Anyone else completely bewildered at this ridiculous notion that humans have to agree on everything all of the time in order to work together on one specific belief or goal?

Even my GC, very politically aware DP said the other day that he was concerned that she wasn't such a good ally to have

Is he one of these strange types who only ever associate with people exactly the same as him lest his intellect ever be challenged?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Free speech matters.

I am quite disturbed that anyone would seek to distance themselves from anyone, let alone someone with the wonderful record and abilities to get stuff done as the Baroness, just because that person holds (or did hold) a now out of favour but mainstream view. A view held by a range of types of people and for a number of different reasons. I would actually be interested to know why she holds/held that view, why she felt it might damage women and girls.

It actually really upsets me that anyone would think that she should be in any way tarnished, let alone her record be diminished.

She is so effective, the recent swiftness of Asda's turn around on their horrific schools pack was really impressive once she made them sit up and took notice.

Oh no! Does that mean is Asda is on the wrong side of history again?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Radio 4 this morning 0749 onwards some guy from the Booker and the Baroness....

Here is the link if interested. Forward to 49:45 www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000kft4

Does anyone have a share token for Janice Turner's Times article about this today?
It's getting rave reviews on Twitter but I can't read it.

It's been shared with a share token on other threads Fanta, sorry I cant point you directly

Thanks

Zoikes:

"Is he one of these strange types who only ever associate with people exactly the same as him lest his intellect ever be challenged?"

No! He is really switched on about this. It really surprised/disappointed me that he came out with that. I think one factor is that he has spent his entire career working in the public sector, and currently works for one of the most egregiously woke organisations in the UK where it is apparently completely impossible to voice anything less than unquestioning support for TWAW. He has to bite his tongue on the regular. I think he's just been inadvertantly conditioned by the prevailing culture of tiptoeing around LGBT issues.

Ironically I've only ever worked in non-PC small businesses in working class areas, but in a creative industry which employs many gay people without any fuss or special treatment. We have many heterosexual 'blue collar' workers of all ages who left school at 16 and haven't received any sort of woke indoctrination and are perfectly happy to work in a professional manner alongside LGBT colleagues as equals. Without the input of any LGBT workplace networks or Stonewall training!

Disclaimer: it's Saturday night and wine has been consumed, and I apologise for any terminology which might inadvertantly offend.

I'm impressed by the Baroness's ability to get results, and I'd be interested to hear more about her views on the potential negative effects of equal marriage on women and girl's too, although it's rather a moot point now. I think the views of older women with more life experience than myself are worth hearing and shouldn't be automatically overlooked just because they grew up in a particular era with prevailing views that are out of step with our own.

Share token for Janice Turner's article in this post.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3951542-Is-anyone-else-furious-deflated-at-the-amount-of-energy-this-is-taking-up?msgid=97835751

@PaleBlueMoonlight

I am quite disturbed that anyone would seek to distance themselves from anyone, let alone someone with the wonderful record and abilities to get stuff done as the Baroness, just because that person holds (or did hold) a now out of favour but mainstream view. A view held by a range of types of people and for a number of different reasons. I would actually be interested to know why she holds/held that view, why she felt it might damage women and girls.

It actually really upsets me that anyone would think that she should be in any way tarnished, let alone her record be diminished.

I've seen a few (posters claiming to be) lesbians on Twitter saying they feel straight women are basically turning a blind eye to homophobia in choosing allies like the Baroness.

It jolted me a bit. Doesn't seem to be the view here, but then we're fairly self-selecting, maybe?

@Zoikes

Anyone else completely bewildered at this ridiculous notion that humans have to agree on everything all of the time in order to work together on one specific belief or goal?

Even my GC, very politically aware DP said the other day that he was concerned that she wasn't such a good ally to have

Is he one of these strange types who only ever associate with people exactly the same as him lest his intellect ever be challenged?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Free speech matters.

Yes...frequently bewildered

I'm impressed by the Baroness's ability to get results, and I'd be interested to hear more about her views on the potential negative effects of equal marriage on women and girl's too, although it's rather a moot point now.
I would like to understand this too.

I like to find out what people think and why and understand where they are coming from. It is rarely so black and white and there are usually reasons. I don't have to believe the same thing nor agree with their reasons, and neither will I become contaminated if it is not the 'right thing'.

Yes, it's a brilliant article by Janice Turner today. Very clear, accurate and to the point

It is a brilliant article.

If the Baroness is a homophobe then so is the gay HR Director friend of mine who remains anti same sex marriage for his own philosophical reasons.

Just thinking about this comment.. is agreeing with someone on some things (but not on other things) really best described ‘choosing’ that person ‘as a political ally’ though?
Isn’t that just a coincidence of views? Especially since (if you believe in biological reality and safeguarding and in women’s rights) as a lot of people do... then it would be quite a challenge to come to any alternative view. Therefore this would be quite a frequently occurring coincidence of views.
I think Nicholson is only the second member of the House of Lords (after Lord Moonie) that has been active on this at all.
‘Ally’ also implies more co-ordinating or people being strategically ‘led by’ someone to do kind of formal campaigning than is actually happening here.

‘Choosing political allies‘ through this lens sounds a bit like a purity test of the person having to have a perfect record on every political issue which isn’t possible.

Saying all that ^ women from all political and all social and demographic backgrounds are needed to represent their own communities’ views on these issues, and to represent the issues back into their own communities. Baroness Nicholson is doing a very helpful job of that by raising awareness in her own sphere. Good.

I am quite disturbed that anyone would seek to distance themselves from anyone, let alone someone with the wonderful record and abilities to get stuff done as the Baroness, just because that person holds (or did hold) a now out of favour but mainstream view. A view held by a range of types of people and for a number of different reasons.

I can't follow this at all. It's as if holding the "right" opinion on gay marriage outweighs a decades-long record of actually stepping in to lift up oppressed people, in particular children, to change their lives. As if opinions outweigh actions. I don't understand that at all, nor why people have to constantly refer to the fact that they are atheist and so disagree with her on that. What does it matter? Isn't it wonderful that there are Christians who actually try to live Christian lives, as in helping those in need, making this world a better place? Isn't that what counts?

I would actually be interested to know why she holds/held that view, why she felt it might damage women and girls.

I would like to know this too.

Sunday Times article:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5a45470a-b8ab-11ea-809a-a9cf0f6249f6?shareToken=9151349ab1e45a7390916637961c5a0f

I think Nicholson is only the second member of the House of Lords (after Lord Moonie) that has been active on this at all.

Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson had her sponsors piled on when she spoke out on sport.

Whilst in the other house there were several formal complaints made against David TC Davis MP.

Sticking your head above the parapet brings the fire.

Thanks Needmore, quite right I had forgotten that Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson had been speaking out actively for women in sport and was hounded on Twitter for it too. Thanks for the reminder. UK women have three people out of 300 in the unelected chamber that have spoken up. Since the last GE, as you say, there’s only David TC Davis MP in the Commons.

@Lamahaha

I am quite disturbed that anyone would seek to distance themselves from anyone, let alone someone with the wonderful record and abilities to get stuff done as the Baroness, just because that person holds (or did hold) a now out of favour but mainstream view. A view held by a range of types of people and for a number of different reasons.

I can't follow this at all. It's as if holding the "right" opinion on gay marriage outweighs a decades-long record of actually stepping in to lift up oppressed people, in particular children, to change their lives. As if opinions outweigh actions. I don't understand that at all, nor why people have to constantly refer to the fact that they are atheist and so disagree with her on that. What does it matter? Isn't it wonderful that there are Christians who actually try to live Christian lives, as in helping those in need, making this world a better place? Isn't that what counts?

I would actually be interested to know why she holds/held that view, why she felt it might damage women and girls.

I would like to know this too.

Most of the people I know that are heavily involved in helping out voluntarily in children’s groups are Christians. So personally I am very very grateful as otherwise I don’t believe the local scouts or cubs would run, the local free church summer clubs certainly wouldn’t be there nor the free baby groups locally.

My uncle, dad and grandfather did a lot of work for children’s/ young people’s charities and welfare organisations (and local political groups). All were honking atheists but very strong socialists (when socialism was about fairness and equality).