Northumbria University - Sarah Phillimore and Harry Miller 'seen as a 'safety and wellbeing' risk to an entire university.'

[ChristinaXYZ]

Open letter on Sarah Phillimore's website shows how deep the interference with debate and free speech goes at some universities.

sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-northumbria-university

Employees at my educational establishment have been made aware that physical or electronic mail directed to us may be opened by another member of staff.

Instead of the intended recipient?

Fair Cop who advocate:

hashtag #SayYesToHate on 'days of LGBTQ significance'.*

I think you've either misunderstood or are dishonestly pretending to, suggestions.

Yes. We have been told that another employee may have the right to intercept and act upon content of communications directed to us as employees. I imagine this follows particular guidelines rather than being a free for all, but my understanding is that an organisation has the right to do that.

I'm taking that at face value...is there a reason that most people would not?

I think you've either misunderstood or are dishonestly pretending to, suggestions.

What? Never!

I don't understand what you mean by this. You wrote the sentence "Fair Cop who advocate: hashtag #SayYesToHate on 'days of LGBTQ significance". What is the thing you are taking at face value? Have you by any chance copied part of some text but not posted relevant context?

I have copied part of her open letter.

She then goes on to explain that it should not be considered problematic that she is proud to be a member of Fair Cop who advocate this as:

"All of this activity on behalf of Fair Cop is confirmed as protected political speech and/or the expression of a belief protected pursuant to the Equality Act 2010."

I can't imagine that the University cares less. It is rightly concerned with student well-being and I can see why they are worried about giving a platform to someone who appears to be happy to associate with a group who are keen to publish such sentiment.

Does she think she has a right to be given a platform? Why would she?! I don't. My dog doesn't. I don't see why anyone would feel they have a personal, inherent right to a platform.

She was invited to attend. Someone illegally intercepted and deleted her communications. How come YOU can't see a problem?

There was no illegal interception of her emails; the university is entitled to act as they did and don't have to give a legal justification for it to her.

You've used the wording of what someone else has 'asserted' she has done and pretending that she is 'proud' to 'advocate' for it, despite those words not appearing in the text, then pretending you didn't change it and were 'taking it at face value'.

We can all see you're doing it. I'm not engaging with dishonesty any further.

Are they though? They never informed the recipient their mail was being censored. I'm not sure they can act in such a cavalier way without justification. I'd like to see this before a court of law.

Dishonesty is all they have.

I have made entirely reasonable inferences from her open letter. She does not disavow her association with Fair Cop and states that their communications constitute "protected political speech and/or the expression of a belief protected pursuant to the Equality Act 2010"

Based on your assumption I went and read the open letter. She is saying that a third person says fair cop is stating that hashtag, not her, not fair cop. You are reading it incorrectly.

If someone emails a university in a general manner I expect anyone in the university administration to answer that email, however if I name a person at said university I expect the email to go to/be read by that person.

@spongedog A similiar thing happened at Harvard in April. Either a low level staff or grad student revoked a Harvard invitation to a Keats scholar, Dr. Devin Buckley, a feminist philosopher and Women's Liberation Front (WOLF) Board Member. The difference was that Dr Buckley was only going to be speaking about Romanticism but her GC views were enough for the cancellation.

"She was scheduled to speak at Harvard University on her cutting-edge work on British Romanticism and philosophy but on April 18th she was notified that she had been disinvited, citing her board membership with "an organization that takes a public stance regarding trans people as dangerous and deceptive.""

I highly recommend watching WOLF's interview with her (at the link)as she is an American version of Sarah Phillimore, so very calm,laser-focused and articulate.

Are you telling me that Sarah Phillimore is not a co-founder of Fair Cop? As that is what it says on their website. There appears to be a photo of her on it?

Is it someone else purporting to be her that has written that open letter saying that Fair Cop communications like #SayYesToHate on the Transgender Day of Remembrance are protected political speech?

She should really get on to that. It could be harmful for her reputation.

Just as a general piece of advice, to anyone on MN or any other website: you can tell what people are telling you by reading what they've written, not what you have made up and decided they've said.

There is nothing criminal in hating - we all do. I hate eating mussels. I also hate the erosion of women's rights, being referred to as 'cis' or a 'mentruator', I hate the sterilisation of children, I hate pollution, I hate corruption, I hate slugs, I hate drink drivers, I hate rapists and paedophiles, I hate Pepsi, I hate the colour of my bathroom. Do you think I should be criminalised because I hate slugs? If not then why is 'hate' itself being pushed as though it was itself a crime rather than a natural feeling?

It also seems someone at the university has decided to 'say yes to hate' except they took it a step further and used their hate as an excuse damage Sarah professionally. Ironic really that they then complained about that slogan.

There's a difference between your 1. entitlement to the feeling of hate (and yes, your entitlement to express hate -to the degree that the laws provide for, anyway), and 2. your entitlement to a platform at a University to express vile views, is there not?

I don't see how any reasonable person can fail to see this distinction, but it appears that Sarah Phillimore and many other GC feminists regard 1 & 2 as rights that are synonymous with each other.

Weird. Especially with the emphasis on logic and reason that is usually bandied about.

Sorry, quoted wrong post in my response, meant to refer to this one of course.

So here's the context, @suggestionsplease1 from a very easy google search:

www.faircop.org.uk/on-hatred/

Yes - Sarah Phillimore is a co-founder of Fair Cop

No - Fair Cop is not a hate organisation, and does not support or encourage hate of anyone

Yes - Fair Cop is campaigning against the use of 'non-crime hate incidents' as a form of mob justice against people who are acting lawfully but in ways that some popular people don't like.

The police argue that it’s important to record hate incidents — where no crime has been committed, but where someone has perceived that an action or statement is motivated by hate — because this hatred could escalate to a crime. That sounds reasonable, but we founded Fair Cop because ordinary people are having hate incidents recorded against their name for making statements such as “I think my cat might be a Methodist” or, simply, “Huh?”.

What’s more, the police’s claim that they are preventing escalation, while plausible on paper, is on closer inspection completely bogus. Fair Cop will soon be publishing the findings of our latest Freedom of Information campaign to discover whether the police monitor how many hate incidents escalate into actual hate crimes. Spoiler alert: they don’t, because they can’t.

...

It gets worse. The College of Policing’s latest hate crime guidance defines “hatred” to include dislike, resentment and unfriendliness. It also retains the ‘victim’ perception element which enables anyone to cry “hate” to the police whenever they read or hear something that offends them. If you’ve been involved in the Great Trans Debate, there’s a chance you might have a hate incident recorded against you. And you won’t know about it unless you file a Subject Access Request to whichever force the complainant (or, as the Guidance insists, the “victim”) reported the incident. Or, when you are rejected for dream job or volunteering role that requires an enhanced DBS search.

Do you think we ought to be ordering stickers saying something contentious like transwomen are men , sorry, I meant stickers saying Please Stop Reading My Emails, or would that be too upsetting.

Wasn’t ‘say yes to hate’ a hashtag to reject the attempt to frame saying women are adult human females and other facts about the material realities of life as hate speech?

To reject the totalitarian demands of extreme trans rights activists?

To reject the very deplatforming seemingly attempted here?

Isn’t it funny how a group insist we be nice and not demand ‘truth’ in using words such as ‘women’ mantras like ‘transwomen are women’ (ie . To pry open the meaning of woman to mean what they want) yet, then want to enforce the literal meaning of the word ‘hate’ when it suits them (and not allow use of the word in the ironic way it is used in that hashtag).

Almost like they get litoral and literal mixed up. Or … they just have an agenda and don’t like their hypocrisy pointed out.

There's a difference between your 1. entitlement to the feeling of hate (and yes, your entitlement to express hate -to the degree that the laws provide for, anyway), and 2. your entitlement to a platform at a University to express vile views, is there not?

I think mussels are vile, is it OK to deplatform mussels farmers?

#SayYesToHate on the Transgender Day of Remembrance

oh gosh!! Maybe some extreme trans activists will lay off abusing women and lesbians who disagree with them on IWD and on Lesbian awareness days!