Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

[IwantToRetire]

Education not indoctrination
The events was organised by a coalition of groups including the Christian Institute, which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, Stand By Me Scotland, which opposed the wearing of facemasks in schools during the pandemic, Academics for Academic Freedom and For Women Scotland, which opposes Scottish government plans for people to be able to self-identify their legal gender.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/education-not-indoctrination-tickets-426737442177

Glasgow venue cancels booking for cancel culture conference
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04e3fa4a-6696-11ed-9c3b-2d9184d0076f?shareToken=4ffe4f56d755905a476b686c75b65dd0&fbclid=IwAR1UHupPu9Xu4bD_gF0JoJb0A9u-bE2RDTcRqmbt9c8bpRUird9JTGbG8o8

I believe the law sets quite clear limits on free speech (defamation, incitement of violence against a person…), so why exactly is there this constant push to further limit free speech within these limits?

I love the „free speech is free but not without consequences“ line, regularly uttered by the same people who push to get people fired for daring to deviate from the proscribed line, be it on ‚women with penises‘, Palestine and whatnot.
Those people could live in North Korea and still believe they‘re not living under totalitarianism. Cause, hey, speech is still free, but if you say absurdities like „I think Our Great Leader lied and our astronauts didn‘t really land on the Sun“ you obviously have to live with the consequences…

That's interesting, because I would attend that meeting -- for the same reason I lurk on red pill forums, read all manner of papers (including the Weekly Worker), read a load of Wahhabi works in English after 9/11 ... I want to know why people hold the views they do.

I really don't know how we got to the point where such examinations of pluralities of thought became some sort of negative reflection on the examiner. It strikes me that it is backed by fear: fear of being assumed to be "on the wrong side" and being punished for it.

And that worries me, because behind that fear of punishment is something far more dangerous and that is the demand for conformity. You can't do this, or listen to that, or wonder about those, or reflect on that because if you do, you are bad and we must reject you.

But if we don't engage and listen and reflect with those that we disagree with, no one is ever going to get anywhere. We are all just going to become Dickensian stereotypes, locked into ridiculous caricatures.

A bit like TRAs, who demand constant conformity, a phenomenon that has now become oppressive and authoritarian in a very real way -- and have become themselves Dickensian.

I couldn't stand along side other groups if fundamentally disagreed with their main beliefs . It was also make me question why I believed the same as them on the particular issue we shared and would worry that by standing with them I would be seen to agree with them on the other issues and so others might think I lack judgement about the shared issue. I would also question if the reason we agree is because of the same worries or because they hold another more scary rational that I wouldn't want to be associated with.

So you would never share a platform with a practising Catholic, Mosley etc. ?

podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/the-we-hate-hate-speech-speech-with-helen-dale/id1602842758?i=1000585082793

This is a fascinating episode of Corinna Cohn and Nina Paley's podcast series, where they interview Helen Dale on the history of Hate Speech laws. The discussion covers a hugely broad field, and could actually be a good micro example of what we are discussing here, as Helen Dale is probably contentious in her views on feminism to many on this board. Yet there would still be lots to agree on. She bigs up Louise Perry. She seems to be an absolute polymath; law, classical history, anthropology, politics. Her insights into lobbying are fascinating (lots to say on trans rights lobbying).
Sooo enlightening/thought provoking on the topic of free speech, hate speech, freedom of association.
Highly recommend.

Mosley might be pushing it a bit far especially as he is dead. Don't think he would have shared a platform with a believer in Islam either. Autocorrect obviously has right wing tendencies.

“I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That is what free speech means.
It is not just for people whose views one approves.
When I campaigned against Scottish independence, I was working with Better Together alongside Communists, Tories, Liberals, and Labour supporters. We disagreed with each other on almost everything else, but we put that aside for the single important issue of preserving the UK.

I will work with people who I disagree with not with people who’s views I find totally abhorrent.

That’s my right too.

I will work with people who I disagree with not with people who’s views I find totally abhorrent.

That’s my right too.

Of course it is but it also means that you can never work with any practising Catholic etc

You’re getting muddled, Dreamwhisper.

Freedom of speech actually is a green light to say whatever you want. No one says there are no ramifications. If it’s libellous or illegal, you may be taken to court. If I disagree with it, I have the right to say so.

I can respect your right to say your opinion and still contest your ideas most vociferously is the viewpoint of free-speech advocates. Not of people who cancel meetings and try to gag the opposition.

True, it is your right. Everyone has boundaries, and we should respect them.

But that also means that people then have the right not to work with you if they find your views abhorrent. And you don't get to explain exactly what your views are, and why you believe those things, because there is no space for that to occur.

So never the twain shall meet.

Of course, this isn't so much of a problem in a modern democratic society that has largely anonymised cities, and examples of abhorrent views revolve around desiring mass deaths and genocides that only a handful of people hold, but when you scale this issue across a society, and "abhorrent views" become things like 'women are adult human females' or 'children need more safeguarding than adults', then you have a somewhat serious problem.

I'd wonder what the real aim of the organisers was. I honestly can't see compromise happening between some of those groups.

I'm all for free speech, but I'd be worried that I'd be attending some sort of evangelical event to attempt to educate me out of my bad free-thinking ways.

You have summed up my view totally. Thank you

Agreed.

This.

When people say that speech should have consequences, you have to ask what kind of consequences they mean. If they mean more speech - people disagreeing, protesting, even mocking and satirising your speech - that's fine. If they mean anything else, it's fascist.

I'm all for free speech, but I'd be worried that I'd be attending some sort of evangelical event to attempt to educate me out of my bad free-thinking ways.

And what if you were? I'm sure you're more mentally robust than you realise and can walk out of an event that doesn't interest you. Even if you had to sit and listen to it for a couple of hours, you'd still walk out fine and unchanged. The world won't fall apart.

I’ve said this before and always been told no… but surely looking at the line up of people who agree with you must sew a seed of doubt in where the drive to push all this anti trans hate comes from?

Feminists aligning themselves with anti abortionists?
Lesbians siding with Anti-equal marriage campaigners?

If I was looking around me and seeing those types as my allies I would want to have a good long think and reassess of my opinions

I am not getting muddled, what you have written is literally what I said.

My post was in response to a poster telling the OP that unless she supported those people on their issues, then she's not really into free speech.

This is not true.

No it doesn't!

Stop obfuscating. There is a wealth of difference between being friends or colleagues with people of different belief systems, i.e. tolerance, and actively standing up and supporting those views too.

The latter will extend to being seen to support and attend events where those views are being advocated.

It's not rocket science. Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you want to big up anyone else who agrees with anti transgender sentiments.

If you support the Family Party etc, just own it.

Quote from a movie…
^^
”America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight.
^^
It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
^^
You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.
^^
Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.“

How have they suddenly become 'allies' rather than people discussing/debating ideas?

Do you think you automatically become aligned to anyone you talk to? Doesn't that mean they also become aligned to you? So you must cancel each other out, surely?

What do you mean by 'anti trans hate'? Please give some examples with links, as I don't know what you mean.

A mature democracy should be able to handle a diverse range of views, even ones that people might find offensive

Yes this is a lovely high school politics sentiment but it's not what is at play here. There is nuance to politics and social issue. It's not about "handling" or tolerating views one doesn't agree with, the question is, is it right to stand with people in a political and social context who are actively advocating issues you find completely against your own views, in order to further your plight on one specific issue that you do have common views on?

People saying actually no, I would not be okay with that, it's morally corrupt, and the context in which my views exist and who they are shared with is important, are not simply "intolerant". It's not about this nice we should all get along and be listened to idea. Attending these events in solidarity adds to the voice of those organisations.

If you want to add your voice to the chorus of pro life organisations, or anti same sex marriage advocates, then you do you. I will not under any circumstances be joining you.

There is a wealth of difference between being friends or colleagues with people of different belief systems, i.e. tolerance, and actively standing up and supporting those views too.

The latter will extend to being seen to support and attend events where those views are being advocated.

Why will it? That's not what 'support' means.

If you go to a Catholic church for a wedding, are you supporting anti-abortion views? What about if you go to the church hall for a zumba class? How about if you go for a discussion about abortion?

Discussing ideas and attending events is not "actively standing up and supporting" the views of the organisers. Surely you see that's a ridiculous statement.

Freedom of speech is an ideal; and the reality is some groups do not share that ideal and see your commitment to ideals as a weakness to use against you. The threat from groups with an extremist ideology is real and ongoing. It would be a mistake to lump them in with organisations such as the Catholic church.

"When the axe came into the woods, many of the trees said, "At least the handle is one of us'"
''There will always be groups that will take advantage of a NSP that is focused on 'handles' instead of 'axe heads'.
Once the axe head is forged it can be attached to one of many handles...refitted over and over again.''
www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-axe-came-forest-trees-said-dont-worrythe-handle-jon

Only on the MN boards where anti trans ideology is the only issue feminism concerns itself with would anyone EVER be arguing that it's alright to in any way associate with people who are so actively anti womens rights.

It honestly makes my mind boggle. This place is such an interesting phenomenon.

'align' and 'ally' are doing lots of heavy lifting, here. It's purity politics, again.