The Stand Comedy Club statement on cancelling Jo Cherry

[WandaWomblesaurus]

twitter.com/StandComedyClub/status/1653017007921545221?s=20

I am puzzled that staff refusal to work leads to the event being cancelled rather than the staff being replaced, is this the tail wagging the dog?

@WandaWomblesaurus I have just seen there is a thread on this already

The way that statement is worded implies to me that they're saying it's because the staff are refusing to work for the event.
If that's actually the case and not just a scapegoat - What if Jo had volunteers to staff the event as opposed to their regular staff?
I'm having major brain fog at the minute, but basically like the emergency teachers a school will get in to "cover" for when your regular teacher is off sick.

It could even be an extension of what KJK is doing with the volunteers for LWS, any venue that tries to shut down women speaking because the event is "not properly staffed", well, we have people willing to fulfil the staff role for these events.

That would truly be ensuring all views are respected...

It seems to be a particularly stupid fight to pick, when you consider, that if there's one person who will know the law on that better than they know the back of their own hand and be in position to do something about it, it will be JC!
Let's hope that the staff of The Stand divvy up towards the cost of the legal action they might be involved with very soon.
I hope JC sues them for every penny she can.

I saw somewhere (sorry, don't remember where) that other politicians are booked to appear at the venue in other "in conversation with" events. I hope if the Stand doesn't reconsider, they'll all pull out in protest. No politician worthy of the name should take part in any event while the venue has this discriminatory policy.

I remember last year there was a case where evangelists (Billy Graham’s son) booked an arena in Glasgow and following complaints (the little obnoxious guy from the Greens got involved) it was cancelled. They took the owners of the arena to court (Glasgow Council I think) and won. The sheriff was quite scathing of the owners attitude and wrote quite a significant piece about the judgement.

If that's actually the case and not just a scapegoat - What if Jo had volunteers to staff the event as opposed to their regular staff?

I get you're trying to find a solution here, but why on Earth should the onus be on Joanna, really? To do all this extra work no other performer would be required to do.

To throw back to the Jerry Sadowitz business last year, I recall posters saying here saying something to the effect of the staff at these venues are not locals in seasonal work but bussed-in industry types. Which is depressing for many reasons!

Their posted message is hilarious; as it's an open admission of discrimination against a protected characteristic!

How stupid can they be; J. Cherry can sue them and win now so easily.

If J Cherry's views on transpeople are making the staff uncomfortable and don't wish to have any association with her, then they can't be forced to?

Cherry can have her views but so can everyone else.

Because belief is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

What they've done is no different than the "No Blacks, no Irish" signs that were once so common. How very progressive of them.

I hope she sues them to infinity and beyond.

They don't have to listen to or platform her though, do they?
That's their choice, you can't force people to platform or want to listen to you.
How is it discrimination to decide not to platform someone?
I mean, the religious bloke with a megaphone wanging on in the middle of the town centre about God and Christianity for example, his religious beliefs might be protected but that has nothing to do with wanting to speak somewhere and being refused as they don't want to listen to it.
He could go do it elsewhere where he'd be more welcome.

Didnt see your comment before posting mine - yes, exactly

Joanna Cherry has a protected belief, a protected characteristic.

The staff refusing to work because they feel 'uncomfortable' about a lesbian because she believes that biological sex is important is no different to refusing to work because they feel 'uncomfortable' about platforming a black person, or a trans person, or a disabled person etc.

Your staff being intolerant bigots doesn't make discriminating against someone because of their protected characteristic legal.

But you've spent enough time on this board, and post pretty much the same on every similar thread, so you already know this.

Would you be happy with the club accommodating a Nazi or a KKK member? And if not, should the Nazi or KKK guy be able to sue for their apparent "protected beliefs"?

@Mollyollydolly ·
Because belief is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act
Yes, belief is.
You're entitled to your belief.
Others can exercise their right not to want to listen to them.though.
There's a difference.

And I think we all know that JC being a lesbian has nothing to do with this.

I think a better example would be someone with homophobic views - they're entitled to their beliefs, they're protected, but should they automatically be granted a platform to speak somewhere?
Nobody should have to listen to their views if they don't want to.

But they did give her a platform and then cancelled it.

I'm struggling to see any difference between what has happened here and the Franklin Graham case.

Franklin Graham v Glasgow City Council

Those aren’t protected beliefs. From the EHRC:

”For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.”

You're missing the point. Read the Franklin Graham case.

The staff refusing to work because they feel 'uncomfortable' about a lesbian because she believes that biological sex is important is no different to refusing to work because they feel 'uncomfortable' about platforming a black person, or a trans person, or a disabled person etc.
Her being a lesbian has absolutely nothing to do with it, though.
It's her views people disagree with, nothing to do with her sexuality.

I'm pretty sure that the Nazi example was considered when GC was protected as a philosophical belief. No, something as extreme as neo-Nazism probably isn't going to be protected by the legislation.

But they did give her a platform and then cancelled it
Then cancelled as staff didnt want to associate with it presumably as they didnt agree.
Which is their right to. They don't owe her one.

How is it discrimination to decide not to platform someone?

Ask Nottingham council.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/07/nottingham-council-apologises-to-julie-bindel-for-unlawfully-cancelling-talk

Or Edinburgh council.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19363377.edinburgh-council-apologises-pays-25-000-damages-banning-anti-gay-us-preacher/

It's discrimination if the reason you're de-platforming someone is because of their protected characteristic. This really isn't hard to understand.

It isn't their right to do so. Read the Graham decision.