The Stand Comedy Club statement on cancelling Jo Cherry

[WandaWomblesaurus]

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

Nobody should have to listen to their views if they don't want to.

From their first statement:

This event is open to all and will include questions from the public on any issues that might be raised. This was not specifically intended to be an event focussed on gender recognition or the rights of trans people.
Joanna Cherry is the MP for Edinburgh Southwest and the chair of the UK Parliament's Human Rights Committee. Her invite to participate in this event is due to her wide ranging political and public role.

Don't even know what she's going to be asked or how she is going to answer, but cancelled anyway just in case she has wrong thoughts in her head.

It's very kind of them to publish their confession just like Nottingham council did.

Well if it's a venue offering a service, then yes, they may be legally obliged to hire out the venue to evangelical Christians that think homosexuality is sinful on really quite questionable grounds.

Personally I think free speech is so important, the greater good, is that a private company shouldn't always be able to refuse a platform.

For example, should you really have a situation where the Conservative Party can advertise for elections, but all the major companies refuse to take the adverts of the Labour Party? I don't accept that the line, "they're a private company they can do what they like", is always going to be correct.

Can you point us to the part in the Equality Act or any judgments where 'Nazi' and 'KKK guy' are confirmed as being protected characteristics please?

They’re not forcing anyone to buy tickets for the event. They don’t have to. Just to check the tickets and let the public in.

so yes it’s unlawful

It's amazing any venue in Scotland can publicise an event with any certainty these days, it all comes down to what the snowflakes working there decide is acceptable to them.
I expect this year's fringe with really bear the brunt of this TRA obsession.

You don’t understand the law. Hate speech per se isn’t a protected belief but religious beliefs are. So the case someone posted about Billy Graham organization is on point- you can’t refuse to serve someone because they are Christian or Jewish or gender critical.

You can be discriminated against because of your belief. And if you are working somewhere or offering a service you may not be able to refuse to listen to that belief if it is part of your job.

in this case as I have pointed out anyway they just need to collect the tickets- no one gives a shit what they think and they have no need to listen to Joanna Cherry if a clever woman is too much them

Being transphobic is not a protected characteristic

We know.

We're talking about gender critical belief, which, like it or not, is a PC.

you can’t refuse to serve someone because they are Christian or Jewish or gender critical.
Yes, serve them. Not listen to their views!
I can't refuse you service in my shop for example because I know you don't agree with people being gay, for example. You just want your pint of milk and loaf of bread, like everyone which you're entitled to.
If you decided to wang on about being gay is a sin though in the middle of the cereal aisle I'd be entitled to tell you to bog off somewhere else.
You're entitled to your belief.
Not an automatic audience.

Have you read any of the links on page 1, CremeEggQueen?

For example, should you really have a situation where the Conservative Party can advertise for elections, but all the major companies refuse to take the adverts of the Labour Party?
Not really comparable as being for Cons or Labour has nothing to do with a person's being - eg race, sexual orientation or gender identity.
All of which are protected. Unlike being a Labour or Conservative voter.
Political parties are separate.

Point being, is that private companies shouldn't always be able to just do what they like when it comes to providing a platform.

If the law says you have to provide a venue to, for example, evangelical Christians with anti-gay views, then this may be reasonable. This is only providing them a venue, not an audience. No one has to listen to the speech obviously.

I saw this, too - not sure it's the reference you're thinking of, but in the Times article referenced in the previous thread:

Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, and Tom Robinson, the singer and LGBT rights activist, best known for songs such as Glad to Be Gay, 2-4-6-8 Motorway, are still due to take part in similar “In conversation with . . . ” events.

Anas Sarwar is the Scottish Labour Leader, and (list) MSP for Glasgow. He's one of my MSPs and I follow him on SM; as far as I can see he hasn't weighed in on the issue. Any Glaswegians and any Labour Party members, contact him here if you like.

Have you read any of the links? Particularly the Graham decision? What The Stand has done is what Glasgow City Council did.

Glasgow City Council discriminated against Franklin Graham solely because of his religious beliefs. They denied him the opportunity to book a venue owned by them solely because they disapproved of his beliefs. They treated him less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

In Conversation with

Here are the other "In conversation withs..."

I will be amazed if any of them step down.

Actually, they do owe her one.

They agreed to platform her. Then a few TRA’s thought the law didn’t apply to them. (As per usual).

It is to do with her sexuality. Her sexual orientation.

Being a lesbian, she recognises the salience of a person's sex – that someone whose sex is male is not the same category of people as someone whose sex is female.

Same-sex attraction is not permitted among the Progressives™

I don’t think it’s a good idea to ask Joanna cherry to staff the event herself. Why should she? Plus it could set a precedent for her and for others too.
I think the answer to this is in the staff contracts and in the training too.
so staff are explicitly told at the start they might hear something they don’t like or might have to staff an event with a speaker they don’t like. It’s difficult for venues though so I think they have to make sure they are employing robust, resilient people. Maybe predominately older people who have heard it all before and are less shocked. Maybe retired people or close to retirement that want to work a couple of shifts a week.

I imagine Scottish venues are all aware of the Franklin Graham case and the Stand statement has been worded with that in mind. In the Graham case the venue lost because it appeared they cancelled Graham at least in part on the basis of his Christianity a protected characteristic. Here Cherry is being cancelled on the basis that the venue cannot operate that night if she attends. The venue makes no reference to her beliefs or sexuality or whether they take a view on them. They focus solely on operational reasons why it's impossible for them to host her. That may be inconvenient but it's not unlawful - they would not be obliged to provide a platform to Franklin Graham either IF their sole reason for cancelling were security based and due to protests planned outside. It was the fact in the Graham case the venue's sponsors Glasgow City Council said they endorsed LGBT protests (implicitly) at the event that meant their decision was discriminatory.

Seems very much like a case of "you can have any opinion you like as long as it's the same as ours"

CremeEggQueen I don't know whether you're trying to make a legal argument or a moral one. If a legal one, then you're wrong. As numerous people have explained to you, since the Forstater case, gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. Organisations cannot refuse to employ someone, or serve them etc simply because they have gender-critical beliefs.

Morally, you could make the argument that staff shouldn't have to deal with someone whose beliefs they disapprove of. You're free to make that point - I'm sure there are some who would agree with you. But legally, the club doesn't have a leg to stand (sorry) on.

What is the point of any 'in conversation with' any more if the only conversations allowed are ones the staff approve of?

As numerous people have explained to you, since the Forstater case, gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. Organisations cannot refuse to employ someone, or serve them etc simply because they have gender-critical beliefs.
And as I've said, numerous times, yes you're right you can't be refused service or to employ someone because of their beliefs, but you don't get an automatic right to an audience!

No. I run a small construction-based team. My staff can't refuse to go into someone's house to do their job because the client is Jewish or Muslim or black or gay. Under the Equality Act 2010 you can't discriminate because someone holds a belief you don't approve of.

Staff can resign if they don't like it. Apparently when Swansea University rented their facilities to a group who held an event called Silencing Women, about women in academia being no-platformed and harassed, one of the bar staff, an agency worker who was trans, decided to resign as a matter of principle, even though they weren't scheduled to work the night of the event. I suggest the staff of The Stand take that principled approach and then the venue can employ new people who understand that freedom of speech is vital in a democracy and that the law matters.