Comedy event cancelled at the Fringe because of Glinner?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

I hadn't seen anything about this on X/Twitter previously, but apparently some activists have been putting pressure on the venue and they've cancelled an upcoming event called Comedy Unleashed because one of the comedians is Graham Linehan. How utterly pathetic. https://twitter.com/UnleashedComedy/status/1691476377793409024?s=20 Seems to be organised by/associated with Andrew Doyle, aka Titania McGrath.

And there (contrary to another posters false claim) they held that the fact that a belief is protected does not mean that any manifestation of that belief is also protected.

Ah, right, so just because it’s OK for e.g. a man to believe they’re a woman, it might not be OK for them to “manifest” that belief?

What Forstater did address though was the relationship between belief and expression. And there (contrary to another posters false claim) they held that the fact that a belief is protected does not mean that any manifestation of that belief is also protected.

Wrong.

Manifestations of gender-critical beliefs are protected against discrimination

Until now, some trans rights advocates have encouraged the idea that “gender critical” beliefs are protected only if a person keeps them to themselves. But, as Forstater’s solicitor, Peter Daly, writes:

“Importantly – and contrary to much commentary and speculation – this judgment establishes that the legal protection goes further than protecting the mere holding of gender critical beliefs: acts of manifesting the belief through lawful speech and action are protected. The mistaken assertion made by some that gender critical people were protected so long as they never gave voice to their belief – in effect, compelling gender critical people to remain mute – was always mistaken and is now shown to be so.”

We must remember that the decision didn't give Maya carte blanche to do as she pleases. I am indebted to Lily Maynard:

lilymaynard.com/101-things-the-ruling-does-not-give-maya-forstater-the-right-to-do/

The Forstater ruling certainly didn’t say that belief cannot be expressed!

Where is the point in legally protecting a a non-expressed belief? It’s the expression that has to be protected.
No one KNOWS what anyone else is thinking unless they express the thought! 😂😂😂

If (insert religious group) only ever thought (insert religious belief) and never said it out loud or expressed their religious belief in any way the. they wouldn’t need to be protected from anything, because no one would be trying to persecute them!

I can’t decide if your argument that the presence of Mary Burke proves that Leith Arches isn’t discriminatory towards GC beliefs is completely stupid (because if Mary Burke is actually fine by Leith Arches, how come the whole event was cancelled and not just GL’s 15 minute slot?) or if you are making a desperate grab at a the ‘Some of my best mates are black’ trope?

‘But some of Leith Arches’ other featured comics are terves! They can’t possibly be bigots!’

Ha ha! I’d forgotten that thing of beauty.

Telling someone to, for example, 'take a hike', will not give that person any steps towards their daily 10,000 (or is it 4,000 now?).

I actually saw someone claim on Twitter that the well known expression "give them enough rope" was a death threat and would be reported to the police as such. And "Aida H Dee" whined to Pink News that Mumsnetters had threatened him with crucifixion, when what was actually said at the time was that anyone else making a joke based on ADHD "would be crucified" for it.

I don't know why this one tickles me so much but it always makes me laugh -

It’s important to note the judgment does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to tweet an infinite number of exuberantly random nested quote-tweets that eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare.

@shizoor

There’s a difference between a judgment finding that a ‘belief cannot be expressed’ and a judgment finding that a protected belief does not mean that any expression of that belief is protected.

Taking a different belief - it would probably be unlawful for an employer to sack someone because they are Christian, or because when asked what they did at the weekend they said that they had gone to church. But it would probably be lawful to sack someone if they insisted on telling every customer that they believe they are going to hell.

Different manifestations of belief are capable of being treated differently in terms of their legal protection. It is not the case that any and all manifestations are protected.

It’s important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to put her left leg in, her left out, in out in out, and shake it all about.

She would need to go to HR.

No, but the venue haven’t specified which expression of GL’s belief they are acting on so they better find one that stands up in court (and prove they made the decision based on it, not just retcon the narrative quick to cover their arses).

Seeing as it all happened so quickly, I doubt they followed any professional protocol nor consulted a legal expert before breaching the contract made with CU.

But it would probably be lawful to sack someone if they insisted on telling every customer that they believe they are going to hell.

Odd example but the salient points include that the persistent aggravation of customers would need to be dealt with under a clear policy and performance measures by HR or management.

And there (contrary to another posters false claim) they held that the fact that a belief is protected does not mean that any manifestation of that belief is also protected.

Maya called "genderfluid" Phil/Pippa Bunce a "part time crossdresser" in the context of whether he should have won a Women in Business award. The panel was split on whether the comment was inappropriate but 2 of 3 of them thought it wasn't objectionable in that context, and it didn't affect the ultimate finding that she had been discriminated against by her employer.

It’s important to note the judgment does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to tweet an infinite number of exuberantly random nested quote-tweets that eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare.

Again you have no way of knowing if they breached their contract without seeing it.

And just to reiterate, THIS is how Comedy Unleashed describe themselves, so this is what Leith Arches agreed to host at their venue when making their hire contract with CU.

It’s going to be very hard for Leith Arches to argue that Graham Linehan’s gender critical beliefs cannot be expressed in an over 18’s licensed venue to a paying audience, an audience who specifically bought tickets for a Free Speech promoting comedy event at an international Arts Festival known for hosting all sorts of edgy material for a number of decades.

Yes. Dealt with. Including up to the point of dismissal. Because it’s simply wrong to claim that any and all manifestations of a protected belief are protected.

This is a discussion forum, we are discussing stuff.

As I have said, I am looking forward to a full legal judgement on Leith Arches despicable behaviours because fuck me, they seem like total muppets.

Ah, right, so just because it’s OK for e.g. a man to believe they’re a woman, it might not be OK for them to “manifest” that belief?

This is a typical claim from TRAs and their supporters. Both Maya and Allison Bailey "manifested" their gender critical beliefs in ways people could have found offensive and their discrimination claims against their employers succeeded. It is not the case that gender critical beliefs cannot be expressed at all.

Not going directly in at dismissal though, that would leave the employer wide open to legal action.

Just like Leith Arches are.

Of course. But discussion doesn’t mean making claims you have no way of knowing whether they are true or not.

That depends on what their HR policies say. Most policies do include a route to immediate dismissal.

But of course the point is already conceded - the Equality Act does not protect any and all manifestations of protected beliefs.

Because it’s simply wrong to claim that any and all manifestations of a protected belief are protected.

No one has done that, have they? Any beliefs, not just gender critical ones. Do you think all manifestations of genderist beliefs are protected? I imagine you realise that there aren't special rules for gender critical people.

No one has said that Forstater means that Gender Critical beliefs cannot be expressed at all.

All I have said is that the Equality Act does not protect any and all expressions.

Who said they did?

Are you suggesting we all stay silent until the legal judgement comes out?
Because that would be unreasonable, seeing as this is a discussion forum.

The only evidence we have as of now is Leith Arches crappy statement and the reasonable suspicion a legal contract between Leith Arches and CU exists or the event would not have been listed/advertised/tickets sold.

Venue for hire contracts are pretty standard things.