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.

You're right.

Yes, I know

Not sure why you think it's relevant.

GL thinks Owen Jones should be cancelled because of his views.

GL then complaining that others think he should be cancelled for his views is being a total hypocrite.

No lovey

others have cancelled Linehan

do you see the difference between words and deeds?

Because opinion and action are not the same thing!

Words aren’t literal violence, you know 😂

People seem to be panicking over this.

Funny.

I agree there's a huge difference between saying someone should be sacked and persistently hassling someone's employer with your mates to get them sacked and the employer actually sacking them.

I’m just laughing at “blue-haired social justice bedwetters”. This’ll cross my mind every time I see blue hair.

I think OJ should be banished from society and made to live in a cave forever more so that he can no longer publicly champion the surgical mutilation of gay and autistic kids…

but am I taking any actions to progress this?

No.

Because that would be false imprisonment

Also, I don’t have a cave handy.

Couldn’t agree more. Imagine if every employer did this!

Depends which legal angle you're asking about.

I've seen people say that this is a breach of contract. It may well be, but no one can know without seeing the contract.

The Equality Act 2010 is more straightforward. The booking wasn't cancelled because of Linehan's belief. Someone has already pointed out that someone else who is gender critical was in the show and that did not cause the booking to get cancelled.

No one credibly thinks that protection of a belief extends to any expression or behaviours of that belief. That was pretty clear in Forstater. So the question is whether Linehan's only crime is believing that sex is immutable, or that trans women are men, and trans men are women. Or whether, in fact, his behaviour is such that a service might legitimately be justified in denying him a platform.

There is a litany that Linehan has done that are dispicable. The nonces quote is just one of them. I would expect the venue to have a field day if anyone tried to claim in court that he was just discriminated against because of his protected beliefs.

Glinner expressing a wish ('OJ should never work again') being equated with an action (the Leith Arms reneging on their contract) doesn't half remind me of the tras oft repeated plaint of words being 'literal violence'. 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?).

Regarding the 'nonces'. It's been a while since I read it, but on his substack there was a breakdown of the dubious characters at the start of this movement. The central figures of transactions such as John Money. If it was a reference to that, then it's pretty accurate.

But Linehan thinks that cancelling someone for their views is fine.

They don't have to be the same thing for hypocrisy to be exposed.

If I believe that all Muslims should be denied the right to worship, but then object if Christians are denied the right to worship on the basis of my belief in freedom of religion - the fact that I didn't actively do anything to support the denial of Muslim rights, and just supported it, doesn't make me less of a hypocrite.

No one credibly thinks that protection of a belief extends to any expression or behaviours of that belief. That was pretty clear in Forstater.

This is your problem @PlanetJanette

MaybeNo one who is trans or a trans ally who only reads that incorrect interpretation thinks that about Forstater but it's not true.

Expression is protected by Forstater.

How funny.

We all know this isn't just about Graham's "views".

Plenty of evidence available- screenshots/archvies/witnesses, that he has harassed and issued threats on social media towards LGBT people, spread hatred and posted questionable images of underage children unclothed.

The venue was correct to ban him.

Right, so either you believe that the law should be changed to force OJ to be banished from society and forced to live in a cave for his views (in which case you'd be a hypocrite if you objected to the same applying to you); or you don't actually believe that OJ should be banished from society and forced to live in a cave.

There is a litany that Linehan has done that are dispicable

prove it

The nonces quote is just one of them.

and prove it internet random

Do you really think that Forstater protects any expression of a protected belief?

I mean is that really your view?

Regarding the 'nonces'. It's been a while since I read it, but on his substack there was a breakdown of the dubious characters at the start of this movement. The central figures of transactions such as John Money. If it was a reference to that, then it's pretty accurate.*

Exactly. Any defence on that basis would be required to explain why they didn't believe that child sex offenders were child sex offenders.

They back themselves into some very dubious corners.

So what?

deeds

words

different

are you experiencing some kind of difficulty I should be making allowances for?

Not up to me to prove anything - the venue will have no problem in doing so if the organisers are stupid enough to sue.

If this cancellation was solely about a protected belief, why was it not cancelled when others with the same GC belief were on the line-up?

None of that is relevant to whether something is hypocrisy or not.

Your problem is you are clipping a few words and holding them up as your evidence.

That's not what would happen in court.

Well if you want people to take you seriously you kind of do need to be able to back up what you say

but it’s ok chicken, I stopped taking you seriously several posts ago

'nearly all central trans figures'.

Not 'a few named individuals'.