Tommy Robinson and Let Women Speak

[eatfigs]

I've only read about this on Twitter so there's a chance this is being taken out of context, but it looks like Let Women Speak were part of Tommy Robinson's rally in London this past weekend:

https://x.com/shularises/status/1797585248580186511

https://x.com/GappyTales/status/1797611080212205988

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1796931835823362392

This doesn't sit right with me at all. I've been to LWS events and thought I knew what they were about. I've argued against the guilt-by-association tactics that some activists use against LWS when male intruders have turned up to the events, like the neo-Nazis in Melbourne.

But here we see the opposite, LWS deliberately attending far-right fascist marches. This seems inexcusable to me.

@TempestTost

But we recognize that rallies like this tend to have a wide variety of people who can often have quite different views on issues that aren't what the rally is about. You can't guess, just because someone is at a rally, exactly what their political opinions are, other than within a very limited focus.

Would you say the same about a Pride rally?

This thread has been an eye-opener, even for me. The casual acceptance of ties betweem ŁWS and Tommy Robinson is bizarre to read, as it just doesn't sit well with women's rights in general - even with the knowledge that people have a range of different views. The hounding of one particular poster is despicable.

LordPercyPercy · Yesterday 23:42

Are you seriously saying anyone posting an England flag and expressing national pride is a racist?

Ah! I didn't realise that Emily Thornberry is a poster here!

On "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck," assumption is doing Cassie's heavy lifting, by the look of things.

Are there any videos from the two tier policing event available to watch? Or any interesting interviews of this Tommy Robinson guy?

If there's 16 pages of him so far, maybe it's about time I paid attention to what he says.

It’s not really about that. It’s how people take out someone on X by being too invested and using abuse.

It's all over YouTube and X. Probably best not to post any links here as may cause someone's head to explode.

Have a look online but I wouldn’t link here

Thanks mrshoho and eastern. I shall take a look.

The hounding of one particular poster is despicable.

You mean the hounding of KJK? Oh no, wait. She's been banned so is not a poster and thus is unable to defend herself.

In lieu, I'll just leave a cute quote meme.

The fact that some of you are justifying this is absolutely insane. Tommy Robinson (not his actual name but the name of another football hooligan he has adopted) has been convicted for VAW. Shows no remorse for this in the slightest and is an unrepentant racist.

The casual acceptance of ties betweem ŁWS and Tommy Robinson is bizarre to read

i have read the thread but i think that most women on here are saying that just because someone is in the LWS or has been to their rallies doesn’t mean that because they go to a TR rally that now LWS has ties to the far right

there would have been people at the TR rally who work for the NHS, doesn’t mean that the NHS has ties to the far right

there would have been people there who work for sainsburys….doesn’t mean that sainsburys has ties to the far right

But if they identified themselves as that there would probably be consequences! Our local football team banned some supporters who identified themselves as linked to the team on an EDL March.
The man is a convicted criminal. A violent, drug dealing fascist. But some of you are saying it's ok to hang with him because he hates trans people as much as you do! Really?

No. It isn't. If you notice the thread title is "Tommy Robinson and Let Women Speak"
We had 2 pages of denial, then when some person produced proof, many pages of justification as to why its fine.

Now it's trying to deflect onto being a personal grudge.

Theres a significant lack of reading comprehension going on and a lack of logic isn’t there? Is your local football team now “far right” as a result of those supporters?

Is your local football team “associated with”, or “has ties with” (or any other term thrown around) with “the far right” as a result?

Is anyone who supports your local football team also far right or also far right-associated as a result of those supporters and their behaviour?

The answer is no, of course not. So why don’t you apply that logic here?

The posts along those lines are throughout the thread.

Focusing on one person, with screen shots of their content

It’s next level

If the football team didn't ban the hooligans, or comment in any way other than to say that their fans had a right to express themselves however they wanted to and they supported free speech and the fans right to be at a Tommy Robinson march, absolutely I'd say the football team had links to the far right. And absolutely I'd be encouraging other fans to boycott it.

Football clubs are zero tolerance of this shit. As they should be.

But some of you are saying it's ok to hang with him because he hates trans people as much as you do! Really?

feel i need to answer the above as it was part of a reply to my post, i do appreciate that you said some

but i can’t answer because i wouldn’t’hang’ with him and i don’t hate transpeople

I'd say a more accurate interpretation is using screenshots to demonstrate a point that some posters are keen to deny.

It's all very reminiscent of "This Never Happens".

Yes. You also aren't on here posting reams condoning hanging with him and saying its not a problem....so I'd say you can safely ignore that post

But we recognize that rallies like this tend to have a wide variety of people who can often have quite different views on issues that aren't what the rally is about. You can't guess, just because someone is at a rally, exactly what their political opinions are, other than within a very limited focus.

Would you say the same about a Pride rally?

So you think we should all agree that anyone who has shared a platform with Sarah Jane Baker or participated in a march with people displaying their sexual perversions , should be considered apologists for VAWG and in the latter case sexual perverts?

Well there’s your problem. You think that unless an organisation or someone acts quickly and strongly enough to condemn actions you don’t like and approve of, it must make them complicit. And anyone who supports that organisation or someone must be complicit in the complicity also. What a difficult life it must be always looking for grievances to be corrected.

You are targeting one person online

It’s not a good way to go

Does hanging out on FWR make you right wing cos ya know, KJK who's bezzie mates with TR et al 🙄 used to hang out here and afaik only doesn’t post here cos she called a man a man so….. 🤷🏻

Also don’t tell anyone but I’ve been to a LWS event so I’m apparently right wing cos some other people I’ve never met who did some stuff for LWS are now racist right wingers cos they went to a TR Two Tier Policing march in another country.

Sorry all that I’m posting on this thread but I’ll try and keep the cooties to my self.

334bu · Today 08:20

So you think we should all agree that anyone who has shared a platform with Sarah Jane Baker or participated in a march with people displaying their sexual perversions , should be considered apologists for VAWG and in the latter case sexual perverts?

Yeah, but no, but - that's different.

Because.

The references are all to X (formerly Twitter) so it's guilt by association. Tommy Robinson is not worth the effort. He it was paraded the names of the defendants in the Rochdale grooming scandal before the trial - thus nearly causing the trial to abort. He had a point about the Rochdale groomers, but it had already been made by Jay's report and the criminal proceedings.

This whole thread seems to be a prime example of what happens when people engage in group identity politics/the politics of intersectionalism and abandon critical reflection.

People no longer listen to arguments, or are able to articulate thought out view-points. They just want to know your 'source', or they want to check out who you are supposedly 'aligned with' - and if it is the 'wrong one', or like Billy Bragg says, on the " wrong side of the table" then you are dismissed.

This increases and entrenches polarisation and makes collaborative or coalition politics more difficult or even impossible to achieve. What's more it renders people stupid, leading them to rely on pure emotion and primitive tribalism, rather than on reflective thought, critique and grown up ability to detect common goals.