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.

No the culpability for your actions is all yours.

I post about single sex spaces on mn FWR mostly and the harm gender ideology does to women and children. I don’t do X. No support given for anyone on there.

All in line with wanting change for women and children, and thankfully I’m posting with many other rational women who feel the same. So thanks to them

You are spinning out here trying to deflect. Targeting one person isn’t a good way to go.

And I think apologists who say strawman things like "you think the British flag is racist" to obfuscate involvement in far right activity, are also part of the far-right problem.

Ah, so I'm far-right too. Good to know.

I found this in The Guardian;

"Robinson frequently complains of being smeared as a racist and a Nazi; he insists he doesn’t care about skin colour and that his objection is to Islamist political ideology rather than people"

So is it because he is critical of political Islamism?

But then so are many people, including some ex Muslims such Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Maybe it is because he voices his views in ways typical of working class men from his background? In the sort of way I mentioned above with regards to the many working class Left wing men on my 'other' forum - whose political expression is often aggressive and unsophisticated.

@RebelliousCow

I contribute to another forum ( mainly men) that has a section for political comment - and it is usually full of people hating on politicians in the most crude and aggressive of ways; including hating on Kier Starmer ( even though I live in a very left wing city - maybe because I do...) and anyone who consistently puts forward alternative persepctives to their own firmly held articles of faith is attacked in the most personal of ways.

This is not what passes for political comment or debate in my world. I'd rather deabte ideas than condemn individuals.

Irony alert.

I'm not sure of your point?

So do we know what the actual event was yet?

This thread seems to have boiled down to:

Anyone who goes on a march organised by TR is a racist and there could be no reasonable explanation for why they support any cause he supports.

That could be true or it could be that some people who are not racist agree with TR on some of his points.

I'm not a TR expert so I don't really know if he has any reasonable points to make, although on the face of it two tier policing seems an important point to make.

He does have a dubious history of behaviour and views & I don't know to what degree he has distanced himself from this, or it still represnts him, or he's hiding his racism behind a more 'acceptable' mask.

I dunno. I'd have to do a lot more investigation into what he's said and done.
I'd have to watch the Oxford debate for instance, and I really can't be arsed to give TR that amount of my time.

What I can say however is:
I can accepet others may have concluded he has some fair points (I have to reasonably conclude this because I don't have all the evidnece so this has to be a possibility)
Or
Others may choose to march alongside him and I could disagree vehemently with what they are marching for, but it doesn't require me to denounce them personally on the internet.

The fact that some people think there could be no reason anyone could ever agree with TR, and that it requires them to deonunce personally anyone (except it's not really anyone, is it, it's women) who does, repeatedly on the interent, is really representative of limited thinking and facist authoritian leanings.

(Yes we can all play the facist game. Do you now have to go to the Gulag as I've called you a facist? How does this work?)

I don't doubt he has a history.

If he was guilty of crimes and has done his time and is out of jail, then as a British citizen he has a right to vote and participate in any activities just like anyone else.

And in this instance the rally or whatever it was, which is seems was about two tier policing, of which two lesbians who have been subjected to the most awful vile rage from TRAs, seems a perfectly reasonable thing to be interested in.

This affects both the right and the left. And the centrists. In fact it affects all British citizens.

I don't get how it is only the far right that seem concerned about it, or is concern about it a dog whistle for far right extremism?

This whole left versus right thing. Nobody can ever tell what policies or viewpoints fit where any more. All we are left with is literally 'that person is bad, you stood next to them/talked to them/they walked on the same street as you'd and that's it. Tarred and feathered and put in the stocks for life.

Surely Aja is capable of deciding how safe she was and whether to leave or stay? If she was safe then it does beg the question, which side is more racist? The ones she perfectly safely walked down the street with or the side that burn her afterwards.

Yes. The class divide here is stark.

I suspect most TR marchers were working class.

And the denouncers of the 'unclean' are mostly middle class white educated.
Yet clinging to their leftist credentials as evidence of their moral superiority.

It really continues to suprise me that people still cannot see the elitism, and the backlash they've caused, and still think if they just insult people enough with insulting labels (facist/ rcaist/ transphobe) they think should shut you up, it'll all go away.

What will it take for some people to see? If Brexit, Trump, Reform etc won't do it & some still think shouting 'but you a facist racist' will make people listen/ and shut up then they are deluded. Or struggle with anlaysis.
I actually think it's only the very simplistic thikning leftists that are still doing this. Starmer & the brighter ones can see this isn't what their base want.

But I do actually worry about a real and scary bashlash particualrly in the USA if the simpleton elites conmgtinue to think insulting half the population is going to solve the divide.

Of course, wouldn't you?

I think Pride, and a lot of organizations that are involved with it, have adopted an underlying I'd pol ethos that is behind most of what they do. And I think like all I'd pol it's very harmful.

I daresay that vast swathes of the people there don't even know what identity politics are. Some probably just come because it's a big fun party. Some come to gawk at all the kink. Some come because they still associate it with gay rights battles of the past. Lots come because they think it makes them an ally, and thy think being an ally is how you be virtuous.

If she was safe then it does beg the question, which side is more racist? The ones she perfectly safely walked down the street with or the side that burn her afterwards.

Exactly.

It is all a bit 'Gays for Palestine'.

It is an astonishing level of hypocrisy that Aja made this statement in April
https://x.com/notallgays/status/1782439560409997722?s=46
@CassieMaddox

Wow, that's quite a turnaround.

We all know Cassie that you do in fact believe that any number of fairly normal political opinions are signs of being far right.

People are responsible for their own actual views, they aren't responsible for Tommy Robinson's even if they are at the same political rally.

Your problem is you have a very high fear of contamination. Which is actually the roof cause of intolerance of all kinds, on the left and right.

Jana Lunden is not comparable with Tommy Robinson! She’s a religious conservative, he’s a far right thug. What an utter joke

I'm white and working class and for me Timmy Robertson can go and lie in his own piss. He's ex BNP and EDL and they only accept racists. He's framed himself as anti Islamic now, as he thinks it'll make him more acceptable.

Yes @Butterworths it reveals Aja to be a total hypocrite. And badly informed too. Jana Lunden is nowhere near as bad as Tommy Robinson. She’s unknown and she’s just religious and conservative. The supposed associations with Andy Heasman were concocted by Aja and Not all Gays. Of course Andy Heasman wasn’t anywhere near the Countess conference. He wouldn’t have anything to do with them and vice versa. He is also completely unknown. Shame on the lot of them with their faux self righteousness

I know nothing about this event or the man they didn't want to speak alongside, but that statement explains their own decision without condemning other women as FACISTS who do not even deserve to be on twitter etc.

In fact it makes the point being made here very well: make your own decisions, let others make theirs, no need for hounding and condemnation.

It's very reasonable:
We thank @TheCountessIE for the opportunity, and for the work they have put into organising a large scale event. We will record the talk we intended to deliver, so lesbian voices are still heard.

Very diffrent to the language and accustaions aimed at Aja.

A response to this at the time. Sums it up

But @MalagaNights the statement says this -

The presence of these men, such as Andy Heasman, whose violent actions undermine the feminist cause and perpetuate a culture war, deeply trouble us, as we know if it were a slightly different setting, we could be targeted by those men. While we acknowledge the principles of inclusivity within our movement, we are of the firm belief that there must be a line drawn when it comes to tolerating individuals who espouse violence and hatred. Inviting speakers with close ties to these individuals, inadvertently invites their audience and supporters, including those who perpetrate violence against marginalized communities.

This seems to be exactly the type of statement that you've disagreed with on this thread. I may have misunderstood you though but I thought your position is that it is not undermining to feminism to associate with violent men.

I have no idea if Aja is a hypocrite or not about that. It's certainly possible.

If she is, she should stop that. Not that she cares what I think.

Maybe on the other hand she's has a change in her views. Or maybe there was some other thinking behind these separate decisions, I really don't know, I can't ask her, and I don't much care.

I tend to avoid making judgements of individuals when I have no idea why they did what they did. That's not the same as agreeing, btw, it's just a recognition that people often have a lot of different reasons for making the decisions they do, and I can't be the police of that. I know I often have many different reasons for making certain decisions, and sometimes they can be contradictory, and I just do what on balance seems like the best thing at the time.

I don't know what all these other gotchas are. Trying to make out that people must believe that everyone at a Pride event is a weirdo I'd pol agitator? Who ever thought that - that is the logic of those scared of contamination who can't actually discuss principles in a meaningful way.

And FWIW, I thought some of the attitude to people like Janice Turner "talking to the wrong people in the wrong way" on here was pretty shit and quite mean girl nasty, but at least in her case she is a professional opinion writer, so it is possible to discuss her thoughts with some clarity as she engages with the public about them.

Your problem is you have a very high fear of contamination. Which is actually the roof cause of intolerance of all kinds, on the left and right.

This is exactly it.

And fear of contamination which manifests on the the left and right as extreme intolerance then justifies extreme authoritarian policies.

There have been good analysis of facists lanaguage which is purity based and where the justifctaion for excluding and then eliminating anyone who may contaminate the ideas and policies they believed were right and good.

The fact them some now think: yeh but this time we can exclude these people because we know we're good and right, is quite extraordinary in it's blindness.

And the fact that they call others the facists is just 😂

This seems to be exactly the type of statement that you've disagreed with on this thread. I may have misunderstood you though but I thought your position is that it is not undermining to feminism to associate with violent men.

Yes @Butterworths you've misunederstood me.
I think it's fine to disagree with people and to say so.

I've made no comment about feminism as I'm not a feminist. But no I don't think one 'feminists' decision of association requires denouncing by all other women. I think that's an abusrd idea.

I think Aja's statement is diffrent in language, tone, and kind to the accustaions of facism etc on here.

Is it hypocritical because x person is actaully worse than y person? I don't know. But Aja can decide that and that point can be reasonab;y debated by anyone who cares enough (I don't) without hounding Aja off twitter and saying she's racist.