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.

There is some really interesting research on this that suggests that contamination fears are rooted in instincts meant to reduce the chances of contamination with unknown germs. Strange people who are outsiders can actually be a danger to a population, it's just like the disgust response to bodily fluids, it's very useful for avoiding dangers.

But it can be irrational, like my coworker who was complaining that my workplace took down the plastic barriers that separated us from the public during COVID. I pointed out that no scientific sources supported their efficacy, quite the opposite - her response was, they must do something! They made her feel better, that was enough for her.

This high fear of contamination personality used to be associated with political conservatism, but think we can see that's clearly untrue, it exists across the political divide. Possibly it correlates in some way with a very conservative personality (whatever that might mean), but that's a different thing altogether.

I'll just leave this here. She phrased it better than I could.
Guilt by association surely goes both ways?

https://x.com/lascapigliata8/status/1798641856022257861

I can't see one post on here supporting Tommy Robinson as an individual, despite a poster obsessively and constantly insisting otherwise.

I do see the all-consuming hounding of a black woman and her same sex partner, who are not members of MN, so can't reply on this Board. I see mutterings of disrespecting and being uppitty to some third party in Dublin.

What most of us see is some kind of revenge hunting down of a black woman who is alleged to have upset someone called The Countess and leafletted the wrong event, and said things which are fairly innocuous to most reasonable persons.

All a bit Eastenders to me.

Challenging that one track mindset, seemingly on a permanent loop of attempted smears, appears to result in yet more affective dysregulation and more perceptual distortion, in this obsessive vendetta.

Any attempt to engage the poster in critical thinking provokes accusations based on very disordered logic indeed.

But Andy Heasman wasn’t at the Countess conference, he wasn’t due to attend and he didn’t attend. And Andy Heasman is nowhere near as bad, as fascist, as racist or as influential as Tommy Robinson. Not even a tiny bit close.
Aja took a position of guilt by association, that was her choice. And in so doing destroyed the Countess conference. A couple of months later she pretends that she is being bullied because of people taking the exact same position but this time it’s for a real racist. She’s a clown

No idea who or what you are on about FarmerJilly. Not circles I move in.

You are just using this Board to abuse someone who can't reply to you directly. That's what I see and many others see. Nasty and upleasant slurs against an individual with no voice here to challenge you.

Which says more about your character than the person you are abusing..

@RebelliousCow

a anyone who consistently puts forward alternative persepctives to their own firmly held articles of faith is attacked in the most personal of ways.

My point related to the above statement particularly. That's what seemed ironic to me as it is what happens to posters on this board.

This

@CassieMaddox

"I have a problem with fascism in public. And racism in public. So yes, it is equivalent to me."

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Fascism is a political system which involves, among other things authoritarianism, centralised autocracy and forcible suppression of opposition. This sounds a lot what youre advocating for. It also sounds again like over reach, false equivalence and bad company arguments.

The central tenet of free speech is that it also applies to people you don't agree with. We have harassment and incitement to racial hated laws in this country. If he was not breaking them and was acting legally, he should be allowed to do so, and by extension others should not be smeared for being there (note, that is not me saying I agree with him).

Hitler was vegetarian. By your logic, that must mean all vegetarians are evil fascists. Can you see what a ridiculous assertion that would be?

I am not arguing for TRs personal politics or defending unsavoury actions he may have taken. I'm suggesting, again, that judging individuals (not just judging, but haranguing others for not judging them) as tainted by association is childish and polarising and helps no one.

You think the rally was awful and don't think KJK should have attended. You're entitled to your opinion. But to keep on shouting the same things at people that don't agree with you seems a bit futile.

"One could argue that bondage gear is "just another flavour of clothing". If one wanted to minimise something most people find repugnant and ethically indefensible."

Well it IS just another flavour of clothing. But the point was that it's not appropriate for all fora, ie public parades with children in attendance. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand.

To the pp who mentioned 'hounding', there are lots of posts replying to the most prolific poster here, mostly asking questions. That does not equal hounding. The replies are based on their posts, not personal opinions about them and their values and what they should or shouldn't do.

No one here has defended racism. This thread is an attempt at defence of logic and reason (in the face of constant illogic, moving goal posts and whataboutery).

No thanks. I have no interest in getting into a debate about why fascists are reasonable. Don't be gross.

"And in so doing destroyed the Countess conference."

Aja destroyed the conference? Really? Is that not a little hyperbolic?

@LarkLane you don’t seem to know what I’m speaking about. The Countess is an organisation, not a woman. They held a conference and Aja pulled out very publicly at the last minute because of concerns about guilt by association wrt Andy Heasman, a completely unknown local reactionary . But Andy Heasman was not at this conference, nor was he due to attend. So Aja’s accusation was not true.

The guilt by association link was very tenuous , it went like this

• the countess were holding a conference in Dublin in April
• a religious conservative called Jana Lunden was invited to speak
• Jana Lunden had been vaguely associated with a largely unknown person called Andy Heasman
• Aja and her friend released a public statement stating that they couldn’t attend because of these links
• Aja and her friends decided to visit Dublin nevertheless. They decided to hang out in the pub opposite the conference venue all day, took photos and invited people to come and have a drink with them. It was extremely divisive for everyone at the conference (i was there), everyone was talking about it
• As expected Andy Heasman didn’t attend- he wasn’t invited and wouldn’t have been welcome and wouldn’t have wanted to go
• 2 months later Aja hands out leaflets at a Tommy Robinson rally and says she has been bullied for being questioned about this

No thanks. I have no interest in getting into a debate about why fascists are reasonable. Don't be gross.

So you're basically on this thread to name-call then?

For the record, Aja did not destroy the countess conference. It was a phenomenal success and KJK brought the house down. I don't know enough about Jana to fully understand Aja and some of the other speakers from withdrawing from the event but I respect her decision and equally I respect her decision to attend a rally in London.

No it’s not even a tiny bit hyperbolic@DrSpartacular and I believe the Countess as an organisation has also been destroyed by this. Let’s wait and see a few months. I’ll come back to this thread and remind people when it all comes out in the wash

I think you would respect absolutely everything Aja might do @mrshoho . That’s your prerogative. The conference and the organisation has been devastated by this and the consequences will unfold over the coming months

You are part of the problem. Because your apologism enables the far right to get a foot hold by legitimising their odious views.

I have no idea whether or not you are far right yourself though.

I encountered some actual live Holocaust deniers a couple of years ago, and have done much "critical reflection" on them since. I was genuinely fascinated by their reasoning in admiring Hitler, whilst having a severely disabled sibling. Their examples, the language, the tone, the linked convictions, the need for mutual approval in a tight-knit group, the level of performance etc were new to me.

If I worked in politics/social issues I would make a point of regularly meeting people with opposing views.

Because listening to what racists say is always a better approach than observing what they do. (sarcasm)
Do you believe Kellie Maloney's sob story about why "she" had to strangle "her" wife too? Or is it just far right activists you think have a point?
i think its better to observe what people do as well as what they say. If those things aren't congruent, what they do is more important.

You are part of the problem. Because your apologism enables the far right to get a foot hold by legitimising their odious views.

And likewise, I think you are part of the problem with your attitude of labelling everyone you disagree with as far right and your refusal to engage and lack of curiousity as to why people may hold different viewpoints to you.

Because people like me force racists to be racist?

The old abusive man trope. "She made me do it, with her nagging and going on and on"

No thanks. I have no interest in getting into a debate about why fascists are reasonable. Don't be gross.

I believe the point of the exercise is to try to determine by what metric you think you are more reasonable than them.

For many readers here it is very hard to fathom by what metric you are deeming them Bad, while you are somehow Good.

It's clearly not bigotry, prejudice, hatred, thinking society can be improved by getting rid of undesirables - you exhibit all of those in spades. It's hard to determine what it is you think they're doing wrong apart from maybe selection of targets and imagery.

Thank you

Tommy Robinson is a racist, islamophobic, sexist criminal who actually risked abusers getting away with it with how he conducted himself around the courts and has covered for and enabled child abusers within the ranks of the EDL.
The best that can be said of him is he is a nasty piece of work. Nothing this man has ever done in his life suggests that feminists should stand alongside him.
Actions speak much louder than words here.
Calling out bigotry doesn't make people bigoted if they were not already. You don't suddenly decide to be racist that way. This is genuinely the most shocking thread I have ever read on here.

I just had look at their x account and website and it looks extremely healthy and active so I suggest that's a tad hyperbolic.