Free Speech Union meeting evicted from Brighton pub

[raspb]

I don't think there's already a thread on this. Apologies if so. I just read this report on Julie Birchill's Facebook page:

Laura King writes:

Whole Free Speech Union meeting evicted from the Southern Belle pub tonight after only one speaker.

Scandalous. Will be covered by Brighton and Hove News.

Police report just filed.

We had a pre-booked meeting in the rear of the pub, almost completely screened off from the rest of the pub - on a quiet Tuesday evening - for an evening of speeches on various topics.
After 15 minutes or so of the first speaker - a retired teacher - discussing her concerns about child safeguarding in schools, a number of security guards appeared. I went to talk to them and see what the problem was. They wouldn't be specific but asked that I talked to the Landlord. I spoke to a tall young man who looked to be in his early 20s who didn't seem like the landlord and explained that a former teacher was talking about child safeguarding in schools. He didn't say much and I pointed out the speaker giving the talk was LGBT herself, if they were worried about any offence being caused and that we were not there to cause offence. I thought I had dealt with the situation but within a few minutes there was a rush of security guards coming into the room and demanding that we left. I said we had just finished listening to that speech and that there were two more on completely different subjects but they said the Landlord had said we had to leave. One of them tried to grab the speaker and drag it out of the room, which was still plugged in. I tried to stop him pointing out it was my property and he had no right to touch it or damage it. He grabbed my wrist hard and still tried to seize the speaker. I shouted at him that he was assaulting me and I was going to report him to the Police and he let me go. My partner got hustled out of the room physically and they tried to take his drink off him when he left to go and try and find the manager. Various people were in shock and we refused to leave and politely debated with the security guards, who kept insisting we had to leave, even though it was a public house and we are the public, and there had been no incidents, which the security guards freely admitted was true. in fact one even said he had 'better things to do on a Tuesday night than break up a room of mostly middle-aged people NOT causing any trouble.' We stood our ground for a few minutes while many people taped and filmed the exchanges with Paragon Security. A few people tried to ring the Police but then found out they were refusing to come out. 'Hate speech' was mentioned by a Security guard so I challenged him to prove his allegation and pointed out the room was actually full of intelligent peace-loving people, not haters. Plus there were many LGBT individuals in the audience not being offended. Most of us insisted on finishing our drinks before leaving and then people hung about outside as they couldn't believe what had just happened marvelling to each other that they no longer lived in a free country. The local media was contacted. Someone had shouted out 'Let's go to The Wick' but when we got there Paragon Security were already there and denying admission. This is double harassment of innocent individuals, who were not even trying to have a meeting at this point, but just socialising because it was far too early to call it a night and go home. So if the landlord of The Southern Belle had us evicted, what right did that landlord have to prevent us being admitted to another pub? This counts as harassment by the Southern Belle management via Paragon Security twice over.

I'm not saying he's manipulating the FSU. The FSU seem to be becoming increasingly necessary.

The FSU represented me when I was banned from my local for a) wearing a hoodie with "Women's Declaration International" on the back and b) standing for Party of Women in the General Election. The pub stated this in writing and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would like to emphasise that there is no "other side" or "more to it" than that.

The FSU wrote to the pub and they wisely unbanned me.

Although the pub was in breach of both the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination on the basis of a protected belief) and the European Convention of Human Rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (Freedom of Thought, Article 9; Freedom of Expression, Article 10; Freedom of Association, Article 11 and the Prohibition on Discrimination on Grounds of Political or Other Opinion, Article 14) I was pleased and surprised to learn that a pub landlord cannot just ban someone on a whim - they have to have "just cause", eg. being disorderly:

"common law duty laid out in the case of Constantine v Imperial Hotels Limited ([1944] KB 693, [1944] 2 All ER 171), which holds that an innkeeper has an implied tortious duty to receive and entertain guests unless there is just cause to refuse."

Full story here:

FSU member successfully fights back after being banned from pub for gender critical views
July 3 2024

freespeechunion.org/fsu-member-successfully-fights-back-after-being-banned-from-pub-for-gender-critical-views/

The FSU has successfully represented several people banned from pubs on spurious grounds, ie. due to their gender critical beliefs, so I expect them to make mincemeat out of the pub and the security firm. 😈

@Christinapple They should arrange to meet in a private home for these gender critical discussions if they must have them..

Does this also apply 'in the field'? eg to women who object when men enter their single-sex spaces, services and competitions?

Exactly. There are always always 2 sides to every story. Me and my friends have never been thrown out of anywhere for having a chat.

Exactly. There are always always 2 sides to every story. Me and my friends have never been thrown out of anywhere for having a chat.

Sweet summer child.

I know it can be a bit hard to believe until you've seen it - over and over again for many of us - but there is a significant number of extremely ideological lunatics in institutions these days.

And they do react like this! They go crazy when they see dissent from their ideology, forget what their institution is supposed to be for, and do something crazy, contrary to their nominal values, and often illegal.

And then we take them to court for what they did, and they lose. (Sometimes they concede before we get the fun of watching them try to defend themselves in court, sadly).

Because we have clear equality and employment protection legislation that outlaws such bigotry.

At this point, I do have a glimmer of "there must be another side" still in me, but I've come to realise that stories like this are far more often than not basically accurate. There is another side, but that other side is truly deranged, not anything that shines a different light on it, or wouldn't collapse immediately under cross-examination. (And even third-party defences won't be able to think of anything better than "they were forced out because they resisted being forced out"!)

Similarly, my scepticism about Daily Mail stories - at least in this area - has been reduced. They don't need to stretch the truth to give the sort of outrageous story they like because such outrageous things are really happening, and not needing any spin to actually be outrageous.

Saying "it's never happened to me" is just saying you've not really been in the same circumstances - discussing wrongthink in the vicinity of one of these nutjobs.

Probably a "Girl" Guiding badge, these days.

It's a fact that people can't change sex. It's a philosophical belief that we should segregate sport, prisons, changing rooms etc. by sex rather than gender identity.

The FSU are apolitical. The politics of their founder are neither here nor there for how they operate.
If you look at how they operate and the cases they take up, they range across the political spectrum, including left wing gender critical women.

Contrast this to the actions of other left organizations set up to defend freedom of writing and thought, such Le Pen and the Society of Writers or Liberty who have completely failed to hold to their purported core values and do not defend anyone with views outside the current niche of approved views by the tiny self styled elite of progressive thinking.

I guess, but that segregation of sports, prisons etc is based on solid facts about the disadvantage or danger women are subject to if those spaces and services are mixed sex. Making those ‘services’ mixed sex makes them unequal ‘services’ for women.

So I guess the underlying philosophical belief is really whether you think women are entitled to equality or not.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised by now, but is Christin implying that people whose opinions that Christin doesn't agree with should have their right of 'freedom of assembly and association' removed? I mean, once you have stated that 'They should arrange to meet in a private home for these gender critical discussions if they must have them' it's pretty clear that 1, you don't think they should be allowed to use a public space for their meeting and 2, you don't actually think that they should meet to discuss these things anyway.

Why do I think that some people have the personality type that would have thrived in East Germany and just revelled in reporting people to the Stasi?

Yes, exactly this.

And the ‘religious right’, which we’re often accused of consorting with, is a US thing, with no British equivalent of any importance.

And I get tired of pointing out that there’s nothing leftwing about the solipsistic, antisocial, misogynistic GI movement.

They should arrange to meet in a private home for these gender critical discussions if they must have them.

Indeed - why let women out at all? We could be like Afghanistan, and stop those pesky women speaking or gathering in public at all.

Thank you so much for coming on this thread. Our paths must have crossed at the Cumberland Arms a few times in the 1980s, I think!

That's really valuable information and certainly puts to bed the notion that, in the UK, publicans can do what the hell they want whenever they want.

Obviously they can't - they have to operate within the law, which you have helpfully outlined for those struggling at the back.

I must admit I did do a huge eye roll at the suggestion that women ‘who don’t agree’ should not be permitted to meet in public.
It’s not freedom of speech if the only time you have freedom is if you agree to a compelled belief.

Yes , what an appalling suggestion : women - and men who support them - should be barred from public discourse. The kind of attitude you'd expect from the Taliban. Or Amnesty Ireland.

Also , these pubs closing everywhere ...you'd think that would soften their cough , so to speak?

Freedom of belief includes the freedom to express that belief, fwiw.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Well, quite. One of the remarkable things about these people who peddle the idea that people should be forbidden from publicly expressing certain ideas is that they seem to have no inkling that such a law could one day be turned against them. That one day, they might have an unfashionable view, and that a law that can be used to stop people expressing certain ideas might see them thrown out of a pub, or prevented from speaking at a conference, or sacked from their job - all for having the "wrong" opinion.

It confirms my long-held suspicion that these people aren't massively bright.

Both stupid and intelligent people can fall victim to blind spots, blinkered thinking and logical inconsistencies.

POWNewcastleEastWallsend · Today 03:31

The FSU represented me when I was banned from my local for a) wearing a hoodie with "Women's Declaration International" on the back and b) standing for Party of Women in the General Election.

Good on you! I used to go to the Cumberland quite often, used to see lots of bands there. I don't know whether to give it a miss, now.

Indeed Corgi, indeed, indeed.

Gosh..... it is wonderful in your world isn't it? That people cannot meet others if they disagree with you. I mean, gosh..... pies in a woman's face is just a comedy routine, silly string sprayed over women is just fun, and women shouldn't meet unless someone has pre-approved the topic of discussion.

Got it.

"If you want to talk about that stuff, do it in your own home"
"If you don't want to share a public toilet with a man who thinks he is a woman, use your toilet at home"
"If you don't want men who think they are women in your sports, run around your back garden"

This is where the pp is going

I haven't RTFT, but surely there's a difference in law between a customer buying booze in a public bar, and a pub entering into a contract to hire out a private room?