Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Free Speech Union meeting evicted from Brighton pub

230 replies

raspb · 18/09/2024 09:24

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:04

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 11:51

Ah, so you must be familiar with these previously mentioned legal cases that outline the boundaries of protected speech?
Can you refer me to them? So far the info posted has been in relation to protected belief, not speech.

This is just funny now.

Look, court cases that have found in the favour of defendants, such as Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt are very obviously based on things these individuals have actually said. There are no cases where an employer, or anyone else, has taken someone to court for thoughts they have not expressed to anyone. Saying the law allows people to have thoughts they never express is laughable. Why would any Government create such a law?! Clearly, laws and protections are around things that people have actually communicated to other people in some way.

Trying to pretend this is all about GC people being allowed to think GC thoughts but never say them, really is scraping the bottom of the barrel, even by the extremely low standards of TRA argument.

Datun · 20/09/2024 12:09

Trying to pretend this is all about GC people being allowed to think GC thoughts but never say them, really is scraping the bottom of the barrel, even by the extremely low standards of TRA argument.

it was a fairly risible TRA argument around the time of the Maya Fostarter case.

Perhaps that poster has been out of the loop over all the cases since.

MelodyMalone · 20/09/2024 12:11

If the speaker had been calling, for example, for violence against trans people, there would have been grounds for complaint. However, it seems highly unlikely this is the case. The speaker was a former teacher discussing her concern about gender ideology being taught in schools, as I understand it. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss and likely to be of interest to many people on both sides of the argument.

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:16

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:04

This is just funny now.

Look, court cases that have found in the favour of defendants, such as Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt are very obviously based on things these individuals have actually said. There are no cases where an employer, or anyone else, has taken someone to court for thoughts they have not expressed to anyone. Saying the law allows people to have thoughts they never express is laughable. Why would any Government create such a law?! Clearly, laws and protections are around things that people have actually communicated to other people in some way.

Trying to pretend this is all about GC people being allowed to think GC thoughts but never say them, really is scraping the bottom of the barrel, even by the extremely low standards of TRA argument.

Well yes, but again free speech only goes so far, you can’t say just anything and everything- as in some things you can say and others you might not be able to if it is considered hate speech.

I agree it is funny to think that this is about never saying anything at all. 🤣 Sorry if you read it that way, there is no predicting the silliness people will infer. I agree you are totally scraping the bottom of the barrel by coming up with that doozy.

There are laws and legal cases over what people believe, say and do.
The laws are not just for what is said/communicated.

Thank you for the list of names: Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt. I will do a search and see what the cases determined in regards to freedom of speech.

AutumnCrow · 20/09/2024 12:18

Thank you for the list of names: Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt. I will do a search and see what the cases determined in regards to freedom of speech.

You seriously have never heard of Maya Forstater?

How terribly retro.

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:21

MelodyMalone · 20/09/2024 12:11

If the speaker had been calling, for example, for violence against trans people, there would have been grounds for complaint. However, it seems highly unlikely this is the case. The speaker was a former teacher discussing her concern about gender ideology being taught in schools, as I understand it. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss and likely to be of interest to many people on both sides of the argument.

Yes! That is much better put, I am wondering if the speech itself had anything objectionable in it. It seems more likely they were ejected for something in the speech causing an observer distress who then complained to pub management than the landlord suddenly realising he’d booked a room to people with GC beliefs. It wasn’t until after the first speech that they were asked to leave.

I believe Julie that it didn’t call for violence or was overtly hateful, but I do wonder what was said and whether there might have been anything objectionable in there. If they are going to file legal action based on being denied their right to free speech, then shouldn’t the focus be on what the speech said?

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:22

AutumnCrow · 20/09/2024 12:18

Thank you for the list of names: Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt. I will do a search and see what the cases determined in regards to freedom of speech.

You seriously have never heard of Maya Forstater?

How terribly retro.

Ah hah yes that’s me alright. Retro. I’ve been battling breast cancer so haven’t been up to much until recently. Thanks for understanding.

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:27

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:16

Well yes, but again free speech only goes so far, you can’t say just anything and everything- as in some things you can say and others you might not be able to if it is considered hate speech.

I agree it is funny to think that this is about never saying anything at all. 🤣 Sorry if you read it that way, there is no predicting the silliness people will infer. I agree you are totally scraping the bottom of the barrel by coming up with that doozy.

There are laws and legal cases over what people believe, say and do.
The laws are not just for what is said/communicated.

Thank you for the list of names: Maya Forstater and Rachel Meade and Elizabeth Pitt. I will do a search and see what the cases determined in regards to freedom of speech.

Making a distinction between belief and speech, as you were clearly doing, is where the your error came in.

If you weren't making this distinction. but actually meant to make a distinction between legal speech and illegal speech, then you really need to work on communicating more clearly. Because that's a huge difference between those two categories.

The bar for a crime of hate speech is actually really high. You might want to add that to your reading list. (and Jo Phoenix btw)

That pub did not call the police to report a crime, and there is nothing to suggest a crime was committed. Within the context of previous similar incidents, the balance of probability lies heavily in the favour of this being yet another case of people hearing safeguarding and women's rights views they don't like and deciding to silence them.

MelodyMalone · 20/09/2024 12:30

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:21

Yes! That is much better put, I am wondering if the speech itself had anything objectionable in it. It seems more likely they were ejected for something in the speech causing an observer distress who then complained to pub management than the landlord suddenly realising he’d booked a room to people with GC beliefs. It wasn’t until after the first speech that they were asked to leave.

I believe Julie that it didn’t call for violence or was overtly hateful, but I do wonder what was said and whether there might have been anything objectionable in there. If they are going to file legal action based on being denied their right to free speech, then shouldn’t the focus be on what the speech said?

However, saying anything at all which could be remotely construed as critical of gender ideology, is deemed as highly transphobic in some quarters, even when it clearly isn't.

The trans activist movement has a terrible tendency to want to shut down any discussion at all.

SinnerBoy · 20/09/2024 12:33

LoremIpsumCici · Today 11:32

Perhaps I have missed legal cases. Can you refer me to them?

Really? Are you posting from an upturned tub, catching a beachball and going "Arrp! Arrp!" ?

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:34

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:22

Ah hah yes that’s me alright. Retro. I’ve been battling breast cancer so haven’t been up to much until recently. Thanks for understanding.

Right. So you are actually new to all this rather than a troll?

Ok, this is standard treatment of women (and men) critical of gender ideology. We have to arrange our meetings secretly, announce venues at the last minute to try to stop venues being cancelled as a mob of protestors threaten the venue holders, have protestors banging drums outside playing loud music to stop us from being heard. You can only get into the networks via word of mouth or extensive screening and vetting to stop infiltrators getting in. its mad. So no, there is nothing to suggest these people were saying anything illegal or hateful. You don't need to, to be subject to this harassment and attempts at shaming, You just need to be saying that women are defined by their sex and this matters for women's safety, dignity and fairness.

Unbelievable as it may sound, this is what it is like for women defending women's most basic rights.

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:35

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:27

Making a distinction between belief and speech, as you were clearly doing, is where the your error came in.

If you weren't making this distinction. but actually meant to make a distinction between legal speech and illegal speech, then you really need to work on communicating more clearly. Because that's a huge difference between those two categories.

The bar for a crime of hate speech is actually really high. You might want to add that to your reading list. (and Jo Phoenix btw)

That pub did not call the police to report a crime, and there is nothing to suggest a crime was committed. Within the context of previous similar incidents, the balance of probability lies heavily in the favour of this being yet another case of people hearing safeguarding and women's rights views they don't like and deciding to silence them.

Oh, sorry, I was initially responding to this post:
lifeturnsonadime · 18/09/2024 15:03
This is interesting , holding gender critical views is a protected belief, so theoretically if he’s refused on that basis there could be an argument.

Which was about protected belief and I admit I rather clumsily was trying to say surely this incident is about more than beliefs, it is also about what was said in the speech that caused them to be asked to leave, which is a free speech vs hate speech issue.

Yeah, I know no crime was reported, but the lack of a crime report doesn’t always mean the absence of crime. The pub might have been even more reasonable then!

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:36

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:34

Right. So you are actually new to all this rather than a troll?

Ok, this is standard treatment of women (and men) critical of gender ideology. We have to arrange our meetings secretly, announce venues at the last minute to try to stop venues being cancelled as a mob of protestors threaten the venue holders, have protestors banging drums outside playing loud music to stop us from being heard. You can only get into the networks via word of mouth or extensive screening and vetting to stop infiltrators getting in. its mad. So no, there is nothing to suggest these people were saying anything illegal or hateful. You don't need to, to be subject to this harassment and attempts at shaming, You just need to be saying that women are defined by their sex and this matters for women's safety, dignity and fairness.

Unbelievable as it may sound, this is what it is like for women defending women's most basic rights.

Not new really, just been out of the loop for a good 3yrs really. So I have blind spots of things I missed that I haven’t caught up on.

What you describe is chilling and oppressive.

SinnerBoy · 20/09/2024 12:36

Here's a starter for you:

https://www.forstater.com/discrimination-costs/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace

^The Forstater decision found that whilst gender critical beliefs may cause offence and distress to some (typically those holding gender affirmative beliefs), they must be tolerated in a pluralist society, and that manifestation of these beliefs by the employee in question was not objectionable or inappropriate in that context.^

The last link contains a number of the cases, if you are interested.

lifeturnsonadime · 20/09/2024 12:37

How would he know their beliefs if they weren’t talking about them 🙄🤷‍♀️

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:38

SinnerBoy · 20/09/2024 12:33

LoremIpsumCici · Today 11:32

Perhaps I have missed legal cases. Can you refer me to them?

Really? Are you posting from an upturned tub, catching a beachball and going "Arrp! Arrp!" ?

No, I’m in bed recovering after having had another surgery on my right beast yesterday.

Thank you for the link, very helpful.

SinnerBoy · 20/09/2024 12:38

LoremIpsumCici · Today 12:36

Not new really, just been out of the loop for a good 3yrs really. So I have blind spots of things I missed that I haven’t caught up on.

Ah, sorry for my tone - I've only just seen that. Hopefully, the links will get you up to speed. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:40

lifeturnsonadime · 20/09/2024 12:37

How would he know their beliefs if they weren’t talking about them 🙄🤷‍♀️

Well I am aware enough to know that certain organisations have a reputation for being GC and getting bookings cancelled and counter protesters appearing in the past without them even getting a chance to say anything.

LoremIpsumCici · 20/09/2024 12:42

SinnerBoy · 20/09/2024 12:38

LoremIpsumCici · Today 12:36

Not new really, just been out of the loop for a good 3yrs really. So I have blind spots of things I missed that I haven’t caught up on.

Ah, sorry for my tone - I've only just seen that. Hopefully, the links will get you up to speed. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

Ty for apology, I’m not fussed, as I said I’m not brand new, but I was off SM for long enough to miss so so much. I can take a bit of roasting.

ArabellaScott · 20/09/2024 12:43

Sorry you've been unwell, Lorem.

duc748 · 20/09/2024 12:54

hairybrush · 20/09/2024 12:34

Right. So you are actually new to all this rather than a troll?

Ok, this is standard treatment of women (and men) critical of gender ideology. We have to arrange our meetings secretly, announce venues at the last minute to try to stop venues being cancelled as a mob of protestors threaten the venue holders, have protestors banging drums outside playing loud music to stop us from being heard. You can only get into the networks via word of mouth or extensive screening and vetting to stop infiltrators getting in. its mad. So no, there is nothing to suggest these people were saying anything illegal or hateful. You don't need to, to be subject to this harassment and attempts at shaming, You just need to be saying that women are defined by their sex and this matters for women's safety, dignity and fairness.

Unbelievable as it may sound, this is what it is like for women defending women's most basic rights.

Absolutely ridiculous, and sinister, that this behaviour is allowed to continue. Where are the civil rights here? You'd think some champion of free speech from the Government would be on their hind legs proclaiming how unacceptable this is, but strangely, there's been complete silence. The fact that people are reduced to samizdat-style secrecy just to be able to assemble is a shameful state of affairs.

ClosingTheDoorOnThePast · 20/09/2024 12:54

how the hell did the landlord know what was being discussed in a private room in the first place?

LaerealSilverhand · 20/09/2024 13:01

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 21:18

But still does not operate under English law. (But certainly not Irish law!)

Right, the Equality Act does not apply in Northern Ireland - they have their own legislation (which has some big holes compared to the EA).

TorghunKhan · 20/09/2024 13:03

ClosingTheDoorOnThePast · 20/09/2024 12:54

how the hell did the landlord know what was being discussed in a private room in the first place?

well, they did have a microphone? :)

MelodyMalone · 20/09/2024 13:06

It's interesting to speculate on the course of events. The landlord became aware that things were being said that - he? or other people? disapproved of. So he.... called a private security firm to have them removed??

As somebody mentioned above, it's not exactly like Tommy Robinson and his mates were in, ranting and raving and inciting violence right left and centre.