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.

But, even Tommy Robinson is allowed to have an opinion, and speak in a pub. as I would be free to disagree with him, in that pub.

Yeah, what I meant was if they were causing trouble, you might want backup before asking them to leave.

Not saying the free speech people were causing trouble, as every indication suggests they weren't and calling in private security to have them removed was a major overreaction.

Streisand effect. The event will happen again, hundreds will go, all chanting "women don't have cocks" I hope.

Yes it is. Public meetings also require security to be hired, our bags to be checked as we go in and any liquids to be thrown away. All for women meeting to discuss our basic rights, in the UK in the 2020's. Being able to meet and talk and organise is an absolute basic democratic and human right. Its an absolute disgrace as is the silence of our political leaders who are standing by whilst this intimidation happens.

I don't think many people appreciate quite how aggressive and intolerant some of the trans activists can be. Or they defend it with "they're so oppressed, poor things, no wonder they're upset". 🙄

Some previous pub bannings have been because people, usually women, were wearing clothing with a "message", such as the dictionary definition of a woman as an Adult Human Female.

In my case I was initially told, when I was standing outside the pub on 7 May, that I had to take off my WDI hoodie if I wanted to go back inside and rejoin my ukulele session, also that if I turned up again wearing it that I would be asked to leave.

In the letter from the pub banning me it said (my bolding):

"On the 7th of May 2024 you came to the Cumberland wearing a hoody making a clear statement. Your name now appears as a parliamentary candidate to represent the Party of Women at Westminster, a party with which the Cumberland will not be associated. Accordingly you will no longer be allowed entry within the pub’s boundaries."

The "clear statement" was simply the name and logo of Women's Declaration International.

(I doubt that they were referring to one of Jess de Wahl's "Heretic" badges that I had sewn onto a sleeve, to hide where I had accidentally dropped bleach on to it 😬)

It is of course possible for someone to wear clothing carrying a "clear statement" that does not express their beliefs.

Examples: a retro sweatshirt lauding a USA Baseball Team or, completely by accident, something in a foreign language, Chinese characters, hieroglyphics, runes, etc. that they do not understand - or even an AHF T-shirt or a "Progress Flag" when the person does not appreciate their full significance and the various ways they might be understood by different people engaged in the "sex vs gender" political struggle.

The Progress Flag vs the original Rainbow Flag is perhaps an even better example than an AHF "Be The Billboard" T-Shirt.

I think that once upon a time everyone would have understood a Rainbow Flag hung in a pub window as a "Welcome Mat" for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, ie. not as a "Straights Keep Out" sign. Nowadays it might be seen by some as a quaint hangover from simpler times, by others as possibly deliberately "gender critical" and by others as defiantly and illegally "trans exclusionary".

There was never an "anti-straight" message with the Rainbow Flag when it was used to signal solidarity with and support for "gay rights".

By contrast, there is a good case for arguing, on the evidence, that displaying a Progress Flag on clothing or premises can signal a wish or intention to discriminate against people who hold "gender critical" beliefs. More subtle than "TERF-Free Zone" along with depictions of weapons or violence against women but a warning sign nonetheless.

I wonder how many businesses, institutions and other organisations are aware of how regressive, how aggressively exclusionary, anti-woman's rights and bigoted, the Progress Flag is understood as a "clear statement" by many people?

Which eviction I would find equally concerning.

This is my point as well! As I have already said this is my local and I know the layout well. The room in the video is completely separate from the rest of the pub and even with a mike, you wouldn't hear much, unless you literally stood outside the door. It's also not really the kind of place to attract trans activists. It's in a Hove side street and the customers are a mix of holiday makers (it's a boutique hotel) and a few elderly locals, including me! The manager (not landlord) is young and very professional - he works for the hotel group and isn't running the pub as his own private club. There are plenty of pubs in Brighton that wouldn't surprise me if something like this happened in them, but this really has.

IIRC, Harry Miller's case was quite important in reminding "us" that free speech isn't free speech if you can only think it.

Freedom of speech means being free to speak, and sometimes that speech will upset or offend some or even many people, but that alone isn't a reason to restrict speech.

Have you seen the video footage of the security guard grabbing the equipment and the apparent manager standing there? Because you appear not to believe it happened despite 60 odd witnesses and said footage.
I too know the pub and as soon as I heard thats were it was going to be, I thought they'll have trouble.

The free speech union only promotes its own views, not actually real freedom of speech as such.
A bit like the lobby organisations that give themselves official names as some sort of experts but just have a political agenda and political funding.

Oh what utter rubbish.

Hello Rip Van Winkle how was your sleep?
You have missed so much.
Kind of you to tell us about Free Speech though, but we have already covered that with Maya Forstater etc while you were 'resting'.

Andrew Doyle is about to interview two of the people there on Free Speech Nation now on Youtube.

I'll give that a watch later, thanks.

@AutumnCrow Yes do, just watched it, it was great, both women were articulate and civillised.
What happened was disgraceful, apparently the 'landlord' was eavesdropping in the middle room behind the curtain of the room they were in.
And when asked what was the complaint, wouldnt say.
Its infuriating.

This is such bollocks. You clearly know nothing about the FSU.

You know, it strikes me that this is actually very similar to the approach the Soviets (and some other communist states) took to religion. So long as it was completely private, it was usually tolerated. But you certainly couldn't talk about it in the public sphere, or in any political way. To the tune of 120,000 dead monks and nuns.

I'd also note - racist public speech isn't necessarily hate speech. Prohibited hate speech is a pretty high bar. Someone could go around all day shouting that white people were all oppressive jerks, or gay men were all trollops, and it would be rude and dumb, but not hate speech.

Talking off the top of my head here, but maybe in the recent past, the boundaries between what was a bit rude, and maybe objectionable, and what was seriously criminal, was generally understood by the public, but now, as in so many areas, boundaries seem to shifting. There seems no doubt to me that "must not offend" is a much bigger deal now than a couple of decades ago.

But the question shouldn’t be about why the right has become forefront in upholding the principles of free speech, but why the left has not.

https://freespeechunion.org/when-did-the-left-stop-owning-free-speech/

Remember this sorry effort?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4939597-owen-jones-comes-out-fighting-for-actual-free-speech

"Sorry Effort" is a funny way to spell Owen Jones but I'll allow it.

Haha I suggest you read that thread Bez, if you haven't already, it's most entertaining - I provided a transcript of his video.

@Ereshkigalangcleg I think I remember the thread from the time. Poor old LOJ