Women's Equality Party and Chris Kaba

[HerGorgeousMajestyArabellaScott]

Tweets yesterday and today lamenting Kaba's death.

This was a violent criminal who was subject to a restraining order from his then-pregnant girlfriend.

Why are WEP tweeting in support of him?

https://x.com/WEP_UK/status/1848648576710107247

Whilst there seems to be an obsession here about whether a car was ramming at exact point of the shooting and a constant desire to see Kaba alive, there are some other points that need to be raised.

There was a media blackout on his history and the abuse he gave to his girlfriend, but instead we were told that he was an expectant father, killed before his child was born.

So the jury weren't allowed to know about his violent past (because it could influence the outcome), but the picture was painted of him being an expectant father was allowed, surely that was done to influence the outcome?

There are also rumours about who pressurised who to make this case go to court. There may have been political interference. And the political interference may have come from someone who makes a big deal out of trying to protect women.

One very violent man is no longer on the streets that could possibly have caused the death of someone’s son/father/brother and ultimately destroyed another family.

You think our police force is corrupt - wait til you read about how corrupt the American police force and penal justice system is!

I'm aware of how corrupt many countries penal systems are.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/chris-kaba-gang-shooting-police-gun-crime-martyn-blake-justice-b1189299.html

And if him ramming the police cars wasn't enough here is the footage of Kaba shooting someone at a nightclub.

There was a media blackout on his history and the abuse he gave to his girlfriend, but instead we were told that he was an expectant father, killed before his child was born.

Yes, he was portrayed very sympathetically. I must say that I was surprised when his history was revealed, though I thought the jury’s verdict correct.

I get that previous convictions needs to be kept from a jury so not to influence a trial. But equally the false narrative - aspiring architect - loving father to be - law abiding etc which was spun also should not be allowed as this could equally prejudice a trial. I'm thinking in particular about the media who spun these lies and some politicians who perpetuated them.

It makes it a strong verdict that the jury did not convict even though KC was portrayed as a fine upstanding citizen.

But in the end , a trial is about the actions of the defendant , not the character of the alleged victim.

It is right that the judge restricted coverage of CK’s criminal record in the trial because MB did not know that at the time so was irrelevant.

What he did know was that the car had been involved in a shooting, and that the driver was evading them and aggressively refusing to cooperate.

So info about the fantasy architecture career and his role as doting dad should also have been kept out of it. He wasn’t on his way to JoJoMaman Bebe for teddy bear sleepsuits.

The majority medical opinion agreed that being knelt on by a large policemen, in a life-threatening position and struggling to breathe for 9 minutes, as seen by millions of people worldwide, was what killed George Floyd. Being deprived of adequate oxygen for that long would probably kill anyone, even if they had never taken illegal drugs.

Dr. Lindsey Thomas, a forensic pathologist agreed with Baker’s [Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner] finding in the cause of death, adding she believed the “primary mechanism of death is asphyxia or low oxygen.”
Because of the restraint and his position, she said, Floyd was “unable to get enough oxygen in” to support his body’s functions.
“There’s no evidence,” she said, “to suggest he would have died that night except for the interactions with law enforcement.” [my emphasis]
Heart disease, fentanyl contributed to George Floyd’s death but were not main cause, medical examiner says | CNN

I think there's a problem here with distinguishing between individual cases and wider principles of policing and justice.

There is a debate about the use of lethal force in civil policing, there is a debate about racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes in police forces and how they degrade the policing of those communities, there will always be specific facts about individual cases such as Chris Kaba, RIP.

The fact that someone who has been killed, whether through police action like GF and CK, or a political assassination, (the private lives of so many historical icons don't stand up to close scrutiny) was guilty of violent or abusive behaviour in their private lives doesn't change the broader debate about the rule of law and when it allows the police to kill a citizen.

We should all be equal in the sights of a police weapon - either we are endangering lives, or we are not. If we are, killing us is justified. If we are not, killing us is not justified, whether we are an ordinary person mistaken for a suspect, or a nasty piece of work who brings nothing to society, takes drugs and has a history of violence against women.

So whether GF or CK were drug takers or violent or abusive does not alter the general rule of when it's justifiable for the police to shoot a person. In the CK case, a jury said it was justified to kill him, but not because he was, apparently, a nasty piece of work, but because he posed a threat to life.

I don't see why the Women's Equality Party have taken a position on the CK case, I can understand individual members having opinions about it, it's a high-profile and serious case in which a human being - and good or bad, he was a human being - lost his life, but the link to women's equality...? I don't see it.

What does intersectionality mean? Is it that whenever there is an intersection of two or more potentially marginalising characteristics, the person affected is automatically more marginalised than someone with only one marginalising characteristic? Or does it mean that such an intersection makes it more likely that someone is significantly adversely affected, and that there may be particular effects that would not apply without the intersection?

The latter seems to be the original insight of intersectionality; the former is how I see it being applied by activists, and I question its validity when taken that far.

I broadly agree with you Marie, but whether the marksman knew it was CK in the driving seat or not (apparently not), he knew this car was involved in a number of violent gangland incidents including attempted murder and therefore almost certainly being driven by a violent gang member. A violent gang member crazily ramming a police car block while surrounded by police sounds pretty dangerous to me.

I think this is such as interesting question and observation.

The way I interpret intersectionality is that everyone has their own experience of discrimination and oppression. Therefore we should consider everything that can marginalise people such as class, sexual orientation, physical ability or race. These factors often interrelate in systems of oppression.

In this instance, black women have a different experience of discrimination to other women, often called misogynoir. As such racism in the Met, Black History Month and Windrush are important.

All of this has very little to do with why Wep wrote supportively of Chris Kaba. He's not a woman. In fact he seems to have quite happily terrorised his female partner.

Maybe WEP could focus on e.g. disabled women if they want to focus on intersectionality or even black, disabled women if they really want to focus on race and extra intersectionality.

Article by Julie Bindel, today:

https://unherd.com/2024/10/how-intersectionality-killed-feminism/

@MarieDeGournay

You raise some great points which are particularly pertinent at the moment. On the back of the Kaba case and riding a wave of public support, the police have asked the government to implement changes in the law to make it more difficult to investigate and prosecute the police after a killing and for all uses of force while on duty.

Included in the demands they're calling to make it more difficult for the CPS to charge officers, change the standard of proof required for an unlawful killing and make it harder to disprove a claim of self defence.

These and other changes would make it very difficult to hold the police to account over allegations resulting from their exercise of police powers while on duty.

It's great news for those who think the police should take out gangsters with impunity.

This is coming across as sealioning which I'm sure isn't your intention. The WEP posted a Tweet on the Kaba case in order to highlight racism in the Met.

I understand that you think it's because he's a criminal and abuser of women and they support his criminality. I disagree, I believe it's because another unarmed black man was killed by the Met, which has been found to be institutionally racist. Despite the fact he's a man, racism also affects women.

I have explained this several times and can't make it any clearer than I have. If you don't agree, that's fine.

The police had no reason to believe he was unarmed, given that the car was linked to a gangland shooting and he was actively trying to use it to kill the officers who had stopped him.

It's only about race in that most of the people Kaba had terrorised were black. If you really want to focus on race just think of all the black women and men that are now safe from his violence and abuse.

This pretty much sums up my thinking.

We disagree on the facts. I've already explained why quite thoroughly up thread.

It has been found that the Met is four times more likely to use force on black people compared with white people. Restraint techniques and unarmed skills are three times more likely to be used on black people.

In an analysis into this by the BBC, it was found that the Met used restraint 18 times on black people per 1,000 of the population on average. For white people, restraint was used five times per 1,000 of the population.

It's believed to be partly because of stereotypes of black people as more aggressive and threatening.

As I pointed out earlier, since 2005, all the unarmed people killed by police have been black men. Two of those cases became murder trials and a third is under review.

The Met has been found several times to be institutionally racist. Last year several former officers were prosecuted for racist WhatsApp messages.

Despite this, people don't believe the Met could have acted with racist intentions.

The WEP posted a Tweet on the Kaba case in order to highlight racism in the Met.
Are you a member of WEP? Or a self-elected spokesperson?

My view is that the WEP tried to leap on a bandwagon to make themselves look good. That's it. No fact checking. Purely to keep themselves relevant. It's backfired on them.

The WEP has no substantial history of solid campaigning for women who are also black or brown. They've a picture of the Biba and Nicole demonstration on their website. WEP were not at the forefront of that at all, but using their images. Shameful.

It's all about WEP and virtue signalling. Not about hard grassroots graft. Nothing about women and girls caught up in these gangs and how to help them, nor the women exploited and abused by the likes of Kaba and his associates. Nothing about the Africans in London persecuted by them, nor the black run businesses handing over protection money to them.

Sound bites and tokenism with the WEP. I'm incredibly disappointed in them. I looked at their website to see what reports/ in depth research they've done. Tumbleweed. All mouth and no deeds. They couldn't organise their way out of a paper bag in support of women.

Of course institutional racism needs rooting out in the Met still. Decades on from the MacPherson review it's still there, festering, along with misogyny and misogynoir. There are plenty of examples. Kaba's death is not one of them.
It's all unsubstantiated rhetoric, with an invented saintly background for him, and contempt for a jury of twelve members of the public. Twelve ordinary people unknown to each other or the officer. A jury privy to more information during the weeks of the trial, than anyone posting here disagreeing with their verdict.

It's more than reasonable for members of FWR to question why the WEP are so keen to bandwagon a man with a history of violence ( including his former pregnant partner) when there are many issues affecting women, including because of their ethnicity, which the WEP could have been raising awareness around.

Criticising the WEP for a knee jerk sound bite, based on untruths, in supporting a violent male criminal,whilst ignoring the many struggles of women black and brown, as highlighted upthread, is NOT sealioning on the FWR board. It's fair comment.

So you are saying that Martyn Blake is a racist and he shot Chris Kaba because he wanted to kill a black man?

I don't believe he killed Kaba specifically because he wanted to kill a black man, no.

@larklane17

Are you a member of WEP? Or a self-elected spokesperson?

I'm giving my opinion on their motivation for a Tweet. Just as you're seemingly speaking for the whole of the FWR board whilst giving an opinion.

I understand that some people on this board dislike the WEP which is their prerogative. I'll allow you to carry on in your echo chamber chamber chamber...

For everyone who engaged in good faith, I enjoyed the discussion.

Delighted that this monster will never have the opportunity to kill, maim, wound or terrorise anyone ever again. Women are much safer with him dead. Blake deserves a medal. The WEP is a bad joke.

I'm giving my opinion on their motivation for a Tweet. Just as you're seemingly speaking for the whole of the FWR board whilst giving an opinion.

You accused someone of sealioning because they were expressing their view about the idiocy of the WEP. This is the feminist board, the only reason for the thread is to discuss the WEP's stance and lack of care for the victims of domestic abuse. There are other threads about Kaba in general.