No Julie, no

No platform: my exclusion proves this is an anti-feminist crusade
Julie Bindel

What all this no-platforming shows is that large parts of the left are fascists.

21 thoughts on “No Julie, no”

  1. Tough article to read given the sheer number of new terms that I had ti look up. Terf? Swerf? Womb Bearers?

    Fuck, this whole sexual politics thing used to be simple and easy to follow. Now you practically need a fucking PhD in the subject.

  2. The left, collectively, seem to have suffered some form of mental collapse.

    On what used to be a comedy show, Have I got News for You, last night, the celebs and the audience laughed uproariously at a photo of George Osborne standing in a funny way. Weird enough, but the following picture of Theresa May, standing in a not funny at all, but slightly awkward, way, produced gales of hysterical laughter.

    It’s as though the virus that got Corbyn elected made Murphy be seen as an economics guru and made Zoe stoutly maintain that the left were entitled to spit on whomever they want, has infected large segments of the lefty populace and left them drooling idiots.

    Well, yes, ok, they had a bit of a head start, but really…

    Mind you, the funniest laugh was seeing Abbott trying to look like a sex bomb.

  3. Seeing as Bindel has never gone on record advocating for anyone else to be excluded from anything ever, complaining that she is now being excluded is not in any way hypocritical.
    No Sir.
    Not at all.

  4. – john miller The hysteria has been building since 2010, but since the general election result they’ve gone proper mental, as psychologists say.

  5. I love the way she is spinning this as some vast right wing patriarchy excluding her, whereas in fact the men doing it are also left wing nut jobs with even more bonkers and extreme ideas.

    And, of course, hoisted with her own petard.

  6. I live in a Welsh university town, and in the May election was agent for one of the candidates.

    The Students’ Union held a hustings. It was themed around what they wanted of the election winners, their demands being helpfully circulated in advance.

    I was surprised when the lady chair gave a “safe space” rubric on what could not be said and who was not to be offended: offenders would be asked to leave or if necessary removed. Had we known in advance it might have influenced our decision to attend. It would certainly have elicited a response.

    One candidate (the lady from the Socialist Labour Party) was not there. I presumed she had another engagement. I presumed wrong. Part way through proceedings the doors at the back of the lecture theatre flew open, and an indignant vision in Crimplene trouser suit and a backpack burst in. They had not invited her. They had not even informed her of the event. They had invited candidates whose parties had reached a certain threshold in the previous General Election and weren’t having anyone else.

    It would have mitigated matters if the Chair had acknowledged a mistake, issued some sort of apology and invited the candidate to speak. She didn’t. She was all for summoning security and having the lady removed. It was only the intervention of the other candidates which eventually allowed her to speak.

  7. It would have mitigated matters if the Chair had acknowledged a mistake, issued some sort of apology and invited the candidate to speak.

    What mistake?

    The organizers set the criteria they thought appropriate, and I gather the candidate in question (or her party) hadn’t met them. The only appropriate apology is “I’m sorry you are too stupid to understand arithmetic, now fuck off.”

  8. dcardno

    It’s a university. They have certain obligations in respect of free speech.
    They didn’t pre-announce the restrictions on speech, and they didn’t pre-announce that not all candidates were invited.
    If they had done, they would have had a frosty response from us.

  9. Moreover, their actual response was “we’re sorry that you are too stupid to understand that you were not invited, and It was not an oversight. Now can someone get security to remove her from the premises?”
    Only the protests of the other candidates stopped them from doing precisely that.

  10. @dcardno
    No, the organisers did not set criteria they thought were appropriate. They announced an open debate and then – after the invitees turned up – announced a different rules for a restricted discussion.
    To put it succintly – they lied and misled students into attending a deliberately skewed performance designed to favour (“protect”) certain viewpoints. The words that immediately springs to mind are “cheat” and “liar”.

  11. @ Andrew K
    Did they have burly female security?
    If a male security guard had laid a finger on her …?
    Why is it that female pieces of wooden furniture seem so happy to invite violence against dissidents when “Madam Chairman” (and Chairmen) behave in a civilised fashion?

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Julie Bindel is as much a feminist as SMFS is a gay rights activist.”

    In what way is La Bindel not a feminist? What does a chick have to do to be a feminist that she has not done?

  13. John77

    Security were male, affable and not needed: the matter had been resolved by the time they got there.
    The Socialist Labour candidate was in her 60s, a veteran of Greenham Common and a more-or-less unreconstructed Communist.
    She insisted in reading out her statement in atrocious Welsh, to the barely-disguised mirth of the Plaid Cymru candidate.
    BUT it was wrong to try to prevent her speaking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *