Kate Forbes - Another Free Speech Row
 

'Safe room' set up to protect performers from Kate Forbes at Edinburgh Fringe venue which may ban her over trans views

A major Edinburgh Fringe venue has come under fire after banning Kate Forbes due to her views on trans issues. Summerhall Arts were also mocked after it was revealed that a "safe room" was set up for artists when the Deputy First Minister spoke at a show there last week.

The scandal has triggered a free speech row as gender critical campaigners pointed out the hypocrisy involved in outlining a potential ban. Ms Forbes has publicly criticised gender reforms and also backs single-sex spaces for biological women, leading to an outcry from trans activists.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co....otect-35722378

:facepalm:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences from that speech.

Kate Forbes is anti trans, against same sex marriage and anti-abortion. If she had the chance to vote her way she would DENY trans people the right to use a space that aligned with their gender, she would DENY gay people the right to get married and she would DENY women the right to access abortion.

And we're meant to care she is denied access to a private venue? Byeeeee.

It's discrimination, she is allowed to hold those views, they tried to do the same with Joanna Cherry that didn't go too well for them, if people can't handle an alternative view that is their problem really, I am not anti abortion but I uphold her right to have her views and as for providing a space space...ba ha ha

If you're hateful enough to deny people the right to safety, love, equal rights and healthcare my sympathy for you being discriminated against for those views in the way of not being able to use a private venue is literally miniscule.

Nobody is saying she can't have those views, she just can't air them in said venue.

Weird you laugh at people wanting a 'safe space'... thought you were an advocate for that...

A safe space from being physically or sexually assaulted is a bit different to someone saying something you don't want to hear, dear me, says alot that you want to dumb down safe spaces for women 3 of whom are murdered every week at the hands of men in the UK just to try a gotcha

By the way the venue will have to back down like they did with Joanna Cherry

I have always advocated for safe spaces for women due to the risk that men pose to them and never once have dumbed it down.

However I was making a point that for some, hateful words come with hateful actions. I personally don't understand 'safe spaces' needed in this context, but I think it's crass to laugh about people feeling threatened.

Are you telling me, as a woman, that you or someone you know has never felt threatened or unsafe because of something a man has said? That even if he hasn't been physically violent, his words illicit a of feeling of unsafety?

hate, aways the hate
 

If you are a woman, this is what you will face if you need to use the toilet at
@Summerhallery

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyLnjf7X...g&name=360x360https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyLnjgCX...jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyLnjgDW...jpg&name=small

As above I was laughing at people needing a safe space from the views expressed by Kate Forbes deputy leader of Scotland, that is what is being discussed here

:laugh2:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyLgGZ4W...g&name=900x900

The irony of Edinburgh festival performers having a ‘safe room’ because they’re terrified of
Kate Forbes’s opinions, that women need safe spaces away from actual violent men and
rapists.

https://giffiles.alphacoders.com/213/213322.gif

Nobody has a problem with stopping men to go into women's spaces. Trans women are not men.

Just recently, there have been multiple cases in the U.S of cis women having to prove they are biological women and not trans women, because of this obsession about what spaces trans women use.

So just to reiterate: you have biological women being forced to prove their gender they are so they can go to the bathroom all in the name of... protecting women.:joker: This is what happens when society decides how women "should" look and what attributes are feminine enough to prevent harassment and asking for proof they have a vagina.

It doesn't surprise me some men out there don't mind women being reduced to the sum of their physical attributes, but it blows my mind there are women out there who are happy with that, too. Each to their own I guess.

Lesbian teen says Buffalo Wild Wings server forced her to prove gender in restroom.
Mudra, who is not transgender, claims she came out of the stall and told the server that she was a female, but was again told that she needed to get out of the restroom immediately.

“The employee blocked her from leaving until Mudra unzipped her hoodie to show she had breasts,” the organization said in a news release. “Only then did the server relent.”

Cis woman confronted by police officers in Arizona Walmart restroom for looking too masculine
In an exclusive interview with The Advocate, Morton detailed the humiliating and distressing encounter. She said that she had entered the restroom with her ex-girlfriend, who handed her a tampon, when two male deputies stormed in, shining flashlights into the stall and demanding she exit. Morton, still using the toilet, was stunned.

When she finally exited the stall, she said she lifted her shirt to prove she was not a man, expecting the ordeal to end. Instead, she said one deputy continued to question her appearance, insisting she “looked like a man.” Morton started recording, later posting a 9-second clip to TikTok, where it has since been viewed more than 3.7 million times. “They came in here in the girls’ restroom because I’m a girl and they didn’t think I was a girl, so they tried to come take me away,” she says in the video.

YAY for women having to show men they have breasts to keep women safe. :dance: :dance:

I don't really like that argument.

Freedom of speech means freedom of consequences, otherwise you're not free to say whatever you want because you might lose Job opportunities, therefore there's no freedom of speech.

And imo if there's no freedom of speech because there's no freedom of consequences, it means that we're not much different to countries like China and Russia.

Now, that doesn't mean that people can't dislike Kate Forbes views or Kate Forbes herself, because again freedom to disagree with someone is a very important thing to any half decent country that claims to be in a democratic society.

But no people should not face punishments for opinions, it's that kind of thinking that's seeing the western world regress so much over recent years.

Edit... I get why you're more personally involved after reading the rest of your post, but I still think that she has the right to say her views because we can also challenge her views.

Jesus Christ at those stories.:umm2:

Tbf I really wouldn't fair much better than the police on this, there are some men and women out in the world that I could never tell their gender unless they were to tell me.:joker:

It truly depends on what the speech is and what the consequence is.

For example, you have the freedom to say that you support Trump and all he stands for and the consequence of that might be that your friend decides they don't want to be your friend anymore because you have wildly different values.

I think we've spoken about this before but sometimes words, without specifically asking for hatred, do incite it. Public rhetoric against already marginalised groups emboldens people who already hate that group to do it publicly. Which leads to abuse, harassment and sometimes physical violence.

Which means, while opinions are allowed, people - particularly those who are in positions of power - have to understand that some opinions, if it could lead to incitement of hatred, have consequences. That's not not free speech. You can still say it.

Do I think people should lose their job for their political affiliation? No.

Do I think a business can decide they do not want the custom of someone because of the very public views they have, views that can, have and might do in the past lead to legislation that negatively impacts the lives of people for the way they were born? Yes.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation. Nigel Farage wins the Election. He swiftly bans gay marriage, which invalidates my own marriage and/or effects my friends ability to marry the person they love. Let's say I own a cafe and he comes into the cafe. Do you think I should be forced to serve a man who made my life - and the lives of those around me - significantly worse because of his views and what those views led to, even though everything that came under those views was lawful and a result of free speech.

Well legally speaking under that scenario, Farage (wrongly imo) would've brought in a very controversial policy by banning gay marriage.

But under your scenario he hasn't broken any laws to warrant being banned from any establishment imo.

And to go to your friends falling out over differing opinions about Trump scenario. That isn't what I'm really on about here as someone has the right to not be friends with someone anymore for whatever reason that they want to, it's not the same as a venue trying to silence someone because they don't like their Politics, it's two totally different things.

And yeah I think we have spoke about this before actually, and I think that I'm giving a very similar response to last time.:laugh:

And for me it would depend on what's being said.

Like one that I personally thought crossed the line was back when the Trump vs Hilary Election was going on, and Trump calling all Mexicans "rapists" because that is incitement imo, and going beyond the "I don't like Mexicans" rhetoric that some other American people hold.

Two stories from the US... again all about the bathrooms, the fixation on bathrooms is unreal, highly unlikely you would get the police doing that here, not sure what they turn up for these days apart from Notting Hill and protest marches :laugh:

The UK police look at Social Media posts these days, and piracy most likely.

Screw real crimes.:joker:

My point was, a private business owner should have the right to refuse custom to someone if that person has, while being lawful, has made it their duty to make someone's life worse.

Crazy but true!

Fair enough I guess.

I just feel like it personally has to be criminal conduct to get people banned from a business, because we go down a slippery slope I feel once we start opening up the door for things that we personally don't like.

It started under May tbf.

But it's just got increasingly worse over time.

Both cases are clearly actual women, people were being a bit overzealous.

Personally don't like and actively campaigning against them are two different things. We're talking here about people in positions of power who have the influence to radically change a persons rights for the worse based on their opinions.

I believe, and correct me if I'm am wrong, that would might be a white, straight male, just based on things you've said previously. While I understand some of the rhetoric around men can be poor, as a white straight male your rights attributed to those characteristics have never actually been under threat and never will be. It's very easy to have the viewpoint you do when such language will never ever effect you personally.

They look stupid anyway so just give them some fluffy pink earmuffs to complete the look and to protect their precious wee souls.