Gender again. Sorry!

[Julia9054]

There's a difference between providing goods and services and organising an arts festival
An arts festival can book whichever acts they like. They are not obliged to feature an artist just because that artist wants to perform/exhibit there.

 

[winjim]

What is offensive is always subjective to some extent but it's for the law to decide whether refusing goods and services to someone on the basis of their beliefs is discrimination or not surely? If you leave it up to the individual then you are legalising all prejudices, both those you agree with and those you don't.

What if it's a service providers opinion that a gay comedian is a 'nasty c*nt'? Or that a black comedian is a 'nasty c*nt'? Would you have the law defend their right to provide goods and services on that basis?

You can withdraw goods and services from the gay and black person for whatever reason you want as long as it's not because they are gay or black (or another protected characteristic)

It's nonsense to suggest the law should protect only people whose attitudes and beliefs you agree with.

It's nonsense to suggest I'm suggesting that. I'm pointing out firstly that the slippery slope argument argument goes both ways, and secondly that your examples of sexuality, race and religion are not appropriate because those are protected characteristics.

 

[winjim]

There's a difference between providing goods and services and organising an arts festival
An arts festival can book whichever acts they like. They are not obliged to feature an artist just because that artist wants to perform/exhibit there.

I think they knew he'd be cancelled and they're stirring. Look at how he was billed. Surprise famous cancelled comedian. And they supposedly kept it a secret from the venue. If you're going to argue that everybody should be provided a platform then I think the promoter has a responsibility to be transparent with the venue.

Promote him as cancelled and then when he's actually cancelled get straight on the media rounds to talk about how cancelled he is...


View: https://twitter.com/Rummlie/status/1691599541735235742?t=BVBn8dgsQ98ZGZrioEpKBw&s=19

 

[AuroraSaab]

There's a difference between providing goods and services and organising an arts festival
An arts festival can book whichever acts they like. They are not obliged to feature an artist just because that artist wants to perform/exhibit there.

I'm not sure that's strictly true under discrimination law. A venue aren't obliged to proactively book any act, but if a group book a room in a venue the venue can't discriminate against that group if their beliefs are lawful to hold.

If you're going to argue that everybody should be provided a platform then I think the promoter has a responsibility to be transparent with the venue.

I'm not arguing that service providers must guarantee to provide a platform, only that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal prejudices as opposed to the law.

You can withdraw goods and services from the gay and black person for whatever reason you want as long as it's not because they are gay or black (or another protected characteristic).

Surely you can see how your criteria could be used to discriminate against individuals holding perfectly legal views on homosexuality or race issues?

It's nonsense to suggest I'm suggesting that. I'm pointing out firstly that the slippery slope argument argument goes both ways, and secondly that your examples of sexuality, race and religion are not appropriate because those are protected characteristics.

Gender critical beliefs are protected too though, like other beliefs. Should someone be able to cancel a show when they realise one of the acts is transgender and features that in their routine, simply because they find the gender beliefs of that person offensive?

It is a slippery slope if you think some legally held views can be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services but others can't. The law should protect people you like and people you don't like.

 

[Beebo]

I think they knew he'd be cancelled and they're stirring. Look at how he was billed. Surprise famous cancelled comedian. And they supposedly kept it a secret from the venue. If you're going to argue that everybody should be provided a platform then I think the promoter has a responsibility to be transparent with the venue.

Promote him as cancelled and then when he's actually cancelled get straight on the media rounds to talk about how cancelled he is...


View: https://twitter.com/Rummlie/status/1691599541735235742?t=BVBn8dgsQ98ZGZrioEpKBw&s=19

It was a comedy show promoted by Andrew Doyle, he presents a GB News show called Freespeech Nation.
The venue have literally walking into a trap which was set for them.

 

[Julia9054]

A venue aren't obliged to proactively book any act, but if a group book a room in a venue the venue can't discriminate against that group if their beliefs are lawful to hold.

Comedy Unleashed are not being prevented from booking a room in a venue. They are an act that the venue are refusing to book now that they know who is performing (unwise of them not to insist on knowing beforehand imo)
If Linehan is going to insist he is being discriminated against, then I am going to demand to be booked to blow my trumpet on the main stage at Glastonbury. After all, it is lawful for me to believe I'm good enough and that people will want to pay to listen

 

[winjim]

It's almost beside the point but Graham Linehan doesn't just hold gender critical beliefs. He's a proper nasty, nasty c*nt about it.

 

[AndyRM]

It's almost beside the point but Graham Linehan doesn't just hold gender critical beliefs. He's a proper nasty, nasty c*nt about it.

This.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Comedy Unleashed are not being prevented from booking a room in a venue. They are an act that the venue are refusing to book now that they know who is performing (unwise of them not to insist on knowing beforehand imo)
If Linehan is going to insist he is being discriminated against, then I am going to demand to be booked to blow my trumpet on the main stage at Glastonbury. After all, it is lawful for me to believe I'm good enough and that people will want to pay to listen

The venue are refusing to honour a booking based on the legally held beliefs of one of the participants. That is discriminatory.

He didn't demand they book him. The venue was booked, then they discriminated. The comparator would be if your trumpet band had been booked to play at Glastonbury and then Glasto cancelled the booking because they realised the owner didn't like you personally or your legally held views on x, y, and z.

It's almost beside the point but Graham Linehan doesn't just hold gender critical beliefs. He's a proper nasty, nasty c*nt about it.

It is entirely beside the point. Which is the point though.... you can't just protect people you like from discrimination. It has to apply to everybody equally, whether you personally think they are a nasty c*nt or not. They might feel the same about you.

 

[winjim]

A thought occurs. A bit of a lightbulb moment but it's so obvious that it kind of slipped by me. Some like to say that Linehan is being discriminated against because of his beliefs. This is putting so called gender critical thought on a par with religion as the protected characteristic is 'religion or belief'. It should go without saying how daft this is and how it does absolutely nothing to dissuade me of the notion that the entire gender critical movement is a cult.

It needs to be pushed against though. I don't think it's the case that Linehan has distasteful beliefs. Rather I think they are opinions. I think we should refer to them as such and get away from the quite disingenuous notion that a specific venue refusing him a platform to air those opinions is somehow akin to religious discrimination.

It is entirely beside the point. Which is the point though.... you can't just protect people you like from discrimination. It has to apply to everybody equally, whether you personally think they are a nasty c*nt or not. They might feel the same about you.

I have been thrown out of venues in the past for being a c*nt. It wasn't discrimination, I was just being a c*nt.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Report in the Graun: https://www.theguardian.com/culture...venue-cancels-graham-linehan-event-complaints

Seems in some ways similar to cancelation of Jo Cherry's event last week. She got the venue to back down based in her legal opinion that they were discriminating. She's supporting Linehan.

I like her as an MP and her kebabing of Chris Heaton-Harris (my MP) over the ferry fiasco was a delight in itself. Less time for her GC views.

As regards Linhan I'm sitting it out with popcorn...

 

[AuroraSaab]

A thought occurs. A bit of a lightbulb moment but it's so obvious that it kind of slipped by me. Some like to say that Linehan is being discriminated against because of his beliefs. This is putting so called gender critical thought on a par with religion as the protected characteristic is 'religion or belief'. It should go without saying how daft this is and how it does absolutely nothing to dissuade me of the notion that the entire gender critical movement is a cult.

So some beliefs should be protected and others shouldn't? I find the beliefs of Scientologists to be ridiculous but I don't think that they should be given less protection from discrimination than the beliefs of Muslims or Christians.

You seriously think 'You can't change your sex' shouldn't be a protected belief whilst 'Jesus rose from the dead' should be?

Our opinions are based on beliefs. If those opinions are legal to hold, then it is discriminatory to treat people differently just for holding them.

It needs to be pushed against though. I don't think it's the case that Linehan has distasteful beliefs. Rather I think they are opinions. I think we should refer to them as such and get away from the quite disingenuous notion that a specific venue refusing him a platform to air those opinions is somehow akin to religious discrimination.

Again though, this is subjective. Should vendors be allowed to deny goods and services based on their subjective view of legally held opinions?

If you don't like the fact that gender critical opinions are legal and protected in law, perhaps you need to campaign to make them illegal.

I have been thrown out of venues in the past for being a c*nt. It wasn't discrimination, I was just being a c*nt.

Not the same because you were in there already, and presumably your behaviour contravened the venue's rules, which would have to be reasonable to be legal. How about if they sold you a ticket then refused you admission because they heard you were a c*unt? Or more accurately, decided to refuse admission because they didn't like your legally held views?

I'm always bemused by the people on here who give the impression of being left of centre but who support discrimination when it targets people they don't like.

 

[Pale Rider]

Nothing to stop anyone protesting lawfully at his concerts.

A proper dose of good old fashioned North East workingmen's club style stick might do him good, and would likely be more entertaining than his act.

Believe it or not, a greengrocer in Sunderland used to sell past its sell by date fruit and veg to crowds queuing outside the Empire.

I suppose chucking rotten tomatoes at an act these days would be characterised as an assault.

That's progress for you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

He's a talented comedy writer but I reckon he'd be a terrible stand up comedian. I don't agree with disrupting performances or chucking rotten fruit at people you don't like either. Protest peacefully outside or just don't go.

 

[winjim]

So some beliefs should be protected and others shouldn't? I find the beliefs of Scientologists to be ridiculous but I don't think that they should be given less protection from discrimination than the beliefs of Muslims or Christians.

You seriously think 'You can't change your sex' shouldn't be a protected belief whilst 'Jesus rose from the dead' should be?

Our opinions are based on beliefs. If those opinions are legal to hold, then it is discriminatory to treat people differently just for holding them.


Again though, this is subjective. Should vendors be allowed to deny goods and services based on their subjective view of legally held opinions?

If you don't like the fact that gender critical opinions are legal and protected in law, perhaps you need to campaign to make them illegal.



Not the same because you were in there already, and presumably your behaviour contravened the venue's rules, which would have to be reasonable to be legal. How about if they sold you a ticket then refused you admission because they heard you were a c*unt? Or more accurately, decided to refuse admission because they didn't like your legally held views?

I'm always bemused by the people on here who give the impression of being left of centre but who support discrimination when it targets people they don't like.

I only recognise left and right as economic philosophies.