Gender again. Sorry!

[Deleted member 159]

This cancelling of comedians is helping strengthen the position for firming up free speech legislation.

Keep it going

 

[mudsticks]

I don't think that people should be refused goods and services because I don't like their opinions, if those opinions are legal to hold. So we don't agree. What I think of the individual in this case has no bearing on that. Unlike you, my view of who should be protected by the law doesn't change based on whether I like their personality or not.

Here's another last minute cancellation made because the values of the owner of the venue clash with those making the booking. Morally wrong, and clearly discrimination in law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-51280256.amp

You can't have laws that allow you to refuse goods and services based on personal assessment of someone's morals or personality.

I'm curious about this last part.

I'm pretty sure I'm not legally obliged to supply anything to anyone if I just don't like 'the cut of their jib'.

I've turned down offers of work, exposure, or custom based on 'nope I don't like your attitude' or the 'values' that your organisation represent.

I'm certain this same practice is replicated many thousands of times over on a daily basis in organisations and businesses both large and small, if a proposed customer or client isn't a good fit.

It's called being discerning, it's why we have some businesses and organisations that we consider ethical, and some that are less so.
Shouldn't we have free choice as to the organisations and people we want to be associated with.?

Or does "I have the money to pay, so I should get what I want from you regardless" trump everything.?

This cancelling of comedians is helping strengthen the position for firming up free speech legislation.

Keep it going

Afaik this 'comedian' has performed in the street, anyone could go to listen if they wanted to.

So not cancelled, it's just a couple of private venues that didn't want him on their stage.

What sort of 'free speech' legislation, would you like to see?

Legislation that does away with the concept and prosecution of 'hate speech' ?
Should incitement to hatred, or violence be legal?

 

[winjim]

His little platform was quite fun but it would have been better if they'd managed to find an actual soapbox.


But what happened to the other acts? Did they also do the standing outside parliament in front of a load of bussed in media, sour faced wimmin and a bored dog thing?

 

[Deleted member 121]

This cancelling of comedians is helping strengthen the position for firming up free speech legislation.

Keep it going

Why doesn't he just organise his own event/tour? What's stopping him? Inevitably, a landlord has a right to refuse who they wish to have on their premises unless you want to force this issue? Roy Chubby Brown manages to tour and he's had his own stumbling blocks to contend with given the nature of his content being "of the time" perhaps...

Just sayin'

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm curious about this last part. I'm pretty sure I'm not legally obliged to supply anything to anyone if I just don't like 'the cut of their jib'.

That would depend, but for some people 'the cut of their jib' that they don't like will be the person's skin colour, sex, or disability.

People discriminate all the time and get away with it. Do we want it enshrined in law that it isn't discrimination though? That's the point. I get the impression some posters do. Or perhaps they want to be able to discriminate themselves but want the cut of their own jib to be protected from discrimination.

I've turned down offers of work, exposure, or custom based on 'nope I don't like your attitude' or the 'values' that your organisation represent.

This is different to having agreed to supply a service and then cancelling because you realise you don't like the person's values. This is just you rejecting opportunities.

I'm certain this same practice is replicated many thousands of times over on a daily basis in organisations and businesses both large and small, if a proposed customer or client isn't a good fit.
It's called being discerning, it's why we have some businesses and organisations that we consider ethical, and some that are less so.

They do. Do you want it to be the way the law works though? Because to some people being black or disabled would mean a person 'wasn't a good fit' as a customer of theirs.

Shouldn't we have free choice as to the organisations and people we want to be associated with.?

In laws applying to which customers you are willing to provide goods and services to though? To the extent that it allows you to discriminate against people just because you don't like them? No. We all know companies do it, but having that enshrined in law as being free association not discrimination would be a terrible idea.

 

[mudsticks]

That would depend, but for some people 'the cut of their jib' that they don't like will be the person's skin colour, sex, or disability.

People discriminate all the time and get away with it. Do we want it enshrined in law that it isn't discrimination though? That's the point. I get the impression some posters do. Or perhaps they want to be able to discriminate themselves but want the cut of their own jib to be protected from discrimination.


This is different to having agreed to supply a service and then cancelling because you realise you don't like the person's values. This is just you rejecting opportunities.


They do. Do you want it to be the way the law works though? Because to some people being black or disabled would mean a person 'wasn't a good fit' as a customer of theirs.


In laws applying to which customers you are willing to provide goods and services to though? To the extent that it allows you to discriminate against people just because you don't like them? No. We all know companies do it, but having that enshrined in law as being free association not discrimination would be a terrible idea.

I'm not sure that it's enshrined in law that my kind of discernment isn't discrimination.

That's an absence of a law regarding my choices.

There is a law (rightly so in my view) that says I can't discriminate against people based on their sexuality, skin colour, disability etc

If it can be shown in law that I've done that kind of discrimination then I can be prosecuted if anyone chooses to bring a case of that nature.

 

[icowden]

I'm pretty sure I'm not legally obliged to supply anything to anyone if I just don't like 'the cut of their jib'.
I've turned down offers of work, exposure, or custom based on 'nope I don't like your attitude' or the 'values' that your organisation represent.

I would concur.

Afaik this 'comedian' has performed in the street, anyone could go to listen if they wanted to.
So not cancelled, it's just a couple of private venues that didn't want him on their stage.

I also concur but...

The issue here is that the venues were quite happy to have the show booked. They only changed their mind when they saw the line-up that had been booked. If they had an issue with "un-woke" comedians they shouldn't have booked the show in the first place. To cancel it based on the line up after they had agreed to the show taking place, is censorship. For the same reason, the Pleasance shouldn't have cancelled Jerry Sadowitz. Every comedian in the country knows that Jerry's shows are going to contain stuff that is extreme and that he will get his genitals out. The show was literally entitled "Jerry Sadowitz - Not for anyone".

The *only* reason that they cancelled once they know Graham Linehan was on the line up was because they knew that the trans-evangelists would make a scene. I'll stick to my long stated position that no-one is forced to go and see a show. If you don't like the views of the people performing you don't go. Getting placards out and trying to stop the show itself is censorship plain and simple.

 

[mudsticks]

I would concur.

I also concur but...

The issue here is that the venues were quite happy to have the show booked. They only changed their mind when they saw the line-up that had been booked. If they had an issue with "un-woke" comedians they shouldn't have booked the show in the first place. To cancel it based on the line up after they had agreed to the show taking place, is censorship. For the same reason, the Pleasance shouldn't have cancelled Jerry Sadowitz. Every comedian in the country knows that Jerry's shows are going to contain stuff that is extreme and that he will get his genitals out. The show was literally entitled "Jerry Sadowitz - Not for anyone".

The *only* reason that they cancelled once they know Graham Linehan was on the line up was because they knew that the trans-evangelists would make a scene. I'll stick to my long stated position that no-one is forced to go and see a show. If you don't like the views of the people performing you don't go. Getting placards out and trying to stop the show itself is censorship plain and simple.

I agree they should have checked out the content before they booked the show.

I don't think it's 'censorship' more mismanagement, verging on stupidity, and gives more publicity to an act that perhaps doesn't deserve it.


"Something something something 'anti woke'" should have set off alarm bells, with whoever makes these decisions, if this venue considers itself socially progressive.

But having non violent protestors outside waving placards all adds to the performance art though.

 

[icowden]

But having non violent protestors outside waving placards all adds to the performance art though.

And it's great for sales (See Jerry Springer the Opera for more details)

 

[multitool]

And it's great for sales (See Jerry Springer the Opera for more details)

As Linehan himself said, the show was already sold out, so his late inclusion was not about generating sales.

Are we still pretending this is a free speech issue? It isn't. Any more than a Tommy Robinson stand up show cancellation would be.

Linehan's approach to generating hatred against trans people is remarkably similar to Robinson's tactics to generating anti-muslim sentiment.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That would depend, but for some people 'the cut of their jib' that they don't like will be the person's skin colour, sex, or disability.

People discriminate all the time and get away with it. Do we want it enshrined in law that it isn't discrimination though? That's the point. I get the impression some posters do. Or perhaps they want to be able to discriminate themselves but want the cut of their own jib to be protected from discrimination.


This is different to having agreed to supply a service and then cancelling because you realise you don't like the person's values. This is just you rejecting opportunities.


They do. Do you want it to be the way the law works though? Because to some people being black or disabled would mean a person 'wasn't a good fit' as a customer of theirs.


In laws applying to which customers you are willing to provide goods and services to though? To the extent that it allows you to discriminate against people just because you don't like them? No. We all know companies do it, but having that enshrined in law as being free association not discrimination would be a terrible idea.

Let's suppose the image was, as it were, reversed. The performers now include a transactivist with a recorded history of downright nastiness aimed at natal women.

Would you still be popping up to defend them and their rights?

 

[icowden]

Let's suppose the image was, as it were, reversed. The performers now include a transactivist with a recorded history of downright nastiness aimed at natal women.
Would you still be popping up to defend them and their rights?

Yes. Let them speak. Buying tickets is up to you.

 

[multitool]

Yes. Let them speak. Buying tickets is up to you.

Nobody has a right to a platform at an arts venue.

 

[mudsticks]

And it's great for sales (See Jerry Springer the Opera for more details)

It is
There's nothing like something being 'banned' for generating sales.
💃👍🏼🌈

See 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood' etc etc.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Let's suppose the image was, as it were, reversed. The performers now include a transactivist with a recorded history of downright nastiness aimed at natal women.

Would you still be popping up to defend them and their rights?

Yes, I would defend their right to hold opinions that I disagree with and stand up in a room and talk about it or make jokes about it. Wouldn't you? Or do you think it's only reasonable to discriminate against people whose opinions you personally don't like?

Surely you're aware that there are several trans comedians in the UK who perform quite edgy material? I have yet to see any mainstream gender critical feminists say they should have their bookings cancelled. Frankie Boyle has some horrible comic routines, but I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to perform them.

Transwoman India Willoughby thinks we should build a fence to keep migrants out. Still gets on TV regularly. Scots comedian Janey Godley has made racist and anti-semitic jokes. Still gets booked, still on TV.

How do you feel about Peter Tatchell's views on the age of consent? Still on TV and given a platform.

Wishing people wouldn't give people you don't like a platform is one thing, saying the law should allow you to discriminate against them is another.