Still still not worthy of a thread

[Conjo]

18 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I thought we've barred her from attending because of things she's written on Twitter? I admit I've really not looked into it beyond that at all, I could be mistaken.

 

That's my understanding as well. I don't see how is that an infringement on her freedom of speech though. Afaik she can still express herself as she sees fit.

[HawK]

2 minutes ago, christ said:

Mad how free speech absolutists love to hide behind defamation law when it involves them being painted in a bad light.

 

She doesn’t just have ‘opinions’ on gender identity, she’s literally saying trans people are the worst kind of sexual deviant. Not in an off hand way either. She’s directly accusing transgender people of being paedophiles and that sexually assaulting people one of the main motivators of their transitioning.

 

She’ll not have been banned because of her views, she’ll have been banned because she poses a potential risk to the club and fans.

 

I don't agree with those views if that's what she's expressed. I don't see how I've been painted in a bad light? And I think the only person in our conversation dealing in absolutes is yourself.

 

There are people in the world who think people who commit certain crimes should be executed, they are also calling for groups of people to be killed. Do we have a checklist on people coming into the ground if they support capital punishment, and to what degree? What about views on the current genocide in China or Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel? The list goes on and on. You just can't bar entry to people because you don't like their views or opinions, it's undemocratic.

 

It's a wider conversation to be had in a non-footballing thread, but on the specific point about a Newcastle Utd fan being barred entry based on held views on beliefs I disapprove of the banning. I'm sure there's literally 1000s of people in the crowd who hold unsavoury views that most would not agree with in the cold light of day.

[HawK]

Just now, Conjo said:

 

That's my understanding as well. I don't see how is that an infringement on her freedom of speech though. Afaik she can still express herself as she sees fit.

 

For me, it's the implication that the club are selectively allowing people to enter the ground based on views and opinions which I think sets a dangerous precedent.

[Orphanage]

Is there a link to what she has said ? 

[christ]

3 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I don't agree with those views if that's what she's expressed. I don't see how I've been painted in a bad light? And I think the only person in our conversation dealing in absolutes is yourself.

 

There are people in the world who think people who commit certain crimes should be executed, they are also calling for groups of people to be killed. Do we have a checklist on people coming into the ground if they support capital punishment, and to what degree? What about views on the current genocide in China or Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel? The list goes on and on. You just can't bar entry to people because you don't like their views or opinions, it's undemocratic.

 

It's a wider conversation to be had in a non-footballing thread, but on the specific point about a Newcastle Utd fan being barred entry based on held views on beliefs I disapprove of the banning. I'm sure there's literally 1000s of people in the crowd who hold unsavoury views that most would not agree with in the cold light of day.

My brother in Christ this is not the same. She’s not just saying “I believe trans people can’t change gender”, she’s saying “I believe trans people are preying on children and are all sexual predators.” 

[BlueStar]

2 hours ago, healthyaddiction said:

Yeah, here is a post with some of the tweets.

 

 

 

Right-wing social media weirdos always pull this minimising-through-weasel-words stuff "I was banned JUST for.." Like someone gets done for conspiracy to murder OH SO IT'S ILLEGAL TO CHAT WITH YOUR FRIENDS NOW.

 

Nowadays you get thrown in jail just for saying you're English. Nowadays.

 

 

[HawK]

Just now, christ said:

My brother in Christ this is not the same. She’s not just saying “I believe trans people can’t change gender”, she’s saying “I believe trans people are preying on children and are all sexual predators.” 

 

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. 

 

If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. 

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

[BlueStar]

5 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. 

 

If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. 

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

 

Don't fans get stadium bans every other week for racially abusing players on social media, or for mocking stadium disasters/terminally ill fans etc without anyone saying it's a free speech infringement? Should they be allowed in so the guy next to them can challenge their views? 

[HawK]

Just now, BlueStar said:

 

Don't fans get stadium bans every other week for racially abusing players on social media without anyone saying it's a free speech infringement? Should they be allowed in so the guy next to them can challenge their views? 

 

The difference there is that racial abuse is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. It's another conversation entirely to ruminate over what should be a law and what shouldn't though. 

[BlueStar]

5 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

The difference there is that racial abuse is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. It's another conversation entirely to ruminate over what should be a law and what shouldn't though. 

 

But transphobic abuse is also a hate crime, isn't it? I'd imagine there have been cases where fans have been banned for racism where they have not been prosecuted for it.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/yorkshire-and-humberside/news/leeds-christian-preacher-sentenced-harassing-transgender-woman

 

“People have the right to hold opinions and express their views, but when words cross the line between a legitimate expression of religious views and become distressing and threatening, the CPS will prosecute offenders if our legal test is met.

“In this case, by repeatedly referring to the female victim as ‘this gentleman’ and ‘a man in woman’s clothing’, using a microphone in a public place, McConnell’s comments crossed the line between a legitimate expression of his religious views, to become a distressing and threatening personal attack.”

[80]

2 minutes ago, christ said:

I don’t think I accused either the Israelis or Palestinians of diddling kids?

From memory - and apologies if I'm wrong, but if it doesn't apply to you it does apply to probably a dozen supporters on our forum - you'd largely take the view that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state executing a genocide on the Palestinian people. That the Palestinians have a right of return to their former properties and Israel should not be allowed to characterise itself as an ethnostate. That the Israeli security services and powerful international Zionist sympathisers wage campaigns of misinformation and political power plays to disorient, isolate and destroy the reputations of those who sympathise with the Palestinians and seek to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions.

 

As you'll surely know, in the current environment, there are plenty of influential people ready and willing to portray someone with those views as being an anti-Semitic, conspiritorially-minded, terrorist enabling, genocide sympathiser. The kind of person a business, whether in football, telecommunications or banking, might think twice about accepting the business of.

 

So, if someone were banned from football grounds for expressing those views, what would you think? 

[BlueStar]

4 minutes ago, 80 said:

From memory - and apologies if I'm wrong, but if it doesn't apply to you it does apply to probably a dozen supporters on our forum - you'd largely take the view that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state executing a genocide on the Palestinian people. That the Palestinians have a right of return to their former properties and Israel should not be allowed to characterise itself as an ethnostate. That the Israeli security services and powerful international Zionist sympathisers wage campaigns of misinformation and political power plays to disorient, isolate and destroy the reputations of those who sympathise with the Palestinians and seek to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions.

 

As you'll surely know, in the current environment, there are plenty of influential people ready and willing to portray someone with those views as being an anti-Semitic, conspiritorially-minded, terrorist enabling, genocide sympathiser. The kind of person a business, whether in football, telecommunications or banking, might think twice about accepting the business of.

 

So, if someone were banned from football grounds for expressing those views, what would you think? 

 

Depends how they expressed them. Saying Israel is illegally occupying Gaza = fine. Saying you're very much against immigration, fine.  Saying you believe gender is solely determined by biological sex = fine.  Calling Israelis globalist kikes, immigrants apes and savages or transgender people nonces, not fine. Happy to have any of them banned. 

 

There are plenty of people including on this forum, who believe that sex is determined by biological gender and transgender women are men and none of them have been banned from the stadium because they haven't gone around seeking out trans people to abuse and accuse of being paedophiles, so it's clearly not the case you're not allowed to hold gender-critical views and also attend a Newcastle match as is being claimed. 

[christ]

9 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. 

 

If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. 

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

People get banned from football grounds for being deplorable human beings all the time.

 

The club will rightly feel they have a duty of care to fans. As you acknowledge she shouldn’t be around trans people based on her apparently deeply held beliefs that they’re all dodgepots. But we have trans fans. Why should they be left in a position where they could run into this person, who doesn’t seem backward in coming forward about their feelings towards trans people? 

[HawK]

11 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

 

But transphobic abuse is also a hate crime, isn't it? I'd imagine there have been cases where fans have been banned for racism where they have not been prosecuted for it.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/yorkshire-and-humberside/news/leeds-christian-preacher-sentenced-harassing-transgender-woman

 

“People have the right to hold opinions and express their views, but when words cross the line between a legitimate expression of religious views and become distressing and threatening, the CPS will prosecute offenders if our legal test is met.

“In this case, by repeatedly referring to the female victim as ‘this gentleman’ and ‘a man in woman’s clothing’, using a microphone in a public place, McConnell’s comments crossed the line between a legitimate expression of his religious views, to become a distressing and threatening personal attack.”

 

To answer you point directly (I'm no legal eagle), I think it's not specified (gender-based hate) under law, whereas offences can be specifically racially aggravated.

[christ]

12 minutes ago, 80 said:

From memory - and apologies if I'm wrong, but if it doesn't apply to you it does apply to probably a dozen supporters on our forum - you'd largely take the view that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state executing a genocide on the Palestinian people. That the Palestinians have a right of return to their former properties and Israel should not be allowed to characterise itself as an ethnostate. That the Israeli security services and powerful international Zionist sympathisers wage campaigns of misinformation and political power plays to disorient, isolate and destroy the reputations of those who sympathise with the Palestinians and seek to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions.

 

As you'll surely know, in the current environment, there are plenty of influential people ready and willing to portray someone with those views as being an anti-Semitic, conspiritorially-minded, terrorist enabling, genocide sympathiser. The kind of person a business, whether in football, telecommunications or banking, might think twice about accepting the business of.

 

So, if someone were banned from football grounds for expressing those views, what would you think? 

That’s false equivalence though, isn’t it? In this case we have someone wearing their transphobia on their sleeve. There’s no need to read between the lines here because she literally says what she means. It’s there in the tweets.

A reasonable comparison would be someone saying they’re anti-Semitic and proud of it. And in that case then I’d have no problem with them being banned either.

[HawK]

2 minutes ago, christ said:

People get banned from football grounds for being deplorable human beings all the time.

 

The club will rightly feel they have a duty of care to fans. As you acknowledge she shouldn’t be around trans people based on her apparently deeply held beliefs that they’re all dodgepots. But we have trans fans. Why should they be left in a position where they could run into this person, who doesn’t seem backward in coming forward about their feelings towards trans people? 

 

In my personal view - unless she actually harasses or distresses people specifically, she should be allowed in. But if that line is not crossed - i.e., she attends a game, watches the match, has a pint, goes home, she's fine.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, you clearly feel that people who say things that we both find abhorrent and post about them on twitter should have their access to the world curtailed. I can understand your reasoning and respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise - it comes down to our own core value systems that are ingrained at a very young age.

[80]

10 minutes ago, christ said:

That’s false equivalence though, isn’t it? In this case we have someone wearing their transphobia on their sleeve. There’s no need to read between the lines here because she literally says what she means. It’s there in the tweets.

A reasonable comparison would be someone saying they’re anti-Semitic and proud of it. And in that case then I’d have no problem with them being banned either.

Haven't got the time to do a more full response right now, but some would argue the things I wrote are anti-Semitism. As in, no interpretation required - speaking those words equates to emotional violence and stochastic terrorism.

 

More importantly though, it's the 'actions meet consequences' angle I'm interested in. Is it the service provider's liberty to judge and discriminate among those who it deals with in all instances? Are there no downsides or risks attached to establishing a culture where that freedom is regularly exercised?

[Stifler]

2 hours ago, HawK said:

 

I think it would be quicker for our conversation if you just tell me what it means to you

Freedom of speech is related to being persecuted by your government/authorities.

Because our government doesn’t carry out torture, and executions, this generally means freedom from prison.

This only applies for government and local authorities though, it doesn’t apply to private companies, there is also exceptions to hate specific hate speeches etc.

 

Now if you say that your boss is a wanker, then you’ll not go to prison for that. However the company you work for are free to dismiss you, and prohibit you from their premises.

 

In this case NUFC are free to ban her from the stadium.

 

For what it’s worth, she has said all this on a social media account which is basically her displaying a full on NUFC persona, describing them in her bio, pictures of her in NUFC merchandise, attending games etc. Everything about it, and including her name on there at one point was NUFC orientated.

 

I’m lead to believe that she is a similar age to me, if so then she should know better than to say the things she did.

On top of this, if she went to high school around here, and was open about her sexuality, then there is little doubt that she herself would have been on the receiving end of similar abuse.

Come to think of it, was she not the one that was upset when Wraith and his mates were having a pop at her for her sexuality?

[christ]

3 minutes ago, 80 said:

Haven't got the time to do a more full response right now, but some would argue the things I wrote are anti-Semitism. As in, no interpretation required - speaking those words equates to emotional violence and stochastic terrorism.

 

More importantly though, it's the 'actions meet consequences' angle I'm interested in. Is it the service provider's liberty to judge and discriminate among those who it deals with in all instances? Are there no downsides or risks attached to establishing a culture where that freedom is regularly exercised?

You would argue it’s anti-Semitic, many would argue it isn’t. The difference here is that there’s no argument about whether or not she’s transphobic - she admits as much in her tweets. It’s whether she should be banned for being transphobic.

[HawK]

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Freedom of speech is related to being persecuted by your government/authorities.

Because our government doesn’t carry out torture, and executions, this generally means freedom from prison.

This only applies for government and local authorities though, it doesn’t apply to private companies, there is also exceptions to hate specific hate speeches etc.

 

Now if you say that your boss is a wanker, then you’ll not go to prison for that. However the company you work for are free to dismiss you, and prohibit you from their premises.

 

In this case NUFC are free to ban her from the stadium.

 

For what it’s worth, she has said all this on a social media account which is basically her displaying a full on NUFC persona, describing them in her bio, pictures of her in NUFC merchandise, attending games etc. Everything about it, and including her name on there at one point was NUFC orientated.

 

I’m lead to believe that she is a similar age to me, if so then she should know better than to say the things she did.

On top of this, if she went to high school around here, and was open about her sexuality, then there is little doubt that she herself would have been on the receiving end of similar abuse.

Come to think of it, was she not the one that was upset when Wraith and his mates were having a pop at her for her sexuality?

 

Thanks,  your detail on her background makes NUFC's actions clearer on this. Being decked out in NUFC attire whilst spouting hateful speech is one thing, whereas without the NUFC association I believe it would be treat differently.

 

Although I disagree that your example is fair, the employee-employer relationship with direct abuse involved is not really the same thing as pontificating your beliefs on the Twitter soapbox. However if you were decked out in your company uniform and every other post is about your company and you mix your own disagreeable views, then rightly that company could be seen to be associated with those views. If the company then does not act once aware, it could be seen to be complicit or condoning those views.

[geordie_b]

[cubaricho]

Hawk clearly a wrongun and afraid he’s going to get done for his views too.  

 

 

Edited February 7 by cubaricho

[Ronaldo]

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

I feel like they never break out the lip readers or this level of investigation when someone does a racism.

They have done, to be fair. In the PL at least. And more than once. 

[HawK]

12 hours ago, cubaricho said:

Hawk clearly a wrongun and afraid he’s going to get done for his views too.  

 

 

 

[gdm]

20 hours ago, HawK said:

 

In my personal view - unless she actually harasses or distresses people specifically, she should be allowed in. But if that line is not crossed - i.e., she attends a game, watches the match, has a pint, goes home, she's fine.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, you clearly feel that people who say things that we both find abhorrent and post about them on twitter should have their access to the world curtailed. I can understand your reasoning and respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise - it comes down to our own core value systems that are ingrained at a very young age.

Do people think that the club just came across her tweets and decided to ban her? 

Isn’t it more likely someone has expressed to the club that they don’t feel safe or comfortable going to the match while that person publically has these views. If she can tweet these things out where thousands could see it then I’d imagine she’d he’d no problem mouthing off to a trans person at a match. No one should feel uncomfortable or unsafe going to a football match. As someone said people get banned for racist comments all the time and rightly so. 

 

ultimately I think someone has complained to the club and they have acted.