I don’t see this as upholding free speech. It’s being painted in the media so far that this is simply about single sex toilets and “making women feel safe”. Notice how they never say “cis women”. Their choice of words speaks for itself. Should councillors have to listen to overt fascists give their views too? Seeing as they don’t “feel safe” around non white people? We know full well these people wouldn’t stop at single sex toilets, they just go on about that more than anything cos it’s the only thing they can twist into making themselves seem the victim. They’d happily take free speech away from trans people. Underneath, most of them are similar to Graham Linehan
I’m really torn about this. I want the Greens to gain more places. I also support Green Party councellors in defending their values in a personal capacity.
But elected leaders are meant to represent, and by extension, listen to all of their constituents. Even those with morally repugnant views. Counsellors walking out of public meetings when someone raises anti-trans talking points is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic framework they were elected within.
Now, personally, I value doing The Right Thing (ie. not giving space to fascist rhetoric) over obeying the rules of the framework, but I empathise with this counsellor’s decision. Tactics like this will alienate a lot of potential voters, and if we want the Greens in a place of power to be able to enact systemic change we need to be winning people over, not pushing them away.
That’s not to say we should tolerate fascist rhetoric. There are other ways to push back against it than walking out.
Sorry, but no, you’re wrong. You absolutely do not need to give voice to people trying to strip rights from others. Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance? If you tolerate abhorrent views they will take over.
I’m familiar, yes. That’s why I said I’m torn about this.
There are different ways of showing intolerance of fascist rhetoric. I’m saying that while I support the motives of the counsellors who have walked out, I also empathise with this counsellor who stepped down because of her convictions regarding her duty as an elected official.
The problem there is the claim they’re ideologically opposed to any walk outs. If that were really true then they would even platform extremists claiming for instance that everyone non-white should be classed as sub-human and not be protected by law. If someone objects to a walk out in that case there would be no question that they were grossly negligent at best.
So then assuming there is some level of competence the next question is why has the line been drawn here? Why platform people trying to strip rights from this specific marginalised group? The only reason would be that you to some degree sympathise with the hate and believe there is value in discussing whether this group deserves rights.
Neither case paints them in a good light. Unless you’re on the side trying to strip people’s rights, of course.
