“Anti-male” activist faces court in UK

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But they don't that's the point she wants it for her and not for any who disagree with what she spouts. You can tell by what she posts.

I agree completely. She doesn't support free speech, but I support her right to free speech, as I support anyone's. This was not a genuine 'incitement to violence' - it was a silly, hyperbolic tweet.

People who support free speech should not resort to the same tactics (deliberately misreading of a tweet to bring in the authorities and humiliate the person) to punish those who don't.

melissak

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

How very a la carte of you, considering you posted this not so long ago:



I suppose it doesn't affect you so you shouldn't care...

I didn't say she should have said it or that it was not wrong, or that the university should not fire her. I said it was not imo a crime. Thank you for caring so much about my opinion that you would read my past posts, on other threads, to find discrepancies. I'm flattered.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

I agree completely. She doesn't support free speech, but I support her right to free speech, as I support anyone's. This was not a genuine 'incitement to violence' - it was a silly, hyperbolic tweet.

People who support free speech should not resort to the same tactics (deliberately misreading of a tweet to bring in the authorities and humiliate the person) to punish those who don't.

I would love Protected free speech, But here is the thing she would use the stick on everyone who does not agree. So she should expect the stick in return that's how it works. Does she have the right to be an Idiot yes, Does she have the right to cross the law and not be pulled up on it that's a no.

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would love Protected free speech, But here is the thing she would use the stick on everyone who does not agree. So she should expect the stick in return that's how it works. Does she have the right to be an Idiot yes, Does she have the right to cross the law and not be pulled up on it that's a no.

Yeah, she'd try have me locked up if I ever tweeted '#killallwomen' as a joke. No doubt about it.

But advocating for free speech has to be universal, and means taking the high ground and applying your principles across the board, even if it means having to defend all sort of eejits.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

Yeah, she'd try have me locked up if I ever tweeted '#killallwomen' as a joke. No doubt about it.

But advocating for free speech has to be universal, and means taking the high ground and applying your principles across the board, even if it means having to defend all sort of eejits.

Oh don't get me wrong I would agree, But the problem is she was not even cleaver enough not to use her work Twitter account. I think that's the Crux. What she said could be taken as an official stance.

twin_beacon

she need a good ride

J Mysterio

Your one's a fcking d1ck. Hate people like that. 'I am unhappy in my life so I will blame others blah blah blah'. Get over it you silly bitch.

Should probably be expelled from her university but definitely fired from her position as Welfare and Diversity officer (wtf?!).

She also looks a bit like Dobby from peep show.

melissak

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong I would agree, But the problem is she was not even cleaver enough not to use her work Twitter account. I think that's the Crux. What she said could be taken as an official stance.

Did she use her official university account and not her personal account

darkpagandeath

melissak wrote: »

Did she use her official university account and not her personal account

As Far as I am aware, Could be corrected.

Nodin

Lucifer MorningStar wrote: »

Anyone else think she looks like a man ?

Not so much that, but if shes a 'woman of colour' I'm oprah winfrey.

The Corinthian

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm really not sure why

wp_rathead wrote: »

I think that is nonsense tbh

If is indicative is what is prevalent in those who graduate from there, the quality of the education is suspect to say the least.

orubiru

Links234 wrote: »

I wonder, would all the people who voted yes be in favour of a trip to the joy for every After Hours user who said "we should round up all the knackers, stick 'em on an island and nuke it" or words to that effect? Y'know, for inciting violence or something, whatever trumpted up ****e this woman's being charged with.

Surely, we must consider that there is a difference between anonymous users posting questionable things on the internet and a person in a position of authority making statements on Twitter using their own name?

We are not considering the actions of some random person here. This is the welfare and diversity officer at a university.

I agree that it was probably just a poorly executed joke and you can see where that might come from if she's saying "I am an ethic minority woman so I can't possibly be racist or sexist. #KillAllWhiteMen Lol".

I suppose there is a context that needs to be considered here. If someone like Frankie Boyle causes outrage over an offensive joke about race or about women then we probably just shrug it off as a rubbish joke that didn't land. However, if Nigel Farage makes the exact same joke? I think people would be rightfully upset because we kind of suspect that it's not REALLY meant to be a joke. There is a time and a place for that sort of thing.

It's the same situation here. The #KillAllWhiteMen thing could mean anything really. A bad joke. A statement about how society has a double standard on how it reacts to hashtags and such. Who knows?

Coming from this particular woman? How certain are we, given her history, that she is just joking or it is just meant as a bit of harmless fun?

How would folks react if a prominent figure in UKIP tweeted "fed up with of the same old tedious campaigns to brand UKIP as racist" followed up by #NoBlackInTheUnionJack?

(Should have added that I absolutely do not agree that she should be taken to court and charged for this. Criticized? Yes. Asked to explain herself publicly and maybe apologize? Yes.)

Maguined

J Mysterio wrote: »

Your one's a fcking d1ck. Hate people like that. 'I am unhappy in my life so I will blame others blah blah blah'. Get over it you silly bitch.

Should probably be expelled from her university but definitely fired from her position as Welfare and Diversity officer (wtf?!).

She also looks a bit like Dobby from peep show.

Can't be expelled as she already graduated in 2013 with a masters degree in gender and media studies. :pac:

melissak wrote: »

Did she use her official university account and not her personal account

She used her personal account for #KillAllWhiteMen, she used her official students union welfare and diversity officer account to call one of the students "white trash".

suicide_circus

Remember Cian Healy's "backs to the wall" tweet joke which caused much upset here? Yeah.

orubiru

suicide_circus wrote: »

Remember Cian Healy's "backs to the wall" tweet joke which caused much upset here? Yeah.

Well even if you want to look at other situations in the UK you will see that, for example, Chelsea player John Terry was charged with using racist language back in 2011. So this is not that much of an unusual situation over there.

Terry claimed that he said "you black c*nt" to another player as a form of sarcasm. He was found not guilty because they could not establish whether it was intended as an insult or not.

I would expect a similar outcome here. Clearly, in the UK, saying "kill all white men" would be considered on the same level as calling someone a "black c*nt" so I'd expect to hear the same defense being used.

zeffabelli

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/08/can-free-speech-survive-the-internet.html?utm_content=buffer5dc89&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I wish I wrote this....

Old Jakey

So is she the UK version of that mad American girl who believed she was black?

jobbridge4life

DeadHand wrote: »

I wouldn't lock her up for the reason that once a government starts regularly jailing people for thought crime we are on a slippery slope. I'd be of the "ignore her and she will go away" school of thought.

Having said that, her university needs to act. There is absolutely no way she should be allowed to continue as a welfare and diversity officer with an insane attitude like that no matter how irrelevant the position. There are grounds for expulsion here. Her activities have been blatantly racist and sexist. Let's face it, had a white boy been circulating kill all blacks/gays/women/whatever hashtags and excluding people from events on the basis of skin colour his academic life would have ended long ago.

This.

If her social media presence is anything to go by she comes across as a nasty half intelligent attention seeker. Delighted she got fired.

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Delighted she got fired.

She didn't.

wp_rathead

The Corinthian wrote: »

If is indicative is what is prevalent in those who graduate from there, the quality of the education is suspect to say the least.

But why would how their SU acts be prevalent to the quality of the education provided? You've made some very good points in this thread but I find this one silly

The Corinthian

wp_rathead wrote: »

But why would how their SU acts be prevalent to the quality of the education provided? You've made some very good points in this thread but I find this one silly

If the culture of an educational establishment is completely off the wall like this, then that's inevitably going to rub off - in terms of people who will graduate having drunk the crazy cool-aid and even tarring those through association. Especially, if the vast majority those students were unwilling to petition to have her removed.

The effect may be almost imperceptible and subconscious in most cases, but it will end up being another reason to bin that CV when it crosses your desk.

melissak

I agree with most of this but why would people posting anonymously be allowed greater freedom to insult? If she used an official account it would be different.

orubiru wrote: »

Surely, we must consider that there is a difference between anonymous users posting questionable things on the internet and a person in a position of authority making statements on Twitter using their own name?

We are not considering the actions of some random person here. This is the welfare and diversity officer at a university.

I agree that it was probably just a poorly executed joke and you can see where that might come from if she's saying "I am an ethic minority woman so I can't possibly be racist or sexist. #KillAllWhiteMen Lol".

I suppose there is a context that needs to be considered here. If someone like Frankie Boyle causes outrage over an offensive joke about race or about women then we probably just shrug it off as a rubbish joke that didn't land. However, if Nigel Farage makes the exact same joke? I think people would be rightfully upset because we kind of suspect that it's not REALLY meant to be a joke. There is a time and a place for that sort of thing.

It's the same situation here. The #KillAllWhiteMen thing could mean anything really. A bad joke. A statement about how society has a double standard on how it reacts to hashtags and such. Who knows?

Coming from this particular woman? How certain are we, given her history, that she is just joking or it is just meant as a bit of harmless fun?

How would folks react if a prominent figure in UKIP tweeted "fed up with of the same old tedious campaigns to brand UKIP as racist" followed up by #NoBlackInTheUnionJack?

(Should have added that I absolutely do not agree that she should be taken to court and charged for this. Criticized? Yes. Asked to explain herself publicly and maybe apologize? Yes.)

orubiru

melissak wrote: »

I agree with most of this but why would people posting anonymously be allowed greater freedom to insult? If she used an official account it would be different.

It's not so much the "freedom to insult" that's the issue but rather the level of influence the person making the insult has.

If some random poster on Boards says that I am a fat loser who does nothing but eat Doritos and watch porn all day then I am just going to laugh (at worst I'd flag the post).

If Robbie Keane posts on his Twitter and Facebook "Orubiru is a fat useless loser!" Then that's a different situation altogether.

In this case you are looking at the possibility of inciting others to act based on what she is saying. If this lady is actively singling out white males on campus for abuse and/or mockery or whatever then that's pretty bad. When people can see who she is and that she, a welfare and diversity officer, is openly and publicly saying these things without consequence then it has the potential to encourage others.

If she is allowed to say "kill all white men", and then when challenged is allowed to say "it's not racism because I am a minority", without any kind of negative consequence then it kind of becomes a slippery slope, don't you think? I reckon if she had been removed from her position then it's unlikely that the police would get involved.

When you were a kid, if you heard another kid making some racist comments and repeated them then your parents etc would give out and tell you why it's wrong. But what if they just laughed their asses off? That would encourage this behavior. What if someone else said you were being racist but then an authority figure stepped in and said "oh, no, little Orubiru CAN'T be racist because blah blah blah reasons". Imagine all of this happening in public and nobody speaking up to say "wait this is wrong".

The difference is that people posting anonymously do not have the power to really cause mass insult. They don't have influence. They aren't even brave enough to put their name and/or face to their insult. They can be swatted down with "just ignore them" pretty easily.

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

I agree with most of this but why would people posting anonymously be allowed greater freedom to insult? If she used an official account it would be different.

This is what I don't get either. What value is there in any rights such as freedom of speech or free speech, if all they're used for is to insult, abuse and humiliate people we don't like?

In that environment, free speech and freedom of speech will have no value as rights, because they carry no responsibility and no accountability.

At least by making an example of one, it will encourage other people to refuse to shrug their shoulders and simply accept that such poisonous attitudes should be given free reign in what aims at least to pass itself off as a civilised society that it claims the rest of the world should aim to emulate.

Western World Webcam Warrior: "Look at us - we're allowed say things like kill all white men, you should have the freedom to say kill all white men too!"

Middle Eastern Fundamentalist: "We already do! "...


One as bad as the other really.

Tarzana2

The Corinthian wrote: »

• Any employer will likely think twice before employing anyone who's graduated from Goldsmiths University, in future.

Hardly.

melissak

True. I am in two minds tbh. I think people shouldn't be able to offend people without consequences but to criminalise something like this? Where would the line be?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is what I don't get either. What value is there in any rights such as freedom of speech or free speech, if all they're used for is to insult, abuse and humiliate people we don't like?

In that environment, free speech and freedom of speech will have no value as rights, because they carry no responsibility and no accountability.

At least by making an example of one, it will encourage other people to refuse to shrug their shoulders and simply accept that such poisonous attitudes should be given free reign in what aims at least to pass itself off as a civilised society that it claims the rest of the world should aim to emulate.

Western World Webcam Warrior: "Look at us - we're allowed say things like kill all white men, you should have the freedom to say kill all white men too!"

Middle Eastern Fundamentalist: "We already do! "...


One as bad as the other really.

Tarzana2

osarusan wrote: »

What is kind of amusing though is when posters make a comment along the lines of

'imagine somebody was using the hashtag #killall(group), can you imagine the outrage?'

and it turns out (every time so far, I think, on this thread?) that the hashtag is already being used without much/any attention or outrage.

+1, never fails to amuse me. Do people ever check these things out before they post? Or even read the thread?

Mal-Adjusted

A day in court and a small fine would probably do her no harm, though it could feed her persecution complex. It's pretty ironic that someone who's clearly a bigot wound up as diversity officer.
Maybe it's just the OP's photo but she sure looks white to me... Also I learned a new phrase today, what does "check your privilege" mean?

Sand wrote: »

I'd presume your gaming choices are very limited
given the inherent white male bigotry and racism that frames much of modern game design.

Hey leave her alone! It can't be easy only being able to play Mirrors Edge and Remember me!

Links234 wrote: »

Well, there is a Feminist Frequency Steam curator

:eek:

Darkglasses wrote: »

Can't believe she hasn't been expelled from her position though, I thought that was the obvious first step. In fact the petition in the college fell waaay short according the Guardian:

I'm not surprised actually. Iv'e worked with student unions in the past and they usually tend to be a clique. Her position will be safe until the union really have no choice but to eject her.

Tarzana2

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I dunno Social media comes back to bite many a person in the ass when they give the prospective employer their FB or Twitter. It's not just you now it's who you hang around with what views they have.

What has that got to do with all the Goldsmiths grads who have nothing to do with the students union?

Firstly, in the months leading on from this, Goldsmiths might ring a bell to interviewers as where something happened in the students union. If I was an interviewer, I'd know that student union elections tend to have a very low turnout and that most of the student body doesn't really care about it and are just intent on getting their qualifications and living the student life.

Secondly, in the long term, this is not going to be remembered by interviewers. Goldsmiths grads needn't worry.

darkpagandeath

Tarzana2 wrote: »

What has that got to do with all the Goldsmiths grads who have nothing to do with the students union?

Firstly, in the months leading on from this, Goldsmiths might ring a bell to interviewers as where something happened in the students union. If I was an interviewer, I'd know that student union elections tend to have a very low turnout and that most of the student body doesn't really care about it and are just intent on getting their qualifications and living the student life.

Secondly, in the long term, this is not going to be remembered by interviewers. Goldsmiths grads needn't worry.

I said FB and Twitter not just the college. Social media can come back to bite you in the ass when your interviewer finishes looking at your Digital footprint.

Links234

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Hey leave him her alone! It can't be easy only being able to play Mirrors Edge and Remember me!

:eek:

Hey, I also get to play Gone Home! Besides, that's plenty to play until we reach our goal of banning fun.

Notavirus.exe

How many white men are alive today?

Charge her with conspiracy to murder times that amount, problem solved.

Tarzana2

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I said FB and Twitter not just the college. Social media can come back to bite you in the ass when your interviewer finishes looking at your Digital footprint.

And, despite her being on the students union, most Goldsmiths grads aren't going to know her. She won't be on their friends lists, they won't be thanking her comments, and you can't even detect who has favourited your tweets on Twitter. Seriously, most people take little notice of the students union.

So, this is going to have negligible to no effect on the employment prospects for Goldsmiths grads, save for the small number who will linked to her in some way.

Do Me Good

Whites are now a minority in London anyway. Even though I was aware of this before going there, I kept on saying to myself, where are all the english people!

griffdaddy

She better check her privilege bro.

FelineOverLord

Meh, attention seeking feminazi seeks attention and gets the wrong sort. Maybe she needs a good seeing to.:P:D

Donkey Oaty

Do Me Good wrote: »

Whites are now a minority in London anyway. Even though I was aware of this before going there, I kept on saying to myself, where are all the english people!

Overall, "British-born" white people now indeed make up less than 50% of the population of London - but if you add white Europeans and people like Boris Johnson (born in New York), white people still make up a majority as far as I know.

darkpagandeath

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Overall, "British-born" white people now indeed make up less than 50% of the population of London - but if you add white Europeans and people like Boris Johnson (born in New York), white people still make up a majority as far as I know.

Why would one worry about colour ? Don't people judge others on actions and alike ? Even white people are not white....

speedboatchase

Old Jakey wrote: »

So is she the UK version of that mad American girl who believed she was black?

No, I believe she's Turkish. And of course, the Turks have never exercised their power and privilege over an oppressed minority.

Aside from the cheeky Armenian genocide of 1915...

DeadHand

speedboatchase wrote: »

No, I believe she's Turkish. And of course, the Turks have never exercised their power and privilege over an oppressed minority.

Aside from the cheeky Armenian genocide of 1915...

They weren't too gentle with the Greeks or Kurds either.

The Turks have a long history of violent expansion, imperialism, the suppression of minorities and ethnic cleansing.

Which makes her ravenous appetite for racial victimhood all the more ironic.

Donkey Oaty

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why would one worry about colour ? Don't people judge others on actions and alike ? Even white people are not white....

You'll have to ask Do Me Good that - I think he was just pointing out an interesting change in the demographics of a major city rather than expressing worry.

I don't think Londoners worry about it at all. They generally seem very proud of their city's diversity.

stunmer

melissak wrote: »

True. I am in two minds tbh. I think people shouldn't be able to offend people without consequences but to criminalise something like this? Where would the line be?

But offence is subjective?

Do Me Good

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Overall, "British-born" white people now indeed make up less than 50% of the population of London - but if you add white Europeans and people like Boris Johnson (born in New York), white people still make up a majority as far as I know.

Not on the London underground!

melissak

It is. This is true. It is also relative i suppose. I dont think people should say stupid things. But how would we criminalise this. Where would the line be. I do not know.. People have absolutely the right to give out about her, the university probably have the right to fire her, but hate crime is a bit of a stretch.
s

stunmer wrote: »

But offence is subjective?

Canadel

darkpagandeath wrote: »

A hate crime is a Hate crime.

A crime is a crime, and all crimes are hate crimes.

SeanW

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Nobody would go to prison for that. The "If this were reversed" stuff tends towards hyperbolic, often with little basis.

This is false. We know what happens when the reverse occurs. It happened with Dr. Timothy Hunt. He gave a speech calling for more women and girls to go into science, but started it out with the infamous stupid jokes.

One (Connie St. Louis) attendee quoted just the jokes and the story spread based on an out-of-context quote, a serious mis-representation.

His career was destroyed without him having had any real chance to defend himself, but even though it was found out that Connie St. Louis lied not only about the content of Dr. Hunt's speech, but also about her academic credentials, she still has her job - TEACHING JOURNALISM - in a major, prestigious, London university.

You must not think much of people's intelligence or critical thinking abilities if you expect people to believe this would not be taken more seriously if the roles were reversed, when we know that this is not the case.

Because we know that a (usually white) man's life can be destroyed by an intentional fabrication, and the person responsible will not be held to account, especially if the liar is female (or black), like Connie St. Louis who is both.

Mustafa Bahar on the other hand, has been quoted accurately in every context. There is no doubt that she is a hatemonger. But she's the "right kind" of hatemonger, that's why she wan't fired the way a Klansman or BNP member would have been.

Apparently that twitter hashtag does indeed exist, to little reaction or comment.

It was mentioned up-thread. Did you read the thread?

Presumably because no-one uses it with their real name, representing any important entity and expecting to be taken seriously.

If a white man, known to be a sexist and racist in any position of importance had, for example Tweeted "Affirmitive Action and welfare for minorities is the worst thing ever #KillAllNigBitches" and had done so publically using the profile of any credible entity, do you think there would not be more about it?

Damn straight there would be fallout from that, and rightly so.

Donkey Oaty

Given that she appears to have devoted her career to telling people what they are and are not allowed to say or think, it's hardly surprising that there will be a few gloaters when she is hoisted on her own hypocritical petard.

Her cultural appropriation of people with a genuine civil-rights grievance to further her own narcissistic colonialist agenda is the last straw.

#lockherupandthrowawaythekey

jobbridge4life

The Corinthian wrote: »

She didn't.

Oh. How disappointing. Nasty, pathetic cretin.

Harry Palmr

Good article by Suzanne Moore in the guardian which draws neatly draws in militant student union institutions that "no-Platform" those they don't approve of (its good as she goes beyond her usual rants) note the post by the moderator at the bottom of the comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/a-hashtag-shouldnt-make-men-fear-lives-already-have-safe-space-manchester-university

Ulysses Gaze

SeanW wrote: »

This is false. We know what happens when the reverse occurs. It happened with Dr. Timothy Hunt. He gave a speech calling for more women and girls to go into science, but started it out with the infamous stupid jokes.

One (Connie St. Louis) attendee quoted just the jokes and the story spread based on an out-of-context quote, a serious mis-representation.

His career was destroyed without him having had any real chance to defend himself, but even though it was found out that Connie St. Louis lied not only about the content of Dr. Hunt's speech, but also about her academic credentials, she still has her job - TEACHING JOURNALISM - in a major, prestigious, London university.

You must not think much of people's intelligence or critical thinking abilities if you expect people to believe this would not be taken more seriously if the roles were reversed, when we know that this is not the case.

Because we know that a (usually white) man's life can be destroyed by an intentional fabrication, and the person responsible will not be held to account, especially if the liar is female (or black), like Connie St. Louis who is both.

Mustafa Bahar on the other hand, has been quoted accurately in every context. There is no doubt that she is a hatemonger. But she's the "right kind" of hatemonger, that's why she wan't fired the way a Klansman or BNP member would have been.

Presumably because no-one uses it with their real name, representing any important entity and expecting to be taken seriously.

If a white man, known to be a sexist and racist in any position of importance had, for example Tweeted "Affirmitive Action and welfare for minorities is the worst thing ever #KillAllNigBitches" and had done so publically using the profile of any credible entity, do you think there would not be more about it?

Damn straight there would be fallout from that, and rightly so.

She can't be fired because technically she is not an employee of Goldsmiths College. She's an employee of the Union which is a separate entity. There was a petition to have a vote of no confidence in her set up but it needed 3% of the students registered with the Student Union to sign for the hearing to take place. They got 1.9%.

She should be arrested definitely. If only to reinforce the fact that there is equality under the law when you do this type of thing and that you can't play the race, sexual orientation or gender card and use that as an excuse for reprehensible behaviour.

At most she'll end up with a caution. IF she is smart and keeps her mouth shut in court and lets her solicitor or barrister do the talking.