This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/06/feminists-doctrine-conference-free-speech

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Feminists like me who veer from doctrine should not be silenced Feminists who veer from doctrine should not be silenced
(35 minutes later)
I have a friend, a more than competent professional woman, who deals daily with harsh matters and difficult people. She has not yet breached the glass ceiling, but is heading that way and I hope one day she will break through, as an example to other women.I have a friend, a more than competent professional woman, who deals daily with harsh matters and difficult people. She has not yet breached the glass ceiling, but is heading that way and I hope one day she will break through, as an example to other women.
But asked to tackle the most basic of feminist topics and, she confessed recently, she breaks into a cold sweat. Why? Because she fears the consequences. She knows too well the narrow, narrow margin between what is and is not ideologically acceptable.But asked to tackle the most basic of feminist topics and, she confessed recently, she breaks into a cold sweat. Why? Because she fears the consequences. She knows too well the narrow, narrow margin between what is and is not ideologically acceptable.
It was a feminist conference that did for me. I was due to speak at Feminism in London this month, but have now agreed not to, apparently because my views veer too far from accepted doctrine.It was a feminist conference that did for me. I was due to speak at Feminism in London this month, but have now agreed not to, apparently because my views veer too far from accepted doctrine.
Related: I was labelled a feminazi – here is how feminists can fight the word | Charlotte ProudmanRelated: I was labelled a feminazi – here is how feminists can fight the word | Charlotte Proudman
The topic of the talk in question was “speech and space”: my view is that the demand for absolute freedom of speech emerges from privilege; and that virtual spaces should be policed and protected in ways similar to physical space. I have watched over the last couple of years as various mobs have attacked women online – Caroline Criado-Perez, Stella Creasy, Mary Beard. The list is endless, and more must be done to address this online abuse.The topic of the talk in question was “speech and space”: my view is that the demand for absolute freedom of speech emerges from privilege; and that virtual spaces should be policed and protected in ways similar to physical space. I have watched over the last couple of years as various mobs have attacked women online – Caroline Criado-Perez, Stella Creasy, Mary Beard. The list is endless, and more must be done to address this online abuse.
But on other topics – the regulation of porn, for one – I have contrarian views, and this was enough for those who were concerned at my presence at the conference to cry havoc. Suddenly, every last word I have written over the years – and I write a lot, maybe 300,000-400,000 words a year – was up for scrutiny, every slightest deviation from the true way magnified to make me the enemy.But on other topics – the regulation of porn, for one – I have contrarian views, and this was enough for those who were concerned at my presence at the conference to cry havoc. Suddenly, every last word I have written over the years – and I write a lot, maybe 300,000-400,000 words a year – was up for scrutiny, every slightest deviation from the true way magnified to make me the enemy.
Behind the scenes, individuals whispered that my presence made the space “unsafe” for some women. Perhaps this was because of my supposed views on porn, but more likely it’s because I am a trans woman, since others holding similar views do not seem to have been briefed against. A situation was created in which, if I had insisted on speaking, I would have undermined both the event and my own thesis. There was no good or right option: it felt kinder to walk away; to collude, if you wish, in my own silencing.Behind the scenes, individuals whispered that my presence made the space “unsafe” for some women. Perhaps this was because of my supposed views on porn, but more likely it’s because I am a trans woman, since others holding similar views do not seem to have been briefed against. A situation was created in which, if I had insisted on speaking, I would have undermined both the event and my own thesis. There was no good or right option: it felt kinder to walk away; to collude, if you wish, in my own silencing.
To be clear, I was not “no-platformed” and what happened was in no way the fault of the organisers.To be clear, I was not “no-platformed” and what happened was in no way the fault of the organisers.
Just days later, the feminist writer and activist Julie Bindel has been “no-platformed”. She supported me in my own time of difficulty, and was this week barred from a debate at Manchester University on whether modern feminism has a problem with free speech.Just days later, the feminist writer and activist Julie Bindel has been “no-platformed”. She supported me in my own time of difficulty, and was this week barred from a debate at Manchester University on whether modern feminism has a problem with free speech.
Again, it is safety that is the supposed issue, although bizarrely, that same institution seems to have no difficulty in inviting Milo Yiannopoulos to speak, a rightwing commentator who has publicly argued that trans people are mentally ill, and suggested that rape culture does not exist.Again, it is safety that is the supposed issue, although bizarrely, that same institution seems to have no difficulty in inviting Milo Yiannopoulos to speak, a rightwing commentator who has publicly argued that trans people are mentally ill, and suggested that rape culture does not exist.
This situation is not specifically about feminism, but something else, something dangerous in current discourse. It is about absolutism: feminist, trans, Green, Corbynista; every fashionable fraction of progressive thought.This situation is not specifically about feminism, but something else, something dangerous in current discourse. It is about absolutism: feminist, trans, Green, Corbynista; every fashionable fraction of progressive thought.
It is the tyranny of the majority: the old problem that, given the right to make choices, the mass will deny that right to dissenting minorities and those who hold uncomfortable views.It is the tyranny of the majority: the old problem that, given the right to make choices, the mass will deny that right to dissenting minorities and those who hold uncomfortable views.
Related: Feminism begins at your nearest big hotel | Ewa JasiewiczRelated: Feminism begins at your nearest big hotel | Ewa Jasiewicz
It is bad faith: just days after this silencing, I struggled to convince some people about words spoken to me directly by an interviewee. They apparently “knew better” than I did about what the individual had said: their intuition trumped my experience.It is bad faith: just days after this silencing, I struggled to convince some people about words spoken to me directly by an interviewee. They apparently “knew better” than I did about what the individual had said: their intuition trumped my experience.
It is, too, the forced syllogism: the idea that knowing one or two things about a person, one therefore knows all, and can extrapolate the whole. I have many, many views. Some are mainstream, some are surprising. Heaven forfend! I am a practising Catholic, by virtue of which some in LGBT circles insist I “obviously” support every last reactionary twist and turn of papal policy.It is, too, the forced syllogism: the idea that knowing one or two things about a person, one therefore knows all, and can extrapolate the whole. I have many, many views. Some are mainstream, some are surprising. Heaven forfend! I am a practising Catholic, by virtue of which some in LGBT circles insist I “obviously” support every last reactionary twist and turn of papal policy.
And in the end, it is about silencing. This happens only occasionally through the formality of the “no platform”. Far more often, as in this instance,, an impossible situation is created, which forces a person to step down from speaking.And in the end, it is about silencing. This happens only occasionally through the formality of the “no platform”. Far more often, as in this instance,, an impossible situation is created, which forces a person to step down from speaking.
The difficulty, at a personal level, lies in a conflict that I resolve through constant internal discourse.The difficulty, at a personal level, lies in a conflict that I resolve through constant internal discourse.
I have a right to speak, but so too is the right of others to a safe space. I accept – this is a result of residual Catholicism, perhaps – that if asked to leave or desist I must always consider that request.I have a right to speak, but so too is the right of others to a safe space. I accept – this is a result of residual Catholicism, perhaps – that if asked to leave or desist I must always consider that request.
But that is not to say I should always accede to it, because otherwise we end up with the kind of discourse that eventually did for the state of Poland in the late 18th century: a parliament, a debating chamber, in which every single individual had the right to veto the deliberations of the whole; a situation akin to hazarding all future UK legislation on the chance that it is acceptable to both the Green MP Caroline Lucas and the Ukip MP Douglas Carswell.But that is not to say I should always accede to it, because otherwise we end up with the kind of discourse that eventually did for the state of Poland in the late 18th century: a parliament, a debating chamber, in which every single individual had the right to veto the deliberations of the whole; a situation akin to hazarding all future UK legislation on the chance that it is acceptable to both the Green MP Caroline Lucas and the Ukip MP Douglas Carswell.
We need safe spaces. We also need mutual tolerance. Without it, debate will end, not just formally, by individuals being denied a platform, but totally, through a far more dangerous rush to self-censor. In too many places, too many spaces, we are there already.We need safe spaces. We also need mutual tolerance. Without it, debate will end, not just formally, by individuals being denied a platform, but totally, through a far more dangerous rush to self-censor. In too many places, too many spaces, we are there already.