So, Bahar Mustafa has been charged with RMMC (according to the Guardian)

[Arctic Werewolf]

Heck even Sargon of Akkad thinks that charging her for these is a little much and he thinks she's even more of a waste of air than I do. He uses much of the same rational as Milo. Any time you hit someone with a charge of inciting violence, racial or otherwise through speech, that stick needs to be swung very carefully.

Bahar Mustafa is a terrible human being. The very worst kind of reactionary shit disturbing activist who tries to pretend to fight hatred with more hatred. She deserves to be ridiculed for her beliefs bot not criminally charged for them.

I don't know if I'd call her a terrible human being. Probably a terrible student union official. I think she did herself no favors by sticking with the "I can't be racist because *stupid rationalization*" line. Nothing invites people to assume the worst like claiming anything you do is justifiable, and that's her fault.

 

[jklinders]

Heck even Sargon of Akkad thinks that charging her for these is a little much and he thinks she's even more of a waste of air than I do. He uses much of the same rational as Milo. Any time you hit someone with a charge of inciting violence, racial or otherwise through speech, that stick needs to be swung very carefully.

Bahar Mustafa is a terrible human being. The very worst kind of reactionary shit disturbing activist who tries to pretend to fight hatred with more hatred. She deserves to be ridiculed for her beliefs bot not criminally charged for them.

I don't know if I'd call her a terrible human being. Probably a terrible student union official. I think she did herself no favors by sticking with the "I can't be racist because *stupid rationalization*" line. Nothing invites people to assume the worst like claiming anything you do is justifiable, and that's her fault.

You're probably right to suggest that i am being harsh in my opinion of her. however, the persona she uses to get her infamy was one she chose to use. I feel that she is a hate ridden human being because of actions that she has very visibly taken. Until she takes an equal interest in changing that perception that is all I have to by.

In other words, if you present yourself as a terrible human being that is what people are going to see. I'll change my mind when I see evidence to contradict this. until then I will see her as a spoiled rich professional student who still lives with her parents in a 1000000 pound house in London playing the working class activist. I literally have nothing but contempt for her type.

capcha old man winter

no not yet, it's too damn early even in Canada.

 

[Tilly]

Why does a white person want to attend a black support group meeting? Or a

students' union meeting intended for ethnic minority women and non-binary attendees.

Well to start with I'm 99% sure it breaches the UKs discrimination laws. You're not even allowed to do this sort of thing privately in the UK, unlike the US, let alone in a publicly run institution. The only exceptions that are generally allowed is if it's necessitated by the nature of the institution. E.g a women's swimming team.

The reason why you ultimately shouldn't do it is the same reasoning behind the law. Encouraging segregation, of any kind, is incredibly unhealthy for society. It increases tribalism, intolerance and ignorance.
You have to keep in mind that demographics in europe are often quite different than the US. The US is like 70% white. Some European countries like Scotland and Ireland are 95% white. It makes it all the more damaging to segregate into small minorities in that kind of environment because how well you mix with the majority will almost entirely determine your life success.

 

[1981]

Self-respect is not the same thing as self-importance.

Some European countries like Scotland and Ireland are 95% white. It makes it all the more damaging to segregate into small minorities in that kind of environment because how well you mix with the majority will almost entirely determine your life success.

I don't see how having to mix with people who show an extreme level of contempt for them is going to help them. Once again, this is about one single meeting.

Surely you want people outside of the victims to be there to help raise those issues outside of the room? You're not having a debate or engaging in anything useful, it's just masturbatory slacktivism. Luther King didn't just sit in a room complaining how hard done by he was, nor did the people leading the charge of the gay rallys in the 80s. They fucking went out there and did stuff.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Why do you think you should have been welcomed to that meeting? How would you have helped promote diversity among the students of Goldsmiths, University of London? Because that's what this is about. But since there are no rational arguments to be made, people do what they've always done: they single someone out and attack them as a person, thinking it will serve as a warning to others who might threaten their status. One convenient side effect is that the bulk of the discussion will be about Bahar Mustafa, free speech and equality, not the real issue.

This response is working under the assumption that your post was a response to my earlier response. If your post was not, then I apologize for the confusion.

I'm not certain where you are coming from with this or where you are going with it. You had asked "Why does she even have to ask people who are not part of the target demo to not attend? Where does it say that the intention of that meeting was to promote diversity?" to which I had responded with a short summary of the original events.

Simply put, I have no vested interest in Bahar and really do not care about her at all. I do not teach at that institution and am not even in the same country. I was just trying to provide some context. Perhaps I should elaborate on that context with a bit more detail that seems to have been missed.

In the original meeting a quite varied group was invited to a meeting on diversity. Bahar took it upon herself to un-invite everyone who was either white or male from that meeting. She changed the meeting's nature, and selectively excluded people based solely on their gender or race. That act caused an uproar given that that basically constitutes racism and sexism in a nutshell. She then went on to claim that her act could not be considered racist or sexist because she was a she and a member of a minority group, which is a patently false statement (and I say that as someone in academia, by the way).

I have never seen any information that even remotely suggested the response to Bahar (outside of the standard interenet furor brigade) has been irrational. It was pointed out that her actions, despite her response about the nature of such things, WAS sexist and racist, which were things she was claiming to be acting against. Also, in reference to your post #126, there was never any indication I have come across that any of the people who Bahar had excluded from the meeting ever shown minorities and women "an extreme level of contempt for them", so I am completely at a loss to understand where that idea has come from. Do you have any links showing that attitude amongst those excluded? If such evidence does exist, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Again, if I have misinterpreted your post, I apologize for the confusion.

 

[elvor0]

Surely you want people outside of the victims to be there to help raise those issues outside of the room? You're not having a debate or engaging in anything useful, it's just masturbatory slacktivism. Luther King didn't just sit in a room complaining how hard done by he was, nor did the people leading the charge of the gay rallys in the 80s. They fucking went out there and did stuff.

If you're pointing out the fact that I myself an engaging in Keyboard Warrior-ism. You'd be right, unfortunately beyond having sent my own complaints to the university faculty at the time, there isn't much I can do from Finland. I however, am critiquing Mustafas actions, not campaigning for change. What I mean by "outside of the room" is that you discuss the issues in the room, then they can go help spread the word. I'm not saying stop them from entering the room at all.


You on the other hand are willfully ignoring events to make your own narrative. I'll say it again.

1 It was a diversity meeting where everyone was invited.

2. At the last minute, Mustafa uninvited anyone male, white or non LGBT.

3. She is a diversity officer and this is racism and sexism.

Got it? It wasn't a support group for blacks, women, gays, pansexuals or anything else. It was a diversity meeting. Which the diversity officer, whos job it is to promote integration and inclusiveness, did the opposite and took the piss when people got upset.

 

[1981]

That post was aimed at everyone who was planning on attending and was upset that they were excluded, as well as everyone in this thread who could've imagined attending and felt like they were excluded.

In the original meeting a quite varied group was invited to a meeting on diversity. Bahar took it upon herself to un-invite everyone who was either white or male from that meeting.

That's what I don't understand. People threaten to kill her and insult minorities because their (hypothetical) invitations were cancelled?

Simply put, I have no vested interest in Bahar and really do not care about her at all. I do not teach at that institution and am not even in the same country.

You and me both. But since that's where the discussion has gone... There's a difference between something someone posts on Twitter, and something a person experiences every day. In many countries, even those who belong to an oppressed group can live a relatively sheltered life if they know their place. There's no way a diversity officer could not have been exposed to the harsh reality that many women, non-whites and LGBTs face.

"Don't fight fire with fire" is sound advice, but those who start fires or fuel them are in no position to criticize.

 

[Lightspeaker]

In this thread: lots of people from other countries commenting on single criminal case based on specific laws in a legal system that they're not affected by that others have been charged with previously, cases which were apparently ignored. Okay then.

Any time you hit someone with a charge of inciting violence, racial or otherwise through speech, that stick needs to be swung very carefully.

Bahar Mustafa is a terrible human being. The very worst kind of reactionary shit disturbing activist who tries to pretend to fight hatred with more hatred. She deserves to be ridiculed for her beliefs bot not criminally charged for them.

Wrong. She absolutely DOES deserve to be criminally charged for them. Because in this country such hate speech is illegal under certain laws. That 'stick' HAS been swung very carefully, as per the law. See this is the point many are missing: she absolutely does not deserve to be "let off because reasons", or more specifically because random people on the internet thinks she should. As a simple factual statement she has been charged with a criminal act and should be taken to court for it and punished accordingly.

However, and this is important, the above statement does not preclude questioning the law itself. The law in question may be seen to be unfair. It may be the case that it should be stricken off the books and that its removal should be campaigned for. However as the law currently stands there is precisely zero reason for her to simply be let off from this charge, because right now its illegal. And, indeed, even if the law WAS stricken off right now it'll take some serious debate at a high legal level as to whether she should be "let off"; because at the time of her doing it it was illegal.

 

[1981]

See this is the point many are missing: she absolutely does not deserve to be "let off because reasons", or more specifically because random people on the internet thinks she should.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The discussion has been about what happened and why. Because that's the only thing there is to discuss. We are not the government, police or court of law.

 

[Naldan]

I really don't get why she wasn't charged for segregation/discrimination.

About what allies could have done at that meeting: Listen.

 

[andago]

I'm confused about a whole section of a thread arguing she shouldn't be charged for what she said, when noone actually knows what she said to get actually charged. To reiterate:

"The 28-year-old from Edmonton, north-east London, faces two charges. One is sending a communication conveying a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015. The second is for sending a grossly offensive message via a public communication network between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015."

One hashtag doth not a tweet make, so not really much to comment on without knowing what she actually said and whether that was what she was charged for.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Welp, if they're gonna push the 'Anti-Harashment' narrative, then it needs to apply to EVERYONE, not just those who said a thing they don't like.

 

[jklinders]

In this thread: lots of people from other countries commenting on single criminal case based on specific laws in a legal system that they're not affected by that others have been charged with previously, cases which were apparently ignored. Okay then.

Any time you hit someone with a charge of inciting violence, racial or otherwise through speech, that stick needs to be swung very carefully.

Bahar Mustafa is a terrible human being. The very worst kind of reactionary shit disturbing activist who tries to pretend to fight hatred with more hatred. She deserves to be ridiculed for her beliefs bot not criminally charged for them.

Wrong. She absolutely DOES deserve to be criminally charged for them. Because in this country such hate speech is illegal under certain laws. That 'stick' HAS been swung very carefully, as per the law. See this is the point many are missing: she absolutely does not deserve to be "let off because reasons", or more specifically because random people on the internet thinks she should. As a simple factual statement she has been charged with a criminal act and should be taken to court for it and punished accordingly.

However, and this is important, the above statement does not preclude questioning the law itself. The law in question may be seen to be unfair. It may be the case that it should be stricken off the books and that its removal should be campaigned for. However as the law currently stands there is precisely zero reason for her to simply be let off from this charge, because right now its illegal. And, indeed, even if the law WAS stricken off right now it'll take some serious debate at a high legal level as to whether she should be "let off"; because at the time of her doing it it was illegal.

"Wrong. She absolutely DOES deserve to be criminally charged for them"

She broke a law but I disagree that she should be charged for speech. That is to say I feel the law in this case is unjust. You can say is was valid to charge her, but you don't get to say that i am wrong to feel that is is stupid and possibly unjust. My utter revulsion for her attitude and beliefs do not color my perspective on this at all. I never brought up the law in my post once. the law and my opinion are separate things. I stand by every word I posted.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

That post was aimed at everyone who was planning on attending and was upset that they were excluded, as well as everyone in this thread who could've imagined attending and felt like they were excluded.

In the original meeting a quite varied group was invited to a meeting on diversity. Bahar took it upon herself to un-invite everyone who was either white or male from that meeting.

That's what I don't understand. People threaten to kill her and insult minorities because their (hypothetical) invitations were cancelled?

Simply put, I have no vested interest in Bahar and really do not care about her at all. I do not teach at that institution and am not even in the same country.

You and me both. But since that's where the discussion has gone... There's a difference between something someone posts on Twitter, and something a person experiences every day. In many countries, even those who belong to an oppressed group can live a relatively sheltered life if they know their place. There's no way a diversity officer could not have been exposed to the harsh reality that many women, non-whites and LGBTs face.

"Don't fight fire with fire" is sound advice, but those who start fires or fuel them are in no position to criticize.

Actually, most of the people who have been upset with Bahar have been so because of her attitude, reaction and responses since the events surrounding the original meeting. So I'm a little confused on how you are assuming those upset somehow assumed that they were supposed to be able to attend the meeting in question. I'm afraid I don't follow your logic train there. I do not know of any person on this thread, or the one where Bahar was first mentioned on the Escapist, where anyone made the demands that they, as an individual, demanding the ability to attend the meeting in question. I think you may be imposing a motivation upon other people's arguments that may not actually be present.

As to the statements made online? Some have highlighted her actions, some have been concerned with her faulty definition of racism and sexism, and others have simply been annoyed with her responses to date. As for the online threats she has received, I put them in the same category as those who, in the past, wrote letters to the editor demanded that all members of 'group X' be rounded up and thrown in prison, forcibly deported or summarily executed. That is to say, I give them absolutely no credence at all unless there is evidence that there is a credible threat to the recipient in which case law enforcement should be involved in dealing with the threat giver.

Unfortunately, the internet, while a wonderful technology, has allowed a certain segment of the population to spout violent, stupid and mentally unstable bile with little concern or forethought. I am forced to take comfort in the knowledge that such people are a decided minority of responders to any given situation, but am slightly depressed in knowing that such individuals will always be present and that reducing the percentage of such responses seems highly unlikely without a fairly draconian legal framework being instituted. It seems one of the prices of freedom is that one must endure the presence of assholes. To put this into some perspective, I have personally witnessed the same sort of bile hurled at a friend when she posted pictures of her wedding online and certain individuals felt that she deserved to be brutally assaulted for the heinous crime of using blue place settings at the reception instead of white. Stupid? Assuredly so, but a small fringe element that cannot be eliminated by any reasonable measures.

In short, it would appear that the individuals you are centering your analysis around are a distinct minority whom I generally dismiss as unimportant to the situation and whom are always going to be present when any controversy is discussed over the internet. I suppose the priorities we have internally assigned to those involved in the goings-on lies at the heart of this misunderstanding.

At any rate, there is definitely a productive discussion to be had about the actual definitions of racism, sexism and discrimination as well as the effects they have on functioning systems. As for Bahar herself? That seems to come down to a matter of what has been written into UK law and how those laws apply to modern media. Frankly, I am ignorant of that legal framework and thus refrain from any analysis in that regard. I could present my preferences on what I think SHOULD be the outcome or what I think those laws SHOULD encompass, as many people on this and previous threads have done. However, given my general apathy concerning the individual at the heart of the matter, I have chosen not to do so. Entertaining such ideas, however, is a valid form of discussion and critique so I am somewhat confused by your apparent distaste for people doing so. (Given the limitations of projecting emotional content via text, it is entirely possible that I have failed to discern your own motivations behind your posts, as well.)

EDIT: Just looked back over my post. Sheesh. This is what happens when you give an academic a podium and no time limit. We never seem to know when to shut up.

 

[Megalodon]

Don't like the law. This country's 'hate speech' legislation is all kinds of bullshit, and if the governemnt decides to pull its head out if its arse and fix it they'll have my full support. However, I find myself agreeing with 6oodfella on this one rather than the 'true' free speech position. The Law is still The Law, and people (usually men, funnily enough) have already been sent to prison for saying similar things on the twitters. Mustafa should be held to the same standard as anyone else.

6oodfella's video:

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Whilst, a tweet is a tweet, I certainly don't think people should be arrested for saying things on twitter.

That can't work. There are laws about libel and hate speech for a reason. If I had a massive soapbox from which to shout and used to incite racial hatred, or said something about someone that got them fired, hated, in trouble, investigated, arrested or some such, it absolutely MUST be against the law.

Journalists, religious leaders, celebrities and public figures have the largest soapboxes of us all. They absolutely have to be held to account for libellous, slanderous or defamatory statements and twitter must be no different since it's the same thing from a different platform. No one should have the power to destroy another's reputation or livelihood without facts and evidence to back it up and even if they did, they have to consider is the story worth ruining someone's life over. In my country, hate speech is thankfully illegal and while I think leftist liberal jerks have taken PC and being "inoffensive" way to far, I think hate speech is as or more harmful than any two or more SJWs, liberals or Jeremy Corbyns in one place.

If someone tweets something racist or libellous, they should absolutely be held to account in keeping with their respective nation's laws surrounding such things. The only exceptions to this are Islamic clerics and Palestinian/Iranian leaders who are allowed to preach hatred and incite the murder of Jews, America, Bush and the West, which is obviously totally fine.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I'm confused about a whole section of a thread arguing she shouldn't be charged for what she said, when noone actually knows what she said to get actually charged. To reiterate:

"The 28-year-old from Edmonton, north-east London, faces two charges. One is sending a communication conveying a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015. The second is for sending a grossly offensive message via a public communication network between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015."

One hashtag doth not a tweet make, so not really much to comment on without knowing what she actually said and whether that was what she was charged for.

I think that's a good point. We may be connecting too many dots too easily. Thinking you know what happened can be a trap you set for yourself. It might not be as simple as it seems on the surface. We need more specifics.

You're probably right to suggest that i am being harsh in my opinion of her. however, the persona she uses to get her infamy was one she chose to use. I feel that she is a hate ridden human being because of actions that she has very visibly taken. Until she takes an equal interest in changing that perception that is all I have to by.

In other words, if you present yourself as a terrible human being that is what people are going to see. I'll change my mind when I see evidence to contradict this. until then I will see her as a spoiled rich professional student who still lives with her parents in a 1000000 pound house in London playing the working class activist. I literally have nothing but contempt for her type.

capcha old man winter

no not yet, it's too damn early even in Canada.

I don't want to say I disagree with your assessment because I think you're probably right. For someone like this to bemoan the tortures they supposedly suffer on a daily basis, and then use that as an excuse to be an ass is an obscenity. These are entirely theoretical hardships constructed from voodoo theories about The Patriarchy or whatever. But there is also an element of the provocateur here. She posts #killallwhitemen and male tears and stuff because she wants a reaction from people who don't like that. You're not wrong that she presents herself as a terrible human being. She does that very much on purpose to provoke a response. And, in addition to that, she is apparently a real piece of work in real life, too.

 

[Tilly]

Some European countries like Scotland and Ireland are 95% white. It makes it all the more damaging to segregate into small minorities in that kind of environment because how well you mix with the majority will almost entirely determine your life success.

I don't see how having to mix with people who show an extreme level of contempt for them is going to help them. Once again, this is about one single meeting.

Did you seriously just suggest that the entire white population of Scotland and Ireland has extreme contempt for ethnic minorities?

 

[1981]

Did you seriously just suggest that the entire white population of Scotland and Ireland has extreme contempt for ethnic minorities?

If the majority was going to be at that meeting and threatened to kill her and proceeded to insult minority groups because their invitations were cancelled, then yes. But that's clearly not what happened. The point is that those people didn't start doing it after she lost her mind. Those people are the reason she lost her mind.

I think you may be imposing a motivation upon other people's arguments that may not actually be present.

I just read what they say.

These are entirely theoretical hardships constructed from voodoo theories about The Patriarchy or whatever.

There are also people who deny the holocaust.