There is nothing socially liberal about wanting to take away women's rights.
I'm not going to stink up PB with the same tired old debate on trans rights - I published pretty much everything I want to say on the subject in my response to Viewcode's article. You can re-read that if you want to rehash the same old arguments. For the hundredth time. Again.
I'll just leave this short clip here of one of your lot - Kellie Jay Keen, the self-declared TERF who popularised the "adult human female" meme, at the Tommy Robinson rally last week, giving a rousing speech. A speech that begins "It's not too late to get Islam out of the building..."
I think I'll throw my lot in with the "socially liberal" types, thank you.
In any event I sincerely hope you're well.
That's like saying you're against vegetarianism because Hitler was vegetarian...
Otoh it can be - and imo usually is - more a sign of arrogance than independence of thought to pay no regard whatsoever to the sorts of people who agree or disagree with an opinion you hold.
Eg say I believe something and it transpires that the vast majority of people whose opinions I usually find repellent agree with me whilst few others do. That won't per se change my mind but it will give me pause and make me take a closer look at it.
Whatever else you may say about Kelly J Kean, she has absolute balls of steel. She actually walks up to people wearing the niquab (with their male companions obviously) and says 'Free your faces'. She'd probably hate courage being connoted with balls, but there we go.
Seriously, I don't see it - there is no "courage" involved.
Posy Parker is reacting to a 'threat' that she has fabricated in her own imagination, by launching a common assault on a member of the public. A common assault is concern that an actual assault may be about to happen, which would then aiui be at least a battery once contact was made.
She is trying to justify her own narrative. Women wearing their chosen outfits are not a threat. If there is an element of coercion involved, which is highly unlikely since we know the large majority of Muslim women in the UK wearing Niqab or Burka do so of their own volition (see the academic literature). Further, such clothing is only warn by a fraction of a percent of Muslim women.
Even if they were an element of coercion involved, it would be despicable behaviour to browbeat such a victim in the presence of their oppressor. But the claim of coercion would be overwhelmingly likely to be fake anyway.
Such behaviour - verbal assault - is what precedes violent attacks, particularly in the partisan climate we now have, and Parker - Kelly J Kean - needs to take a look at herself, do a sanity check, and wind her neck in. I think she's too far down Yaxley-Lennon type rabbit holes, and lost her way several years ago.
This behaviour is unacceptable and un-British. That's my view, anyway.
Sorry - I slightly borked my middle para, in editing the point into a separate para trying to be precise.
If there is an element of coercion involved, which is highly unlikely since we know the large majority of Muslim women in the UK wearing Niqab or Burka do so of their own volition (see the academic literature), it would be terrible to intervene in that situation on the street by having a go at the victim.
Bonus: the % of Muslim women wearing the burka or niqab in the UK is about 0.1%.
I think the percentage side is irrelevant to Kean's behaviour, as she's only speaking to people who are wearing it.
As I have said, Kean's comments are impolite, but I don't find your notion of it being a common assault to be in any way convincing. It is a woman's choice to wear a niquab, and we must hope (rather than believe) that it is a choice based solely on their personal conscience. That being the case, saying 'free your face' feels within the tradition of bra burning and other feminist campaigns. As you say, it becomes far more serious (for all parties) if it isn't their choice. But that again isn't Kean's fault, although her behaviour is undoubtedly insensitive.
I'd agree with most of that. I think the point of the 0.1% is to evidence the massive political exaggeration applied to the "threat" posed by women wearing burkas / niqabs. It's just a symbol of something "other" that is required as an anchor for the political campaign.
There are cases coming through over the last year or two where what I'd see as a permission structure to abuse had been created by the wider politics, which imo did not previously exist to anything like the same extent. I think some of these would offences would not have been committed previously.
Common Assault as a fear of imminent violence is the legal definition, and would depend also on the perception of the victim:
any act where a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend (fear) immediate unlawful violence, or intentionally/recklessly applies unlawful physical force
It's a grey line, but there are other charges around threatening words, intimidating behaviour causing alarm, harassment, or distress and so on.
I don't really see why Kean would pivot to targeting Muslims anyway, given that her basic position is gender-critical. But that's a different question.
Comments
There are cases coming through over the last year or two where what I'd see as a permission structure to abuse had been created by the wider politics, which imo did not previously exist to anything like the same extent. I think some of these would offences would not have been committed previously.
Common Assault as a fear of imminent violence is the legal definition, and would depend also on the perception of the victim:
any act where a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend (fear) immediate unlawful violence, or intentionally/recklessly applies unlawful physical force
It's a grey line, but there are other charges around threatening words, intimidating behaviour causing alarm, harassment, or distress and so on.
I don't really see why Kean would pivot to targeting Muslims anyway, given that her basic position is gender-critical. But that's a different question.