The Guardian reports on the Goldsmiths-Smurthwaite collision.
One item strikes me as very odd…
The first she heard about the gig at Goldsmiths being pulled was an email exchange with the college on Sunday evening. She was told of “complaints” about a range of past subjects in her shows, including her views on prostitution and on Muslim women being forced to cover up, but was not given details or any right of response.
Smurthwaite favours decriminalising those selling sex, while criminalising those who purchase it. Goldsmiths students, she was told, support legalisation of the sex industry.
What? How can anyone even know that? What does it mean to say that? How can anyone possibly know that all Goldsmiths students support anything? Let alone something as specific as what attitude to have to “the sex industry”? The answer is that there is no way. Nobody can know that. The claim is ridiculous.
Maybe what they mean is “Goldsmiths students are expected to support legalisation of the sex industry”? Maybe they’re foolishly admitting to imposing an orthodoxy on their students? But if so – why the fuck would it be that, in particular? I could see something large and generic like “Goldsmiths students are expected to treat all people as equals,” but I can’t see getting more detailed than that, especially not about what the students think and approve and support as opposed to how they treat people.
At any rate…as Kate said in her post, somebody at Goldsmiths seems to be determined to shit on Kate by way of explaining the idiotic decision to cancel her gig at the last minute.
The president of the comedy society said: “Despite many complaints from students about the content of Kate’s act in the past we were planning to go ahead with the gig until Kate told me 24 hours before that there was likely to be a picket with lots of students and non-students outside the venue. I couldn’t verify this. Up to this point we had only sold eight tickets so I decided to pull the plug.”
Nice. Really nice. That’s throwing someone under the bus with a vengeance.
Ungrateful creeps.
Legalisation of the sex industry in what way ?
I am pretty sure they do not mean make all practices currently used in the industry legal, since thatvwpuld mean legaling human trafficking, rape, child sexual abuse, violence and many other rupugnant activities legal.
If they mean legalise the buying and selling of sex subject to strict guidelines then they have a more reasonable position but one people can quite reasonably object to without making the horrible people.
Well, of course, I don’t know. They’re not what one would call clear.
Kate’s disagreement with them is over pretty much what you say in the second para. It’s a stupidly sweeping claim, and certainly not feminist.
And whether they agree or not – do they think 100% agreement on every detail of every issue is a criterion for not canceling a scheduled event at the last minute? FFS?
I don’t think the Guardian article makes it clear just how offensive many sex workers and supporters find certain comments made by Smurthwaite. It isn’t just a matter of there not being “100% agreement on every detail of every issue”; even some people who oppose decriminalising/legalising prostitution have criticised her for some of the things she’s said.
For example, she mocks the sex worker rights movement as a fraud, comparing it with an assassin rights movement, or drug dealer rights movement. She smears sex worker rights activists as a “pimp lobby”, funded and controlled by human traffickers and sex industry bosses, rather than made up of actual workers. She uses that to attack attempts by sex workers to organise and campaign, without presenting any solid evidence for her claims.
In her campaigning against the sex industry, Smuthwaite often presents dubious statistics as fact (e.g. 14 as the average age of entry into prostitution), or uses stories that are generally considered to be urban legends (e.g. countries with legalisation stopping welfare for unemployed women who won’t work as prostitutes). She refuses to actually discuss and defend the claims she’s making, but uses them to attack people who disagree with her as misogynists.
I think what sex workers find most offensive is her claim that they encourage rape and violence against other women, and are too greedy and selfish to care about the harm they’re causing. It’s something that she seems to like throwing at sex workers and their allies on Twitter before she blocks them.
This cancelled show coincides with controversy and Twitter arguments over a feminist anti-strip club campaign that Smurthwaite supports. Just in the last couple of days I’ve seen her argue that sex work supporters are happy to see women gang raped, and that dancers would find another job if they cared about rape victims. To me that kind of comment seems calculated to upset people, and I don’t think it’s surprising that it draws criticism.
I don’t personally agree with the decision to cancel the show; I think people are too quick to do that over controversial and offensive views. But I don’t think it’s hard to understand why some people would be angered by her comments and even choose to protest over them. Smurthwaite herself should understand that, after all, she’s done her fair share of picketing…
There are certainly plenty of other people who’ve generated a similar reaction when they’ve made sexist, racist, or transphobic comments (without sympathetic articles about it in the Guardian or feminist blogs). I don’t think it’s surprising that comments viewed as whorephobic would receive the same treatment.
But Kate has said she has no problem with people protesting and picketing. That’s not the issue. The issue is that her gig was canceled, at the last minute. That’s what I’m talking about.
Well, I find YOUR comments offensive DK, and I insist Ophelia block you from commenting. Some may personally disagree with my position, but I am VERY offended and since Ophelia hasn’t made much money (or any) money from your comments, it’s obvious the best thing to do is pull the plug on you. Only money can trump offended feelings.
(/snark, obviously)
😀
As I mentioned, I can think of a few similar cases of gigs being cancelled because of sexist or racist comments that a performer had made. I’m curious whether anyone here would defend them in the same way?
For example, if they’d cancelled a show from a misogynist who blamed “slutty” women for causing rape, rather than someone who just attacks sex workers with the same kind of claim, would they receive any sympathy?
Would you be calling the people who cancelled it “ungrateful creeps” if this was a show by a particularly hateful MRA or conservative Christian, rather than a feminist?
Or is it more likely that people on sites like this be mocking their complaints with “Freeze Peach” memes and links to this XKCD comic (“if you’re yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled…”)?
In other words, if several important variables were completely different, would my view of the matter be different? It might be. I suppose your point is “double standards!!”? My point is that differences make a difference.
In other words…
“Suppose this wasn’t a feminist but an anti-feminist.”
“Suppose this wasn’t a feminist and a liberal but a right-wing racist misogynist troll.”
Differences of that kind would make a difference.
It’s a handy shortcut to say “absolute free speech in all circumstances no matter what”…but there are well-known problems with that. So we have to consider particulars, so I’m considering particulars. You seem to want to do a gotcha about that. Don’t bother. Yes: I consider particulars. Pretty much everyone does. Big deal.
The freeze peachers demand their opinions be hosted by private persons who strongly disagree with them. That isn’t the case here. This is a case of protesters (who have every right to protest peacefully) being allowed to shut down an already booked performance at a public venue.
I think you could make an analogy to the Skokie Illinois neo-Nazi march. Many people were deeply offended by their town being used to promote anti-semitic hate speech. But if the town had cancelled the march it would have been a true case of anti-free speech. Instead, they allowed the march to go on, and the massive anti-Nazi protest made the case very clear that Skokie was on the side of liberty and justice, while cancelling the march would have made the opposite point.
BTW, please don’t try to conflate this with the protests against Bill Cosby’s tour (in case you were contemplating doing that). Cosby is a criminal, by any reasonable interpretation of the facts. SAYING offensive stuff cannot be placed even in the same hemisphere with committing heinous crimes against persons, and I think it is quite right to cancel his appearances.
Obviously the people who put in complaints, and any who were going to picket the show, don’t see the difference that you do.
Generally the “safe space” rules that societies have in place don’t make distinctions based on the political labels of the person who violated those rules. If people are offended by comments they find bigoted, dishonest and hateful, it doesn’t make much difference what ideology the offender follows.
I wouldn’t label it hypocrisy to want people you like or agree with to be treated differently from those with views you oppose, not unless you were making an argument for absolute free speech. But I do think it makes your show of exasperation over this, and some of the questions you’ve raised about it, seem rather disingenuous. If you can see circumstances where you’d agree with this decision, you should be able to understand why it was taken, even if you disagree with it in this particular case.
DK, your examples are not very impressive. In the 2nd link, Smurthewaite was protesting a man who hired prostitutes and not the sex workers themselves. The way this man described sex workers was objectifying them. Twitter does not lend itself to subtle or complete arguments. Smurthewaite is concerned about women who are forced into sex work. There is a lot of hidden victimization in prostitution. I do see how the comments could upset women who choose sex work, but I would rather hear all sides of the issue. Shutting down the conversation and painting Smurthewaite as a bad person doesn’t help anyone. Like the rest of us, she has good opinions and problematic opinions
@DK
I don’t think your example is a good parallel, because Smurthwaite wasn’t cancelled for things she’s said–she was cancelled, supposedly, because the likelihood of protests made the organizer freak out about “student safety.” Or something. It isn’t actually clear, which is part of the problem.
And now Richard Dawkins has tweeted about this. Naturally, he’s chiding the students who were against Smurthwaite performing at the school–despite the fact that they were not responsible for the show being cancelled.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/562258484444811264
Smurthwaite is speaking against the human rights of sex workers. Who knew someone who advocates such a thing might be denied a forum! The Nordic Model violates sex workers’ human rights to privacy and making consensual adult agreements. Sex workers under the Nordic model, which *doesn’t consider them criminals, are stalked by police. For her to use her celebrity to oppose the human rights of some of the most marginalized people in her society, is vulgar. It’s a worthwhile form of protest, in my opinion, to cancel her.
This isn’t about being “denied a forum.” This isn’t about not inviting Smurthwaite to do a show. It’s about inviting her to do a show and then canceling it with 22 hours notice. You need a very good reason to cancel a show 22 hours before it’s scheduled to start.
Ah, Dawkins, putting ever more “Twit” in “Twitter” whether we need it or not. Not only is he a liar (or at least a complete idiot), he’s a hypocrite as well: didn’t he actively campaign to have Rebecca Watson disinvited from a few of her gigs?
And if he doesn’t post his opinion on any form other than Twitter, he’s a coward to boot.
I can think of a few similar cases of gigs being cancelled because of sexist or racist comments that a performer had made. I’m curious whether anyone here would defend them in the same way?
Well, for starters, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be complaining if the LA Sunday Assembly had cancelled that appearance by Sam Harris and Michael Shermer.
It’s about inviting her to do a show and then canceling it with 22 hours notice. You need a very good reason to cancel a show 22 hours before it’s scheduled to start.
Sometimes, unfortunately, that’s when people realize that the person they’ve invited to their venue is more of an embarrassment than they had originally thought. If Smurthwaite’s odious views had been up on a permanent website where the public knew where to find them, then the SU could probably have made the right decision sooner. But if they were all on Twitter, then researching them would have been harder, and you’d have a greater likelihood of information coming in at the last minute, or later.
The problem, IMHO, is not the last-minute cancellation — it’s the sheer incompetent cowardice with which it was announced and “justified.” Why couldn’t the organizers have just said “We’re disinviting you because you’ve said shit that’s embarrassing to us”? They’d have got a lot more respect if they’d just listed all of this person’s offensive tweets and said “We don’t want to be associated with this kind of hatefulness”?
Not from me they wouldn’t. No, you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to invite people and then say “Oh wait, we decided we don’t like you.”
Yes, actually, we do get to do that sort of thing. And sometimes we loudly protest when people fail to do it — as many here did WRT the Harris-Shermer gig.
It’s just that some people do that sort of thing a lot more competently and honestly than others. This college’s SU did it very badly, and made themselves look at least as bad as the person they had disinvited.
You’re totally confusing the pronouns and thus the issues now. No, “we” don’t get to do that if we are the organizers of an event. “We” do get to object to invitations, of course, but that’s a different thing.
No. You don’t get to invite people first and research them after.
And there was no “Harris-Shermer gig” – if you’re referring to the post I did a few days ago. That was Harris interviewing Shermer on Harris’s website – probably an email interview. And I didn’t say a word in the post about withdrawing an invitation – which would have been absurd anyway since the interview had already happened.
There’s a big difference between saying “X is bad” and inviting X to talk or perform and then taking it back. The threshold for the second is much much higher.
I agree there: the ideal approach is to make sure you’ve done all the necessary research before deciding whether or not to extend an invitation. But things don’t always work that way, especially in the case of groups such as small, newly-formed groups, or student unions, which are run by students (amateurs), not professional event-organizers working with professional background-investigators. Sometimes they get it right, other times they fall all over themselves because they’re new to the game.
@23: My apologies, I was referring to the Shermer gig, which you mention here.
Ah, right. I think the issue there too is one of protesting a done deal rather than attempting to undo the deal. I didn’t spell that out in my post, but I don’t think I was saying the SA should have withdrawn the invitation, but rather that it shouldn’t have given it in the first place.
Well, that SA event with Shermer is still upcoming, and I for one would love it if they disinvited him. I sent them an email to that effect. They won’t, of course.
But the fact remains that Smurthwaite wasn’t disinvited because of her stance on how best to deal with the exploitation of women and others in the sex industry. Nor was it cancelled because few tickets were sold. It was cancelled, at the last minute, for some fuzzy concerns about “student safety.”
I agree about not extending an invite in the first place. But why should invitations be considered sacred inviolable promises? I know it almost always looks rude to withdraw an invite, and it does cause a good bit of inconvenience — but sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s the right thing (or at least the least-wrong option) to do. If I’ve invited someone to my party, and then later find he’s either said something horrible about me, or said something that indicates he’s not a person I want to have in my house, or been rude or hostile to someone else I’ve invited to the same party, then it would make perfect sense to disinvite him. I do have his convenience to think of, but that shouldn’t override my concerns for myself or my other guests.
But I think Shermer should be disinvited because he’s a sexual harrasser, a predator who’s been credibly accused of rape, not because he’s said a ton of ridiculous crap with which I disagree (which he has.)
To be honest, from what Smurthwaite showed of her point of contact’s words, I get the impression it was cancelled because it looked like it was going to generate a headache they didn’t want to deal with. The stuff about safety or safe spaces (and which is it?) smacks of pretext.
Lady M.: what’s wrong with the “he’s said a ton of ridiculous crap with which I disagree” reason? If significant numbers of participants at an event also consider his statements ridiculous crap, and if the said crap is seriously offensive and not just contrarian, and if the presence of a person who says such crap would cause embarrassment to others, then why not disinvite him? That would probably cause less long-term harm to all involved than letting him show up anyway just because you didn’t want to rescind an invitation on principle.
I don’t think invitations should be considered sacred inviolable promises, but I do think the bar should be a lot higher than for no invitation in the first place. That’s all. An invitation to a party of course is somewhat different.
The reasons in Shermer’s case are much stronger, I agree, but I’m not sure they’re that much stronger. Or that they’re not. I’m uncertain about it, so I abstain from voting.
But yeah, just “ridiculous crap I disagree with” – not enough.
Well, I agree with Ophelia that the bar for that should be very high. Note the “should”: they have the right to disinvite, to refuse their platform, for any reason, really, if they haven’t signed a contract.
But even people with some crap ideas may have others that are better. And even crap ideas can be worth engaging. They can offer a chance to hone one’s own reasoning skills. Hell, sometimes iteven turns out they’re not as crap as they seemed at first.
In this case, Smurthwaite wasn’t going to be discussing sex work anyway. And the feminist group that were ambivalent about her had voted in favor of her appearance. In addition, there’s room for people of good faith to disagree on complex issues, and I think it’s a good idea not to be too reflexive about such disagreements.