Laurence Fox launches political party

[Rascal]

Whatever the intention or the meaning of Sainsbury's original post, would you be fine with the exclusion of other races from these 'safe spaces'?

The one I was invited to attend in Oldham which was a Muslim women's safe space has to be exclusive. If you don't understand why then there is really no more I can add to that.

I am absolute fine with safe spaces for whoever requires them, they are not compulsory and what happens within them should be confidential. If you want your own exclusive safe space I will totally respect that too. Because as much as you hark on about this being about race and it being divisive I will argue it is not, its necessary because people like yourself, Fox and his assortment of cranks think they are divisive. If you are unable to find it within you to respect the needs of a disparate community then don't, carry on with the Fox agenda, because his agenda has nothing at all to do with the rights of the working class and everything to do with division of the working class under false pretence. There are a myriad of reasons why certain groups would need a safe space in which to discuss and debate issues and be empathetic with each other. These reasons could be anything from sickle cell anaemia groups , to the Freemasons, from Male only clubs, to disabled only swimming pool times. To put everything under the broad brush stroke of "exclusion" is ridiculous and divisive in itself, because what you risk is far worse than what you are complaining about. Making everything open and inclusive to everyone totally defeats the object of the safe space in the first place and that risks further alienation, disrespect and misunderstanding of some very important issues that may affect some people but not others.

For instance lets return to Sainsburys. The young black girl on the till is racially abused by a big fat 50 year old EDL clown who tells her to go back to Bongo Bongo land, she is upset and is in tears, if she then retires to the safe space to calm herself does she want the young white lad there who is totally against her having a safe space and has never been abused or does she want the old Black lady who suffered abuse 40 years ago from an NF skinhead and has learned coping strategies in how to deal with halfwits.

If you can honestly say the young white lad is in better position to help the young black girl than the older black lady then i would love to hear your reasoning behind it.

 

[journolud]

No reason at all why these “safe spaces” should be seen as divisive apart from by the hard of thinking and understanding. The people who use safe spaces don’t spend all their time in them and I’d see them as an aid to tolerance and better integration.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The one I was invited to attend in Oldham which was a Muslim women's safe space has to be exclusive. If you don't understand why then there is really no more I can add to that.

I am absolute fine with safe spaces for whoever requires them, they are not compulsory and what happens within them should be confidential. If you want your own exclusive safe space I will totally respect that too. Because as much as you hark on about this being about race and it being divisive I will argue it is not, its necessary because people like yourself, Fox and his assortment of cranks think they are divisive. If you are unable to find it within you to respect the needs of a disparate community then don't, carry on with the Fox agenda, because his agenda has nothing at all to do with the rights of the working class and everything to do with division of the working class under false pretence. There are a myriad of reasons why certain groups would need a safe space in which to discuss and debate issues and be empathetic with each other. These reasons could be anything from sickle cell anaemia groups , to the Freemasons, from Male only clubs, to disabled only swimming pool times. To put everything under the broad brush stroke of "exclusion" is ridiculous and divisive in itself, because what you risk is far worse than what you are complaining about. Making everything open and inclusive to everyone totally defeats the object of the safe space in the first place and that risks further alienation, disrespect and misunderstanding of some very important issues that may affect some people but not others.

For instance lets return to Sainsburys. The young black girl on the till is racially abused by a big fat 50 year old EDL clown who tells her to go back to Bongo Bongo land, she is upset and is in tears, if she then retires to the safe space to calm herself does she want the young white lad there who is totally against her having a safe space and has never been abused or does she want the old Black lady who suffered abuse 40 years ago from an NF skinhead and has learned coping strategies in how to deal with halfwits.

If you can honestly say the young white lad is in better position to help the young black girl than the older black lady then i would love to hear your reasoning behind it.

good and helpful human beings are such regardless of their skin colour, as are bad people. The highly specific scenarios being created to justify very narrow and discriminatory points of view these days is symptomatic of the true ills of society.

 

[Rascal]

First things first, black people aren't disabled nor do they need treating like they are so it's a false equivalence. Therefore, the need for a 'safe space' doesn't exist in the way that it would for somebody with a disability who may be less able to defend themselves from physical danger or is emotionally predisposed to perceiving normal behaviour as threatening.

That said, even in the context of a disabled persons' safe space, it would be excessive and divisive to demand that no able-bodied person was allowed in there if, for example, an able-bodied person had spent the past 20 years caring for a disabled person and could contribute positively to the space.

My nephew has cerebral palsy and at no point has he ever requested a space comprised solely of other disabled people in order to feel safe. I can tell you right now with 100% certainty he would find the idea absolutely laughable.

Does that mean there shouldn't be meetings or days focused on disabilities or mechanisms for teaching and reporting racial discrimination? No, it doesn't. But there's a big difference between that and the toxic division of 'safe spaces' which preys on the age-old trope that 'the other' is a threat.

You really don't get what safe spaces are about do you. They are not about threat or feeling safe from threat, they are empathetic retreats.

I have done work with people with disability and people who suffer anxiety from facial and skin disfigurement, you do realise why the Elephant man wore a mask don't you. A safe space for them would be a place where they are not pre judged and people are empathetic towards there problems. I have seen this when a member of a group I was with was called a Leper by a person from outside the group. Why on earth would a safe space for people with facial and skin disfigurements want a person who refers to them as lepers to be allowed into there safe space. That would halt all conversation and heighten anxiety and probably make things much worse. Safe spaces are about empathy and understanding not a place where a person can be further ridiculed or abused and that is why they are or can be exclusive.

 

[Rascal]

good and helpful human beings are such regardless of their skin colour, as are bad people. The highly specific scenarios being created to justify very narrow and discriminatory points of view these days is symptomatic of the true ills of society.

Safe spaces tend to be narrowly defined out of necessity not because of discrimination or exclusivity.

It is really annoying me that so much hard work that I have been involved with in getting people to participate in studies and workshops could be put at risk because of the stupidity of that clown Fox and his idiotic take on safe space. His attitude could do untold damage to what we are trying to achieve with a body of work we have just started. Because if we cant offer safe spaces then we might not be able to get participants and if we cant get participants then people across Manchester will suffer because the issues we are tackling are important and need addressing urgently.

 

[hilts]

What would be the rational for attending? If a group of disabled people wanted to hold a meeting, why would I attend? To get an insight into their problems or be hostile to some of the issues they may raise?

Would the disabled people feel comfortable with my presence or would they prefer to only discuss issues with people who face similar issues? Do I insist on going knowing it makes them uncomfortable or do I demand ’my right’ to attend on the basis I am being discriminated against? After all, why should they have their own special meeting place?

At the end of the day it is as much about courtesy and good manners vs being a colossal twat.

So, you have to ask yourself one question. Do I want to be a colossal twat? Well, do you, punk?

What if the meeting was were the vending machine is, morning kit-kat and coffee is a human right in the work place. Like going to the loo but really nipping out for a sneaky puff.

 

[hilts]

You really don't get what safe spaces are about do you. They are not about threat or feeling safe from threat, they are empathetic retreats.

I have done work with people with disability and people who suffer anxiety from facial and skin disfigurement, you do realise why the Elephant man wore a mask don't you. A safe space for them would be a place where they are not pre judged and people are empathetic towards there problems. I have seen this when a member of a group I was with was called a Leper by a person from outside the group. Why on earth would a safe space for people with facial and skin disfigurements want a person who refers to them as lepers to be allowed into there safe space. That would halt all conversation and heighten anxiety and probably make things much worse. Safe spaces are about empathy and understanding not a place where a person can be further ridiculed or abused and that is why they are or can be exclusive.

Personally I would let them go home for the day and sack the other ****. No doubt though that fucker would disappear to his/her safe place. I think letting people escape their stress whatever it is can only be a good thing but you have to be careful with these things.

 

[meltonblue]

Empathy is the key word and it’s an emotion and a behaviour we are losing at a frightening rate at the mo.

People might think because they believe they’re personally capable of empathy, they don’t see the need for safe spaces for others, even seeing them as deconstructive. That is ultimately a lack of empathy in itself though.

The real underlying motive for being against them tends to hint at a different driver to the ones people like Fox publicly try and promote.

 

[bluethrunthru]

another bellend

 

[Wafty Cranker]

The one I was invited to attend in Oldham which was a Muslim women's safe space has to be exclusive. If you don't understand why then there is really no more I can add to that.

I am absolute fine with safe spaces for whoever requires them, they are not compulsory and what happens within them should be confidential. If you want your own exclusive safe space I will totally respect that too. Because as much as you hark on about this being about race and it being divisive I will argue it is not, its necessary because people like yourself, Fox and his assortment of cranks think they are divisive. If you are unable to find it within you to respect the needs of a disparate community then don't, carry on with the Fox agenda, because his agenda has nothing at all to do with the rights of of the working class and everything to do with division of the working class under false pretence. There are a myriad of reasons why certain groups would need a safe space in which to discuss and debate issues and be empathetic with each other. These reasons could be anything from sickle cell anaemia groups , to the Freemasons, from Male only clubs, to disabled only swimming pool times. To put everything under the broad brush stroke of "exclusion" is ridiculous and divisive in itself, because what you risk is far worse than what you are complaining about. Making everything open and inclusive to everyone totally defeats the object of the safe space in the first place and that risks further alienation, disrespect and misunderstanding of some very important issues that may affect some people but not others.

For instance lets return to Sainsburys. The young black girl on the till is racially abused by a big fat 50 year old EDL clown who tells her to go back to Bongo Bongo land, she is upset and is in tears, if she then retires to the safe space to calm herself does she want the young white lad there who is totally against her having a safe space and has never been abused or does she want the old Black lady who suffered abuse 40 years ago from an NF skinhead and has learned coping strategies in how to deal with halfwits.

If you can honestly say the young white lad is in better position to help the young black girl than the older black lady then i would love to hear your reasoning behind it.

What if in your example it was a young girl of Asian decent on the tills, who was racially abused and in tears who went to retire to the safe space, only to be told she can't come in, because there isn't enough melanin in her skin.

Or how about someone of mixed race, with a black grandparent, you letting them in? Or a black person with albinism? Or fraternal twins that are a different race, you letting one in and not the other?