More Lies from the Labour Party

MP Debbonaire is saying Corbyn sacked her when she had cancer, and that she resigned to avoid making the party look bad.

So either;
Corbyn sacked an employee undergoing breast cancer treatment. Extremely uncharacteristic and awful if true. An MP is using her breast cancer to make another politician look bad. Extremely low and awful if true.

Neither of those scenarios are particularly edifying.

It is worth noting that the resignation is a matter of public record; she told her constituency that she was resigning to help block Article 50; and she also resigned during the mass resignations orchestrated by the Party coup. 

Interestingly there are three accounts of the LP meeting where Debbonaire announced her resignation and at which she later claimed to have been intimidated (a claim which helped certain members suspend all CLP meetings). 

This is a meeting that apparently that left writer Ruth Davies in tears. Oddly, the other two accounts of the meeting are overwhelmingly positive, and both writers stated that they had no idea why Davies felt the way she did.  

It may be important to point out that both writers were similar to Davies in age, one was a white male software developer, the other an Iranian female socialist.  

Sasha Sadjady points out that there were maybe 4 Momentum activists in the room, spread out amongst 300+ people, and she said that Debbonaire, the chair, breached party rules 7 times in order to not discuss Corbyn. Sadjady also said she felt as though she had been at a different meeting than the one described in Davies' blog post.

The other, Chris Esson, said that he heard two men being rude (out of 300 people) but that they were in a firm minority. He also stated that the meeting was in no way toxic or close to bullying.

Of course, none of that matters - because the 'pretty young white woman made to cry by evil Bolsheviks' trope trumps things like facts, accuracy, and eye witness accounts.

Just look at Johanna Baxter. I have worked in some extremely tough jobs with very unpleasant people. I confess there were times where I had to go for a walk, and cry. Once or twice I had a cry on the walk 

home.

You know what I didn't do? I didn't cry for over 4 hours on national television. 

Aggression in the workplace is utterly unacceptable. It is also not the only form of relational aggression. Tears can be just as manipulative and intimidating as yelling, and a lot harder to call a person on. 

It is simply a reality that some people will say, do and lie about the most awful things imaginable - if it gets them what they want. And worst of all, they will be mostly unaware that they are doing it. They will often sincerely believe that they are telling the truth, or that they have good reasons for their 'white lies'. That what they do and say is justifiable in the grand scheme of things. 

It might be argued that Baxter's reaction was the result of online harassment, which is entirely possible. Look at Zoe Quinn for example. She was doxxed, harassed, people spread naked pictures of her, created animated revenge porn of her, made death threats. Quinn had to involve the police and at one point the FBI.  

Baxter shared some of the 'vicious' comments made to her. One was a guy disagreeing with her. The other was a person telling her she was spineless. The other was unpleasant and sexist. 

None of them were threats. 

Asking Baxter and Channel 4 for proof of the threats saw people told that they should 'believe women' and 'wasn't C4's word enough'? Unfortunately; no, it is not enough. The media lie, all the time, with gleeful abandon and no accountability. I am not going to accept that Corbyn, a generally decent and amiable man by all appearances, is endorsing and encouraging bullying by voting for a transparent ballot, unless you actually have evidence to back that up.

Secret ballots are highly unusual, and I would argue, undemocratic when it comes to MPs and TU officials. These people are elected; knowing how they've voted is a key part of whether you are likely to elect them or not. 

Is it acceptable that being in public, especially as a woman, leads to vociferous abuse online? No.

Is the solution to subvert the democratic process, as Johanna Baxter wanted? Absolutely not.

I am deeply uncomfortable with how gendered this campaign has been. Eagle has a pink banner and keeps saying that she should be elected because she's a 'strong woman'. Debonnaire invokes the 'sexy cancer' and claims Corbyn sacked her for it, despite clear evidence to the contrary. 

NEC official Baxter and Labour Party member Ruth Davies break out the waterworks to support their claims of bullying and harassment. And because they are attractive, young, white women the public and media go gaga over it and accuse anyone who questions them, or asks for evidence, of being anti-woman and anti-feminist. 

I think they are my 'favourite' group; people who in other circumstances would use terms like 'feminazi' or 'sjw', who start using and abusing feminist rhetoric because it suits their agenda.Of course, none of this actually matters. Ruth Davies' op-ed of a Labour Meeting, where she expressed views not shared by anyone else attending the meeting, went viral because people want to believe that Momentum are a group akin to the blackshirts.

Eagle's baseless assertion that her office window was bricked by a Corbyn supporter - when she works in an area with an average of 3 acts of criminal damage a day - has been largely accepted because people want to see Corbyn supporters as thugs.

Baxter's tearful ramblings are unsubstantiated and affected, but people believe them because they want to portray Corbyn's Labour as a macho, 70s style misogynistic cave. After all, it's a handy way to try to alienate Corbyn from his younger, more radical supporters.

Funnily enough, left wing MP Diane Abbot's accounts of daily harassment - which unlike Baxter's accounts, came with evidence and incurred police involvement three times - didn't get a fraction of the sympathy or hand wringing. 

I am seriously starting to think that even a leader like Jeremy Corbyn cannot redeem the cesspool that is the Labour Party - and the British Media. 

Matt Haig Vs Social Media

 I recently read "Reasons to Stay Alive" by Matthew Haig. It was beautifully written, and relatable, but it was disappointing to see yet another book about depression that stigmatises anti-depressants. Perhaps Mr. Haig's bout with the illness was mild, but for many, anti depressants are life saving. 

I felt that it was irresponsible.

The author also posted this ill advised tweet on May 30th.

Why Ill Advised?

Well for one, he quickly demonstrated he didn't know enough about the topic to comment.

For another, he didn't seem to grasp what he had actually said. He shared a Ricky Gervais quote about not being able to take criticism, implying that he was being trolled for no reason. 

I don't think he quite gets that what actually happened was - 

He insulted people.

He got insulted back.

He then got upset that people couldn't accept different points of view and opinions without getting nasty. As much as I hate to go playground - Matt, you started it. 

This only happened because he deliberately insulted people who have a different belief system to him. 

Blogger Okwonga wrote a sensitive analysis and rebuttal of the issue here. 

Stephen Fry, Free Speech and Mental Health

The Stephen Fry thing is really interesting.

I usually love what he says, but what he said about abuse survivors is (obviously) fucking disgusting.

Free Speech Fetishists

It highlights what one journo called 'free speech fetishists'; i.e. free speech at any cost - a cost usually paid by other people. It's often utilised by people who would claim that they are the oppressed underdog - think Greer using her platform as a feminist to bash trans people, and thinking she's being 'edgy' when actually, she's just being an arsehole. 

She could - quite rightly - claim that she experiences oppression as a woman, and as an older woman to boot. What she doesn't seem to get is that trans people have it objectively worse than non trans people. She is kicking down, viciously, and that's one of the things that makes her (and Fry) wrong in this scenario. 

They are both using a privileged platform, built on social justice and equality, to mimic the very behaviour they claim to find loathsome.

Seeing Criticism as Censorship

These are the people who also claim they are being 'oppressed' or 'censored' if anyone reacts against them. 

Stephen Fry has left Twitter several times due to criticism; I do have some small sympathy for him, because I noted that a lot of the comments were pure trolling, or focused on his sexuality.

Greer was due to speak at Cardiff University and students there decided to protest, because they disagreed with her transphobic beliefs.

It and similar incidents sparked a wave of whinging editorials about the over-sensitivity of our youth and their inability to hear anything that conflicted with their namby pamby liberal views. This completely ignored the fact that the students had heard what Greer had to say, and they thought it was appalling.

When the Cardiff University students protested against Greer speaking at their university, they weren't stifling free speech; they were exercising it.  

 Similarly, Brunel University invited Katie Hopkins to speak at a panel debate about immigration. Katie Hopkins is a person who called immigrants cockroaches, and suggested that refugee children should be murdered by our army for the crime of fleeing their country in terror.

Students of the university attended the talk, then walked out en masse when she was due to speak. Those students weren't childish, coddled fools who couldn't bear to hear the hard truths uttered by a visionary. 

They were decent, intelligent human beings who exercised their right to protest because they believed that a tabloid journalist who advocated for the murder of infants had no place on a fucking debate panel. 

(That link is no-followed, because FUCK Katie Hopkins).

Mental Health

Stephen Fry's comments are super hypocritical given his mental health advocacy and personal struggles.

However I am also incredibly grateful that any time I've been in a very bad place, the thoughtless, horrible comments that spilled out, that I didn't even believe at the time, weren't recorded *forever* and splashed across the media.

For most people, a breakdown or episode might cost you a relationship, a friendship, a job. They won't be a matter of public record. They will be around, and public, forever. I hate Piers Morgan's views, articles and attitudes. But his patronising screed about being worried about Fry is sadly spot on.

I have already seen these comments used as an excuse to falsely brand Fry a paedophile, largely because he is also gay (a ridiculous and bizarrely persistent prejudice among the ignorant).

The guy seems to be ill, and as a general public, we are - once again, laughing at this person and making them a figure of fun, because celebrities aren't people, after all.

People who (hopefully) wouldn't trip a person with a broken leg, or make fun of someone with cancer, will cheerfully laugh at Sinead O Connor's struggle with bipolar. They'll mock Amy Winehouse's depression and substance abuse. They'll think it's utterly hilarious when Britney Spears has a breakdown, or Randy Quaid descends into paranoia. They shared videos of Sheen's 'Tiger Blood' phase, and some degenerates even sent abuse to the bereaved daughter of Robin Williams after his suicide. 

Fry's comments were appalling, utterly vile and symptomatic of his privilege and hypocrisy. They're also likely symptomatic of a manic episode, and likely to cause suicidal depression at a later date. I believe journalists, loved ones and publicists have a joint responsibility to look after people with mental health problems. It's a fine line to walk without infantilising people, but allowing them to humiliate themselves in a public sphere is not the only alternative. 

It's intensely telling that this has happened a couple of months after the BAFTA incident, and is a double warning that he should take some time and recover.

Stephen Fry and the BAFTAS

Stephen Fry made a rude joke about Jenny Beaven at the BAFTAS and was pilloried.

Now, I love Stephen Fry.  I think he was bantering with a friend, and that should have been taken into account. I also think his joke was  ill considered, because yeah, women do get shit for what they wear when men don't.

I don't think this is a case of egregious sexism. I also don't think that this is an example of 'social justice warriors' (how I loathe that term) bullying a great person, or about how we're all 'too politically correct'. 

I think this is an example of how we can't leave people with mental illness the fuck alone.

Stephen Fry & Bipolar

Stephen Fry is a man who has been open about his struggle with bipolar disorder. He's produced brilliant documentaries, spoken about his suicide attempts and works with fantastic organisations like Mind. He's acknowledged that his personal wealth cushions him from some of the negative effects of his illness and that in some respects he's very lucky compared to others. 

He's still a human being, struggling with mental illness, in the public sphere. And the public sphere's reaction is to mock him for it. 

Let's go over events leading up to him being excoriated on social media and the press. 

• Ill considered, slightly off remarks.
• Arguing with people online and off. 
• Expletive laden 'meltdown' in public.
• Sensitive reaction to criticism. 
• Grandiose gestures (quitting Twitter).
• Wanting to run away (the suggested move to Hollywood).

All behaviours which sound immensely familiar to anyone who has ever experienced mania.

Criticism of Fry

I've scanned social media and some comment sections and was utterly unsurprised by the reactions. Trolls and MRAs (who usually hate homosexuals) wanted to use him as some kind of poster boy, because he'd been 'mobbed by SJWs'. Some women accused him of misogyny. A subset of out and proud homophobes used the opportunity to criticise his 'lifestyle' and used words like 'hissy fit', 'flouncing' etc to convey their utter disdain for what they wrongly think gay people are like. 

Some people also mocked him for what they saw as his over the top reaction to 'a little bit of criticism'. 

This sort of reaction isn't 'a little bit of criticism'. This is literally thousands of people telling you that you are a terrible person. This is especially awful for a person suffering with bipolar. This is a man with a documented history of suicide attempts, being told he is a dreadful human being.

I applaud his decision to get off Twitter, because it's probably a good idea for his mental health right now. It shows as well that he is feeling well enough to extract himself from a situation which is making his mental health worse.

The Court of Public Opinion

There's often this bizarre perception that celebrities aren't really human, or that being a little bit different entitles other people to point and laugh (and destroy other people's lives).

The Daily Mail mocked Katie Price's disabled son. Richard Littlejohn conducted a media harassment campaign against a trans teacher until she killed herself.

A food columnist called Jack Monroe, who writes entertaining books and articles about how to feed yourself on next to nothing, was bullied relentlessly for being a lesbian and later coming out as non binary. She was also criticised for being 'middle class' although why that matters, especially when it's not true, is a mystery. She had bizarre lies levelled at her - Katie Hopkins accused her of vandalising war memorials - as the child of a veteran British soldier, Monroe said she would sue. Julie Bindel accused her of promoting animal cruelty with cheap meat, even though Monroe only uses free range, organic meat, and explained that that is why she doesn't eat it very often.

In terms of mental illness, you only need look at Britney Spears and Sinead O Connor. The public sphere treats celebrities with mental illness as hilarious. They talk about them as having made bad choices, and not as being unwell.