EXEPOSÉ | 8 FEBRUARY 2021
6
Comment
COMMENT EDITORS:
Isaac Bettridge Cassie Grace
Living with pride in lockdown LGBTQ+ characters in media and more awareness of queer issues amongst the public, issues which were barely spoken of just a decade ago.
Daisy Leason 2nd Year English & Italian
T
HE first Pride parade was held on 28 June 1970, a year after the 1969 Stonewall riots that broke out in response to a police raid on popular New York gay bar the Stonewall Inn. It was a chance for LGBTQ+ people to celebrate themselves in a way that had never been possible before. Homosexual acts were only legalised in the UK in 1967, and even then with restrictions (such as the age of consent being 21, five years higher than that of hetereosexual acts). It wasn’t until 2003 that same sex sexual activity was legalised in all US states, and it took until 2015 for same-sex marriage to be legalised in all states via a Supreme Court ruling. There are still currently 72 countries where homosexuality is illegal, and eight where it is punishable by death. There seems to be growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities in the western world: despite certain controversies, there is an increase in
In many countries, Pride is still a protest, and a dangerous one Yet this year, any celebration will be subdued. There is no possibility of parties in the street, no chance of the usual feeling of togetherness. Pride is usually an opportunity to join with people who have the same experiences as you, even if you are from different walks of life. It is freedom from being marginalised in society; when you are with others who understand and empathise there is no need to pretend or hide. In many countries with queerphobic laws, to come out and show that you are LGBTQ+, with pride takes unfathomable bravery. This spirit is held in Pride events throughout the world, even
where it is legal to be LGBTQ+. There is perhaps a feeling that without this openness, this rebellion, we will sink back into the shadows. There are of course, all sorts of online LGBTQ+ History Month events, both through this University and elsewhere. But for those stuck at home with homophobic or transphobic parents, even for those of us who don’t have to live with this in our home lives,
Image: mm19, Pixabay
it is not the same experience. Being in front of the computer does not have the same feeling of radical celebration as a parade does. So, what can we do this year, when taking to the streets is off-limits? Four out of the five people living in my house are queer, myself included. I realise this is statistically unlikely, but here we are. Each of us has different coming out stories, different experiences as queer people and we show our pride in different ways. Some of us have been out for years, and some just a few months, yet we still have to come out all the time. For us, having pride in our identities is not necessarily to parade on the streets and chant in unison, however fun that may be. It is the strength to come out over and over, or to not come out, because you don’t feel the need to. It is covering your bag in pins, so people know your sexuality before they know your name, or it is people never knowing your sexuality because it isn’t relevant to the conversation. It is writing articles about Pride, or it is
never attending Pride in your life. To have Pride means whatever you want it to mean. That being said, it would certainly be nice to be back celebrating again. COVID-19 has changed our lives in many ways. I did not expect it to make me evaluate the way I associate myself with my sexuality. Having time to ourselves gives us leave to think over the ways we show our pride, and how we can do that at this time, even if it’s just silent acceptance to ourselves. And hoping for a parade next year. If you’re feeling stressed, worried, or just want to chat, the following contacts can help: The Wellbeing Centre 01392 724381 wellbeing@exeter.ac.uk Exeter Nightline Student-run listening service Open 8pm-8am 01392 724000 The Advice Unit 01392 723520
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
More society speaker scandals?
Caitlin Barr 2nd Year English & Film
J
UST four months after student outcry over anti-LGBTQ+ activist Caroline Farrow being invited to one of its events, the University of Exeter’s Debating Society platformed two controversial speakers. Joanna Williams, who has written a report entitled ‘The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology’ arguing that transgender students should be misgendered at school if they do not have parental approval, and Baroness Claire Fox, who has defended IRA bombings and the Bosnian genocide were invited to speak in mid-January. This sparked heated discussions on both Exefess and Overheard at University of Exeter, with some students vehemently opposing such individuals being given a platform, and others suggesting that not allowing these people to speak was an infringement of their right to free speech.
The event in question, a debate entitled “This house regrets the rise of the snowflake generation’” went ahead despite calls for it to be cancelled or for new speakers to be found, leaving many wondering why DebSoc has repeatedly platformed bigotry. Is this an issue of a lack of effort or resources behind checking the credentials and backgrounds of guests, or is it the case that DebSoc believes that these kinds of views should be given airtime no matter the effect on the mental health of students? A simple Google search would have unearthed writing by the controversial parties in question. In DebSoc’s defence, no-platforming can land you in very murky legal waters. In September, after being no-platformed by DebSoc, Caroline Farrow enlisted the support of ‘General Secretary of the
Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, who wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Farrow was subsequently re-invited by a member of staff at the Guild, so the event went ahead with Farrow involved, instead of risking legal action. This time, they simply let the event go ahead as planned. But is no-platforming really an infringement of free speech, or an effective way to stop hate speech from
Image: Radoan_tanvir, Pixabay
gaining traction? Bigotry that has no base in science or logic (such as transphobia or racism) should not be given oxygen through its inclusion in public debate. Furthermore, free speech in this country doesn’t protect hate speech: the law very clearly states that if a person “uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” intending to harass, alarm or distress, that is an offence. It is the right of everyone in the UK to live a life free of harassment and abuse; Caroline Farrow had already been banned from the United States for her views on the LGBTQ+ community, so why was it considered appropriate for her to be invited to our University to speak to students? In the snowflake debate last month, Claire Fox defended the right of the American Nazi Party to hold public demonstrations, and said that protecting women was
“regressive” and “patronising” (despite the context of many assaults against our own female students in our city). Joanna Williams compared no-platforming to burning books in Nazi Germany. Are these really the types of people societies should be inviting to speak?
Free speech in this country doesn’t protect hate speech Regardless of whether you believe these people should have been invited to speak or not, it is clear that there need to be more rigorous checks of external speakers. The Guild announced an overhaul of their speaker approval system, but it remains to be seen whether events like this, which fail to protect the wellbeing of students, will still be allowed to go ahead. Will DebSoc learn from its (repeated) mistakes, or will we be seeing another similar scandal in a few months’ time?