The Story of how Portobello Residents were Censored

People have the right to question and not be called 'fascists', be hounded online or threatened in their own communities, even in so-called 'Progressive' places and in the name of 'Love'.

This is the original blog about what happened in Portobello in February when some parents tried to hold a meeting about Gender Ideology in schools. If you want to know the full story, then come and hear some of the organisers speak at the Quaker Meeting Hall, this Thursday 11th May, at 7.30pm. Free ticket here.

The other night there was a meeting arranged to take place in a community hall by a local group in Portobello, Edinburgh to discuss, only discuss, the issue of sex education in schools. It was open to all, although the group organising it was titled ‘Concerned Parents’. Obviously, holding such a meeting in itself means that there are probably shared anxieties among the attendees, possibly several people who are actuely worried, even opposed, to the policies adopted by headteachers in the area of sex and gender in schools; however, there is no good reason why parents and members of the community cannot meet in a public venue suited for the purpose to debate their point of view, learning and gauging how others feel. At any such meeting, those gathered would be perfectly within their rights to set-up an official group, raise money and take actions to push for a change in policy, locally and nationally. Yet these basic, fundamental assets of democracy were not tradeable, it seems.

In fact, the entire story of arranging the meeting was one in which basic precepts of democracy were disregarded using both underhand methods and smears. It had all begun with a simple post on the community Facebook page questioning, politely, sex education in Scottish schools. The post was met with very, very cautious support and some criticism, and some unrelenting personal abuse that resulted in the poster contacting the police out of concern. Heartened and outraged at the response, the poster set-up a separate Facebook page with tight security settings and started to hold meetings in a private house. Initially, there was an uneasiness about discussions as the fear of being tarred a bigot or ‘right-wing conspiracy theorist’ in the community was all too real. None of this would really be surprising to anyone who follows the gender/trans issue.

What should have been simple: booking a hall and then advertising it on social media became incredibly difficult and convoluted. The local councillor who was requested to reserve the local library – she was asked to give a little bit of cover and legitimacy, and it was thought she was sympathetic – dragged her feet for more than two months, with no room booked after that time. After abandoning the councillor as a route, the small group of parents reserved a community space in a day! Once the venue was arranged, it needed to be advertised. Anyone familiar with local activism will know the routine of designing leaflets, printing them and delivering them. It is a process full of delays and quite a bit of back and forth. However, once it was done, the group was ready to leaflet.

Leaflets have an advantage over social media: they get you out of the digital bubble. They reach new people, avoids toxic messaging and any pile-ons by once-were-friends. To me there is something real about it, physically giving out a message which you are prepared to stand behind. Very, vary rarely, in the past, did you get much of a reaction and hardly ever did you have a confrontation. It was a safe, community-friendly way of getting out the word. Therefore, a couple of the group leafleted the target population at the local primary school, at a good distance from the school gates. The reaction was astonishing.

Two mild-mannered, suburban parents elicited emails from the Parent Council, sent to parents and carers of pupils, citing ‘hate crimes’ and stressing that if anyone was ‘shaken’ by the incident…of having a leaflet handed to them…they were to get in touch. Incredible. A challenge is potentially criminal. Aside from the absurd, grossly hyperbolic, foaming-at-the-mouth type language from those with the, doubtlessly self-bestowed, moniker of ‘adults’, the reaction seems to be wrong on at least two counts: the first is the assumption by the senders of the email that the majority of parents share the views of the PC; the second is that the parents of the primary school are so feeble and emotionally timid that the possibility of receiving a piece of paper which advertises a meeting where an alternative point of view could be civilly debated is going to incur in them the type of emotional turmoil that a genuine hate crime would cause. It’s surprising that they did not warn about spontaneous bruising caused by having been proximate to different opinions.

Difficult to conceive though it is, and laced with caveats about conformity, status-preservation and promotions, the reaction of the PC actually might be genuine (sad to say). It might not be part of a conscious attempt to cynically discredit, through what amounts to a form of screaming at publicly, those who come from another part of the social spectrum. They, taking matters at face value, actually perceived a risk from difference. Disappointing. And side-stepping the urge to mock, it is not appropriate that people in positions of responsibility be so easily intimidated and upset.

Other attempts to beach the meeting were much more surreptitious and artful. Digital tickets were used by the group for promotion purposes and to manage numbers. They entirety sold out in a day: ‘Michelle Obama’, ‘William Shatner’ and ‘Beesa Beesa’ had reserved the lot! Word had gotten out among those opposed to such a congregation; the reaction, not very nice when you think about it, was to have some well-meaning people, who are not political activists, turn-up at an empty venue. Humiliation loomed. To prevent this, it became one ticket to one email address. False registrations were still being submitted but at a manageable rate. Then, the venue cancelled.

The Wash House is a community space that had assented to the meeting taking place, at first. Something must have happened. It’s not clear why because The Wash House are still to fully explain the reversing the booking at a couple of days’ notice - which made it too difficult to find another setting in the time available, and thus this decision killed the meeting. Is it possible that a group of well-organised activists bombarded The Wash House with emails, and, given the times, threatened to oppose their funding by the council and thus the jobs of the people that worked there? Another possibility was the threat of smearing of individuals who worked there and the venue for an ongoing period? These are all hypothetical, and, to be honest, Trans/Gender groups are not the only ones to have used these types of tactics. Yet, is this a democratic, just or even polite way to conduct these issues? No matter who it is, it is not correct behaviour.

At the very beginning of this endeavour, the concerned parents invited Trans/Gender activists to debate and they declined. Debate is now retrograde to Progressivism, it appears. This is now a familiar pattern with regards to issues that people are too frightened to challenge: lockdowns, masks, vaccines, Trans ideology, white privilege and so on. They affect all of us but instead of discussion, there’s smear, insult, censorship and an attempt to drive people from public spaces. Personal attack and marginalisation are now the operative approaches to contentious issues…that have an agenda.

Democracy, shared living and a functioning society require decent manners, the ability to speak as well as listen, a willingness to attempt to understand, temperance and free speech. Whatever any group, minority or others, think they are gaining by abandoning these qualities, usually for never fully explained or convincing social aims, they are losing far more. Free speech conducted in social spaces ended slavery, brought about civil rights, developed workers’ rights, legitimised homosexuality and continues to lift, slowly, the burden of oppression. It must be protected from any threat in order that it may, in turn, protect us from all threats.