It was "prohibited to white people."

[fvkasm2x]

Great, why not?

Because that's stupid for all the reasons mentioned previously?

[Silverstarqueen]

There is likely a hidden agenda behind this proposed gathering. Their leaders are smart people, and know that banning all non-black people (and apparently black men), will create a lot of controversy and therefore, free publicity.

That's what they really want.

Possibly, but I also feel that this adds fuel to the fire. Idiots who might go and protest this or cause trouble probably wouldn't eve hear about it... if not for this publicity. Now they know about it and are even angrier... making the situation more dangerous

So it's the fault of the people who want to meet with similar minded folks, with similar concerns and sympathies, that some nut job out there gets angry and causes a disturbance? They have to meet in secret just so as not to upset people who are that unbalanced they are dangerous?

[OldIslander]

It's all about Women in Business, what their businesses are, might include upcoming workshops for women in business, etc. Why should they include men? I am sure men have many of their own types of gatherings for their own purposes, what is the problem?

Over the centuries, there have been many bastions and meeting places for men only, throughout the western world -- private clubs, societies, golf courses, etc. But over the years, they have all been systematically forced to open their membership to women. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing -- it's just a fact. And yet women have countless venues not open to men. Women political leaders often have political meetings for women only. I doubt that a male political leader would get away with this.

You're arguing that it's okay for black women to ban white women from their gathering. Would you approve of a group of white women banning blacks? Some double standards of discrimination seem to be socially acceptable -- as long as you're in the group getting the favorable treatment.

[Silverstarqueen]

If the ban had been against black women attending a public meeting of white women only, they've have screamed bloody murder. What would happen if gay athletes were banned from attending a sporting event? Or immigrants were banned from a political meeting? Or Muslims were banned from attending a Christmas event?

How is this different than Christy Clark holding political meetings for women only -- no men allowed? What would have happened if Horgan or Weaver had banned women from attending a political meeting for men only -- no women allowed?

Once you start banning identifiable groups of people from public gatherings or events, you're stepping back in time. Blood has been spilled to get us to where we are now.

I thought the blood was spilled so that people had a right to their differences, to celebrate those differences, to assemble with their own kind if they so choose. So muslims,(or catholics, or satanists) can congregate and worship and live their lives (as long as lawful) as they see fit, not according to the requirements of someone who doesn't agree.

Political meetings are a little different, but in general Conservatives are supposed to turn up at a Conservative convention, they don't want liberals crashing the party, and vice versa. If they barred people based on skin color or religion, well they would soon be in the news, and voters or party members would have something to say about that. I don't think they would succeed very well in the polls by excluding half their constinuents (if gender based), or all constituents of color or ethnicity (given that probably half or more of the population or their parents are immigrants from some other country).

[Silverstarqueen]

It's all about Women in Business, what their businesses are, might include upcoming workshops for women in business, etc. Why should they include men? I am sure men have many of their own types of gatherings for their own purposes, what is the problem?

Over the centuries, there have been many bastions and meeting places for men only, throughout the western world -- private clubs, societies, golf courses, etc. But over the years, they have all been systematically forced to open their membership to women. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing -- it's just a fact. And yet women have countless venues not open to men. Women political leaders often have political meetings for women only. I doubt that a male political leader would get away with this.

You're arguing that it's okay for black women to ban white women from their gathering. Would you approve of a group of white women banning blacks? Some double standards of discrimination seem to be socially acceptable -- as long as you're in the group getting the favorable treatment.

I don't care what group they are black, white, chinese, gay, whatever religion, or political affiliation.
I am in favor of special interest groups having their special interest gatherings. Chinese women, or any ethnicity) why can't they have their own little clique with their own meetings? There are language groups who want to get together to share their language. Why not? There are religious groups who want to do the same. It is their right. Would a catholic just barge in on a muslim religious observance? Not generally. Might some special group have an event that invites non-members to join them? Sure, that is different. It's called respect for others differences.

[OldIslander]

To get right down to the 'nitty gritty' on this subject, the French gathering mentioned by the OP, if posted in Canada, would be illegal -- in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

Specifically:

Purpose of Act
Marginal note:Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

and specifically regarding the ban on white people at a public gathering...

Publication of discriminatory notices, etc.

12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

[Silverstarqueen]

Here is what the mayor of Paris actually tweeted, after communicating with the group herself.

"Anne Hidalgo ✔ @Anne_Hidalgo
Le festival organisé dans un lieu public sera ouvert à tous. Des ateliers non-mixtes se tiendront ailleurs, dans un cadre strictement privé.
Follow
Anne Hidalgo ✔ @Anne_Hidalgo
Cette clarification doit permettre au festival #Nyansapo de tenir son rôle: contribuer à renforcer la lutte contre le racisme et le sexisme."

"She acknowledged her newfound comprehension of the festival, which is open to all, with several private workshops, stating that the festival will strengthen “the fight against racism and sexism."

So if the meeting is acceptable to the mayor of Paris, maybe it's not so racist after all.
"The cultural centre La Generale, where the event was to be hosted, and the collective Mwasi, which organised the event, said Sunday they were the "target of a disinformation campaign and of 'fake news' orchestrated by the foulest far right."

"We are saddened to see certain antiracist associations letting themselves be manipulated like this," according to a statement posted on the Generale website.
Organizers, however, affirmed that the purpose of the festival is to “build lasting strategies and solidarity and to share, exchange, and advance [black women’s] struggles."

I personally do not believe that this type of event would be illegal in Canada.

[fvkasm2x]

I'd be interested in knowing more about the "private workshops." Are those segregated by race?

[Silverstarqueen]

I'd be interested in knowing more about the "private workshops." Are those segregated by race?

Yes, some were, and by sex. If you think about some of the issues that African women face, for instance female genital mutilation, and rape, sexual slavery, lack of access to birth control, access to anti-viral drugs against AIDS, mother and infant health, I think it is understandable that they might want to discuss such issues in private.

[FreeRights]

I don't care what group they are black, white, chinese, gay, whatever religion, or political affiliation.
I am in favor of special interest groups having their special interest gatherings. Chinese women, or any ethnicity) why can't they have their own little clique with their own meetings? There are language groups who want to get together to share their language. Why not? There are religious groups who want to do the same. It is their right. Would a catholic just barge in on a muslim religious observance? Not generally. Might some special group have an event that invites non-members to join them? Sure, that is different. It's called respect for others differences.

So for the sake of clarity, you would have no problem either a white man only meeting or seminar!

[Silverstarqueen]

I don't care what group they are black, white, chinese, gay, whatever religion, or political affiliation.
I am in favor of special interest groups having their special interest gatherings. Chinese women, or any ethnicity) why can't they have their own little clique with their own meetings? There are language groups who want to get together to share their language. Why not? There are religious groups who want to do the same. It is their right. Would a catholic just barge in on a muslim religious observance? Not generally. Might some special group have an event that invites non-members to join them? Sure, that is different. It's called respect for others differences.

So for the sake of clarity, you would have no problem either a white man only meeting or seminar!

For the sake of clarity? Read what I clearly wrote. I gave examples based on gendre, color, religion, and political affiliations.
People already meet in many different forums (now also online) and social platforms based on different interests, ethnicities, gendre, what is the problem? As long as others are also allowed to have their gatherings what is the problem. So fine for Catholics, or protestants, but then you can't say, no muslims can't have their little gatherings, or jews can't have theirs.
If mothers can have their breastfeeding or parenting groups, surely fathers can have their fathering groups. and I'm pretty sure they do.

[youjustcomplain]

Yes, some were, and by sex. If you think about some of the issues that African women face, for instance female genital mutilation, and rape, sexual slavery, lack of access to birth control, access to anti-viral drugs against AIDS, mother and infant health, I think it is understandable that they might want to discuss such issues in private.

Those things are horrible and shouldn't exist. But they do. I doubt anyone here would disagree. But if the black woman want to discuss their female genital mutilation in private, then is using public space an appropriate spot for it?

I take no issue with private events in private places only inviting people based on any criteria they want to. It's events in public places that should not be discriminating.

I don't care what group they are black, white, chinese, gay, whatever religion, or political affiliation.
I am in favor of special interest groups having their special interest gatherings. Chinese women, or any ethnicity) why can't they have their own little clique with their own meetings? There are language groups who want to get together to share their language. Why not? There are religious groups who want to do the same. It is their right. Would a catholic just barge in on a muslim religious observance? Not generally. Might some special group have an event that invites non-members to join them? Sure, that is different. It's called respect for others differences.

I also have no issue with special interest groups having their gatherings in private places. Why do you feel that anyone outside of these groups would be "barging in" or causing any sort of disturbance?

[OldIslander]

I take no issue with private events in private places only inviting people based on any criteria they want to. It's events in public places that should not be discriminating.

Well said.

Any form of discrimination in a public event with public advertising, is illegal in Canada, as outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Act...!

Anything (legal...) behind closed doors with private (non-public...) organization is absolutely 'fair ball'.

[OldIslander]

I thought the blood was spilled so that people had a right to their differences, to celebrate those differences, to assemble with their own kind if they so choose. So muslims,(or catholics, or satanists) can congregate and worship and live their lives (as long as lawful) as they see fit, not according to the requirements of someone who doesn't agree.

Two important wars that come to mind, relating to this were the last world war and the American Civil War -- the latter obviously fought largely over race -- skin colour. It was the beginning of the end of slavery in the US. The 2nd world war was the westernized world fighting for essentially "The Four Freedoms", as eloquently outlined by Roosevelt 75 years ago.

The west has fought no wars for the right to discriminate on the basis of skin colour or gender.

Discrimination is not a freedom -- it is the public exclusion of an identifiable group. It incites hatred and fear. It has no place in any form in modern society. But we still have it, and we always will, as long as there are people saying it's okay under certain circumstances that they personally believe in and endorse.

[Silverstarqueen]

I thought the blood was spilled so that people had a right to their differences, to celebrate those differences, to assemble with their own kind if they so choose. So muslims,(or catholics, or satanists) can congregate and worship and live their lives (as long as lawful) as they see fit, not according to the requirements of someone who doesn't agree.

Two important wars that come to mind, relating to this were the last world war and the American Civil War -- the latter obviously fought largely over race -- skin colour. It was the beginning of the end of slavery in the US. The 2nd world war was the westernized world fighting for essentially "The Four Freedoms", as eloquently outlined by Roosevelt 75 years ago.

The west has fought no wars for the right to discriminate on the basis of skin colour or gender.

Discrimination is not a freedom -- it is the public exclusion of an identifiable group. It incites hatred and fear. It has no place in any form in modern society. But we still have it, and we always will, as long as there are people saying it's okay under certain circumstances that they personally believe in and endorse.

So if you don't allow black women to hold their meeting, wouldn't that be violating their right to congregate freely?
It was a forum open to all, with some sessions in private.