I’d never heard of Julien Blanc till a few days ago. I see him referred to in the press as a “pick up artist.” In itself the term is sexist and pretty disgraceful, but it fails to articulate the horrid reality of what this man does. Jenn Li wrote about his so-called act in the Independent recently:
In Blanc’s videos his treatment of women is – to put it lightly – horrifying. There are videos of him going up to women, clasping their throats, while putting his finger on his lips, saying “shhh”.He has decided to document this abuse by labelling the videos of him doing this with his own hashtag: #ChokingGirlsAroundtheWorld.
Blanc also brags about his effectiveness in subduing women and controlling them to satisfy male sexual desire. The troubling language he uses is typical of many Pickup Artists (PUAs), but what makes Blanc’s behaviour even more disturbing is just how much his misogyny is motivated by his complete bigotry.
When talking about how to “seduce” a Japanese woman, he is quoted as saying: “Just grab her… To take the pressure off, yell Pikachu or Pokemon or Tamagotchi or something”. He is obsessed with degrading Japanese women, and abusing his white male privilege.
Racism and assault. Wow. And he’s planning on coming over here to do some shows next week. Why on earth should we have someone who practices and glorifies violence against women inciting others to do the same?
Lynne Featherstone, our Home Office Minister and the Government’s person responsible for tackling violence against women, has taken the unusual step of asking the Home Secretary to consider whether this character should be allowed in or not. She told The Guardian:
As the Home Office minister with responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls, I am extremely concerned by the sexist and utterly abhorrent statements Julien Blanc has made about women. If he was allowed to perform in the UK I have no doubt that cases of sexual harassment and intimidation would increase.
Free speech is obviously hugely important, but with free speech comes responsibility. It is not appropriate to talk about choking girls under any circumstances.
Lynne’s position is perfectly understandable given her government position. I am sure that some people will argue that because he hasn’t been convicted of any crime, he should have the right to come and spread his view, however distasteful they are and it’s the responsibility of liberals to challenge him and perhaps protest at his shows.
It’s a complex one because anyone who wants to see the vile stuff that this character does just needs to go online and find it. Denying him a visa won’t stop that and the publicity surrounding him may well have pointed a few of the more misogynistically minded amongst us in their direction.
I decided to sign the petition against granting him a visa, though, because I, like Lynne, was concerned that actual women would be assaulted in this country as a direct result of this man being here.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
High Fell by-election leaflet watch 3: the proof is in the reading
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Abrial Jerram
paul barker
Laurence Mann
Stefano Brunesci
Robert Doyle
37 Comments
All you’ve done is reinforce the narrative of the far right, which tells us again and again that closed borders are the answer to every problem. Whatever you think of this person, adding weight to that argument doesn’t help any of us.
I don’t think this is a great idea. The refusal of entry to people without criminal records has previously been restricted to those with a record of preaching sympathy for terrorism. Here we have it extending far down the criminal chain and even out of the criminal realm. Yet again, laws and actions that were intended to be only for terrorist related issues are percolating into the wider sphere, and it’s a shame that the Lib Dems of all parties should be promoting this.
It’s notable that it would be rare for someone who has actually been convicted of violent crimes would be barred entry, unless they are famous, like Chris Brown (Rihanna’s ex). Is what is being promoted here going to be the start of a new framework for a Lib Dem policy of barring anyone with criminal records from entering the country (it doesnt make any sense to allow criminal into the country but bar those without a record), and also anyone who has promoted views and ideas that are unpleasant, and if not: why not? Is it a seriously defendable position or is it a bit of populism?
But what if it’s not just views that are unpleasant – there is actual video evidence of him assaulting women – and boasting about it? Do we really want that sort of person here?
I don’t see how you can let the Pope in, who presides over an organisation that advises people in such a way as to make life very difficult for women in particular, as well as openly advocating depriving them of control over their own bodies.
There are many, many more unpleasant people allowed into this country, some of them are even heads of state or religions.
Why ban this chump, and not them?
I have signed the petition to deny him a visa. I think we also need a general law against the promotion of sexual harassment and assault.
I know I am going to court the wrath of fellow Lib Dems with this post but as a Liberal, but I do not feel any need whatsoever to tolerate or accommodate the views of those who are patently illiberal by virtue of abusing the rights and basic liberties of children, women or men.
Personally I would not allow the seriously unsavoury Blanc in to the country but I feel it inconsistent then to argue that people who can equally be shown to present a genuine risk to the life and limb of the general population should be allowed back in to the country with the freedom to roam and to spread their violent message.
I absolutely would not fight to the death the preserve the right of the seriously illiberal to peddle their poisonous views and likely actions.
Interesting. Deny this individual entry to the UK because of a risk and that isn’t a breach of his civil liberties. Deny Islamic State fighters the right to return to the UK and it is an illiberal breach of their civil liberties. It’s inconsistent
Fact is, this obnoxious individual can spread his obnoxious message via the Internet and to a much wider audience. A physical ban generates tons of free publicity and is entirely ineffective, symbolic only. If he has been convicted of any criminal offence then he can be denied a visa on those grounds. Otherwise it is speculation about possibilities when the risk from Islamic State fighters is considerably higher.
Like Caron I had never heard of this fellow until a few days ago. I’m currently in Canada and they’ve just banned him from entering. Here he is being likened to a hate preacher – arguably, that’s what he is. The argument being used is that allowing someone to enter your country is not an absolute right but a privelege.
Stevan, there is a crucial difference – the Islamic State fighters in question are our citizen. Denying them the right to return is a) bad manners to the rest of the international community and b) a breach of their rights as citizens. This character is not a British citizen.
To be honest this has the feel of one of Britain’s many moral panics, like video Nasties and Devil dogs. Where as, has Stevan Rose points out returning ISIS fighters may pose an actual threat, To which I would add as well as possibly being guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So, how do we all react to Allen Jones at the Royal Academy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30031798
@Bill – the Allen Jones piece looks like it comes straight out of the Moloko Bar in Clockwork Orange. Presumably Jones is all too aware of the circumstances under which Kubrick subsequently withdrew Clockwork Orange from UK distribution. Does he explain the work in that context? I find it impossible to get worked up about what seems like a drearily deliberate and unoriginal attempt at sensationalism. The ultimate “shock art” to me has always been and remains Manet’s Olympia and “the gaze”.
Paul, Actually the Moloko Bar comes straight out of Allen Jones.
Popped into the Coulthard so it’s early go at Lunch on the Grass is fresh in the mind.
He should not be banned. I had never heard of him before I read Liberal democrat Voice.
Violence against women is about power and control. Let him come to Britain and we women will show him that when exposed, he and people like him don’t scare us. In fact, they are cowardly. He had to cut short a trip to Australia.
As far as abuse against women is concerned , I would prefer that Theresa May and the coalition, if they cared about violence against women, had ring fenced safe houses for women and children. If knowledge of this man’s behaviour raises awareness of the crisis with the closing of these including the closure of refuges for minority women, and the next government ring fences money to provide safety, so much the better.
Banning is not the answer. Facing up to people like this, is.
@Bill – I’ve been reading Roger Scruton’s dense but superb book on Tristan and Isolde. He talks at length about the libretto line where Isolde sings of looking AT Tristan’s body and INTO his eyes. We look AT things but we only look INTO the eyes – just as Salon audiences were shocked by being forced to see Olympia as a real person and not as an passive object, is Allen reversing that to shock a contemporary audience? But those Moloko pieces are so period-specific that they invoke nostalgia rather than shock.
Why is this character Blanc still free when people like Dave Lee Travis are facing jail for touching a woman too much at a party 40 years ago.
In my view, this is just a quirk in the law. Blanc belongs behind bars with the likes of other abusers such as Rolf Harris and definitely should not get a visa
Question to those supporting a visa to Blanc. Would they give a visa to Jummy Saville?
As for returning ISIS fighters, hand them over to Assad who is still the recognised government of Syria.
Andrew, I wouldn’t have too much sympathy with DLT. What he did was completely unacceptable and in my view the punishment was way too lenient. It was nothing to do with a party 40 years ago, it was in a tv studio while filming Mrs Merton and the victim was a young member of staff. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29372564.
I agree with Caron and with Julian Tisi who likens him to a hate speaker. That’s where I see him and have also signed the petition.
The initiative by Seema Malhotra gets no mention in this thread —
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/why-julien-blanc-should-not-be-let-uk
Is her positive suggestion to government ministers about education not worth considering?
Am I missing something?
@Caron, John K and others: If you’re going to classify Blanc’s misogyny as “hate speech” I look forward to you calling for the barring of pretty much all Islamic preachers from entry into the UK, as most of them will defend hitting disobedient wives, amongst other things. Somehow though, I don’t expect to see that article posted on LDV…
I ask the same question as earlier, which no one addressed: is this the start of a new framework for a Lib Dem policy of exclusion, and if so, what are the rules? If it’s not the start of a defined entry policy with coherent defendable rules, then it’s just a piece of populism.
I admire Seema Malhotra, she is a very brave woman, but I disagree with her about banning. In the age of social media, his presence or otherwise is irrelevant. It is the ideology that must be defeated, and that can best be done face to face with the man.
I agree with what she says on education. The reality is that the situation has been worsening for girls and women. When one talks to school girls about the social pressure they are under to demean themselves to fit in with the warped attitudes to woman and sex of some boys, it is heart breaking. Banning is a negative thing, providing knowledge and teaching positive, healthy relationships is a positive thing, although it is something that some would like to see banned in schools!! And that is the point, who determines the line that must not be crossed.
I apologise for speaking in terms of heterosexual relationships, I know that domestic abuse and the exercise of power and control is not a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon, but it seems appropriate to do so in this context.
@John Tilley: We already have good policy, being pushed in government, on compulsory SRE, that the Tories have stopped. I agree absolutely that it should be implemented and there’s little in Seema’s article that I disagree with.
I actually think Blanc is more than just hate speech – his is hate action and there is filmed evidence of him assaulting women.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that we won’t have people in our country who promote targeted violence against a particular group of people, especially one with protected rights under the Equality Act.
Caron Lindsay
I have no time for misogynists but banning this person from coming to Britain – no matter how much we detest his views – is illiberal. If some poor souls want to go to see him, that says more about them than anything else.
If he had a nationally broadcast programme on ITV2 inciting violence against women, I would ask for it to be pulled off air but wouldn’t ban him from performing in front of paying customers.
The thing is – if we ban him from entering Britain, who else do we ban and for what reason? It all starts becoming very tricky and very much open to abuse.
@ Caron Linsey,
Caron we have laws. If this man breaks the law, he would have to face the consequences. We can’t let people like him damage our democracy.
@ Helen Tedcastle,
Oh Helen, Liberal Democrats like you keep me thinking that I should continue to support the Lib Dems at the next election even though I am not in a constituency where I could vote for the likes of Tony Hill and others whose politics I admire.
If the position becomes vacant, there’s no chance of you standing for next leader of the party, I suppose??
I agree with Jayne Mansfield.
If he breaks our laws, we should not be afraid of locking him up.
@ Caron
“I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to say that we won’t have people in our country who promote targeted violence against a particular group of people”
Support the campaign to prevent ISIS terrorists from returning to our country then.
I agree with denying this guy a visa. Visa’s a re granted for specific reasons, and his stated reason is to come here and teach men how to abuse women. That is not acceptable. It is not the man we are discriminating against or denying, it is the activity he wishes to carry out. A visa is granted at the discretion of the state and for specific reasons. His reason is to carry out an activity which, if he is successful, will lead to more abuse of women in this country. I fail to see why anyone would, or should, think that this is something we would accept, and to do so sends a very poor message about what kind of society we want to have here.
I have some sympathy with those arguing he should be allowed here so we can show him what we think of him, but there will always be people who will be willing to pay for his ‘teaching’ and try and put it in to practice. We should always stand up against this kind of thing from anyone, but I’d much rather it was done as early as possible before too many people get exposed and involved and end up being in a position of having to be confronted, and I think sending the clear message his actions and teachings are not acceptable is doing just that, and that message will be got by those who would have attended, whilst at the same time removing any possibility that it is condoned by the state as being just a choice we can make.
This is not about classing it as an act of hate speech or terror, but in saying what activity we do or do not accept to be carried out by those visiting the country
In the case of people who have committed acts of terror with IS, then I do support denying those who are not UK citizens entry as well. However denying those who are UK citizens is making them stateless… something which is against their human rights, but more importantly means that no one is responsible for them and their actions. It is totally irresponsible to dump our problem citizens on other countries. Human rights are not just there to protect the individual, but all individuals from other individuals. To have membership of a state is to have a state who is responsible for you and what you do. This is very important when looking at people who may have committed atrocities. We should not, out of our own fear, foist our problem citizens on to others who already have their own dilemmas and problems to deal with.
The problem with Blanc is that we have a problem with an extreme “laddish” culture in sections of society and even as a man I recognise it is harming us all, so we need to tackle it.
I took a day or two off reading about politics and I find myself behind on the terrorism laws, but Caron does say returning ex IS fighters should be put on trial and subject to proper evidence, not just banned from entering the country without proper evidence.
The two cases are different.
There are other things I disagree with that I wouldn’t ban, but I really want to improve gender relations and one way of doing that is tackling people like Blanc selling poison.
Simon, you say “Support the campaign to prevent ISIS terrorists from returning to our country then.”
No. For the simple reason that they are OUR responsibility. The key word is ‘returning’. Our society created those people, and we are responsible for what they do. I’d rather not have them committing more atrocities to those suffering already in other countries on my conscience thanks.
@Bill Le Breton,
Well I reacted to it in the 70’s exactly as I reacted to it when I saw that there was soon to be a retrospective of Allen Jones’ work including his chair, hatstand and table.
Does it objectify women? Yes, as a proto feminist, I remember the furore at the time. I believe acid or some such substance was thrown over one of the works. Now, art lovers might rave over the way it provokes both revulsion and at the same time an insight into fetishism, but how would men feel if women created a similar piece of furniture and called it high art? How many women do you think would want to sit on such a chair and rest their wine and peanuts on such a table. It isn’t ironic, it is degrading of the opposite sex.
Better still, examine your reaction when the woman is black, as is the case with the Bjarne Melgaarde’s chair which was obviously influenced by Jones’ work.. It highlights the degrading nature of such works.
@ Alex.
We both want the same thing. The problem is that if you want to stop the activity, in my opinion, banning an individual won’t achieve that end. He has a company and one of his mates can run the expensive seminars and boot camps on his behalf. I believe the seminars are also available on the internet. I would have more chance of stopping the activity by standing outside and taking photos of the punters who pay more than £1.000 to hear his violent, racist, non- scientific clap-trap when they enter and leave, then disseminating the photos widely.
Education seems to me to be the only effective way of helping young people turn their backs on people such as this man and his vile activity. That and prosecution when he commits a criminal offence. I’m no lawyer but if his comments about women and particularly Japanese women are not both an incitement to violence and racist, there is something wrong with the law.
Helen Tedcastle makes the argument against banning much better than I. What I would ask, is would you prevent Hip Hop artists who sing lyrics that promote violent misogyny from entering the country too?
“No. For the simple reason that they are OUR responsibility.”
They have chosen to renounce their citizenship and made their choice. You will no doubt have noticed that a ritual burning of passports is an important rite of passage into the caliphate. IS doesn’t believe in the nation state, they regard concepts such as citizenship as an affront to Allah’s will. You do know this, right?
The “British” citizen who claimed to have decapitated Peter Kassig (it wasn’t actually shown thankfully) threatened “the Islamic State will slaughter your people in your streets.”
He was talking about you and me Alex. Why would you want him living next door to you? And even if you do want him too, (that is the logic of your position obviously)what kind of right allows you and your party to determine policy so he can come and live next door to me?
If you want to know why you are going to get crushed in Rochester take a look at policies such as these. They are so viscerally unpopular you have no idea. I realise you know best and therefore don’t care but stuff like this where you parade your liberal conscience and put our lives at risk is destroying you as an electoral force. And rightly so.
To, not too.
Coming back to Caron’s piece, and your comment to me, they really show the dead end that liberalism has got itself stuck down.
Some guy is clever enough to persuade suckers to pay $3,000 to attend his courses in the hope they will learn to pick up babes, and he is such a threat to all we hold dear that his human right to travel to earn a living is to be denied him.
IS terrorists, who have crucified christians, and raped and sold women into slavery are welcomed into the country with open arms. No threat to all we hold dear at all.
Get a sense of perspective, liberals. Focus on what is truly evil.
From what I have read Blanc is advocating acts that are criminal offences, however “jokingly”. Its normal practise for Countries to exclude people who they have good reason to suspect may commit offences; I cant see anything Illiberal or contraversial about doing that.
@Caron Lindsay
“there is filmed evidence of him assaulting women.”
Can anyone provide a link to such evidence? I don’t disbelieve you, but an unpleasant fifteen minutes googling some of this man’s “work” turned up none of these “choking” videos that people are referring to. Supposedly they are on his Twitter page but that appears to be private.
He is clearly a deeply odious man, but I’m with those who view banning him as illiberal. In fact I’m getting quite alarmed by the enthusiasm with which some liberals want to ban things these days.
As a wishy-washy liberal-inclined criminal defence lawyer I see no merit whatsoever in banning this chump ?! How on earth can such a move be legally justified ?
I f he wants – let him visit, perhaps he might learn some good manners and how to behave in a more grown-up way ?!
Real knee-jerk reactionary comments by some on this thread, other comments show rather more thought and insight in to the psychology of this situation – most of those I NOTE from the wiser sex ie the female contributors !!
“most of those I NOTE from the wiser sex ie the female contributors”
— gallantry is still sexism, and belittling to both sexes. Yes, really.
As it happens, I agree that Helen Tedcastle and Jayne Mansfield have made the most intelligent and considered contributions to the debate here*. But that’s nothing to do with their sex.
*(not that none of the others were intelligent, but some weren’t and I didn’t agree with even the sensible arguments for banning)