PUSHBACK ON EXPULSION FOR HAVING AN OPINION
It is frightening that a judge in the UK could dismiss a woman’s claim against losing her job because of her views and go on to state that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Maya Forstater had been sacked by the Centre for Global Development essentially because she professed that the differences between the sexes are real, and because of her opinion on trans-gender rights. Fortunately (as reported in the Times of 15 may) The Equality and Human Rights Commission, charged with protecting equality, intervened to support her appeal against the judge’s decision on the basis of law which protects her right to freedom of belief. The Chair of the EHRC, Lady Falkner, is concerned that abuse is making it difficult for people to exercise their fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and belief. That the EHRC will be proactive to protect such rights is welcome. In times past, differences of opinion were to be encouraged and debated, not demonised. Is the UK public and media slowly turning to resist the suppression of disagreement and to call out those who would silence dissent?
On the same page of that Times edition, Lisa Keogh, a student at Abertay University, Dundee, was reported to be facing disciplinary action which could include expulsion: her crime was “offensive and discriminatory” comments, such as that women were born with female genitals, and that men were biologically stronger than women physically. Apparently, her objection to the statement “all men are rapists” is an attack on women which justifies investigation. Again fortunately, Joanna Cherry QC, an SNP MP, is supporting Linda Keogh, describing the situation as “farcical”. It is not only farcical, but that those in authority in any institution, especially a university, could entertain the idea of punishing an individual for expressing an opinion of this kind, which might well be the view of a majority of the UK public, illustrates the severity of the threat undermining British education and the essential democratic quality of freedom of debate. As far as universities are concerned, whether the UKGOV new legislation to prevent “cancellation” of people and the suppression of opinion in higher education is necessary or good legislation can be debated and should be: in fact that debate in itself may be a sign of the embryonic restoration of common sense discussion and tolerance which extremist illiberals would seek to bury.
Two women, Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman, had been disinvited to speak at Essex University some 18 months ago, accused of being transphobic. It was reported in the Times on 22 May that an independent enquiry led by a barrister had found the University guilty of failing to uphold free speech, and the University has apologised, having recognised its error and the need not to succumb to the threatening behaviour which was shown towards Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman. This is perhaps encouraging.
THE ARTS NEED PROTECTION
The work of Auguste Rodin is being exhibited at the Tate Modern. The Daily Telegraph of 12 May observes the Tate’s commentary accompanying the work which apologises for or even censors Rodin because, for women of today, he may not be good relationship material; in particular because his work failed to recognise the individualism of his female subjects and he regarded men and women as unequal. Also, further commentary describes the “whiteness” of his work, reflecting a tradition that “privileged the allegedly superior artistic achievements of Europe, often to the detriment of other cultures”. Fundamentally he is portrayed perhaps as a “bad” man, at least by today’s standards, but of course he did not live in today’s world. Is a modern-day judgement the right way to contextualise his work? The commentary risks distracting from the art. The newspaper’s headline read “Flawed Rodin falls victim to the woke thinkers”. The curators of art must perhaps beware falling into an unbalanced trap to satisfy the obsessions of the loud minorities today.
Even the works of William Shakespeare are now under threat as The Globe Theatre plans “anti-racist Shakespeare “seminars with a view to decolonialising Shakespeare. Certain academics attack the whiteness of his works, and the multiple uses of the word “fair” (over 800 times it seems) and the language of dark and light denoting racialising elements. A Daily Telegraph article of 22 May gives some detail. Dominic Cavendish, in commenting, remarks “We must resist these facile assaults on one of our greatest playwrights”. Is it not better to debate these different views, rather than demonise lines of a play and perhaps the author himself with interpretations seen through the single lens of finding racism in every facet of life?
HISTORY NEEDS PROTECTION
There are those who wish to rewrite British history and so diminish the UK as a whole: it manifests itself in the concentration on the evil of historic slavery and the alleged evil that was the British Empire, seeking to tear down monuments which may have a connection with these evils, and cancelling or deploring famous figures and even their successors. Would it not be so much better to recognise both the bad and the good in history, facing up to facts and contextualising accurately facts and the role of individuals. To shroud the British Empire and centuries of history in guilt and disgrace is to mislead and imbalance. Yet that is what certain extreme movements seek to do.
In most countries and nations, and tribes, heritage is important to the population, as is developed culture. To have pride in one’s tribe is normal and necessary, while being wary of blindness to unpleasant realities – that every individual and generation has behaviours not to celebrate but to regret. History and culture create the glue which creates social stability, and views of and lessons from history will be dynamic and culture will also change; politicians and others have a responsibility to ensure the glue does not melt but recognising that it may need refreshing and nurturing to move in step with the general public’s continually evolving attitudes. Squaring for example the fact of the evil of slavery operated by British colonialists and tradesmen with the British leadership in its abolition is a current day challenge. Enter the Heritage Advisory Board, whose members have a range of backgrounds, such as Trevor Philips, Samir Shah, and the historian, Robert Tombs, committed to the preservation of heritage in a way which maintains balance and accuracy and completeness. The new “Retain and Explain” approach is to be backed by legislation to displace the “Delete and Destroy” of other persuasions and protect historic monuments while requiring a true context to surround them.
Perhaps a good example is the ongoing saga of the demands of the “Rhodes Must Fall” lobby requiring the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, Oxford. The college had decided to remove it in the face of pressure groups who essentially found Rhodes guilty of genocide in Africa. An independent commission had backed the removal. But in the light of the coming requirement to retain and explain, the college reversed its decision. The Times of 21 May, addressing the statue saga, included an article by Nigel Biggar, regius professor of moral and pastoral theology of Oxford University, about Cecil Rhodes: he concluded that “Not only was Rhodes innocent of genocide, he repented of the oppression, sought to repair the damage and was honoured by his former victims. That sounds like a story worthy of celebration. Worthy even of a statue.” He may or may not be right. It seems clear that Cecil Rhodes was a total imperialist convinced of British superiority, a racist. But clearly interpretations and judgements about history vary. Seeking to destroy it is a mistake, while seeking to allow representation of differing approaches will surely edify.
IS THE PENDULUM SWINGING IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION?
The futility of siding with identity politics at the expense of the needs and aspirations of the general public has been well exposed by Tony Blair in his recent essay “Without total change Labour will die”. In its comments on the recent election results, Sherbhert averred to the need for a strong opposition in politics which for now Labour fails to provide, given its apparent disconnect with the public. It seems stuck in the long-outdated idea of the worker oppressed by the rich and abusive factory owner. Tony Blair highlighted the Labour approach to culture, gender, race and identity as voter-repellent. He observes that the public do not like the flag, country and history to be disrespected. That is to denigrate the tribe. The British public do not like racism, sexism, unfairness, but they tolerate differences in general, want law and order and a fair chance for them and their children to succeed. Equally they are not ultra-radical on such issues but appreciate common sense. Tony Blair believes that sensible progressives (however one defines that?) understand centrism and the lack of desire for extremism in general, but they are drowned out by ultra-radicals, or they are afraid of them and stay quiet as a result. As he says, they need to speak out.
As illustrated by the stories in this article, and, for example, proposals to protect free speech in education, maybe there is a wider debate underway which could restore a balance and encourage more discussion, with respectfulness for opposing opinion. Will the media allow that and embrace the popular demand for less extremism? The pendulum could be swinging that way, but it needs help from the silent majority who care for the qualities of British society.
