ABBOTT, BIGOTRY AND ILLIBERALS
The ex Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, has been appointed by the UK Government (UKGOV) as one of 9 unpaid official advisers to the revived board of trade, which comprises a reasonably diverse group. His relevant experience is as a leader getting trade deals over the line with nations such as China and is an ardent advocate of world free trade. He is also passionate about the greatness of the UK, perhaps more so than many native Britons. However , when the appointment was under consideration and after it was made, it elicited an outraged response from a number of people, saying that he is totally unfit for the job.
The reasons given are that he is alleged to be a “misogynist” and a “homophobe”, as he was so branded by Nicola Sturgeon, as well as being a climate change sceptic. Caroline Noakes, the Tory Chairperson of the Women and Equalities select committee is reported to have said “I just don’t think this is a man who should be anywhere near the board of trade”.
Tony Abbott is evidently outspoken and controversial, and disliked by many, perhaps justifiably. Perhaps he enjoys being provocative. He has caused offence to various groups of people whose views he does not share. From what he is reported to have said about homosexuality such as “being a bit threatened by it, as so many people do. It’s a fact of life”, he may well be homophobic. His views on the roles of women are more in line with the nineteen fifties approach, or Victorian, certainly old-fashioned, than the views of many Western people today, but by no means all. A misogynist is a despiser of women or a person very prejudiced against women, which sounds like a sensationalist description as regards Tony Abbott. But that is not the point.
Many people who regard themselves as liberal clearly oppose his views and, as he does not espouse their opinions on the 3 topics identified, they suggest he should be barred from being an adviser to UKGOV. This is a very slippery slope and , if supported, needs to be consistently applied. Should it be the case that, before a person can be appointed to an advisory position to UKGOV, they must conform with particular opinions on sexuality, women and climate change? What else should be on the checklist to be suitable? If a person has non-conforming opinions, that is they are not thinking the right thoughts, then should they be cancelled and barred? Any true liberal would allow a person freedom of thought and expression, even if some may be offended. Part of being a liberal- a lover of freedom- is to accept contra views. If Tony Abbott is alleged to be breaking UK law, that would be different. But he is not.
The intolerant moralisers, passing judgement on those they dislike, and who cannot accept the validity of a view honestly held, and who wish to cancel such people out, are closer perhaps to fascists and extreme communists, requiring conformity to their attitudes, and if that is not forthcoming the person should not be tolerated.
This matters. For example, generally speaking Islam and so many a Muslim disapprove of homosexuality, as do many Asian people. Similarly, Islam and many a Muslim, and many an Asian , have very different views about the roles of men and women, perhaps closer to those of Tony Abbott than his critics. Many Christians in the world likewise differ on these subjects and may be closer to his opinions than his critics’. Would all those so called liberals, who call him a bigot and would bar him, also level the same accusations at all these other groups? Would all these wrong thinking people be barred from taking an advisory job such as Tony Abbott’s?
Tony Abbott may or may not be suitable and a valuable addition to the advisory group. He should not however be ruled out perhaps just because his views belong more in the 1950s than modern day Britain. It is also not clear that the illiberal liberals who shout so loud represent UK society as a whole in their judgemental approach? Perhaps, most Britons tolerate opinions they do not agree with? Of course, it is not just the voices of people who may be generally disliked which the illiberals seek to supress. The generally respected J.K.Rowling has suffered a similar fate for voicing her views. See Sherbhert https://sherbhert.com/wokeness-liberals-and-protecting-freedom-of-speech/
Freedom of thought and speech, even though offence may result, are foundations of UK society. It is sad that many of those who wish to bar Tony Abbott and J.K. Rowling see political correctness and identity politics as more important.
EXTINGUISHING FREE PRESS
Extinction Rebellion (ER) has been quiet during the pandemic in the UK, until the night of 6 September when people in the name of ER, supposedly protesters against climate change, blockaded certain printing presses around the UK: they prevented distribution of Saturday newspapers – the Sun, Daily Mail, The Times and Daily Telegraph. ER explained their illegal behaviour as designed to disrupt and expose a failure by the papers to adequately report on the climate emergency; they said “Our free press, society and democracy is under attack…”They cited that a majority of the media is controlled by 5 people “with powerful vested interests and deep connections to fossil fuel industries. We need a free press but we do not have it. They (UKGOV leaders) have failed us”.
ER’s actions themselves were condemned by the Conservative UKGOV and Labour party alike as an attack on press freedom (although a Labour MP, Dawn Butler, is reported to have tweeted “Excellent work” about ER’s actions). The blockade was an offence to free speech.
A major concern is that ER is being infiltrated by hard left activists whose agenda is far from focussed on climate change. The Sunday Times of 6 September reported that Rupert Read, ER spokesperson, “was forced to warn that “parasitical organisations” such as the Trotskyist Socialist Workers’ Party were seeking to “use” the movement to promote socialism and anti-capitalist protest.”
The right to protest peacefully remains an important feature of UK’s free society, circumscribed for now by CV restrictions. Where ER’s actions interfere with the freedoms of others, such as the blockade, ER makes a major error. The genuine sentiments of ER followers are largely well respected. Yet they risk destroying the goodwill towards them and reduce their own influence through behaviours such as those on the blockade. Fortunately the UK is committed to a path of emissions reduction which leads the world in many respects, and the ER voice is less important in the UK than it may be in less committed regions of the world.
