People who are woke and liberal should perhaps be the greatest defenders of freedom of speech, which is under attack from those who want to cancel ideas, debate and even individuals.
“Woke” is, according to google, a word of African American origin conveying awareness of issues relating to social justice and especially racial justice, and apparently it was first so used by a soul singer Erykah Badu. It is a description which a lot of British people, maybe most, would be happy to have applied to themselves, whatever their age, colour or creed.
Without provoking a philosophical debate about what is a “liberal” person, generally speaking the primary characteristic is a value that a person should be free to do as they wish, as long as they do not significantly impinge on another person’s freedom or otherwise adversely impact them, which is, of course, a significant restraint. Again, a lot of British people, maybe most, would be happy to have that description applied to them.
For both woke and liberal people (and perhaps for most people in democratic countries), freedom of speech underpins their values, as without it they would be unable to express their principles without penalty. It seems too that people who are both woke and liberal can be found in all the mainstream political parties of the UK. Maybe they are characteristics which should result in common ground but so often people do not seem to acknowledge that.
WORDS AND EVEN PRONOUNS MATTER – OR DO THEY?
Reports of 20 July in the press describe the new BBC advice to staff to include their preferred pronouns for themselves in their email signatures. Apparently trans and non-binary (thought to mean not wanting to be defined by a particular gender) people have preferred pronouns to describe themselves, and so if all staff at the BBC express their preference, this may be more inclusive. Inclusion is good. It would perhaps be a shame if this pronoun protocol were to become mandatory or if a person who chooses not to include a preference were to be criticised. Is such micromanagement perhaps patronising and a little precious? Is this making wokeness appear shallow as well as overbearing on individual choices?
In the same vein, recently the New York Times (NYT) announced that they would always capitalise the “b” in black when referring to black people and cultures of African origin. It is apparently a gesture of recognition of the importance of the George Floyd protests, and part of respectfulness for a category of people covered in the NYT. Yet no other colour when applied to humans gets a capital first letter. Are black humans more elevated and important than brown, or even white? Of course, it is important to respect black people, but does capitalising the B really reflect an awareness of an issue or trivialise it?
An article by Lionel Shriver in the Daily Telegraph of 12 July is headlined “Fiddling around with linguistics does nothing to eradicate racism”. It decries renaming and new acronyms to deal with woke issues, as if the use of invented terms proves the writer’s wokeness on the issue concerned. She highlights the term “BAME”, which has become common parlance during the time of Covid. But for what? Non-Whiteness? It makes no sense and adds to disorder to lump together black people, Asia people and ethnic minorities as if they are affected similarly by issues. They may be but they were not by Covid-19. Apparently, the term was invented by the Socialist Working Party, and seems helpful to nobody. Black Lives Matter is becoming BLM. Perhaps these acronyms risk obscuring or even trivialising the issues they purport to champion?
CANCELLING PEOPLE AND DEBATE
The cancellation of people is a concept enabled largely by Twitter, and it is a pernicious concept for freedom of speech. The demise of the NYT as a quality newspaper was confirmed, and free speech was resoundingly undermined, when Bari Weiss felt compelled to resign from the NYT: her complaint was the intolerance of the culture pervading the newspaper’s people. She disagreed with many of her colleagues and failed to follow the party line. Bullied for not sharing their views, she was cancelled. J.K.Rowling was cancelled for her idea that woman is the right term for biological women, rather than terms like those who menstruate. Young actors who owe their careers and wealth to her talent called her out for being anti-trans as did others, when she is clearly nothing of the sort, though she champions women’s rights. So, she was cancelled all because of the unacceptability of her language to those who wish their wokeness to be in the spotlight. And then Gilian Philip lost her job at Harpers for defending her. Janice Turner wrote in the Times on 11 July “Almost every day I hear from Guardian journalists, principled, progressive writers, who are terrified of uttering what now counts as WrongSpeak”. Her headline is “The woke left is the new Ministry of Truth”.
At the NYT, the opinion editor, James Bennet, was also forced to resign after he commissioned an article by a Republican Senator, Tom Cotton, it was reported. His sin was that Tom Cotton wrote a provocative view that Black Lives Matter protests had got out of control and order needed to be restored. So again, freedom of speech is cancelled at the NYT.
Cancellation is not just about twitter generated aggression against anybody who fails to share a woke view whether about racism, or sexuality or other diversity or social issue made into a minority cause, nor just about causing loss of livelihood for honest people. It is about destructive censorship and threatening the foundation of liberal and democratic societies. Following the Russia report this week, and the disinformation tactics of China and Russia to destabilise Western countries, there is always the concern that these nations’ leaders are encouraging this destabilisation.
DEATH OF COMEDY
Comedy is being censored by the fear of reprisal by minority obsessed small groups who tolerate only a single viewpoint, which they will not allow to be offended. A Times article of 10 July was headlined “Gervais: risky comedy is dead: Fact.” In it, Ricky Gervais asserts that the comedy series, The Office, could not be made in today’s era of “outrage mobs”. Its humour was ironic, it laughed at bigots. As did “Till Death Us Do Part” in the 70s, which mocked the racist bigots, epitomised by Alf Garnett, demonstrating the idiocy of racist behaviour. That could probably not be made or shown today. The basis of most humour is to laugh at the most ludicrous of human behaviours. Of course, the precious might be offended. People’s idiosyncrasies are the greatest source of humour, and human capacity to laugh at itself is essential to weed out pomposity and self-importance. A significant worry is that the potentially best comedies today will never be made because writers and broadcasters become too afraid of potential backlash; and then they self-censor, so furthering the destruction of freedom of speech without the world even knowing.
WILL TRUE LIBERALS SPEAK UP FOR FREEDOM?
“The sad capitulation of The New York Times is part of a stifling culture of woke conformity” is a headline for an article by Joanna Williams in the Times of 16 July. The NYT was once a beacon for diverse views: no more it seems unless it wakes up to its conformity with censorship by Twitter.
There is nevertheless hope. 153 authors wrote an open letter to U.S. magazine Harper’s defending “robust and caustic debate”. They decry the “vogue for public shaming and ostracism” apparently making the case for free expression. The statue of George Orwell outside the BBC bears the inscription “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. Is it too much to hope that the BBC itself could become a cheerleader for freedom of speech calling out censorship by over-zealous obsessives who really bring wokeness into disrepute?
It is however common today to hear people who hold themselves out to be liberal, condemning, often with some force, voices which question the behaviour of those who espouse a minority cause, or who decry the voices of dissent which may give offence to someone or group of someones. Sometimes, words which offend say more about the speaker than the offended. Equally they may be saying a truth or part truth which people prefer not to hear. True liberals, who will certainly be woke in a positive sense, perhaps will always allow the voice of dissent to be heard, and open debate to be published with respectfulness, whatever the subject, leaving the law in a democratic world to deal with the most dangerous of rabble rousers inciting hatred. Unless liberals do that, the foundation of liberalism, free speech, will be further eroded with potentially dire consequences.
