Political correctness is the worst kind of censorship, Ctd

On BBC Radio 4, Woman's Hour of March 26 2014, Julie Bindel, journalist and founder of Justice for Women, said:

"White liberals are terrified of being called Islamophobic or racist... [and they] capitulate to the religious patriarchs rather than stand with secular feminists. Those Muslim born feminists, Southall Black Sisters is one organisation that refuses to capitulate to religious patriarchy, but still fights racism and cultural imperialism; and that's the kind of feminism that I stand with."

More:

"I refuse to be one of those white liberals who ends up on the side of the religious patriarchs... I stand by my sisters in the global feminist movement."

Sara Khan, director of Muslim Human Rights organisation, Inspire, said of feminists on the right:

Political correctness is the worst form of censorship, Ctd

For too long a climate of fear has installed a culture of passivity and submission and obedience among the moderate and the middle classes in Northern Ireland. It is almost universally accepted that any moderate who speaks out will do so under pain of recrimination, likely intimidation and possible physical attack. 

However when any person, group or entity wields power, there must be a check and constraints, a counter-factual, opposition and adversary. Power must be held accountable whoever wields it. All power should be mediated. 

But all we have seen is the promiscuous, indiscriminate and wilful abuse of power. Year after year. After year. After year. 

Political correctness is the worst kind of censorship, Ctd

We live in a post-Fatwa, post-Danish-cartoon age. A world where we have freedom of, but no freedom from, religion. A world where pluralism is exploited in the use against that very concept. Where liberals fail to stand up for and defend the principles they purport to live by.

Political correctness is the worst form of censorship, Ctd

Vivia Chen wrote about Amy Chua (@AmyChua), the 'Tiger Mom', in Time Magazine here:

"What's outrageous about some of the criticism against [Amy] Chua is that it essentially censors discussions that might touch a nerve. Labeling the speaker or the topic as exclusionary or racist is a quick way to undermine the legitimacy of the whole conversation. 

All of this speaks volumes about how uncomfortable we are about talking about race, ethnicity, and success in America. And that this discussion is now being propelled by the Tiger Mom makes a lot of people nervous." 

Elsewhere Douglas Murray (@douglaskmurray) noted the false spin in The Times where we were told that an expanding Muslim population in Britain is feeling British. Reassuring for the natives. However, what the story didn't tell was that how the growing young Muslim population has led to a commensurate rise is 'pubs, hospitals, houses and public buildings' being turned into 'Muslim private schools, madrassas, mosques and a Sharia court to satisfy rising demand from families.'

But we can't say anything. As Douglas Murray said:

"And since expressing any worries about the fact is undoubtedly terribly bigoted and nasty, we’ll all just have to nod our heads, keep our fingers crossed, mouth the same platitudes and all put our collective future in the hopes of Sheikh Mogra."

Previous post in the series here and here. My post on civil intolerance here. Post on journalistic self-censorship and prior restraint here. My blog post for Loyalists Against Democracy on self-censorship and the silenced majority, here.

Political correctness is the worst kind of censorship, Ctd

"Labeling a speaker as exclusionary or racist is a quick way to undermine the legitimacy of the whole conversation." http://t.co/BBV0p7XqSf
— Amy Chua (@amychua) February 2, 2014

Political correctness and fear of offending has become a horrendous societal tick. As Newton Emerson said: "Ever since the Good Friday Agreement, [snobbery] seems to be the only crime you can commit in Northern Ireland." Alex Massie spoke in equal terms here; that being offensive has become "the greatest sin imaginable." By these standards Jenni Russell (@jennirsl) has been waving her offence all around the place, breaking with the PC orthodoxy and causing a whole load of trouble. Why? For speaking facts. She has written here and here. And here in particular:

"Middle-class children are having important character traits instilled in them at home, while poorer children are not. A nursery-age child needs to have many qualities already in place when they get to school if they are to succeed. He or she needs confidence; the belief that if they try something it will work. That is the first gulf between the two groups. By the time they start school, research shows that a middle-class child will have heard six times as many words of encouragement as reprimands. A working-class child will have heard only twice as many, while a child on welfare will have been criticised twice for every word of praise."

Amy Chua, The Tiger Mother is like the America version of Jenni Russell. Harvard Professor Amy Chua and her husband have written a book 'The Triple Package'. It's got them called "racist" and "despicable". Any Chua would say she's only presenting facts, speaking plain English. Vivia Chen said in Time Magazine:

@DavidAllenGreen - Let's ban the banning of things

David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) (@JackofKent) wrote of the political addiction to prhibition and the impulse to ban things in The New Statesman here:

"Those calling for something to be "banned" should... ask two simple questions. First, what will the prohibition do in respect of the undesired behaviour? And second, what other consequences may flow from the prohibition? Good answers to both these questions will inform the political choice as to whether such a ban should be implemented and, if so, how. We may even get better laws as a consequence; we could even get prohibitions that actually work and are proportionate. 

The call for something to be "banned" should be the start of a mature and constructive political debate, and not the end of one. Perhaps the time has come to ban just banning things."

In full here.

@Kenanmalik "on the importance of the right to offend"

Kenan Malik (@kenanmalik) is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, including a presenter of BBC Radio 4's Analysis. His last book From Fatwa to Jihad was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. He recently wrote a piece on his blog, 'On the importance of the right to offend.' He said:

"There is something truly bizarre (and yet in keeping with the zeitgeist of our age) that someone should become the focus of death threats and an international campaign of vilification for suggesting that an inoffensive cartoon was, well, inoffensive. 

From the Rushdie affair to the controversy over the Danish cartoons, from the forcing offstage of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti to the attempt this week by members of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party to shut down the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s production of The Bible: The Complete Word Of God (a decision thankfully later reversed),  reactionaries have often used campaigns against ‘offence’ as a political weapon with which to harass opponents and as a means of bolstering their community support. The anti-Nawaz campaign is no different. Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Ansar both have had public spats with Nawaz, and both are cynically exploiting the claim of ‘offensiveness’ to reclaim political kudos."

Ed Moloney - Censorship extended the Troubles by up to a decade

The Irish journalist Ed Moloney wrote in the Nieman Reports of Hardvard University here. He started with a brief historical sweep:

"Censorship has a long if not very honorable place in Irish history. The British imposed press controls during the 1919-21 war of independence, as did the pro-Treaty side in the subsequent Irish civil war. Newspapers were forbidden, for instance, to use words like “guerilla” to describe opponents of the new Irish government. Censorship lived on after the early Troubles. In the south of Ireland it took a less political and more religious form. The state censor was allowed to ban books and films on moral grounds, i.e. when they offended Catholic doctrine or values. 

In Northern Ireland censorship remained entirely political. In the 1920’s the pro-British Unionist government passed the Special Powers Act, a draconian piece of legislation which gave the police the authority to ban any dubious expression of political thinking and to imprison those responsible.

Douglas Murray - Self-censorship is the worst form of censorship

Douglas Murray wrote in The Sepctator Magazine in 2011 here:

"Self-censorship is the most invidious and successful type of censorship – not just because it is self-reinforcing but because once it is people invent reasons to cover for themselves. So the worst thing that any British journal can imagine doing today is to run a cartoon of Muhammad. Not because – as they all say in public – it is insensitive, or provocative or offensive. These are all names and things that journalists rejoice in getting called. It is simply and solely (as they sometimes admit in private) because they know that they will be at some degree of risk if they do."

Nick Cohen wrote that censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists here: 

"Censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists."

Dominic Cooke said something similar in 2008 in the same magazine here:

"Many liberals, out of a fear of appearing racist, and with shared sympathy for many of the political causes that also motivate those with a fundamentalist agenda turn a blind eye to such intolerance." 

Wilbur Smith is known for saying: "Quite frankly, I think political correctness is the worst form of censorship." Al WeiWei has said also: "Censorship is saying: 'Im the who says the last sentence. Whatever you say, the conclusion is mine."

A student culture of censorship

I've already written before about Northern Ireland and Ireland's historical (here, here, here, here, and here) and modern impulse (here, here, here and here) to censor. I've also posted here about the need for Britain to enact speech laws like those allowed under the First Amendent in the United States. The editor of The Northern Slant Connor Daly (@cdaly29) wrote here about a "culture of censorship" among student bodies. A trend he called dangerous. He said:

"Student unions have a proud history of welcoming forward thinkers and instigating progressive movements. A culture of censorship, however, is neither forward thinking nor progressive. Rather than advise and educate members, this culture demands that others adhere to the standards and activities that certain groups consider appropriate. It misses the wider point; making scapegoats through piecemeal tactics rather than constructively tackling issues head on. 

When attitudes and actions are offensive it is important to right these wrongs, to encourage a new culture of tolerance, or be it zero tolerance. At the same time it is crucial to send out the right message; a reassurance and willingness to change things for the better, not to ban things with no real end game in sight. Defining ourselves by what we are against and sweeping controversial events or otherwise under the carpet is unproductive. Such tactics may raise awareness, but the issues will persist as will this fondness for censorship."

The editor of The Belfast Telegraph Mike Gilson, who slapped down proposals to regulate the press here, gave his take on the ban here:

"No-one can defend its lyrics which could be interpreted as promoting a rape culture. But it is not the only song, book or magazine which could be viewed in that light. 

Bans smack of totalitarianism. Once anyone sets off down that road it can be difficult to stop and the people who were once praised for acting with the best of intentions would then stand accused of limiting free speech. The lines, suddenly, become very blurred indeed."

Nick Cohen - Censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists

Nick Cohen wrote in The Spectator here:

"Censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists."

He continued: "The first step to freeing yourself from oppressive power is to find the courage to admit that you are afraid. The more people confess to being afraid, the less reason there is to fear and the easier it is to isolate repressive forces."

People in Northern Ireland have long been bullied, menaced, threatened, terrified and intimidated by hostile, hysterical and sinister gangs and sweaty politicians, and by extension have opted-out and silenced themselves from the process. This needs to end.

Press Regulation - Prior restraint and self-censorship

The problem with the libel and speech/press-control laws is not necessarily the active litigating against journalists and bloggers but the fear of litigation. A journalist or citizen-blogger may want to pursue a line of inquiry but exercise prior restraint and self-censorship against the self in the fear that they themselves could be pursued for legal damages. The Sunday Times editorial of November 2013 said of this:

"When a reporter drops a particular line of inquiry, or decides not to risk writing about certain establishment figures, press freedom shrinks - and with it what the public is allowed to know." 

The editorial continued: "It is the job of the press to keep the politicians honest. It is not the job if politicians to decide what the press can print."

The Wall Street Journal - The UK's Doublespeak on Internet Freedoms

Ben Rooney in the Wall Street Journal here, called up the UK for government for its contradictory remarks on Internet freedoms. Ben Rooney made a first observation: 

"Here are two conflicting opinions about Internet censorship. Can you guess which government said which? You can chose from the following: China, the U.S., and the U.K. First: Democratic governments must resist the calls to censor a wide range of content just because they or others find it offensive or objectionable. Second: Put simply, there needs to be a list of terms—a blacklist—which offer up no direct search returns.

He then answered his rhetorical question: 

"It is a trick question. The U.K. government said both. The first was by Foreign Secretary William Hague, speaking at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace in October 2012. The second was by Prime Minister David Cameron in July 2013 at a U.K. children’s charity event."