Live? Laugh? Love?

It’s been a while, but I’ve had some more thoughts that might be worth writing down. There are of course greater things going on in the world that I could be discussing right now, but I lack the words or the perspective to do them justice. My current thoughts are in relation to the old topic of free speech, which I’ve discussed multiple times before, but more specifically about laughter, humour, offense and happiness.

The first thing to say, of course, is that humour is incredibly subjective; more so perhaps than any other area of expression. What one person finds funny, another finds utterly boring, or perhaps even offensive. Just within one individual, what they might find amusing in one mood is distinctly unfunny in another.

That caveat aside, I think there are some things worth saying. This is all brought about by the news stories in the last couple of weeks about former actor and failed politician Laurence Fox. While being interviewed on GB News, he made some extremely misogynistic remarks about a female journalist, and was roundly criticised from all sides.

He has, perhaps predictably, dug his feet in, complaining about his treatment and the imfringement of his free speech, and blamed the too-easily-offended and the world at large. One of the things he said though, struck me as revealing.

"I realise that the new woke world is low and laughter and high on offence..."

What this tells me is that Mr. Fox has failed to understand something; he has failed to understand that it is possible to laugh without laughing at someone. It is possible to tell a joke that doesn't have someone else as the butt of it. It is in fact possible to be happy without knowing that someone else is miserable, and possible to experience joy without making someone else sad.

Mr. Fox's words brought to mind a couple of lines from a poem I read years ago (and which a bit of Googling has informed me was written by Brian Jacques of ‘Redwall’ fame):

Bullies never smile, they sneer.

Bullies never laugh. They jeer.

In the case of Fox and the many people like him, they seem very apt. However, if anyone ever dares tell them that they are bullies they (someone ironically) become very offended and bewail modern peoples' lack of good humour.

There is this persistent idea that there is something humourless, po-faced and deeply un-fun about modern discourse. Individuals like Fox and certain tabloid newspapers complain of ‘politically correct kill-joys’ or ‘woke snowflakes’, the ‘professionally offended’ who can’t bear to hear anyone say anything mean about anyone without clutching their pearls and 'cancelling' people left and right (but mostly right).

I have said before that I believe nobody has the right not to be offended, but that everybody has the responsibility not to offend, or at least not without very good cause. Offense can be an important tool for shocking us out of our apathy, but that’s very different to being the butt of a mocking joke. Laughter is a blessing, but there is such a thing as cruel laughter, and cruelty is always to be opposed.

Sometimes one hears people complain that ‘you can’t joke about anything anymore’. This is patently untrue, but the idea that people are more humourless or more easily offended is, I think, incorrect.

Something has indeed changed, but it’s not that people are less inclined to laughter and more inclined to offense. People have always been offended, they’ve always been hurt, they’ve always felt insulted and belittled. What has changed is that they now have the confidence to say so. We have this idea that people ought to be kind to each other, and when they’re not, we express our disapproval through our words and our wallets.

It is, of course, possible to laugh at someone in a way that isn’t mean-spirited. One can (and should) laugh at oneself, and you can invite others to laugh with you. But that’s rather the point. You can join in the laughter when someone laughs at themselves, and do it in a way that is good-natured and kind. We can find humour in each other’s flaws and foibles without mocking or belittling them or the person themselves.

Humour is subjective, but if you can’t laugh without laughing at someone else, if your happiness is predicated on making others miserable to make yourself feel good, then you’re a poor excuse for a human being. I can only hope that one day the jeering is entirely drowned out by the warm laughter of those who take delight and joy in each other’s differences, not use them as an excuse for cruelty and mockery. The quality of the laughter will be better, and because we are all laughing together, there will be so much more of it to enjoy.

On an Acultural Society

So, yesterday there was a story on the BBC about how the Church of England was angry because a major cinema chain refused to show an advert for prayer.  They claimed that it was an assault on free speech and another example of Christianity being forced out of the public sphere.

I do not precisely agree with them, but I do think that it’s symptomatic of a slightly different problem.  The cinema chain in question has made it clear that this is not a question of discriminating against Christianity; they have a firm rule against airing any political or religious adverts of any persuasion at all.  Well, fair enough then.  That’s their rule, and as long as they continue to apply it equally, then I don’t really feel that there is any space to argue.

Instead, I consider it another example of what I refer to as aculturalism.  We are informed that we live in a multicultural society, and there are those that approve of this, and those that do not.  However, it seems that efforts are continually being made to ensure that we live in a society without cultures at all, a grey, claggy homogenous mass of human porridge, one spoonful indistinguishable from any other.  Partly it’s our own fault, partly I feel that it’s being forced upon us, and has been for some time.

Surely in a multicultural society, a cinema chain could happily show adverts for Christianity and Islam and Hinduism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats and the Buckets for Shoes Party, and if we weren’t interested in those things, we’d ignore them, as I tend to do for adverts for most things.

I’ve said that it’s partly our own fault, because people seem incapable of ignoring them.  Either we apply ourselves to taking offense or leap upon our charger and go to battle ‘because other people might be offended’, or we start hurling abuse and making ourselves offensive because we happen not to like what’s being advertised.  For proof of this in action, I refer you to the comments section of the story linked, or indeed the ‘Prayer Wall’ of the website being advertised, both of which have swiftly filled up with vitriol from malicious atheists, furious that religion has dared to raise its head above the parapet and bring itself to their attention.

We obviously cannot be trusted to experience difference without fighting and becoming offensive and spiteful, and so it is withheld from us.

However, there is also a deliberate policy of aculturalism.  As the old adage goes, ‘Don’t attribute anything to malice that can just as easily be attributed to incompetence’, or in this case, laziness.  After all, it would be a terrible nuisance having to make sure that no on group was given more advertising time than another, and a cinema is a commercial concern, not a public education centre. 

On the other hand, the same trend has been seen elsewhere.  Some years ago, there was a story about how a prison was ending Christian classes for prisoners, because there was no equivalent for other religions.  The idea of calling other religious leaders in to run classes presumably sounded like far too much work, and much harder than just cancelling the Christian one, so that’s what they did.

Hospitals stopped stocking Bibles in rooms in case they caused offense.  The idea of inviting other groups (religious and secular) to place their own literature was obviously too hard.  Admittedly in this case, you don’t want wards overflowing with books and tracts, but surely each group could be restricted to a single pamphlet?

In every case, the path of least resistance has been followed, and so gradually, rather than a multicultural society, we are getting a society of the bland, of the lukewarm, of the absence of anything rather than the presence of everything, of the grey rather than the rainbow.  Surely this approach fosters ignorance over knowledge?  It’s the very opposite of what the government and numerous governments before them, claim to want.  It ensures that everyone knows nothing about anyone else, and therefore remain suspicious, afraid and hostile, where they should be knowledgeable, and understanding even in their disagreement.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like porridge, I have it almost every day during the winter, but that doesn’t mean I want to live in it.  We don’t need to learn to accept difference, we need to learn to discuss it in a civilised and moderate manner, and agree to disagree in a courteous and respectful manner.

If (and it is an ‘if’) we’re serious about multiculturalism, then we need to ensure a multitude of cultures, and at the moment, that is not what we’re doing.

The Right to be Wrong 3: The Right to be even Wronger

I confess to being slightly confused about the apparently schizophrenic attitude we seem to have towards the concepts of offense and free speech that we have as a society.  A month ago, we proclaimed Charlie Hebdo in Paris as a beacon of free speech and defiance for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, knowing before they did so that a great many people would find them deeply offensive.  This week, there has been widespread condemnation of a group of football supporters, also in Paris, for racist chanting, to the point where they have been banned from their football club, one has been suspended from work, and they all potentially face criminal prosecution.

Now, I have to be very careful here in case it seems that I am in any way supporting these racists morons, or condoning their behaviour on any level at all.  I am not.  I am also aware that there was an element of physical assault involved in the incident, when they blocked a black man from getting on a train, and then physically pushed him off when he did get on.  This is inexcusable, and I am perfectly happy to see them prosecuted for this.  However, I would like to address what to me seems like a strange double standard, in which we agree that people have the right to be offensive, just as long as it’s not us who’s being offended.

The question is whether the men involved have the right to chant racist things in a public place, or say racist things to someone in the full knowledge that they, and anyone else who might hear them will find it deeply offensive.  We can be shocked that they should do so, in this age of equality and given the comparatively high level of education people in the UK and France receive, but I wonder how, in the light of the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, we can say that these people deserve to be prosecuted, banned or suspended from their places of work?

It might be said that Charlie Hebdo was a work of satire, and so different from a group of yobs shouting at people in the street (or, in this case in a train station), but if so, it was (in my opinion) poor satire, and what’s to stop these men from claiming that they were being ‘satirical’ or ‘ironic’?  Artistic merit can’t be brought into play, and is in any case highly subjective.

Nor do I see how the fact that one of these twerps is a racist has any bearing on his ability to work in a financial company.  He wasn’t, to my knowledge, representing the business in any way; he wasn’t wearing their uniform or sporting their logo, and wasn’t present in any sort of official capacity, and so there is no implication that his views reflect those of the company.  I am more than happy for people with such erroneous views to be ‘named and shamed’, ostracised, and mocked in the same way they feel it’s acceptable to mock others, although I’d much rather see them educated as to why their views are so incorrect.  However, for a company to suspend an individual for (vile, offensive) opinions expressed as a private individual away from their place of work is one that I find uncomfortable.  For the football club to ban them makes a little more sense, since they were present as supporters of that club, and their racism can be seen to reflect badly on the club and its supporters as a whole.

I’ve mentioned that there was an element of physical assault to this incident, and this clearly must be punished.  Being offensive might be a right, but physically attacking, or even just shoving, someone is Not On.  But that brings me to the subject of hate crime.  This has been defined as a crime “with an added element of bias against a person's race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”  Now, should this make a difference?  If I punch a man in the face, I have commited the crime of assault.  If I punch a man in the face because he’s black and I hate black people, does this make it worse, as a crime?  It would make me worse as a person, and reflect my ignorance and unthinking prejudice, but should the motivation have any bearing on the severity of the crime?  My victim is no more or less punched in the face, his nose no more or less broken.

The FBI’s policy is that "Hate itself is not a crime - and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."  But surely by making a ’hate crime’ more serious than a plain crime of the same sort, you’re doing just that?

Now, hopefully it doesn’t need saying that this post isn’t intended as a defence of hatred, which should be rooted out as effectively as possible through education, dialogue and emphasising compassion and empathy.  Obviously we don’t want every public space to become a slanging match between different groups, all yelling their own, potentially offensive opinions, but if we accept that free speech is a right, then we have to accept that it is a right for all, not just the people we agree with.

I actually have a problem with the very concept of ‘rights’, which I will elaborate on in another post, but if one accepts the premise, then one must accept that it applies to all equally.  People should have the right to be offensive, ignorant and unpleasant, even when their offensiveness, ignorance and unpleasantness is aimed at us.  However, as I have quoted before, “to have the right to do something is not at all the same as to be right in doing it”.

It is in educating people, and explaining this, that the answer lies, not in making those opinions subjectively odious to ourselves illegal.  That is the top of a very slippery slope, and one that makes me very uneasy indeed.

Am I Charlie?

For the past two weeks, most of my spare time has been taken up by the deeply unpleasant business of moving house.  We’ve only moved a few hundred yards, but nonetheless the process of packing, moving, unpacking and cleaning has been neither brief nor easy.  (And, indeed, we only got the internet back yesterday!)

This is all by way of an excuse for not having written a new blog post for a little while, especially given the events of the past couple of weeks.  Having pontificated previously on the question of free speech, offense, blasphemy and religious toleration, I thought I’d better weigh in on this one too, and let you all know the Important Thoughts I’ve had on the subject.

Firstly of course, I should restate my absolute belief that anyone should have the right to say anything to anyone, and not face violence, persecution or prosecution.  If we wish to have freedom of speech, we have to accept that people are free to speak, whether they are racists, fascists, lunatics or even people who disagree with me on any subject whatsoever.  People have the right to be as offensive, crude, vulgar, blasphemous or generally unpleasant as they can possibly be, and do so without fear of violent or legal reprisal.  Of course, they also have to accept that others can act in exactly the same way towards them.

However, as Chesterton once said, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”  I believe absolutely that you should have the right to be offensive.  I would defend it to the death.  That does not mean that I think you actually should be offensive.  The cartoons published by the French magazine Charlie Hebdo were offensive, and deliberately so.  They have every right to publish them.  I just don’t think that they should have.  Not out of fear, you understand.  If there was any suggestion that someone was not saying or publishing a thing purely out of fear of attack, then I would strongly suggest that they say it or publish it, and I would be happy to publically support them, if only because the kind of people who resort to intimidation and threat are perhaps the only sort of people who actually do need belittling and insulting.

No, I think that they should have refrained from publishing those cartoons for the simple fact that they were insulting.  I do not like having my beliefs and opinions insulted.  Challenged, yes.  Having them challenged is absolutely vital, but insulted?  No.  It’s the issue I take with much of the aggressive, evangelical atheism I see online.  Much of it seems to be far more interested in insulting religious belief than in challenging it in a sensible, respectful (but nonetheless challenging) manner, and this is helpful to no-one whatsoever.  Satirise it by all means.  Make fun of it, laugh at it, but stop short of direct insult if you want the conversation to continue.  Charlie Hebdo might hold itself up as an icon of free speech, and in a faintly unpleasant, distinctly canary-like way I suppose it is, but to me it also represents the abuse of free speech to deliberately upset others in a way that is completely non-constructive.  If anything, it’s just entrenched people’s views, widened divisions, added grist to the extremist mill and generally made things worse. 

In a way, I actually think the cartoon of Mohammed printed in the first issue after the attack was more justified, since it acted as a signal that the magazine would not be swayed by violence or threats of violence, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think the initial cartoon can be justified by a mere appeal to the principal of free speech.

The BBC (yeah, yeah, I know) ran an article about people getting fired for posting racist comments online.  Well, which are we going to have?  Do we want free speech, in which Charlie Hebdo can publish offensive cartoons, or do we want limits on what one can say, even as private individuals online?  Should people be racist?  Of course not.  Should they be ostracised or, preferably, reasoned with and educated?  Very much so.  Should they lose their job (assuming of course that they are not acting in an official manner, or on a company blog or twitter feed etc, or otherwise representing the company when they make the post) over their (unpleasant, offensive) personal opinions?  My opinion on holocaust denial is the same.  Historians who deny the holocaust should be publically identified as very poor historians, and their scholarship and credentials rightly scrutinised and doubted, but should it be illegal?  Should it be against the law to hold an erroneous opinion?  I believe not.  We cannot have it both ways, and only maintain the right to be offensive when it’s not us being offended.

If we actually believe in the principle of free speech, and we certainly claim to, then we have to accept that it applies to everybody equally, irrespective of their position or opinion. 

Am I Charlie?  No, I am not, nor do I want to be, thank you.  However, I will defend to the death your right to be Charlie if that’s what you think is right.