To think there is a worrying trend to cancel folk for opinions and thoughts

[ConnieLinggusThe69th]

I'm not saying I agree with the opinions of Roald Dahl (I dont) but I understand if people want to cancel folk for their actions - don't like cancel culture but that seems reasonable somewhat to react to someone's actions

But why the fuck are we extending cancel culture to the thoughts that someone expressed? He hardly evangelised his anti semitic beliefs- he simply held them... but chose to write fiction books... the impact he left on the world was some good stories for most people

Just read they were putting a sign up to apologise for his beliefs in the Roald Dahl museum - he's dead now, how can you apologise post death for someone else's thoughts?!

I think what’s tricky OP is the line between having opinions & causing harm. In that New Statesman interview, Roald Dahl blamed Jewish people’s character for what happened to them in the Holocaust. Those comments were printed in the early 80s. Reading them undoubtedly caused pain & harm to a community still coming to terms with the horror of the Holocaust. So, I think it’s only a good thing that the Roald Dahl are no working with the Jewish community & anti racism charities to address that - that’s not cancelling him, it’s being honest about the complexities of his legacy.

the statements are grotesquely offensive and wrong but I cannot think of any example where they are reflected in his work. I have read a lot of his writing for adults and I cannot even think of examples there. It seems to me that current activities are actually embedding the attitudes within his legacy and causing offence all over again. He was an unpleasant man who produced some great work. Let’s preserve the latter and thank god society is moving on from the former.

Africa Brooke talks a lot about this topic

I think I would call it Totalitarianism! It started with ' politically correct ' whatever that means, now we are heading towards an Orwellian style regime...an opinion or thought is becoming illegal.

Yep we are definitely becoming more intolerant.

I remember Tim Farron being torn apart over the issue when he was Lib Dem leader. Even though he took the liberal viewpoint that while he didn't agree with it as a Catholic, what other people did with their consiences was their business.

Care to provide any examples of "hateful" or "damaging" words and views that you think should not be said? Other than the RD interview where I don't think that anyone would disagree that it crosses a line.

Who decides what is hateful or damaging?

I suppose that depends on what we mean by torn apart. Tim Farron certainly wasn’t cancelled by any definition - he’s still an MP, be still commentates regularly on TV & in print media.

I think the level of hatred & abuse MPs get is a different - & really important - issue. Stella Creasey has had a horrifying amount of abuse for being pro choice* - she was even forced to undergo a social services investigation because an online troll thought he was 'entitled' to the that her children should be put into care because of her pro life beliefs.

But I don’t think that the abuse they get is really a “thought police” or censorship issue, because it happens to politicians of all views & opinions (though sadly the evidence is it happens much, much more to MPs who are women and MPs of colour)

• [Please note that this post has been edited at the poster's request. Post originally said 'pro life' in error].

Thought police examples? I think there are quite a few. Teachers sacked because of the way they taught a biology lesson. An Indian man in the press today - bank account closed probably because they did not like some of his views (if the evidence from other cases is anything to go by). Men out of a job when not even convicted yet of a s exual offence - the old innocent until proven guilty seems out of the window at times.

I agree however that we should always go by evidence - real examples - like the Garden Court black lesbian barrister case (not just rumours). Having threads like this is good and I agree that rees Mogg is anti abortion and still in a job and we are certainly nothing like many of the worse countries on the planet in some of which it is the law that the death penalty exists if you renounce your faith ( I think on that point alone there are 9 countries worldwide).

We have not closed churches and mosques down for readings from the Bible and Koran whch are anti-gay or sexist . We remain a fairly liberal tolerant society but we have to fight to stay like that.

It all boils down to being woke. What I think woke really means is that " left wing views are the only correct views. Everything else is bad/ wrong.
I say this as a lefty but I am sick of "woke."

I agree that too many people seem to think the only correct views are the ones that they hold. I suspect part of the problem is social media where people can live in little bubbles where they don't come across different viewpoints which could lead to more understanding and tolerance.

I remember when I was at university in the 2000s we'd have get togethers with people all over the political spectrum and even discuss things without a fall out. It's odd, when I talk about it now I feel like I'm making it up.

Tolerance and freedom of speech are maybe something we tend to take for granted will stick around rather than something we have to work for.

What came before the black hole?
If god isn't fiction, where's the dinosaurs🤔
Bible was proof their god is malicious as all seeing and all knowing would have known what Adam and Eve were going to do.
Being an atheist avoids living life in a fairy tale.
All of this narcissistic narrative in life needs people playing along to give it credibility.
Simply don't give it any attention.

Pretty sure Stella Creasy has campaigned quite heavily for abortion rights especially in Northern Ireland. She seems pretty pro choice

The thing with banks is scary. A reverend has his account cancelled because of his views on Pride. Agree or disagree , yes some may find his views offensive, but who is actually being oppressed by someone not liking pride flags in their bank? Not remotely comparable to anti-Semitism.

Oh absolutely sorry - I meant for her pro choice beliefs

@OCaptain

"My best is on Farage is being disingenuous here. Banks like you if you have money in your account; otherwise, the account is closed. (To simply things.) There's no need to start 'It's all totalitarian' when the case may be he simply didn't follow guidelines."

++++

Here's the extract from Coutts confirming he met the financial threshold but taking the view that NF's views posed a reputation risk to Coutts:

I mean really it's just 'we don't like NF so we're going to close his bank account'. Who gave these employees such power? Virtually everything in those emails could be contested, it's not based in fact or evidence it's all just opinion.

They even clearly state that NF has not broken any laws and that his political opinions are legally held. And STILL close his account. They clearly thought they COULD simply close the account of anyone they deemed unworthy.

I hope he sues the bank. It's really shocking and it seems it's not just him that's affected.

It seems that religious minorities are risking being targeted as well because many Christians Muslims and ultra-orthodox Jews don't support LGBT. Whether you agree it not surely this is a freedom of speech/religion issue.

@1dayatatime

Here's the extract from Coutts confirming he met the financial threshold but taking the view that NF's views posed a reputation risk to Coutts:

Is this an internal memo? If so, who released it?

So, Coutts - a private company - has an issue with providing a service to an offensive individual, even though this individual is wealthy enough to afford their services. You have a problem with with that.

That is just capitalism.

It isn't isn't fascism/totalitarianism/whatever-ism is fashionable right now. It's simply a company exercising their rights.

And it isn't 1984. I'm so tired of people parroting "It's so Orwellian!"

Rant over. That wasn't directed at you specifically, but the general thread.

OCap, NF used solicitors to make a data protection subject access request to see all the bank held on him. The long internal report was released by the bank. This is quite rare. Most customers cannot afford solicitors to exert legal rights and push back on these issues. What is interesting is that the bank took all kinds of subjective views of its own and also used information on social media without checking if it were true and that was used to close his long standing accounts.

NatWest then apparently gave the BBC an allegedly false press notice that his bank was closed because he did not meet the financial thresholds which was not true. The BBC then published that (and have now had to retract that). The report from the bank included a lot of very subjective reasons as to why they did not want him as a customer including that he had Thatcherite views. These kinds of reasons (given banking is pretty much an essential service unlike if you go to a shop to buy a pen) should not be used.

The other issue is that if one bank has refused services then I think that may be disclosable so it is not as simple as saying okay - free market - there are 100 other just as good banks you could use.

You really don't get irony, do you.

It simply isn’t true that companies are free to withdraw services on any grounds they like. The EA 2010 prohibits discrimination by service providers on grounds of protected characteristics including belief. The extent to which that protects Farage in these circumstances is a matter of debate but please let’s move away from the incorrect premise that banks are free of constraint in this area.
they are also bound by regulatory duties to act with integrity and treat customers fairly, as well as the act referred to above.

It seems this situation is leading lefties to the position that banks should be less regulated. Which is really very funny.