Douglas Murray on denunciations and Lawrence Fox

[BovaryX]

Douglas Murray takes aim at the cancel culture and denunciation tactics at the heart of # no debate. Those who try to control and police what people think and say have dominated public discourse to its detriment. Many are aware of the existential threat to freedom of speech this faction represents.

Nothing that Fox said on Question Time was at all controversial. He suggested that the Labour party leader might be selected on merit and he suggested that Britain is not a racist country. Both these sentiments are held by the majority of the public. Yet so dominant have the minority-opinion pushers become that many people are persuaded that it would not just be career-damaging but socially fatal to say anything to the contrary. Even when that thing is the truth

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/the-terrifying-parable-of-laurence-foxs-question-time-appearance/

Even if people aren't that bothered about women's rights or feminism etc, they should still be extremely concerned by the assault on liberty and free speech that is being carried out by those who claim to be 'progressive'. Now is not the time for fence sitting or indecisive hand wringing.

Some of the criticism of Markle is driven by racism. Some of the criticism of Markle is not driven by racism. What's bothering me is that the only permitted narrative is that anyone who is happy to see the back of Markle's hypocrisy over climate change must be a racist. Anyone who says "hang on, that's a misrepresentation" is also a racist.

That applies even though Lawrence Fox is being a complete dick.

Good piece. I don't actually agree with Laurence Fox - I think he does speak from a position of white privilege, and I think there is racism in Britain, though I very much doubt that the racism in Britain is worse than the racism anywhere else.

But the reaction on the left was vastly disproportionate to what he actually said, which was fairly mild. He didn't advocate sending immigrants home, or rounding people up and putting them in concentration camps. Ultimately, he was just expressing an opinion that some people will agree with and some people won't, and he should be able to do that without everyone getting completely hysterical about it and denouncing him as some kind of evil racist.

If we denounce people like Fox, what are we going to do when confronted with the real racists? The sort who do want to put people in concentration camps?

I think what makes me more irate than anything about this is that there's a really big story at the moment that barely anyone is talking about. What happened in Manchester, and the way that the authorities failed to protect girls from rapists and abusers, should be a huge story that dominates the media and programmes like Question Time. Instead, everyone is obsessed with Laurence Fox.

well said, nauticant- my partner was musing that he doesn't like idi amin and does this therefore make him racist?
plus, i wasn't keen on meghan and then found out that she was mixed race; does this make me intrinsically racist- was i just born this way?

And I'm not having this 'White Privilige' crap. Another American misimportation like baby boomer and lack friday.

Laurence Fox is priviliged, and happens to be white. The two do not automatically coincide. Kwasi Kwarteng and James Cleverly are both priviliged, and have you noticed how all the black tories are of African and not Carribbean origin.

We know about the educational performance of different ethnicities in the UK and there is no simple correlation with race. Carribbean black boys and white working class boys do about the same. The Chinese do best of all. The Indians are not far behind, including Indian muslims, although Pakistanis including Pakistanis do much worse.

It is normally a bad idea to expect actors to say anything useful that has not been written for them by someone else. LF got the QT gig because he is an exception to this rule. If a show where a panel of guests are expected to express a diversity of opinion cannot handle a diversity of normally held opinions, then it should be cancelled.

Some of the criticism of Markle is driven by racism. Some of the criticism of Markle is not driven by racism

Well said Nauticant. Attributing any criticism of any POC to racism is effectively saying no criticism is valid. Irrespective of the person's public position, privilege etc. This has been applied to politicians such as Diane Abbott. Placing a group of people beyond criticism because of race is not only an extremely bad idea. It's racist. Accusing people of racism when they haven't demonstrated any is a control speech tactic of the #no debate zealots.

RoyalCorgi makes an excellent point about proportional response and the left's hyperbole. The list of things which cannot be discussed is growing to gargantuan proportions whilst authoritarians denounce people and shriek about hatred and intolerance whilst epitomising both. Meanwhile, Twitter is dominated by outrage about Fox, whilst the outrage about 1400 children raped and abused for years while the authorities did nothing? That's on mute.

If we denounce people like Fox, what are we going to do when confronted with the real racists? The sort who do want to put people in concentration camps?

We ignore them because they are Chinese, and therefore don't have white privilege, and therefore brutal 're-education', forced marriages and rape against minorities can't be a form of racism.

Placing a group of people beyond criticism because of race is not only an extremely bad idea.

...but it has dreadful consequences for others, as the facts emerging from the Rotherham tragedy are beginning to show.

Criticising people because of what they are is racist.
Criticising people for what they say and what they do is not racist.

Exactly the point that Laurence Fox was making.

but it has dreadful consequences for others, as the facts emerging from the Rotherham tragedy are beginning to show

Precisely. Especially when it involves some of the most vulnerable people in the UK. Young girls in the care of the state. That group was deliberately targeted because of its vulnerability. And it transpired that the state agencies who should have protected those girls were more concerned with accusations of racism than doing the job they are paid to do.

Great article.

I, presumably like half the country, am so over being labelled racist.

Brexit did it for me. I speak four European languages (and an one Asian one) and have sat through my share of EU meetings yet to my Corbynista ex-friend I was racist because I had doubts about the direction and democracy of the European project. Ok, however, for her to repost patronising stuff about the 'white working class' akin to Emily Thornberry's white van man.

Some people in Britain are racist. Some people in the US are racist. Indeed my experience is that quite a lot of people in Asia and Africa are racist. I dont believe the UK is any worse than anywhere else.

If we want to tackle racism we don't do it by blanket name calling. Nor, I think, do we do it by according some people special status which forces others to tiptoe around. Surely the end aim is equality and, effectively, colour blindness. The more this happens the more genuine racists will stand out and look like the dinosaurs they are.

I have my doubts about Meghan. I initially thought she sounded fun and a good addition to a modern Royal family. As time goes on she reminds me more and more of my SiL. Nuff said, but racism it ain't.

Indeed my experience is that quite a lot of people in Asia and Africa are racist

One of the things that strikes me about much of these debates is that they are profoundly parochial. Racism and sectarianism dominates much of the planet beyond the West. The Twitter crew have limited understanding of this.

Not another thread where people don't understand the definition of white privilege. Snore...

Clearly you are referring to me.

What is 'white privilege'?

Amara
Perhaps you can explain the white privilege slogan to the girls in Rotherham?

I agree with Murray re cancel culture but I wish Fox would quit while he's 'ahead'. I defended him last week. This week it feels like he's pushing his luck and our patience.

Who is 'our?' There are very damaging consequences of the #no debate paradigm. As Douglas Murray points out, those in a position to challenge it should be admired for doing so. Harry Miller talks about the disproportionate responsibility he feels to speak out because so many people are too terrified to do so. I don't think Fox should shut up, I think he exposes the fault lines in the war between authoritarian zealots. And everyone else.

Ditto for me. My mother spent a decade living with dementia and being cared for by some wonderful people. I did not see those who were white living any more privileged lives than non whites, and I doubt few of the carers would have made that distinction either.

Equally non white kids at my DCs private school (central London, so being non white was far from unusual) were usually pretty privileged. At what point can we get over skin colour and move onto caring about the fundamentals of inequality such as poverty and lack of opportunity.

@nauticant

I am passionate about doing all I can to protect the planet, and very vocal about waste. But this morning I was obliged to fly to London for a work meeting. Could I have chosen a form of travel with a smaller carbon footprint? Yes, but I was given very little notice by my boss who also arranged to have my travel tickets booked. Could the meeting have taken place via Skype? Sure, but I wasn't offered the choice. My only option would have been to refuse to go, and put my job in jeopardy. Does this make me a hypocrite? Should I stop doing the positive things I do to address climate change, in order to avoid a charge of hypocrisy?

I am a person of colour. Criticising the choices I make is not racism. Holding me to a higher standard than a white person in a similar situation absolutely is. This is the problem with the rhetoric around Meghan Markle. It is not that she is held to be a person who can do no wrong. It is that, for certain sections of the media and the public who so eagerly devour their bile, she can do no right. That's racism.

And, whether you agree with me or not, I am pretty sure that most people would accept that we should not look to a white public school boy from a wealthy family to provide us with a definition of racism - and we should firmly reject his right to do so.

we should firmly reject his right to do so.

Nah, he has every right to speak up. That is what free speech is all about. We as individuals have every right to disagree or not listen.

FWIW I think what got most people, was the preachiness. And that was more Harry than Meghan.

(An American friend living in London claims there is a huge transatlantic divide on H&M. A constitutional right to free speech, a different history of immigration and race relations, different cultural attitudes. I genuinely believe that many in the UK saw Meghan as American first, barely noting that she was bi-racial. The Californian wokeness coming from a position of privilege that irritated.)

If you'd had the chance to travel by private jet would you have done so? Having done that would you have then felt comfortable lecturing other people about their carbon footprint?

It is not that she is held to be a person who can do no wrong

It would be a shame for this to descend into a tedious discussion about Meghan Markle. This is about Douglas Murray's take on the cancel culture which has dominated public discourse to its detriment. It's about freedom of speech and the existential threat it faces. It's about sloppy and inaccurate accusations of racism designed to silence criticism. No matter how valid. Placing people beyond criticism because of race is extremely damaging and also racist. There are white people with no privilege. There are POC with privilege. The Manichean narrative of much of this debate needs to be challenged.