George Abaraonye’s vile remarks about the murder of Charlie Kirk must be defended as free expression. But they also show why he is unqualified to lead.
Lies abound including of course in the Guardian where a journalist who I won't elevate by naming her says that Kirk " “debated” untrained liberal undergraduates" the 'untrained' made me laugh and his "’ “debates” were aggressive, unequal, trolling affairs, in which he sought to provoke his interlocutors to distress, shouted them down and belittled them, spewed hateful rhetoric about queer and trans people, women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, and selectively edited the ensuing footage to create maximally viral content in which his fans could witness him humiliating the liberals and leftists they perceived to be their enemies. This was not “debate”; it was not reasoned, good-faith discourse; it was not the kind of fair deliberation that democracy relies on".
If you watched a handful of his debates you would know these are simply pure outright lies its quite incredible.
Great points and I agree; by letting people speak they out themselves as idiots or worse and we can all see them for what they are. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and must be protected, even at the cost of having to listen to the worst of humanity. We need to resist the urge to join in the cancel culture frenzy, tempting as it may be. A bit of schadenfreude won’t go amiss in some of the cases though.
Thanks for this. I am still reeling. From Graham Linehan's obscene arrest, Lucy Connelly's incarceration to this murder, with people gleefully cheering it all on in the name of "being kind"
perhaps the Oxford union has already lost credibility in appointing this man who was already rejected by another (sane, not woke) university - and for them to regain any credibility they must not just reject this careless young bigot but cease to copy Starmer's insistence on appointing entirely inappropriate people to roles involving sensitive and mature diplomatic skills.
Ah, gloriously civilized English understatement can be so much more powerful, as well as cleverer and funnier, than the spiteful psychopathic rantings on social media, can't it? I loved "It discloses a great deal about his character; none of it good", and "That kind of thing does somewhat undermine a school's ability to act in loco parentis." I'm already looking forward to your next post about the Gaulish god Sucellus. He had a few things to say about free speech, I bet.
Great writing again Andrew, but a problem follows..
You say, "There are many misconceptions about free speech, one of which appears to be that being removed from a post for which one is unsuitable is a form of censorship".
So you accept that someone in authority should decide these limits. But how does this differ from accepting the 'woke cancel culture' you abhor, if these decion-makers, in their own minds, regard someone as 'unsuitable'?
I think it's a mistake to see this as a question of 'deciding limits'. It isn't a matter of degree but of kind.
Cancellers ask 'does this speech indicate that the person is bad and deserving of punishment?' (to which the answer is usually 'yes - destroy them')
Liberals ask 'does this speech indicate or amount to conduct that calls into question the person's ability to do their job' (to which the answer will be - it depends, we need to look closely at what the job requires)
To put it another way, we can think about how each would answer the question 'what makes this person unsuitable for the job?' If the answer to that question doesn't make any reference to the actual job, and is purely about the person's perceived moral failings, then we're in the realm of cancel culture.
Edit to add that I think positions like Presidents of membership based associations are in a distinct position from ordinary employees in that they are reasonably taken to represent the organisation to some extent.
It is not censorship to remove someone proven unsuitable for a role. Rejoicing in the murder of a former debater shows you lack the neutrality a debating-society president must have. If there’s a true equivalent in “cancel culture,” show it - all I’ve seen so far is qualified people sacked for ideological disagreement that doesn’t affect their job.
Well said. I for one would rather see the opinions of such people out in the open for all to see. We all have personal responsibility and can choose to interact, engage, listen, not listen. But to ban a person from saying these things just puts it in the shadows… the ideas and opinions don’t go away, nothing is ever challenged and no one has the opportunity to learn from it and potentially change their opinion.
Presumably there is a job description for the role outlining the responsibilities - or if there isn't there should be. In business if you feel someone has failed in their duties or brought the organisation into disrepute (there's usually a clause for this) then it makes there dismissal much simpler.
Lies abound including of course in the Guardian where a journalist who I won't elevate by naming her says that Kirk " “debated” untrained liberal undergraduates" the 'untrained' made me laugh and his "’ “debates” were aggressive, unequal, trolling affairs, in which he sought to provoke his interlocutors to distress, shouted them down and belittled them, spewed hateful rhetoric about queer and trans people, women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, and selectively edited the ensuing footage to create maximally viral content in which his fans could witness him humiliating the liberals and leftists they perceived to be their enemies. This was not “debate”; it was not reasoned, good-faith discourse; it was not the kind of fair deliberation that democracy relies on".
If you watched a handful of his debates you would know these are simply pure outright lies its quite incredible.
Agree 100%
Great points and I agree; by letting people speak they out themselves as idiots or worse and we can all see them for what they are. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and must be protected, even at the cost of having to listen to the worst of humanity. We need to resist the urge to join in the cancel culture frenzy, tempting as it may be. A bit of schadenfreude won’t go amiss in some of the cases though.
Thanks for this. I am still reeling. From Graham Linehan's obscene arrest, Lucy Connelly's incarceration to this murder, with people gleefully cheering it all on in the name of "being kind"
You forget that this guy is Black and so has a free pass in organisations such as the Oxford Union.
perhaps the Oxford union has already lost credibility in appointing this man who was already rejected by another (sane, not woke) university - and for them to regain any credibility they must not just reject this careless young bigot but cease to copy Starmer's insistence on appointing entirely inappropriate people to roles involving sensitive and mature diplomatic skills.
Ah, gloriously civilized English understatement can be so much more powerful, as well as cleverer and funnier, than the spiteful psychopathic rantings on social media, can't it? I loved "It discloses a great deal about his character; none of it good", and "That kind of thing does somewhat undermine a school's ability to act in loco parentis." I'm already looking forward to your next post about the Gaulish god Sucellus. He had a few things to say about free speech, I bet.
Great writing again Andrew, but a problem follows..
You say, "There are many misconceptions about free speech, one of which appears to be that being removed from a post for which one is unsuitable is a form of censorship".
So you accept that someone in authority should decide these limits. But how does this differ from accepting the 'woke cancel culture' you abhor, if these decion-makers, in their own minds, regard someone as 'unsuitable'?
I think it's a mistake to see this as a question of 'deciding limits'. It isn't a matter of degree but of kind.
Cancellers ask 'does this speech indicate that the person is bad and deserving of punishment?' (to which the answer is usually 'yes - destroy them')
Liberals ask 'does this speech indicate or amount to conduct that calls into question the person's ability to do their job' (to which the answer will be - it depends, we need to look closely at what the job requires)
To put it another way, we can think about how each would answer the question 'what makes this person unsuitable for the job?' If the answer to that question doesn't make any reference to the actual job, and is purely about the person's perceived moral failings, then we're in the realm of cancel culture.
Edit to add that I think positions like Presidents of membership based associations are in a distinct position from ordinary employees in that they are reasonably taken to represent the organisation to some extent.
It is not censorship to remove someone proven unsuitable for a role. Rejoicing in the murder of a former debater shows you lack the neutrality a debating-society president must have. If there’s a true equivalent in “cancel culture,” show it - all I’ve seen so far is qualified people sacked for ideological disagreement that doesn’t affect their job.
Yes, I have the same dilemma
Well said. I for one would rather see the opinions of such people out in the open for all to see. We all have personal responsibility and can choose to interact, engage, listen, not listen. But to ban a person from saying these things just puts it in the shadows… the ideas and opinions don’t go away, nothing is ever challenged and no one has the opportunity to learn from it and potentially change their opinion.
Typo - apologies. Their!
Presumably there is a job description for the role outlining the responsibilities - or if there isn't there should be. In business if you feel someone has failed in their duties or brought the organisation into disrepute (there's usually a clause for this) then it makes there dismissal much simpler.