skip to main |
skip to sidebar
WHEN Boris Johnson said that he was going to ensure that social media companies will be compelled to remove ‘racist’ material from their sites under threat of losing 10% of the revenue stream generated in the UK, I have no doubt that he meant it, at least when he said it. But as the saying goes ‘the devil is in the detail’.
As was pointed out on this blog only recently, racial discrimination involves an individual, a group or a state treating individuals or groups of individuals differently based upon their race, colour or origin. It should be noted that this includes both preferential and prejudicial treatment, and requires some identifiable action to be taken by the individual, group or state. By contrast ‘racism’ is an ideological stance adopted by some people and people holding this view may or may not involve themselves in any action which constitutes racial discrimination. In other words it is an idea which some people have in their heads. Johnson’s problem is going to be whether he wants to be a politician who tries to legislate against ideas.
Here’s a little test. You come across the following seven separate posts on social media; at what point does the needle on your ‘outrage meter’ move into the red zone and you start to demand that that the offending post be removed.
‘You took that penalty like you were wearing carpet slippers! You played like a big girl! Where your boot laces tied together you big queer? An open goal and you missed, are you blind or something? I’ve seen cripples play better! Lazy bastards like you shouldn’t be in the team! Get back where you belong you white/black/brown bastard!’
All of these are things that someone might have said after watching eleven millionaires chasing a ball. None of them involve any action against another individual or group. The perpetrator’s only action was to type something, press a button and hey presto! Any individual reading any one of these might take exception to it on the grounds that they find it abusive. If they want to exaggerate they will call it ‘hate speech’.
And that’s another problem Johnson will face. Will a law tailored to satisfy the demands of those who feel outraged by recent events open the flood gates for other groups to expect that a law be enacted to satisfy their specific demands?
On the NV blog a year ago, 29 June 2020, I said that having read some of the abusive posts directed at Priyamvada Gopal, who had posted a ‘tweet’ which said “I’ll say it again. White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives”, I thought you would meet nicer turds in a slurry pit. But being unpleasant to other people isn’t a crime, nor should it be made one.
The assumption that those who seek legislation make is that if only we can pass the right laws we can make people be nice to each other or at least stop them being unpleasant. Does anyone really believe that?
************************************************************************
Posts
1 comment:
The example given by Les May caused me no outrage at all. Some would call that football banter. He's right to distinguish the difference between race and racial discrimation which tends to be institurional and can be defined as having the power to put prejudices into action. Needless to say, social attitudes in Britain are constantly changing. Rupert Bear would no longer go to 'coon island' and and you no longer see notices such as "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish, displayed in people's windows as you did in the 1960s. Today, a novelist like Evelyn Waugh, who is considered one of England's greatest writers of the 20th century, would be considered by many as egregiously racist and covered in trigger warnings. Yet when he published his first novel 'Decline and Fall' in 1929, the publisher 'Duckworth' declined the book on the grounds of insensitivity, not because Waugh talks about niggers, Yids, and chinks, but because a character in the book - a Welsh postmaster - was pimping his sister. In 1929, there would be no epithets really labelled 'racist' and Waugh wrote in the book, "Remember the book is supposed to be funny" even though the books subtext deals with pederasty and prostitution.
Post a Comment