Strat, have you been following the saga of The Spectator, Gareth Roberts and IPSO?
We are seeing the end of free speech in the UK. For those less familiar with the situation in the UK, here is a brief summary.
At that time, there was a scandal in the UK, which claimed that the British vulgar media had tapped phone calls and then used the private information they obtained. To avoid government regulation of the press (remember, the UK has no First Amendment or written constitutional speech protections), the press formed IPSO, a voluntary standards organization. Like most publications, The Spectator jumped on board.
Recently they published an article by Gareth Roberts which contained the following terms. Ms Sturgeon
“Interviewed with author Juno Dawson, a man who identifies as female, so the conversation naturally turned to gender”.
Dawson complained to IPSO. Now, as the song goes, bury the rag deep in your face, it's time for you to cry.
Because IPSO found that the sentence did not breach section 1 of the Editorial Code (which was inaccurate); nor section 3, which covers harassment; but it breached section 12.1, which states that “the media must avoid targeting individuals Prejudicial or derogatory references to race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any physical or mental illness or disability.” (Excerpted from Michael Gove’s article in The Spectator.)
It therefore issued a penalty whereby viewers had to announce their decision.
Do you see what's going on here? Its censorship of speech (which is characteristically British) is perfectly legal in the UK. The first two findings are that the statement is legitimate and even true. But IPSO usurped the editorial role and decided that publishing the article would be too disturbing for The Spectator.
No doubt this would unsettle Dawson. This is arguably rude, heartless and unnecessary. But do official bodies have the right to tell newspapers or editors not to publish such material because it is unkind or disrespectful?
Britain is in trouble. This is a policy issue where measures are based primarily on the irrational and obsessive emotions of a minority group. Whether it’s climate, energy, gender, or the structure they call “race.” There are new instances every day. Transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, racism and other concepts are widespread and growing every week. In all these cases, simply voicing critical comments that the reviewers wish to receive will be met with whatever sanctions are at their disposal.
Agencies then take it upon themselves to punish people who say the wrong thing. Of course, they all acted independently. Fire them, deny them banking services, ban them from publishing. any. The result is an eerie consensus and a growing atmosphere of cautious silence in public settings outside circles of acquaintances. Is it the Soviet Union or China, with British characteristics.
It’s coming, or rather already coming, to schools, universities, charities and workplaces across the country.
What strikes me is that what's happening (and I almost mean, what they're creating, although I don't think it's being created consciously) is a pressure cooker environment that is increasingly likely to end in overwhelming The way breaks out in reform.
