Cancel the Cancel - and Why It Matters

Posted by on

 by Simon Lemieux





So, we have a film pulled from a chain of cinemas because of physical protests, a concert in Brooklyn cancelled on the grounds of ‘public safety’ by the venue, and an LGBTQ+ event organised by a school scrapped thanks to the activities of keyboard warriors. To be frank: I wasn’t going to see a film about Mohammed’s daughter, though I might do so now, I wasn’t aware of the concert being performed by the recently released would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan, but I might now watch him perform via YouTube, nor was I especially planning to attend the event at the school. Three disparate events, different issues, different countries even, yet united by the apparent capitulation to the loud voices of intolerance and a desire to cancel what ‘they’ deem offensive, upsetting and harmful. There are of course very sound and solid reasons to cancel events: poor ticket sales, a court injunction or the indisposition of a key participant. Beyond that, provided events are legal and planned in accordance with the policy of the organisers, why should anyone outside those bodies cause their cancellation. That’s lies at the heart of what follows.

Yes, the right to protest is as crucial as the right to perform, but the two rights exist in tension with one another, neither holds the whip hand. The whole issue strikes at the heart, in my opinion, of what it means to live and work in a truly diverse, democratic and tolerant community, and how we interpret free speech and put it into practice.

Let’s look at Brooklyn first. Here John Hinckley Jr. was scheduled to perform his music, is known for trying to kill a U.S. president and served around 35 years in prison for his crime, and rightly so. But he had been released, is a free citizen in a free country with a First Amendment to boot. Yet, despite being sold out, his performance was cancelled last week by the venue, which cited fears of a backlash in a “dangerously radicalized, reactionary climate.” As the New York Times put it again, ‘The venue seemed to announce the decision with regret, writing in the statement that “this guy performing harms no one in any practical way.”’ [i] Unsurprisingly, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute came out in opposition of Mr Hinckley’s unconditional release, writing in a statement that the organization was “saddened and concerned that John Hinckley, Jr., will soon be unconditionally released and intends to pursue a music career for profit.” Some of Reagan’s family also criticised the move to grant Hickey, who had been suffering severe mental health issues at the time of the shooting, an unconditional release. They may well have been justified in their opposition, but the relevant courts found otherwise. And that’s the point: he was legally free to perform, no one was forced to buy tickets and no taxpayers’ money was involved. And yet…..

So let’s switch channel to the UK and the decision by the Cineworld cinema chain to cancel showings of the film ‘The Lady of Heaven’ which is about Fatima, the daughter of Muhammed.  This was in response to protests outside some of their cinemas including some 200 demonstrators in Birmingham Some in the Muslim community took exception as the film indirectly depicts Muhammad, taboo in Islam, although the movie's website notes, "In accordance with Islamic tradition, during the making of this film no individual represented a Holy Personality." So who wrote/created this film, a white nationalist anti-Muslim individual, those with previous form over Islamophobia? Er no, instead it was a Shia Muslim cleric Sheikh Yasser al-Habib. Yes, his (and the Shia) interpretation of events concerning aspects of Muhammad’s life differ from those of Sunni Muslims. So the issue here, is not a film intended to provoke or incite religious and by implication perhaps racial hatred, but something akin to an internal dispute among those who follow the Muslim faith. [ii] Perhaps it is similar if the Rev Ian Paisley (of blessed memory) had made a film about the Papacy? Protest and make one’s feelings heard for sure, but don’t prevent others who don’t share, care or even know about your doctrinal niceties, from watching it. We have systems in place for judging what films are suitable for public viewing. They are called the British Board of Film Classification. It’s their job to decide if a film is so profoundly obscene or outrageous that it needs editing or very rarely, banning. They decide what the age limits are for viewing. They, not the baying mob, have that prerogative in a free and democratic country. In a nation where anyhow, religion is a minority activity and all faith is ultimately either a cultural construct/badge of identity, or a matter of personal belief – I write/type here as a committed Christian – surely upsetting religious sensibilities especially those that are internal within a particular faith group, are among the least sound reasons for banning anything. That’s the very good reason why we don’t live in a theocracy like contemporary Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Inquisition era Spain, or indeed the England of much of the Early Modern period. Apparently, it is not that great a film anyhow….[iii]

Closer to home, many will know that our school felt forced to cancel an LGBTQ event planned for earlier this term at very short notice. An important rider here, I was involved in neither the planning nor cancellation of the event, so have no personal axe to grind nor justification to plead, and I am assured that the school acted in the way it did in the interest of pupil safety. I don’t intend therefore to pore over the bones of this particular episode in any great depth or to criticise those involved, and yes, I’m aware this is a school blog and I need to observe the boundaries of decorum and professionalism. But why should someone like myself with no particular personal involvement or passion for this event, throw in their two pennyworth of angst and comment? Because it raises the same issues as those in the previous two case studies. In a nutshell, a small group of keyboard warriors (yes, I recognise the irony as I bang away on my own device!), most with no apparent links to the school, were able to wield disproportionate influence and power over an event that had gone through the school’s own approval and scrutiny process, the PGS equivalent if you like of the BBFC. Most frequently, we associate cancel culture with the left, keen to shut down provocative speakers on the right. I was very pleased some while back to invite Peter Hitchens to speak at PGS after he had been ‘cancelled’ by the university. This time and for this event, the intolerance came from a mixture of opinions, according to the Twitter assault I read. Essentially it comprised an unholy alliance of TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and a 'traditional pro-family' group.

The Pride event was to have included invitations to trans author Juno Dawson and controversial gay rights and free speech activist Peter Tatchell. Both have visited the school before, both hold views some would consider provocative. Tatchell in particular has been accused of having written and held views about child sex in a way totally at odds with school values and indeed the law of the land. As ever, the swirl of misinformation and mischief abounds. For a clarification of what he actually said and wrote, please look at this link https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/what-peter-tatchell-really-said-about-child-sex-abuse/

But still, this was I gather, the main gist of the complaints raised. It would have been good and proper to have him challenged on this and allow him a chance to respond and reply in person. That would be positive, open dialogue and scrutiny, critical thinking in action. In reality, pupils, staff, parents and the public were denied the right even to hear Tatchell speak because of the keyboard assault by the self-righteous and self-appointed guardians of morality.

A handful of activists decided the event should not run, despite it being purely voluntary, after school and not forced upon anyone. The cannons were let loose on Twitter, a letter to the Chair of Governors was put up for all to see, the acolytes came falling into line with their own sniper fire of contributions, how many from the local area I wonder? In addition the safeguarding flag was raised, the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer who has a key role in child safeguarding) and Penny Mordaunt, ironically a socially liberal Tory MP, informed and alerted. The last part revealing political illiteracy as the school is not in her constituency; the school lies in Portsmouth South, MP Stephen Morgan and currently shadow schools minister. This was a point I made in my own single, restrained tweet on the matter. The net result, the event is deemed too potentially unsafe and dangerous to run. Who knew the Twitterati had such deadly verbal cluster bombs in their arsenal?  

I might also add, being an independent school, there was not even any taxpayer money being used. It was offered to the wider community as a free event; nowadays, exactly the sort of community engagement the private education sector is encouraged to undertake.

So what are the wider issues, why do I care so much, and why should you? In short, because perfectly legal freedoms of expression and activity have been sabotaged by individuals without either mandate or authority. This is what lies at the heart of all those who believe the only way to prevail in debates is to shut down the other side. To my mind, such an approach actually reveals a fear of one’s opponents. If you really believe in the logic and righteousness of your side in the debate, discuss and argue don’t hide inside the unseen and often anonymous nuclear bunker of social media. Invite yourself along to put your case. Personally, I’d have no problem with a representative from the 'pro-family' group or the TERF community laying out their stall; their views have every right to be heard, but not at the expense of others. In the event bullying, for that is what it is, has no place in the classroom, workplace or public discourse. Institutions especially educational ones should seek to offer opportunities to engage with and be exposed to, a wide range of speakers and viewpoints. In any contentious issues, we need balance not avoidance. In the end, provided participation is voluntary, remember the strapline from the veteran comedian Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown – ‘If easily offended – Please stay away’. Or perhaps you prefer the words of the Duke of Wellington who on hearing that he had received threats that private details about him were going to be published, famously said, ‘Publish and be damned’.

We need more than ever now, for institutions such as schools and universities to be bold and risk-taking, ride the surf of the angry virtual mob and the occasional heckler and let the court of public opinion make up its own mind after hearing and listening to the evidence. To be proud of a reputation for free thought, fairness and rising above the bullies. The alternative I would suggest, is a future where challenging ideas are replaced by a culture that is both anodyne and stultifying. That is not a free society, even if it defines itself as such.

 In summary, cancelling cancel matters, because you never know who is next for the virtual firing squad; it could be me or you ……

 

Simon Lemieux Head of History and Politics, witing in a purely personal capacity

 

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Comments with names are more likely to be published.