Eddie Izzard says he will lose fans over his stance on Scottish independence.
Eddie Izzard has said he will lose fans over his public plea for Scotland to remain part of the UK.
The comedian told Herald Scotland that he expected some people to hate him and boycott his shows because of his views.
To which the answer should be – so what? Should that be a reason for him not to speak his mind? Why shouldn’t he back the campaign that shares his views and why should those views remain unspoken? And, frankly, why should one be Scottish to have and express an opinion? Meanwhile, Andy Murray has chosen not to comment on the matter and again, that’s his decision. Had he chosen to openly back the separatist camp, again, that would be okay. Personally, I don’t have a horse in this race and don’t care about the outcome – but that’s just my opinion.
In a true, liberal democracy, it would be okay to express a contrary opinion, because in a true, liberal democracy, the population is sufficiently adult to recognise that other people have views that do not coincide with theirs. Indeed people have views that do not coincide with the current orthodoxy – and in such a society those people are not hounded out of their jobs, such as happened to Brendan Eich this week.
The chief executive of Mozilla – the company best known for its Firefox browser – has stepped down.
Brendan Eich was appointed just last month but came in for heavy criticism for his views on same-sex marriage.
Mozilla’s executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker announced the decision in a blog post.
“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” she wrote.
So, to hold this role, the CEO is not allowed to hold unpopular views; is not allowed to express them – the Gay Mafia’s viewpoint must always be adhered to – even if we do not believe they are right. And if we want to hold our jobs, we must engage in self-censorship. This is vile and an anathema to liberalism – is there any evidence whatsoever that Eich’s personal views had a negative effect on his role at Mozilla?
All of which tends to lead me to Spiked’s campaign on free speech. (H/T Dick Puddlecote)
Ours is an age in which a pastor, in Sweden, can be sentenced to a month in jail for preaching to his own flock in his own church that homosexuality is a sin. In which British football fans can be arrested for referring to themselves as Yids. In which those who too stingingly criticise the Islamic ritual slaughter of animals can be convicted of committing a hate crime. In which Britain’s leading liberal writers and arts people can, sans shame, put their names to a letter calling for state regulation of the press, the very scourge their cultural forebears risked their heads fighting against. In which students in both Britain and America have become bizarrely ban-happy, censoring songs, newspapers and speakers that rile their minds. In which offence-taking has become the central organising principle of much of the political sphere, nurturing virtual gangs of the ostentatiously outraged who have successfully purged from public life articles, adverts and arguments that upset them – a modern-day version of what Spinoza called ‘quarrelsome mobs’, the ‘real disturbers of the peace’.
Indeed – and we should be appalled at acknowledging the truth in this state of affairs, for it is appalling. We should be mature enough by now and have recognised the struggles of those who went before us to secure the freedoms we are throwing away, to realise that people should be allowed to freely express their opinions even if they repel us with their repugnance; you know, I deplore what you say, yet support to the death your right to say it; clichéd though it might be now, it is still a fine maxim. Let people say that the holocaust never happened, allow them to freely express racist opinions and allow them without fear of sanction to state that Islam is a vile cult intent upon imposing itself upon non-believers through our education system – and not sack the whistleblower when he does. And, yes, let them openly condemn the principle of gay marriage because it goes against their religious or conservative beliefs. People are allowed freedom of conscience – or are they not? For that is where this is going; we are not allowed to have those forbidden thoughts in the first place and the Twatter mob is the modern version of Orwell’s thought police – a willing suppressor of liberty, a vile modern version of the rampaging London mob that once had the authorities running scared in the 17th and 18th Centuries. A force that needs to be vigorously opposed whenever it raises its ugly censorious head.
And, when someone complains that they are offended, well, too bad and they need to be told just that – get over yourself and grow up. No one is forcing them to listen – and in a free, liberal democracy – a proper one, not the sham in which we exist – they can answer back with their rebuttal. That’s how free speech works. No one has the right not to be offended.
Despite fine sounding words from political leaders, not one of them is a defender of the principle because there is always a “but” – when there should be no “but”. Free speech means that the ugly, torrid, offensive wriggling mass is out in the open for all to see and hear. And if the expressions are “extreme” then so be it. Although, bear in mind that “extreme” – in particular “extreme right” – these days is nothing more than a euphemism for “doesn’t agree with the leftist orthodoxy”, so can be safely ignored – and, no, Ukip is not a party of the extreme right any more than the BNP (a party of the left) is. The expression has lost all meaning and is trotted out by the right-on, leftist hard of thinking – and the beeboids – at the very mention of such organisations and in the process they deserve nothing other than our undying contempt for their wilful ignorance and blind tribalism. I haven’t heard an extreme viewpoint for a long time – but maybe I am not easily offended. Stringing up black people because they are inferior, I would regard as extreme. Complaining about the rate of immigration, EU membership or gay marriage is not – not even close.
So, Eddie Izzard should publish and be damned accordingly. If people are offended by his stance on Scottish independence, then let them be. It’s their problem, not his. People need to be more offended – good and hard – on a regular basis so that they become more immune to it.
The first change my father made when taking over from the previous generation in the family company was to refuse to put up posters on the office building at election time as they had always done. He said “why would I offend a potential customer? I would sell to Conservatives, Labourites or Communists.” Mozilla’s chairwoman has taken a similar view and that’s fine. If I had not blogged anonymously my partners might have done something similar and I would have not felt aggrieved.
Eich doesn’t own “his” job. His employers should be free to hire/fire at will, subject to his contract terms. He can work somewhere else or start his own business. And you can spurn Mozilla if – like me – you think she’s been unreasonable. I would never – as an ethical matter – have told an employee what to think, how to vote or to what causes he should donate, because it was none of my concern as long as he kept the business out of it. As I never knew Eich’s stance until she told me, it sounds more like her making a political point than him.
*Laws* impacting free speech are another matter because – unlike freely-negotiated employment contracts – they involve force. Not to detract from your excellent point; just picking a nit.
It sounds like Izzard *has* published and is prepared to be damned. Good for him, even if I have the opposite view on Scottish independence. I stopped buying his stuff because (a) he’s an annoying leftie and (b) he stopped being funny. If his sales go down I may consider buying a stale and unfunny DVD to support his free speech. Or not. As is my right.
The point about Eich is part of the broader malaise – we are not allowed to say unpopular things. Those thoughts and comments should be none of the employer’s concern. Sacking someone (or placing them in a position where they have no option but to resign) because of their opinions is crossing the divide from the professional to the personal. The employer has no right to impose its will upon the personal. That Mozilla has done so is indicative that it is prepared to enforce the current orthodoxy – for no Mozilla employee may now speak out for fear of losing their job. So, yeah, it is a freedom of speech issue even if it is not from government diktat. As is often the case, these days. all it takes is a Twatter mob to get up to full steam to silence an inconvenient lone voice in the wilderness. Regardless of the law, this bullying results in the same self-censorship.
XX The employer has no right to impose its will upon the personal.XX
So;
“Longrider is a shite riding instructor, go to BSM.” would be quite acceptable for one of your employees to post all over the internet, and on posters around town?
It is his free speech, nothing to do with you, as his boss?
When you sign an employmet contract, you agree to abide by the policys, and for the interests of that firm.
If he had writtan as Jimmy Toe-rag from Peebles, then O.K. But what he said was against firm policy and through him, atributable to them.
“My house, my rules, fuck off!”
The example you give is very much in the professional domain and brings the company into disrepute (as well as defamation), so would be a disciplinary offence. Expressing an opinion that has nothing to do with work is not the employer’s business. As for company policies, yes, sure while the employee is at work. Outside of that, they may express any opinion they choose, that doesn’t breach the laws on libel or bring the company into disrepute – or, at least, in a liberal society they would. And Eich’s views on gay marriage had nothing to do with Mozilla’s business as gaydom is not what Mozilla do – they do software. Nothing Eich said brought Mozilla into disrepute – he merely expressed an opinion contrary to the current orthodoxy and Mozilla behaved like arrant cowards in the face of the Twatter mob, thereby enforcing that orthodoxy. It is not their place to do so and they exceeded their remit. And I will never use any of their software again, as they have demonstrated that they support totalitarianism.
Employers do not own employees, much as they like to think otherwise. The contract is an exchange of expertise, labour and time for money. Outside of that, the employer can fuck right off, for it is none of his business.
I have never let an employer impose upon my personal life and never will. Because, you see, my personal life is my gaff, where my rules apply, not theirs, so they can fuck off.
“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,”
How long will it be before Mozilla products block certain words or thoughts?
No doubt when it is deemed “Doubleplus ungood”…
It’ll probably be sooner than you think. 🙁