Tweet
The Independent
Claire Fox: Debate is being stifled by a new form of inquisition
Published: 25 October 2007
What do has-been "comedian" Jim Davidson, DNA pioneer Professor James
Watson, TV nature man David Bellamy and Tory MP Patrick Mercer have in
common? They have all been recently denounced and told - You can't say
that or else!
Whether or not unpalatable views have been expressed, these views fade
into insignificance beside the relentless clampdown on those who go
against the grain.
The real danger is that we are entering a new era of the heresy and
heretic hunting - whether it's ITV bosses booting out some middle-aged
has-been from a reality TV show for his homophobic row about
shirt-lifters, or Bellamy's own admission this week that he's been
branded a heretic for his unfashionably sceptical views on man-made
climate change. Not only have certain issues become taboo in a way
that touches the totalitarian, we demonise those who don't conform.
This is more than a case of the hackneyed complaint against political
correctness gone mad. I fear that we are engaged in modern-day witch
hunts. Western societies seem to have become prey to powerful
illiberal and intolerant influences and have rediscovered the charge
of heresy as a means of silencing those who question prevailing
cultural orthodoxies. Healthy heresy - described in more enlightened
times as critical thinking, sceptical enquiry, or even free speech -
is again being hunted down. That is why no subject should be treated
as a taboo.
Is heresy too strong a term? Of course, today the old Inquisition
stands discredited and the Catholic Church holds little sway in
dictating what we can say or think. However the American academic,
Professor Arthur Versluis usefully reminds us in his important book
The New Inquisitions of the connections between heretic hunting in
medieval times and totalitarian trends today.
A new priestly class has arisen to police secular heresies. Say the
wrong thing on race and watch the CRE swoop zealously to demand you
retract, are sacked, are humiliated. Their viciousness and intolerance
would make medieval cardinals blush. Dare you challenge global warming
orthodoxy, and watch everyone from the Royal Society to
environmentalists shout "blasphemy"? James Watson may not have been
shown the instruments of torture as Galileo was but his treatment
speaks to some chilling similarities between the new and old
inquisitions.
Take 19-year-old drama-school brat Emily Barr being dragged from her
bed to the Big Brother diary room at 3.30am, confused and groggy,
while the disembodied voice of Channel 4 authority condemned her for
using an "unacceptable word" ("nigger") while she pleaded hysterically
that she was not racist. She was then asked to leave the house in only
a night-gown, and holed up in a hotel before being placed in the hands
of a psychologist - the modern equivalent of the stocks. As we watch
young Emily, Professor Watson and Jim Davidson drummed out of
respectable society and recant, we know we are all being told to be
careful what we say, and who we offend. We are encouraged by every
telling-off to become more and more obedient and super-cautious lest
we too are humiliated.
One of the key weapons of the new inquisitions is the notion of
denial. The label of "denial" - applied with ever-greater promiscuity
- expresses the illiberal notion that contentious issues are beyond
debate. It is the most pungent and effective tool in shutting up those
who challenge today's received wisdom. It began with Holocaust denial.
Few of us would want to get into an argument with an actual Holocaust
denier - why argue with lunatic theories? But the criminalisation of
Holocaust denial has led to the repression of other denials of
conventional wisdom. To be accused of denial is to be outcast.
The notion of Holocaust denial, now raised to the status of secular
blasphemy, has beenrevised and adopted for themodern era.
The European Union has recently moved to outlaw genocide denial; this
means anyone convicted of denying the genocide of the Jews in Europe
before and during the Second World War, or the mass killings in Bosnia
and Rwanda, will face a prison term ranging from one to three years.
The French National Assembly passed a law in October last year that
could sentence to a year's imprisonment anyone who denies the Armenian
genocide.
Other "thought crimes" - whilst not against the law - also invoke the
pernicious denial label, most obviously the accusation of
"climate-change denial" attributed to anyone who does not
wholeheartedly embrace global warming orthodoxies.
So what do you do if you have serious doubts about the received
wisdom, but you know that your ideas will be denounced as heresy? If
we stigmatise those who question "self-evident" truths, how will
interrogativedebate survive?
Surely this can only breed a conformist outlook, forcing open debate
on to the back foot. Free thinkers cannot help but question the
prevailing dogma, which often involves a denial of the official
version of the truth. We are entitled to argue and debate and freely
express our views about everything. And in our conformist era, a
healthy dose of heresy is no bad thing.
Claire Fox is Director of the Institute of Ideas; Prof Arthur Versluis
is speaking at the The Battle of Ideas, which takes place at the Royal
College of Art, Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU this weekend;
www.battleofideas.org.uk
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/arti cle3093766.ece
Claire Fox: Debate is being stifled by a new form of inquisition
Published: 25 October 2007
What do has-been "comedian" Jim Davidson, DNA pioneer Professor James
Watson, TV nature man David Bellamy and Tory MP Patrick Mercer have in
common? They have all been recently denounced and told - You can't say
that or else!
Whether or not unpalatable views have been expressed, these views fade
into insignificance beside the relentless clampdown on those who go
against the grain.
The real danger is that we are entering a new era of the heresy and
heretic hunting - whether it's ITV bosses booting out some middle-aged
has-been from a reality TV show for his homophobic row about
shirt-lifters, or Bellamy's own admission this week that he's been
branded a heretic for his unfashionably sceptical views on man-made
climate change. Not only have certain issues become taboo in a way
that touches the totalitarian, we demonise those who don't conform.
This is more than a case of the hackneyed complaint against political
correctness gone mad. I fear that we are engaged in modern-day witch
hunts. Western societies seem to have become prey to powerful
illiberal and intolerant influences and have rediscovered the charge
of heresy as a means of silencing those who question prevailing
cultural orthodoxies. Healthy heresy - described in more enlightened
times as critical thinking, sceptical enquiry, or even free speech -
is again being hunted down. That is why no subject should be treated
as a taboo.
Is heresy too strong a term? Of course, today the old Inquisition
stands discredited and the Catholic Church holds little sway in
dictating what we can say or think. However the American academic,
Professor Arthur Versluis usefully reminds us in his important book
The New Inquisitions of the connections between heretic hunting in
medieval times and totalitarian trends today.
A new priestly class has arisen to police secular heresies. Say the
wrong thing on race and watch the CRE swoop zealously to demand you
retract, are sacked, are humiliated. Their viciousness and intolerance
would make medieval cardinals blush. Dare you challenge global warming
orthodoxy, and watch everyone from the Royal Society to
environmentalists shout "blasphemy"? James Watson may not have been
shown the instruments of torture as Galileo was but his treatment
speaks to some chilling similarities between the new and old
inquisitions.
Take 19-year-old drama-school brat Emily Barr being dragged from her
bed to the Big Brother diary room at 3.30am, confused and groggy,
while the disembodied voice of Channel 4 authority condemned her for
using an "unacceptable word" ("nigger") while she pleaded hysterically
that she was not racist. She was then asked to leave the house in only
a night-gown, and holed up in a hotel before being placed in the hands
of a psychologist - the modern equivalent of the stocks. As we watch
young Emily, Professor Watson and Jim Davidson drummed out of
respectable society and recant, we know we are all being told to be
careful what we say, and who we offend. We are encouraged by every
telling-off to become more and more obedient and super-cautious lest
we too are humiliated.
One of the key weapons of the new inquisitions is the notion of
denial. The label of "denial" - applied with ever-greater promiscuity
- expresses the illiberal notion that contentious issues are beyond
debate. It is the most pungent and effective tool in shutting up those
who challenge today's received wisdom. It began with Holocaust denial.
Few of us would want to get into an argument with an actual Holocaust
denier - why argue with lunatic theories? But the criminalisation of
Holocaust denial has led to the repression of other denials of
conventional wisdom. To be accused of denial is to be outcast.
The notion of Holocaust denial, now raised to the status of secular
blasphemy, has beenrevised and adopted for themodern era.
The European Union has recently moved to outlaw genocide denial; this
means anyone convicted of denying the genocide of the Jews in Europe
before and during the Second World War, or the mass killings in Bosnia
and Rwanda, will face a prison term ranging from one to three years.
The French National Assembly passed a law in October last year that
could sentence to a year's imprisonment anyone who denies the Armenian
genocide.
Other "thought crimes" - whilst not against the law - also invoke the
pernicious denial label, most obviously the accusation of
"climate-change denial" attributed to anyone who does not
wholeheartedly embrace global warming orthodoxies.
So what do you do if you have serious doubts about the received
wisdom, but you know that your ideas will be denounced as heresy? If
we stigmatise those who question "self-evident" truths, how will
interrogativedebate survive?
Surely this can only breed a conformist outlook, forcing open debate
on to the back foot. Free thinkers cannot help but question the
prevailing dogma, which often involves a denial of the official
version of the truth. We are entitled to argue and debate and freely
express our views about everything. And in our conformist era, a
healthy dose of heresy is no bad thing.
Claire Fox is Director of the Institute of Ideas; Prof Arthur Versluis
is speaking at the The Battle of Ideas, which takes place at the Royal
College of Art, Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU this weekend;
www.battleofideas.org.uk
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/arti cle3093766.ece