There’s been a positive storm brewing recently in the land of blog regarding Inigo Wilson’s “Lefty Lexicon” over at Conservative Home and plenty have commented. Much has touched on freedom of speech and others have pointed out – rightly – that such freedom brings consequences. Still, I thought I’d bring my comment to the discussion.
Inigo Wilson may not be a natural wit, but his Lefty Lexicon was an attempt at satire. The problem is that while it made a valid point about a tendency to change the meaning of words in order to demonise people, the satire didn’t really get going. A hint, Inigo; satire is supposed to make people laugh; even if they feel a bit guilty doing so. The Lefty Lexicon just didn’t do the business in that department. Consequently, despite hitting its intended target on occasion, it came across as a bit, well, dire, really…
Inigo’s other mistake was to be open about himself and what he does for a living. As Chris Applegate points out, finding out who that employer is, is not a difficult thing to do. It’s Orange, if you missed it. So, given that his employer has found out, he is now suspended pending disciplinary action and, it would seem; the sack. Given his role in the company; community affairs, perhaps that’s not too surprising.
Okay, let’s get the freedom of speech thing out of the way. Inigo Wilson indulged in his right to speak freely. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee complained and are now crowing about their success. They had the absolute right to complain. It is, after all, a free country and they can say what they wish to Inigo’s employer. Freedom of speech carries consequences. You can say what you like, but don’t complain about the flack if you are controversial in what you say.
I guess the matter revolves around how Orange’s managers dealt with the matter. Of course, there was the devil and the deep blue sea scenario opening up before them. Do nothing and face a furore in the press for “Islamophobia” or take decisive action and face a furore over free speech. Sheesh! What a choice. Personally, had it been me, I’d have thanked the Muslim Public Affairs Committee for bringing the matter to my attention, given Inigo a sound bollocking and left him in no doubt about what would happen should he repeat the offence (probably including a review of his performance) and consider the matter dealt with. I would advise the MPAC that the matter had been managed internally and consider it closed. I would then ride any further storm. Orange chose the dhimmi option, which means that the beast knows it can always come back for more – and will.
There have been accusations that Inigo’s comments were racist. One of my all-time irritations occurs when a critic of Islam is accused of being racist. It is, after all, confirming Inigo Wilson’s definition of the term “racist” rather nicely, making his point for him (as did the MPAC). My Collins dictionary defines racism as follows:
racialism or racism n. 1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority. 2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis, of such a belief racialist or racist n., adj.
And the definition of Islam:
Islam n. 1. Also called: Islamism. the religion of Muslims, teaching that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet; Mohammedanism. 2. a. Muslims collectively and their civilization. b. the countries where the Muslim religion is predominant. – Is’lamic adj.
Note please; not one mention in the Islam definition of it applying to any particular racial group. It is a religion; an ideology, not a race. Please can we stop this nonsense whereby those who dare to criticise or ridicule Islam are accused of being racists? Nor, necessarily are they suffering a phobia. I don’t like any organised religion, but no one accuses me of being Christianophobic, Judaophobic, Bhuddistophobic or Hinduophobic, do they? I’m not. Dislike and fear are two separate things. Please, enough already.
The ridiculous hyper-sensitivity towards Islam is in danger of reaching epidemic proportions. Those who recall Dave Allen will also recall that the Christian religion (in this case, Catholicism) has been lampooned for generations and they, for the most part, let it go. More recently Father Ted picked up where Allen left off. Yes, sometimes the church gets its knickers in a knot over some silly slight, but they have generally become immune to satire and ridicule and that’s as it should be. Islam should not be subject to special treatment, it is not deserving of special treatment. Those who do not believe in its ideology are under no obligation to abide by it and should be able to criticise and ridicule without having their comment stifled by accusations of racism and Islamophobia. As Wilson pointed out; these are the tools used by those who would stifle debate – and haven’t they made his point rather well?
Of course, had the MPAC not made a fuss, the whole thing would have been ignored and quietly gone away; but that’s not what they want, though, is it?
Longrider, I’m interested to know where you draw the line between this and McCarthy?
Best regards
I hadn’t thought of it in the context of McCarthy, but there are, indeed, similarities in the hysterical behaviour. The difference, though, is that so far, we haven’t had the show trial type hearings of the McCarthy era.