One can only hope that as with many of these hellish and/or Marx inspired revolutions they end up cancelling and devouring each other. The rest of us must refuse to be cowed or they will become even more entrenched than they are now
DB
David Bell
3 years ago
You do realised you will be cancelled for refusing to accept cancel culture doesn’t exists.
DB
David Barnett
3 years ago
Twitter-storm cancellation demands would be of no consequence if cowardly contacts of the cancellee did not cravenly cave-in to the cancellation demand. Such virtue signalling ought to be punished.
The laws of defamation and interference with contact can’t work against a diffuse “horizontal” menace like a twitter-storm. To cope we need to to define a new offence of “listening to libel”.
“Listening to libel” would be evidenced by, say, a virtue-signalling sponsor summarily (and without manifestly fair due process) dropping a protege, or an employer firing a worker in response to a cancellation frenzy. The cancellee would have cause of action against anyone who was “listening to libel”. The burden of proof would be on the virtue signaller to prove (a) that the accusation was true, and (b) the facts materially justified the virtue signallers’ action.
I see “listening to libel” as an extension of the principle that a person is liable who recklessly or knowingly repeats a libel initiated by someone else.
TT
Tris Torrance
3 years ago
I deplore the cancel culture’s attempted muzzling of freedom of speech. But let’s be honest; it is largely voluntary on the part of the cancelee. Most of this nonsense takes place on the open sewer otherwise known as Twitter.
If you bathe in sewers, then you are likely to become covered in excrement. The obvious answer seems to be to simply not use Twitter, Facebook or any of the rest of them.
Most of the discussion on this is among “media types” who seem to spend far too long obsessing over the last tweet or the next one. A suggestion? Stop doing it, close your account, and get a life.
This may be mostly true but there are people who have lost their jobs over this…
CG
Caroline Galwey
3 years ago
Brilliant and thought-provoking – thank you.
SF
Stephen Follows
3 years ago
‘In cancel culture, it is the other way around. Indeed, it is not just slow to bless: it is incapable of doing it.’
Indeed, because (as you might have said), the essence of it is a refusal to see any good in someone, only what is bad. Even if the good is vast and the bad minuscule, the bad will always won out. That is why this is such a dangerous and disastrous path to follow: nobody can ever be perfect, so nobody can ever escape. The only path to salvation (as it were) is to reverse this, so that the good, however small, is seen to outweigh the bad, however great.
RS
robert scheetz
3 years ago
As you say this is just the latest iteration. An ancient way of enforcing tribal orthodoxy; orthodoxy, the supposed antithesis of Liberal Society. Presently in the US the categories of anathema and excommunication are legion, mostly the tyrannical dictats of our manifold of identitarianisms. But the winner and still heavyweight champion of the world is of course anti-semitism. In 31 states of the US you are banned from government employment or contracts if you support BDS.
DC
Dean Crist
3 years ago
Being conservative and, as a young adult, a card-carrying member of the so-called “Moral Majority”, I must humbly assume some measure of guilt for Cancel Culture’s brutality, for it was fostered in the abysmal way “we” treated folks with whom we disagreed back in those days. The very things we have come to loathe in the modern left — smug, self-righteous, unyielding, dismissive, hateful, justice-wielding, etc. — describes quite well the attitudes we carried back then (and, for some, still do). The only difference, as you so well point out, is that there really is nowhere or no one to whom we may turn to restore the disconnection. And, like today, while our critics may have held a more balanced and wiser view of the long game, we were unwilling and, thus, unable to hear them. This to our own shame and peril. In Christian terms, especially in light of the Christian underpinnings of the essay, humility and repentance are desperately in order, beginning with those of us who sinned first. Only here will we create the space necessary should those involved in today’s Cancel Culture choose to find rest.
CS
Mark Corby
3 years ago
In 1900 the Pope declared that anyone writing about the subject of the foreskin of Christ would suffer excommunication (in the second degree).
There had been approximately eighteen foreskins hanging around Europe in the Middle Ages, but by 1900 this had been reduced to two, hence the controversy.
In 1954 the punishment was increased to excommunication first class (vitandi), literally ‘shunned’.
Surely to suffer ‘vitandi’, particularly for discussing such an interesting subject as the Calcata Foreskin, was in fact a far worse fate than any contemporary “cancelling” nonsense?
It’s about the same, isn’t it? In 1900, if you were excommunicated, you could always go off and become a Protestant. And in 2020, if you’re cancelled, you can always go off and write for The Spectator…
Ex communication is still a feature of some creeds such as Jehovah’s Witnesses – can lead to extreme mental illness see film Apostasy directed by Dan Kokotajlo
Funnily enough I ‘cancelled’ my subscription to The Spectator owing to the permanent presence of Peston and one or two others.
AS
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Sorry Giles, this is one of the many occasions where a rose-tinted modern take on the idiosyncrasies of Catholicism falls flat on its face.
If a practicing Catholic, who believes in the actual concept of heaven and hell is excommunicated, there is hardly a worse punishment than eternal damnation and torture.
I am also sure it would have been small comfort to those over the years (including whole groups of peoples) who were then hunted down and murdered off the back of excommunications, that one day in the future highlight how the church now likes to focus on forgiveness more.
Aware you’re making a more allegorical point here, but this is probably not the argument to make.
If a member of the Labour party starts promoting the policies of the Conservative party, or vice-versa, they can expect to be kicked out. The same goes with a church (or at least any church which has a defined set of beliefs, so not the CofE obvs). It’s not comparable to cancel culture, where there is no recourse – this is surely the point Giles is making
Because he was in charge. Once he ceased to be, he was in effect excommunicated. I daresay Corbyn and his cronies will also now face the metaphorical bell, book and candle at the hands of Sir Forensic. And on it goes. It’s all about power, no longer wielded by the church but by puritan witch-hunters who attach no value to reason, redemption or forgiveness
A formal excommunication would only be pointing out that someone is heading for eternal damnation. In that sense it was done in charity.
As for hunting down and killing the excommunicated; few societies exist that don’t punish those they consider to be transgressors and criminals.
MW
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
In March 1208 Pope Innocent lll imposed an Interdict on England which lasted until May 1214. An Interdict meant the suspension of all Church ministry in the whole country. It was a kind of national excommunication. Interdicts were meant to be imposed for spiritual reasons, but they were weaponised by the Popes(especially Innocent who imposed four) as a political bludgeon.Innocent used this one to impose his choice of Archbishop of Canterbury on John. In the end the King only gave into the Pope’s demands when he needed his support against King Philip Augustus of France who, it was feared, might invade England. Interdicts meant that Mass could not be celebrated, the dead could not be buried in consecrated ground, ordinations ceased, baptism and communion could only be administered in extremis, preaching could continue,but only in the churchyard. Ralph of Coggeshall, a contemporary chronicler, described Interdicts in this way: “Oh what a horrible and miserable spectacle it was to see in every city the sealed doors of the churches, Christians shut out from entry as though they were dogs”
PS We could make cancelling and noplatforming in our universities illegal and impose fines and withdrawal of funding for non-compliance.
Report this comment
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.
One can only hope that as with many of these hellish and/or Marx inspired revolutions they end up cancelling and devouring each other. The rest of us must refuse to be cowed or they will become even more entrenched than they are now
You do realised you will be cancelled for refusing to accept cancel culture doesn’t exists.
Twitter-storm cancellation demands would be of no consequence if cowardly contacts of the cancellee did not cravenly cave-in to the cancellation demand. Such virtue signalling ought to be punished.
The laws of defamation and interference with contact can’t work against a diffuse “horizontal” menace like a twitter-storm. To cope we need to to define a new offence of “listening to libel”.
“Listening to libel” would be evidenced by, say, a virtue-signalling sponsor summarily (and without manifestly fair due process) dropping a protege, or an employer firing a worker in response to a cancellation frenzy. The cancellee would have cause of action against anyone who was “listening to libel”. The burden of proof would be on the virtue signaller to prove (a) that the accusation was true, and (b) the facts materially justified the virtue signallers’ action.
I see “listening to libel” as an extension of the principle that a person is liable who recklessly or knowingly repeats a libel initiated by someone else.
I deplore the cancel culture’s attempted muzzling of freedom of speech. But let’s be honest; it is largely voluntary on the part of the cancelee. Most of this nonsense takes place on the open sewer otherwise known as Twitter.
If you bathe in sewers, then you are likely to become covered in excrement. The obvious answer seems to be to simply not use Twitter, Facebook or any of the rest of them.
Most of the discussion on this is among “media types” who seem to spend far too long obsessing over the last tweet or the next one. A suggestion? Stop doing it, close your account, and get a life.
This may be mostly true but there are people who have lost their jobs over this…
Brilliant and thought-provoking – thank you.
‘In cancel culture, it is the other way around. Indeed, it is not just slow to bless: it is incapable of doing it.’
Indeed, because (as you might have said), the essence of it is a refusal to see any good in someone, only what is bad. Even if the good is vast and the bad minuscule, the bad will always won out. That is why this is such a dangerous and disastrous path to follow: nobody can ever be perfect, so nobody can ever escape. The only path to salvation (as it were) is to reverse this, so that the good, however small, is seen to outweigh the bad, however great.
As you say this is just the latest iteration. An ancient way of enforcing tribal orthodoxy; orthodoxy, the supposed antithesis of Liberal Society. Presently in the US the categories of anathema and excommunication are legion, mostly the tyrannical dictats of our manifold of identitarianisms. But the winner and still heavyweight champion of the world is of course anti-semitism. In 31 states of the US you are banned from government employment or contracts if you support BDS.
Being conservative and, as a young adult, a card-carrying member of the so-called “Moral Majority”, I must humbly assume some measure of guilt for Cancel Culture’s brutality, for it was fostered in the abysmal way “we” treated folks with whom we disagreed back in those days. The very things we have come to loathe in the modern left — smug, self-righteous, unyielding, dismissive, hateful, justice-wielding, etc. — describes quite well the attitudes we carried back then (and, for some, still do). The only difference, as you so well point out, is that there really is nowhere or no one to whom we may turn to restore the disconnection. And, like today, while our critics may have held a more balanced and wiser view of the long game, we were unwilling and, thus, unable to hear them. This to our own shame and peril. In Christian terms, especially in light of the Christian underpinnings of the essay, humility and repentance are desperately in order, beginning with those of us who sinned first. Only here will we create the space necessary should those involved in today’s Cancel Culture choose to find rest.
In 1900 the Pope declared that anyone writing about the subject of the foreskin of Christ would suffer excommunication (in the second degree).
There had been approximately eighteen foreskins hanging around Europe in the Middle Ages, but by 1900 this had been reduced to two, hence the controversy.
In 1954 the punishment was increased to excommunication first class (vitandi), literally ‘shunned’.
Surely to suffer ‘vitandi’, particularly for discussing such an interesting subject as the Calcata Foreskin, was in fact a far worse fate than any contemporary “cancelling” nonsense?
It’s about the same, isn’t it? In 1900, if you were excommunicated, you could always go off and become a Protestant. And in 2020, if you’re cancelled, you can always go off and write for The Spectator…
Or even UnHerd.
Well, indeed!
Ex communication is still a feature of some creeds such as Jehovah’s Witnesses – can lead to extreme mental illness see film Apostasy directed by Dan Kokotajlo
Funnily enough I ‘cancelled’ my subscription to The Spectator owing to the permanent presence of Peston and one or two others.
Sorry Giles, this is one of the many occasions where a rose-tinted modern take on the idiosyncrasies of Catholicism falls flat on its face.
If a practicing Catholic, who believes in the actual concept of heaven and hell is excommunicated, there is hardly a worse punishment than eternal damnation and torture.
I am also sure it would have been small comfort to those over the years (including whole groups of peoples) who were then hunted down and murdered off the back of excommunications, that one day in the future highlight how the church now likes to focus on forgiveness more.
Aware you’re making a more allegorical point here, but this is probably not the argument to make.
If a member of the Labour party starts promoting the policies of the Conservative party, or vice-versa, they can expect to be kicked out. The same goes with a church (or at least any church which has a defined set of beliefs, so not the CofE obvs). It’s not comparable to cancel culture, where there is no recourse – this is surely the point Giles is making
So why wasn’t Tony Blair kicked out of the Labour Party?
How did he ever become a member in the first place?
Wasn’t he Thatcher’s darling?
Because he was in charge. Once he ceased to be, he was in effect excommunicated. I daresay Corbyn and his cronies will also now face the metaphorical bell, book and candle at the hands of Sir Forensic. And on it goes. It’s all about power, no longer wielded by the church but by puritan witch-hunters who attach no value to reason, redemption or forgiveness
Because the Labour party was traumatised by constant defeat and knew Blair was their only hope of winning.
A formal excommunication would only be pointing out that someone is heading for eternal damnation. In that sense it was done in charity.
As for hunting down and killing the excommunicated; few societies exist that don’t punish those they consider to be transgressors and criminals.
In March 1208 Pope Innocent lll imposed an Interdict on England which lasted until May 1214. An Interdict meant the suspension of all Church ministry in the whole country. It was a kind of national excommunication.
Interdicts were meant to be imposed for spiritual reasons, but they were weaponised by the Popes(especially Innocent who imposed four) as a political bludgeon.Innocent used this one to impose his choice of Archbishop of Canterbury on John. In the end the King only gave into the Pope’s demands when he needed his support against King Philip Augustus of France who, it was feared, might invade England.
Interdicts meant that Mass could not be celebrated, the dead could not be buried in consecrated ground, ordinations ceased, baptism and communion could only be administered in extremis, preaching could continue,but only in the churchyard.
Ralph of Coggeshall, a contemporary chronicler, described Interdicts in this way:
“Oh what a horrible and miserable spectacle it was to see in every city the sealed doors of the churches, Christians shut out from entry as though they were dogs”
PS We could make cancelling and noplatforming in our universities illegal and impose fines and withdrawal of funding for non-compliance.