Can we stop pretending this is a problem on both the right and the left. This problem in its modern form has been created by progressives. Interestingly it is probably worse for progressives because they care more about what other progressives think. I think the only reason the NYT and other progressive outlets have started to even acknowledge it is because the revolution is devouring its young and they all feel threatened by what they have created.
Lets get something straight: there is nothing remotely progressive about censorship and the denial of free speech. Nothing. Those who espouse or practise cancel culture are not, repeat not progressive. Left, right, progressive, conservative -- these are labels which have lost all meaning.
The sentiment is correct, but the label used is inapt. What I see is that leftists are the ones cancelling speakers, authors, media figures, political opinion figures.
Lori, I will - largely - agree with you but I must point out that the mainstream also does this when it suits them.
I use as my point of reference the recent Covid thingy. There were ever so many folks who denied it was real, said it was a conspiracy, etc., etc. In my opinion they were (a very polite word here) daft but they - very correctly in my opinion - were allowed to spew forth their daft (remember, my opinion) perspectives.
Very, very importantly, however, there were respected medical professionals who were silenced when they suggested additional methods of treatment either in addition to or in substitution of vaccination. I am speaking of physicians and researchers who were shut down and, in some cases, lost their license to practice, etc. Very interestingly, now that we are in the back side of the Covid thingy - not completely done, to be sure - the mainstream establishment is coming up with some "innovative" ideas, some of which appear to mimic some of the previously proposed but blacklisted ideas.
So, my point is that to be sure the leftish folks are terrifically guilty of this cancellation nonsense but the mainstream folks absolutely are also guilty of doing this. Whenever the accepted view is challenged it brings on pushback.
Very, very importantly, science - and so much else in our society - involved, nay, requires that accepted views and perspectives be challenged and pushed in order to ensure that there is true logic to that accepted position. And sometimes, there is no such logic.
As for myself, I lean on the rightish side of things but I like to look at a lot of perspectives in the event that someone with a different view has something useful to say that will allow me to learn and, very hopefully, improve my perspective.
I work in healthcare and the COVID pandemic is an example of the politicization of medicine, or at least public health. In the US, public health has long been a left/liberal bastion with a mission focused on populations thought to be disenfranchised or marginalized. This includes the CDC, which included violence, especially gun violence, to be within its scope. And so the "mainstream" medicine advocated for a left/liberal/progressive agenda for a number of years, even decades, prior to COVID,
When an organization becomes politicized, then adherence to the mission and initiatives of the organization become required and dissonant voices are quieted or removed, Canceled, if you will. From what I can see, the prime example is Dr. John Ionnaides (sp?) of Stanford University, a particularly deep thinker on study design, who questioned the narrative early and appears to have disappeared from view.
The institutional backlash against President Trump also played out in the governmental response in promoting or denying evaluations, treatments and even statistics around the pandemic - to everyone's detriment. Ken, you are absolutely correct that there was a command and control feel to the governmental response, and one led not by the President.
The scientific method is one of analysis and challenge and we are living in a time where both are not allowed. Instead we are increasingly in an age revering Ned Ludd and Trofim Lysenko.
Ooooooh! Ned Ludd and Trofim Lysenko! You are being very, very politely vicious. And I love it! Truly, the folks who try to "shout down" opposing views are hurting themselves but they simply don't see it. And they never will, which is absolutely unfortunate for us all.
You are correct about healthcare being politicized. In Canada, healthcare is centered around "Canadian healthcare is better and American healthcare is worse." Any proposal to make a change to the Canadian healthcare system is attacked as bringing on "American style healthcare" ["ASH"]. I would like to tell you that I don't understand - but I actually do understand - why that accusation of ASH is always used when a particular proposal might bring us closer to a, oh..., French style system, Swedish style system, etc., etc. In fact, healthcare is that proverbial third rail in Canada.
As near as I can tell, there are three attributes to a modern medical system: timeliness, quality and cost. I was (until I retired) an accountant and I always told clients that you can have our work that is cheap, fast and good quality - any two but not all three. In Canada we started with cheap in order to allow universal access, then we go to good and finally, we end up with timeliness at the rear. It is my best understanding that in the US, they start with timeliness, followed by quality (although not too far behind - because they don't worry about cost, as near as I can tell) with cheap at the end.
My point is that all of these commentaries about medicine - even Covid, etc. - fall in this same paradigm in which there are conflicts between cheap, good and timely. The scientific method absolutely is subordinate to the ideology that works within that paradigm and that ideology has, in turn, identified "unacceptable" views that might ultimately challenge the particular orthodoxy.
Oh, and it is fascinating to listen to US docs (I have) who just "know" about "substandard" Canadian medicine and to then (first?) have that same conversation with Canadian docs who just "know" about "uncaring" US medicine. Uninformed opinion based on fallacies on both sides with no real ability to consider that they are prisoners of their own places on the three pronged paradigm and that both systems are trying to the same thing but from different priorities.
The people you see aren't "leftists", as that term is traditionally understood. If you must attach a label to them, then may I suggest "neoliberals" or "faux leftists". Historically, leftists were active supporters of free speech and other civil rights, many of whom went to jail for their exercise of same. You may also have noticed that many of the decrying cancel culture are the real leftists.
Beadhead, you write, "Historically, leftists were active supporters of free speech and other civil rights .... man of the[se] decrying cancel culture are the real leftists."
I absolutely agree. As far as you go.
[My "bona fides" before further comment. I self-describe as being "somewhat rightish, with a somewhat libertarian tilt insofar as I think government is absolutely necessary but I believe that far too many expect far too much from government.]
I absolutely agree that historically leftists were the principal active supporters of free speech and other civil rights. Very much to the shame of those in the center and the right, in my view. I absolutely also agree that there are some (I am unable to say "many") who are clearly on the left who currently argue against the censorship and cancel culture. To those latter folks, I say, Bravo.
I respectfully disagree with you description of those to whom I refer in the preceding paragraph as "the real leftists." To be left of center is a geographic descriptor, if you will, albeit the "location" of your beliefs. There are many, many, many on the left of center who are very much into the cancellation and censorship of "unacceptable" views.
Might I offer a different descriptor for those left-wing cancellation / censorship persuasion: left wing fascism?
That ever-so-"accurate" and "all knowing" source, Wikipedia defines fascism as "a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy ..."
My proposal clearly does not see these folks as "far-right' but they are authoritarian: "THIS is what you are allowed to believe and to say but not THAT." There is no characteristic of nationalism that I see but there certainly is a very strong desire to dictate beliefs, to suppress other "unacceptable" beliefs and a "need to regiment society and the economy - see how the attempts are made to force "green energy transition" as one example. [Oh, that will get me in trouble!!]
I quite accept that there are folks with beliefs that are different than mine. I try to listen to those folks to see what I can learn, what I have missed, etc. To me, that is a matter not simply of free speech or civil rights - although it is both of those - but is simply sensible to listen and to try to learn and to accord to others the rights that I assert for myself.
When you say: " There are many, many, many on the left of center who are very much into the cancellation and censorship of "unacceptable" views", I must disagree. The "authoritarian" folks of whom you speak are not of the left. You quite rightly describe them as social fascists. Clearly, there are folks from across the right-left spectrum who are intolerant of free speech and expression, just as there are folks on the left and on the right who stand up and defend them. Free speech is not a "left" or "right" thing.
If I read you correctly - I am reading between the lines here - you see "pure" leftists, as, well, pure. Further, you see, folks who advocate censorship, cancelling, etc. as not possibly leftist. On those points I very respectfully disagree with you.
My reason for disagreement is that it is quite possible (in my rightish view) for someone to be leftist in all respects except that they believe in censorship and cancellation. In your view [again, reading between the lines] those views make it impossible for them to be leftists. And, again, again, I very respectfully disagree ..... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck - even if it limps when most ducks don't limp - I have to think it is a duck. [I acknowledge, that is not a good metaphor but it is the best that I can come up with on short notice.]
You ever so correctly state that free speech is neither left nor right. You, again, ever so correctly state that there are many examples of folks who are intolerant of free speech who could not at all be described as being left wing; that is, they are in the center or the right, or no where on that spectrum.
Now, having said that, I very respectfully submit that over the last period of time (say, ten - fifteen years?) I believe that the attempt at denial of free speech and cancellation is largely (not at all exclusively, please note) a leftish phenomenon.
I understand that you are sensitive to the idea that left-wing folks could POSSIBLY attempt to deny free speech or wish cancellation on "bad" ideas but it is important for everyone to consider the failings of their own "group" in order for everyone to learn from self-criticism. [A Chairman Mao concept, no?]
Thank you for helping to clarify and looking a bit at the taxonomy of Left/Liberal and Right/Conservative can leave one dizzied. What I meant is those (increasingly common, I'm afraid) that are far/extreme/radical/hard Left. Currently, I see the term Leftist being used for the far Left, but I concede my confusion on the point.
Well historically, those on the "far/extreme/radical/hard Left" were Marxist/Leninist/Maoist social revolutionaries. There's not many of those around anymore, and there hasn't been for some years now. Today, the "far Left" is primarily comprised of those who espouse some form of democratic socialism or Marxism and who oppose neoliberal capitalism, militarism and colonialism. Most of these folks are outspoken supporters of human and civil rights, including free speech and expression. Consequently, they are opponents, not supporters, of censorship and cancel culture.
Looking at this comment again, there is a flavor of the "no true Scotsman" argument. Leftists have a wide and varied history.
Jonah Goldberg explored Liberal Fascism and its history rooted in the early 20th century, including in the US in a book by the same title. Published in 2008. Like all mass movements, the Left has many different tribes, not all of them very tolerant or open (e.g. Lenin). In fact many of today's conservatives fit in the mold of a traditional liberal.
Fine, but when was the last time you ran into a hard core Leninist? That form of cancel culture -- a most literal one at that -- is now confined to the dustbin of history. Today, those on the left are vocal defenders of free speech and expression, just as they were in the darkest days of McCarthyism.
I agree with this. Only very recently, and only in tiny amounts, have I seen some progressives budge even slightly from the "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for your speech, you bigot!" mantra -- a mantra that presumes, apparently, that entirely reasonable and to-be-expected "consequences" for daring to disagree with any progressive-approved narrative include the loss of one's livelihood, devastating public pile-ons, complete ostracization by former friends, doxing, and even threats of physical violence. In short, it is a viewpoint that suggests that acceptable "consequences" of free speech include the complete destruction of a person's relationships, housing, reputation, educational opportunities, ability to make a living, and physical security.
How on earth is this "free speech"?
Please don't mistake me for a right-winger: I am not. Like so many in the U.S. and other countries, I feel politically cut adrift, without a home on either end of the spectrum. To my right are the Republicans, who believe women have no autonomy over their own bodies. On the left are the Democrats, who will let women have abortions, but seem systematically bent on dismantling all the protections we've fought so hard for, and on erasing our rights to safety, dignity, privacy, fairness in sport, and even the language we have always used to describe ourselves and our bodies.
Worse, there is nowhere in the world right now that seems any safer.
I think it's cause too many have left those forms of media due to constant lying and such. So they are trying to look responsible now to get back some customers. Too late!!
I very respectfully submit that a lot - I mean a real lot - of this cancel culture comes from the leftish side of things. Not everything, of course, not by any stretch, but real lot of it is leftish.
There, I have said it.
Now, for a couple of stupid - my word - examples.
You will recall that we had a bout with Covid over the last few years. There were some folks who said Covid was not serious, was not really a thing. I thought them daft (a very polite term, to be sure) and I simply did not pay attention to them. There were, however, some folks, including medical professionals who were very thoughtful and mentioned some treatments that might be useful in addition to those that the mainstream establishment were requiring. Many of those medical professionals were forced to keep quiet after some of them lost licenses to practice, etc. My point is that, in addition to the "leftish" folks who dearly love cancel culture, there were the mainstream folks who felt forced to keep to the established narrative.
Oh, yeah, I read in the newspaper now that some of the latest "treatments" include some of the things that were put forth by those previously cancelled and prevented from speaking out.
Another example: the religion of climate change. You can, if you wish, openly criticize, say, the Catholic Church, the Mormon faith, even the Muslim faith [if you are TERRIFICALLY careful] but you cannot question the church of climate change. It used to be called global warming but, I guess, the globe is no longer warming; just changing.
Anyway, do you know anyone who has questioned the assertion that "97% of all scientists" support the notion [they say "science"] of global warming / climate change, whatever? Track it back and it is a terrifically interesting example of how an assertion is made but cannot be discussed.
If you wish to discuss climate change, etc. you can do so - but only in an approved and approving fashion. You cannot ask uncomfortable questions about it, obvious contradictions, etc. My point is that unlike pretty much any other scientific hypothesis / theory, it cannot be discussed in a way that challenges the orthodoxy.
There are a lot of examples of cancel culture.
I thank you for your essay on this topic. Cancel culture is very widespread [an opinion, to be sure] and is difficult to deal with. But we must. I have the right to not listen to something that offends me and contradicts my opinions; I have the right to do so but I do it at my peril because it precludes me from the possibility of learning something that I didn't previously know - perhaps, even, something that supports my idea!
97% OF SCIENTISTS ? from what fields ? that they don't tell you .climate has always been changing go back and read papers from 1890 they were just as bad back then but did not have Greta and the intenet
Actually, Jerry, I think that you and I are saying much the same thing.
A narrative in the greenie movement is that "the science is settled" and that to question it - honestly question, not to dispute but to question various aspects - is verboten. Then, a statistic is often trotted out that says that 97% of all scientists agreed with that "fact."
In fact, the 97% was a bogus statistic - it was, indeed, 97% but 97% of which people and those people were agreeing with what? My point is, that that statistic was trotted out for years to shut down questions.
Absolutely, the climate has always changed and always will. The 97%, as I recall, was used to "prove" that climate change was the fault of "peoplekind" [sorry, I had to take a shot at JT, there]. Whether humans are or are not responsible [personally, I have my doubts but I am certainly willing to consider a rational discussion] is something that was "settled" some time ago we are told.
Oh, yeah, your query about what fields? Excellent point. One that the greenies simply don't want to discuss as it undermines their talking point.
And, that was my point about it being an example of cancel culture.
I'm a professional scientist and there is no way that 97% agree. Perhaps 97% aren't willing to publicly disagree.
In any case you can fully agree with the ACTUAL science and still think the greennies proposed "solutions" to any such problems are highly counterproductive, will have almost no impact on the climate, but will hurt almost everyone, especially the poor. Thier "solutions" are just the same old Hair Shirtisms that they have been pedaling since the 60s, just with a different rationale. They won't be happy until everyone but the elite lives a lifestyle reminiscent of the middle ages while they live in postmodern luxury...
This is a balanced, thorough and thoughtful appraisal of a deeply disturbing trend. I only wish more people on the Left had the courage to speak out against it.
There is something troubling on my mind today that seems in some way related to this general topic of cancelling out or censuring opinions and positions that are not condoned by the ruling ideologists of today. I’m not a huge sports fan, but in the one sport that interests me and I follow, which is tennis, there are some disturbing developments taking place. I won’t even get into the shameful debacle at the Australian Open in January where the number one men’s player, Novak Djokovic, was disallowed from competing because he wasn’t vaccinated, even though he had an exemption and also had natural immunity. Now the Russian invasion of Ukraine is becoming a political issue with the sport, as Russian players (including the now men’s number 1, Deniil Medvedev) and Belarusian players (e.g., Victoria Azarenka) can no longer play for their countries and their flags are disallowed at tournaments. What’s more, to be able to compete at Wimbledon, they must publicly denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is getting really ridiculous, in my opinion. We used to talk about the separation of state and religion, but now it seems the state wants to interfere in every aspect of life, insisting that people follow the rules they dictate or else suffer the consequences.
P.S. I realize it is the tennis tournaments that are making these decisions rather than the state per se. My point is that this “cancel culture” movement is infiltrating every field of endeavour.
I do not agree that Mr. Djokovic's departure from Australia is an example of "cancel culture". Australia has laws and regulations regarding public health requirements for people entering and staying in the country. Mr. Djokovic did not follow the regulations and so was not allowed to be in the country. We can disagree with the effectiveness of these rules, but they were not hidden. Mr. Djokovic would have made a more effective statement by not playing and stating why.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has led to the removal of Russian athletes and entertainers from Western venues, as a means to apply pressure to the government through cultural isolation. In that the person is not able work in parts of the West due to sharing a label, this is part of cancelling. Should the response be to renounce their Russian citizenship and apply for asylum? I'm not sure.
The free world is disengaging from Russia, economically and culturally. Is an artist or athlete any different from a businessman?
I mentioned Djokavic’s situation at the Australian Open not as an example of cancel culture per se, as the issue of insisting that athletes be vaccinated against their wishes and then threatening their careers and livelihoods when they don’t comply is a separate one. It is the second instance, however, of Russian and Belarusian athletes not being able to compete for their countries, or in fact, to be even associated with their countries, that I find astounding. I happened to see on the Tennis Channel the other day, for example, the list of the top 10 men’s players, along with their photos and the name of their countries. It was stunning to see no country’s name below the photos of the two Russian players. Their nationalities have essentially been “cancelled” because of this geopolitical situation, which I feel is totally wrong. Why should athletes, artists, or anyone else be discriminated against in this way because of Putin’s actions? I don’t support the invasion of Ukraine by any means, but I detest this black and white thinking and condemning of Russia and everything Russian when the whole situation appears to me to have a highly nuanced and complex background in which both “sides” have played a role leading up to this escalation.
The invasion of Ukraine cannot be opposed using direct military force due to the potential escalation and widening of the war. Therefore, using economic, cultural and political influence is what our countries have as leverage to induce change. We have formal contracts with our countries' leadership to do what is best (or be removed) and we have informal social contracts with our institutions to do the same.
Is putting pressure on all fronts to an aggressor to back down the right thing to do, or should we make exceptions? For the exceptions, what is the limiting prinicple? These are difficult questions and in moving quickly and effectively, our responses will not be perfect. Hopefully we will become more nuanced with time. And let's not do internment camps again.
My protest tonight will be to read Joseph Brodsky. And perhaps watch The Russia House (Michelle Pfeiffer and Sean Connery...).
Thanks for your comments. I guess I just don’t have as much trust or faith in the so-called “free” world as you seem to have. It seems to me to be becoming increasingly less free, especially when it (Western countries) continue to disown their responsibility in perpetuating world divisions and conflict, as well as those within their own borders. I am so sick of the lies and deceptions, the judgements, the blaming, and the demonization of others to further political agendas.
Yes, and I watched the outstanding Belarusian women’s tennis player, Victoria Azarenka, normally tough as nails, break down crying on the court this week from the pressure of it all, and no doubt from the hate speech she has been receiving online, simply because of her nationality, which is why she has cancelled all her social media accounts. This is insane, totally out of control.
Hey, Jewel. We’ve seen this over and over throughout human history because human nature has remained constant. Each generation has to learn these lessons anew with some assistance from our cultural traditions and institutions. Our species is deeply messy and imperfect. That’s why “progress” will never completely stamp out war, hatred, racism, destruction, etc. The best we can do is to continually promote the human potential for good and dissuade the human potential for evil. It’s part of the human condition and never-ending. This is where left-wing ideologues can get outrageously off-track. They think they can ignore broader human nature and eradicate human evil through technological and social progress. But denying reality leads to even greater problems and evils. That’s my rant for the day. 😃
Tara, thanks for posting your excellent The Globe and Mail article. It’s a rich collection of viewpoints and commentary on the cancel culture movement.
In the United States, most of the book "bannings" have been done by Leftist/Progressive forces. What the conservative side restricted was the removal of books felt to be age-inappropriate from school libraries. Currently being banned are books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, due to racial themes or language and again, these are from school libraries and reading lists.
In the US, it is impossible to actually ban a book, but you can make it difficult to distribute. Amazon and Target have removed books from their inventories due to the content not matching their corporate cultures. These books could be obtained elsewhere fairly easily.
At least this has been true in my lifetime (I'm pretty old). The days of the Scopes Monkey trial have long past, though I recall in the '60s some residual religious fundamentalists still stirring that pot.
Where book banning comes to play is a book not being published, or even written. This restriction is owned by the Left. The profound impact on our culture reverberates globally. We are a smaller country for it.
“Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.”
The is great cognitive dissonance here in this attempt to be politically fair in cancel culture criticism. The ugly and dangerous real cancel culture is that it fronts a political agenda of the campus indoctrinated 3rd wave postmodernists “critical social justice theory” disciples. This extreme left woke agenda has been mainstreamed, even Biden follows it, and thus it infests the power structure of the country. It isn’t just Twitter, but the Democrat machine and it’s corporate connections. It is abuse of power against individuals that speak out in opposition to this power cabal.
The grassroots moves of parents to have a say in public education curriculum and content is in fact free speech rights in progress. It is the opposite of cancel culture as it is a rejection of the pushed material of woke ideology. It is also democratic.
Thanks for sharing Tara. I had heard some in the Squamish rock climbing community we’re hard core but racist donuts? They’ve really fallen into lunacy.
I appreciate the bit on cancel culture. I am the ex-wife of a man who says not only that he is a woman, but that he's the mother of our children. His rage at me for being truly female is immense. He's turned our grown sons against me, with the cancellation mode. He adopted that way back in the 1990s, when he cancelled his own grandmother, who came from Kiev, a refugee of anti-Semitic progroms. She never met her great grandsons. My memoir, which also contains happy motherhood and daughterhood moments, is coming out next 5-10 days. In the Curated Woods: True Tales from a Grass Widow by Ute Heggen, containing 50 nature photos. uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com ebook will be inexpensive
Can we stop pretending this is a problem on both the right and the left. This problem in its modern form has been created by progressives. Interestingly it is probably worse for progressives because they care more about what other progressives think. I think the only reason the NYT and other progressive outlets have started to even acknowledge it is because the revolution is devouring its young and they all feel threatened by what they have created.
Lets get something straight: there is nothing remotely progressive about censorship and the denial of free speech. Nothing. Those who espouse or practise cancel culture are not, repeat not progressive. Left, right, progressive, conservative -- these are labels which have lost all meaning.
Thank you for your completely rational comment.
The sentiment is correct, but the label used is inapt. What I see is that leftists are the ones cancelling speakers, authors, media figures, political opinion figures.
Lori, I will - largely - agree with you but I must point out that the mainstream also does this when it suits them.
I use as my point of reference the recent Covid thingy. There were ever so many folks who denied it was real, said it was a conspiracy, etc., etc. In my opinion they were (a very polite word here) daft but they - very correctly in my opinion - were allowed to spew forth their daft (remember, my opinion) perspectives.
Very, very importantly, however, there were respected medical professionals who were silenced when they suggested additional methods of treatment either in addition to or in substitution of vaccination. I am speaking of physicians and researchers who were shut down and, in some cases, lost their license to practice, etc. Very interestingly, now that we are in the back side of the Covid thingy - not completely done, to be sure - the mainstream establishment is coming up with some "innovative" ideas, some of which appear to mimic some of the previously proposed but blacklisted ideas.
So, my point is that to be sure the leftish folks are terrifically guilty of this cancellation nonsense but the mainstream folks absolutely are also guilty of doing this. Whenever the accepted view is challenged it brings on pushback.
Very, very importantly, science - and so much else in our society - involved, nay, requires that accepted views and perspectives be challenged and pushed in order to ensure that there is true logic to that accepted position. And sometimes, there is no such logic.
As for myself, I lean on the rightish side of things but I like to look at a lot of perspectives in the event that someone with a different view has something useful to say that will allow me to learn and, very hopefully, improve my perspective.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I work in healthcare and the COVID pandemic is an example of the politicization of medicine, or at least public health. In the US, public health has long been a left/liberal bastion with a mission focused on populations thought to be disenfranchised or marginalized. This includes the CDC, which included violence, especially gun violence, to be within its scope. And so the "mainstream" medicine advocated for a left/liberal/progressive agenda for a number of years, even decades, prior to COVID,
When an organization becomes politicized, then adherence to the mission and initiatives of the organization become required and dissonant voices are quieted or removed, Canceled, if you will. From what I can see, the prime example is Dr. John Ionnaides (sp?) of Stanford University, a particularly deep thinker on study design, who questioned the narrative early and appears to have disappeared from view.
The institutional backlash against President Trump also played out in the governmental response in promoting or denying evaluations, treatments and even statistics around the pandemic - to everyone's detriment. Ken, you are absolutely correct that there was a command and control feel to the governmental response, and one led not by the President.
The scientific method is one of analysis and challenge and we are living in a time where both are not allowed. Instead we are increasingly in an age revering Ned Ludd and Trofim Lysenko.
Ooooooh! Ned Ludd and Trofim Lysenko! You are being very, very politely vicious. And I love it! Truly, the folks who try to "shout down" opposing views are hurting themselves but they simply don't see it. And they never will, which is absolutely unfortunate for us all.
You are correct about healthcare being politicized. In Canada, healthcare is centered around "Canadian healthcare is better and American healthcare is worse." Any proposal to make a change to the Canadian healthcare system is attacked as bringing on "American style healthcare" ["ASH"]. I would like to tell you that I don't understand - but I actually do understand - why that accusation of ASH is always used when a particular proposal might bring us closer to a, oh..., French style system, Swedish style system, etc., etc. In fact, healthcare is that proverbial third rail in Canada.
As near as I can tell, there are three attributes to a modern medical system: timeliness, quality and cost. I was (until I retired) an accountant and I always told clients that you can have our work that is cheap, fast and good quality - any two but not all three. In Canada we started with cheap in order to allow universal access, then we go to good and finally, we end up with timeliness at the rear. It is my best understanding that in the US, they start with timeliness, followed by quality (although not too far behind - because they don't worry about cost, as near as I can tell) with cheap at the end.
My point is that all of these commentaries about medicine - even Covid, etc. - fall in this same paradigm in which there are conflicts between cheap, good and timely. The scientific method absolutely is subordinate to the ideology that works within that paradigm and that ideology has, in turn, identified "unacceptable" views that might ultimately challenge the particular orthodoxy.
Oh, and it is fascinating to listen to US docs (I have) who just "know" about "substandard" Canadian medicine and to then (first?) have that same conversation with Canadian docs who just "know" about "uncaring" US medicine. Uninformed opinion based on fallacies on both sides with no real ability to consider that they are prisoners of their own places on the three pronged paradigm and that both systems are trying to the same thing but from different priorities.
The people you see aren't "leftists", as that term is traditionally understood. If you must attach a label to them, then may I suggest "neoliberals" or "faux leftists". Historically, leftists were active supporters of free speech and other civil rights, many of whom went to jail for their exercise of same. You may also have noticed that many of the decrying cancel culture are the real leftists.
Beadhead, you write, "Historically, leftists were active supporters of free speech and other civil rights .... man of the[se] decrying cancel culture are the real leftists."
I absolutely agree. As far as you go.
[My "bona fides" before further comment. I self-describe as being "somewhat rightish, with a somewhat libertarian tilt insofar as I think government is absolutely necessary but I believe that far too many expect far too much from government.]
I absolutely agree that historically leftists were the principal active supporters of free speech and other civil rights. Very much to the shame of those in the center and the right, in my view. I absolutely also agree that there are some (I am unable to say "many") who are clearly on the left who currently argue against the censorship and cancel culture. To those latter folks, I say, Bravo.
I respectfully disagree with you description of those to whom I refer in the preceding paragraph as "the real leftists." To be left of center is a geographic descriptor, if you will, albeit the "location" of your beliefs. There are many, many, many on the left of center who are very much into the cancellation and censorship of "unacceptable" views.
Might I offer a different descriptor for those left-wing cancellation / censorship persuasion: left wing fascism?
That ever-so-"accurate" and "all knowing" source, Wikipedia defines fascism as "a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy ..."
My proposal clearly does not see these folks as "far-right' but they are authoritarian: "THIS is what you are allowed to believe and to say but not THAT." There is no characteristic of nationalism that I see but there certainly is a very strong desire to dictate beliefs, to suppress other "unacceptable" beliefs and a "need to regiment society and the economy - see how the attempts are made to force "green energy transition" as one example. [Oh, that will get me in trouble!!]
I quite accept that there are folks with beliefs that are different than mine. I try to listen to those folks to see what I can learn, what I have missed, etc. To me, that is a matter not simply of free speech or civil rights - although it is both of those - but is simply sensible to listen and to try to learn and to accord to others the rights that I assert for myself.
When you say: " There are many, many, many on the left of center who are very much into the cancellation and censorship of "unacceptable" views", I must disagree. The "authoritarian" folks of whom you speak are not of the left. You quite rightly describe them as social fascists. Clearly, there are folks from across the right-left spectrum who are intolerant of free speech and expression, just as there are folks on the left and on the right who stand up and defend them. Free speech is not a "left" or "right" thing.
BH, I respectfully disagree with you.
If I read you correctly - I am reading between the lines here - you see "pure" leftists, as, well, pure. Further, you see, folks who advocate censorship, cancelling, etc. as not possibly leftist. On those points I very respectfully disagree with you.
My reason for disagreement is that it is quite possible (in my rightish view) for someone to be leftist in all respects except that they believe in censorship and cancellation. In your view [again, reading between the lines] those views make it impossible for them to be leftists. And, again, again, I very respectfully disagree ..... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck - even if it limps when most ducks don't limp - I have to think it is a duck. [I acknowledge, that is not a good metaphor but it is the best that I can come up with on short notice.]
You ever so correctly state that free speech is neither left nor right. You, again, ever so correctly state that there are many examples of folks who are intolerant of free speech who could not at all be described as being left wing; that is, they are in the center or the right, or no where on that spectrum.
Now, having said that, I very respectfully submit that over the last period of time (say, ten - fifteen years?) I believe that the attempt at denial of free speech and cancellation is largely (not at all exclusively, please note) a leftish phenomenon.
I understand that you are sensitive to the idea that left-wing folks could POSSIBLY attempt to deny free speech or wish cancellation on "bad" ideas but it is important for everyone to consider the failings of their own "group" in order for everyone to learn from self-criticism. [A Chairman Mao concept, no?]
Thank you for helping to clarify and looking a bit at the taxonomy of Left/Liberal and Right/Conservative can leave one dizzied. What I meant is those (increasingly common, I'm afraid) that are far/extreme/radical/hard Left. Currently, I see the term Leftist being used for the far Left, but I concede my confusion on the point.
Well historically, those on the "far/extreme/radical/hard Left" were Marxist/Leninist/Maoist social revolutionaries. There's not many of those around anymore, and there hasn't been for some years now. Today, the "far Left" is primarily comprised of those who espouse some form of democratic socialism or Marxism and who oppose neoliberal capitalism, militarism and colonialism. Most of these folks are outspoken supporters of human and civil rights, including free speech and expression. Consequently, they are opponents, not supporters, of censorship and cancel culture.
Looking at this comment again, there is a flavor of the "no true Scotsman" argument. Leftists have a wide and varied history.
Jonah Goldberg explored Liberal Fascism and its history rooted in the early 20th century, including in the US in a book by the same title. Published in 2008. Like all mass movements, the Left has many different tribes, not all of them very tolerant or open (e.g. Lenin). In fact many of today's conservatives fit in the mold of a traditional liberal.
Fine, but when was the last time you ran into a hard core Leninist? That form of cancel culture -- a most literal one at that -- is now confined to the dustbin of history. Today, those on the left are vocal defenders of free speech and expression, just as they were in the darkest days of McCarthyism.
I agree with this. Only very recently, and only in tiny amounts, have I seen some progressives budge even slightly from the "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for your speech, you bigot!" mantra -- a mantra that presumes, apparently, that entirely reasonable and to-be-expected "consequences" for daring to disagree with any progressive-approved narrative include the loss of one's livelihood, devastating public pile-ons, complete ostracization by former friends, doxing, and even threats of physical violence. In short, it is a viewpoint that suggests that acceptable "consequences" of free speech include the complete destruction of a person's relationships, housing, reputation, educational opportunities, ability to make a living, and physical security.
How on earth is this "free speech"?
Please don't mistake me for a right-winger: I am not. Like so many in the U.S. and other countries, I feel politically cut adrift, without a home on either end of the spectrum. To my right are the Republicans, who believe women have no autonomy over their own bodies. On the left are the Democrats, who will let women have abortions, but seem systematically bent on dismantling all the protections we've fought so hard for, and on erasing our rights to safety, dignity, privacy, fairness in sport, and even the language we have always used to describe ourselves and our bodies.
Worse, there is nowhere in the world right now that seems any safer.
I think it's cause too many have left those forms of media due to constant lying and such. So they are trying to look responsible now to get back some customers. Too late!!
Tara, thank you for addressing this topic.
Now, to something that may well see me cancelled.
I very respectfully submit that a lot - I mean a real lot - of this cancel culture comes from the leftish side of things. Not everything, of course, not by any stretch, but real lot of it is leftish.
There, I have said it.
Now, for a couple of stupid - my word - examples.
You will recall that we had a bout with Covid over the last few years. There were some folks who said Covid was not serious, was not really a thing. I thought them daft (a very polite term, to be sure) and I simply did not pay attention to them. There were, however, some folks, including medical professionals who were very thoughtful and mentioned some treatments that might be useful in addition to those that the mainstream establishment were requiring. Many of those medical professionals were forced to keep quiet after some of them lost licenses to practice, etc. My point is that, in addition to the "leftish" folks who dearly love cancel culture, there were the mainstream folks who felt forced to keep to the established narrative.
Oh, yeah, I read in the newspaper now that some of the latest "treatments" include some of the things that were put forth by those previously cancelled and prevented from speaking out.
Another example: the religion of climate change. You can, if you wish, openly criticize, say, the Catholic Church, the Mormon faith, even the Muslim faith [if you are TERRIFICALLY careful] but you cannot question the church of climate change. It used to be called global warming but, I guess, the globe is no longer warming; just changing.
Anyway, do you know anyone who has questioned the assertion that "97% of all scientists" support the notion [they say "science"] of global warming / climate change, whatever? Track it back and it is a terrifically interesting example of how an assertion is made but cannot be discussed.
If you wish to discuss climate change, etc. you can do so - but only in an approved and approving fashion. You cannot ask uncomfortable questions about it, obvious contradictions, etc. My point is that unlike pretty much any other scientific hypothesis / theory, it cannot be discussed in a way that challenges the orthodoxy.
There are a lot of examples of cancel culture.
I thank you for your essay on this topic. Cancel culture is very widespread [an opinion, to be sure] and is difficult to deal with. But we must. I have the right to not listen to something that offends me and contradicts my opinions; I have the right to do so but I do it at my peril because it precludes me from the possibility of learning something that I didn't previously know - perhaps, even, something that supports my idea!
97% OF SCIENTISTS ? from what fields ? that they don't tell you .climate has always been changing go back and read papers from 1890 they were just as bad back then but did not have Greta and the intenet
Actually, Jerry, I think that you and I are saying much the same thing.
A narrative in the greenie movement is that "the science is settled" and that to question it - honestly question, not to dispute but to question various aspects - is verboten. Then, a statistic is often trotted out that says that 97% of all scientists agreed with that "fact."
In fact, the 97% was a bogus statistic - it was, indeed, 97% but 97% of which people and those people were agreeing with what? My point is, that that statistic was trotted out for years to shut down questions.
Absolutely, the climate has always changed and always will. The 97%, as I recall, was used to "prove" that climate change was the fault of "peoplekind" [sorry, I had to take a shot at JT, there]. Whether humans are or are not responsible [personally, I have my doubts but I am certainly willing to consider a rational discussion] is something that was "settled" some time ago we are told.
Oh, yeah, your query about what fields? Excellent point. One that the greenies simply don't want to discuss as it undermines their talking point.
And, that was my point about it being an example of cancel culture.
I'm a professional scientist and there is no way that 97% agree. Perhaps 97% aren't willing to publicly disagree.
In any case you can fully agree with the ACTUAL science and still think the greennies proposed "solutions" to any such problems are highly counterproductive, will have almost no impact on the climate, but will hurt almost everyone, especially the poor. Thier "solutions" are just the same old Hair Shirtisms that they have been pedaling since the 60s, just with a different rationale. They won't be happy until everyone but the elite lives a lifestyle reminiscent of the middle ages while they live in postmodern luxury...
Great response, appreciated
Hear, hear!
This is a balanced, thorough and thoughtful appraisal of a deeply disturbing trend. I only wish more people on the Left had the courage to speak out against it.
There is something troubling on my mind today that seems in some way related to this general topic of cancelling out or censuring opinions and positions that are not condoned by the ruling ideologists of today. I’m not a huge sports fan, but in the one sport that interests me and I follow, which is tennis, there are some disturbing developments taking place. I won’t even get into the shameful debacle at the Australian Open in January where the number one men’s player, Novak Djokovic, was disallowed from competing because he wasn’t vaccinated, even though he had an exemption and also had natural immunity. Now the Russian invasion of Ukraine is becoming a political issue with the sport, as Russian players (including the now men’s number 1, Deniil Medvedev) and Belarusian players (e.g., Victoria Azarenka) can no longer play for their countries and their flags are disallowed at tournaments. What’s more, to be able to compete at Wimbledon, they must publicly denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is getting really ridiculous, in my opinion. We used to talk about the separation of state and religion, but now it seems the state wants to interfere in every aspect of life, insisting that people follow the rules they dictate or else suffer the consequences.
P.S. I realize it is the tennis tournaments that are making these decisions rather than the state per se. My point is that this “cancel culture” movement is infiltrating every field of endeavour.
I do not agree that Mr. Djokovic's departure from Australia is an example of "cancel culture". Australia has laws and regulations regarding public health requirements for people entering and staying in the country. Mr. Djokovic did not follow the regulations and so was not allowed to be in the country. We can disagree with the effectiveness of these rules, but they were not hidden. Mr. Djokovic would have made a more effective statement by not playing and stating why.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has led to the removal of Russian athletes and entertainers from Western venues, as a means to apply pressure to the government through cultural isolation. In that the person is not able work in parts of the West due to sharing a label, this is part of cancelling. Should the response be to renounce their Russian citizenship and apply for asylum? I'm not sure.
The free world is disengaging from Russia, economically and culturally. Is an artist or athlete any different from a businessman?
I mentioned Djokavic’s situation at the Australian Open not as an example of cancel culture per se, as the issue of insisting that athletes be vaccinated against their wishes and then threatening their careers and livelihoods when they don’t comply is a separate one. It is the second instance, however, of Russian and Belarusian athletes not being able to compete for their countries, or in fact, to be even associated with their countries, that I find astounding. I happened to see on the Tennis Channel the other day, for example, the list of the top 10 men’s players, along with their photos and the name of their countries. It was stunning to see no country’s name below the photos of the two Russian players. Their nationalities have essentially been “cancelled” because of this geopolitical situation, which I feel is totally wrong. Why should athletes, artists, or anyone else be discriminated against in this way because of Putin’s actions? I don’t support the invasion of Ukraine by any means, but I detest this black and white thinking and condemning of Russia and everything Russian when the whole situation appears to me to have a highly nuanced and complex background in which both “sides” have played a role leading up to this escalation.
Thank you for the reply.
The invasion of Ukraine cannot be opposed using direct military force due to the potential escalation and widening of the war. Therefore, using economic, cultural and political influence is what our countries have as leverage to induce change. We have formal contracts with our countries' leadership to do what is best (or be removed) and we have informal social contracts with our institutions to do the same.
Is putting pressure on all fronts to an aggressor to back down the right thing to do, or should we make exceptions? For the exceptions, what is the limiting prinicple? These are difficult questions and in moving quickly and effectively, our responses will not be perfect. Hopefully we will become more nuanced with time. And let's not do internment camps again.
My protest tonight will be to read Joseph Brodsky. And perhaps watch The Russia House (Michelle Pfeiffer and Sean Connery...).
Thanks for your comments. I guess I just don’t have as much trust or faith in the so-called “free” world as you seem to have. It seems to me to be becoming increasingly less free, especially when it (Western countries) continue to disown their responsibility in perpetuating world divisions and conflict, as well as those within their own borders. I am so sick of the lies and deceptions, the judgements, the blaming, and the demonization of others to further political agendas.
Yes, and I watched the outstanding Belarusian women’s tennis player, Victoria Azarenka, normally tough as nails, break down crying on the court this week from the pressure of it all, and no doubt from the hate speech she has been receiving online, simply because of her nationality, which is why she has cancelled all her social media accounts. This is insane, totally out of control.
Yes, we have seen this before and, no, we have not learned.
As the saying goes, those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it.
Hey, Jewel. We’ve seen this over and over throughout human history because human nature has remained constant. Each generation has to learn these lessons anew with some assistance from our cultural traditions and institutions. Our species is deeply messy and imperfect. That’s why “progress” will never completely stamp out war, hatred, racism, destruction, etc. The best we can do is to continually promote the human potential for good and dissuade the human potential for evil. It’s part of the human condition and never-ending. This is where left-wing ideologues can get outrageously off-track. They think they can ignore broader human nature and eradicate human evil through technological and social progress. But denying reality leads to even greater problems and evils. That’s my rant for the day. 😃
https://tube2.solari.com/videos/reset-in-ukraine-with-karel-van-wolferen-1080p-hls/
Tara, thanks for posting your excellent The Globe and Mail article. It’s a rich collection of viewpoints and commentary on the cancel culture movement.
In the United States, most of the book "bannings" have been done by Leftist/Progressive forces. What the conservative side restricted was the removal of books felt to be age-inappropriate from school libraries. Currently being banned are books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, due to racial themes or language and again, these are from school libraries and reading lists.
In the US, it is impossible to actually ban a book, but you can make it difficult to distribute. Amazon and Target have removed books from their inventories due to the content not matching their corporate cultures. These books could be obtained elsewhere fairly easily.
At least this has been true in my lifetime (I'm pretty old). The days of the Scopes Monkey trial have long past, though I recall in the '60s some residual religious fundamentalists still stirring that pot.
Where book banning comes to play is a book not being published, or even written. This restriction is owned by the Left. The profound impact on our culture reverberates globally. We are a smaller country for it.
“Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.”
The is great cognitive dissonance here in this attempt to be politically fair in cancel culture criticism. The ugly and dangerous real cancel culture is that it fronts a political agenda of the campus indoctrinated 3rd wave postmodernists “critical social justice theory” disciples. This extreme left woke agenda has been mainstreamed, even Biden follows it, and thus it infests the power structure of the country. It isn’t just Twitter, but the Democrat machine and it’s corporate connections. It is abuse of power against individuals that speak out in opposition to this power cabal.
The grassroots moves of parents to have a say in public education curriculum and content is in fact free speech rights in progress. It is the opposite of cancel culture as it is a rejection of the pushed material of woke ideology. It is also democratic.
Civil unrest happens when food consumes around %50 of an individual/family budget.
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=food-and-beverage-price-index&months=360
Thanks for sharing Tara. I had heard some in the Squamish rock climbing community we’re hard core but racist donuts? They’ve really fallen into lunacy.
I’d just like to comment on the quality of Ms Henley’s writing. Pretty nicely crafted.
I appreciate the bit on cancel culture. I am the ex-wife of a man who says not only that he is a woman, but that he's the mother of our children. His rage at me for being truly female is immense. He's turned our grown sons against me, with the cancellation mode. He adopted that way back in the 1990s, when he cancelled his own grandmother, who came from Kiev, a refugee of anti-Semitic progroms. She never met her great grandsons. My memoir, which also contains happy motherhood and daughterhood moments, is coming out next 5-10 days. In the Curated Woods: True Tales from a Grass Widow by Ute Heggen, containing 50 nature photos. uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com ebook will be inexpensive