While I think the school's actions are entirely justified I think it is as well to remember that this is a personal catastrophe for Mr. Knowland, even if he did bring it upon himself. I doubt his future employment prospects are bright ("occasional columnist for the Telegraph" perhaps).
There’s no even if ... Why is it when some bloke - and it usually is a bloke - brings a personal catastrophe down on himself entirely due to his own actions this is seen as a reason to feel sorry for them. Because not getting away with it is somehow very bad.
I dunno, I thought there was some bit in the Lord's Prayer about forgiving people, or maybe some weird bit in the General Confession about being forgiven for things even though they were entirely our own deliberate fault.
You're missing the point. Whenever something like this happens, it's never the fault of the perpetrator of, in this case, galaxy class levels of sexism. It's always the someone's fault. In this case the woke or the politically correct.
Their particular ism is something their targets should be expected to accept and not challenge - despite the negative consequences of that ism for them.
Because, however bad the ism, a chap experiencing a personal catastrophe or wreaking their bright employment prospects is far, far worse.
Forgiveness isn't the same as letting someone off the hook. It also has to be asked for. There's no evidence of him doing that so far.
So no, I don't think I should be expected to remember that this is hard on Knowland. It's not like being on the receiving end of his kind of sexism has been particularly great for me.
What capacity do any of us have to forgive anyone for a wrong they have done to someone else? That is imagining one can usurp something that only the victim can do.
But what is the opposite of forgiveness, in your lexicon ?
What would you say you do to the perpetrator if you don't forgive them ? Hold it against them ? Continue to blame them ?
Leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to forgive or to "hold against" is fine.
What's not fine is to be the sort of "ally" who's prepared to "hold against" on another person's behalf but isn't prepared to forgive on their behalf. Because that's the sort of toxic behaviour that tilts the world against forgiveness.
Although you can argue that talk of forgiveness is premature until it has been established who has wronged whom...
Since unfair dismissal is a civil and not a criminal matter, the "traditional basis" is balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. As such "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't come into it.
The presumption of innocence always comes into it. What you're talking about is merely the standard of proof that is applied.
It's interesting that many of the examples of manhood Knowland provides in the video are either pre-Christian (King Leonides), pre-Christian mythological (Thor, Sisyphus) or fictional.
If that's Leonidas as portrayed in 300, he's fictional and not pre-Christian. (The real Leonidas was probably even more unpleasant.)
What capacity do any of us have to forgive anyone for a wrong they have done to someone else? That is imagining one can usurp something that only the victim can do.
But what is the opposite of forgiveness, in your lexicon ?
What would you say you do to the perpetrator if you don't forgive them ? Hold it against them ? Continue to blame them ?
Leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to forgive or to "hold against" is fine.
What's not fine is to be the sort of "ally" who's prepared to "hold against" on another person's behalf but isn't prepared to forgive on their behalf. Because that's the sort of toxic behaviour that tilts the world against forgiveness.
Although you can argue that talk of forgiveness is premature until it has been established who has wronged whom...
Since unfair dismissal is a civil and not a criminal matter, the "traditional basis" is balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. As such "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't come into it.
The presumption of innocence always comes into it. What you're talking about is merely the standard of proof that is applied.
That completely misunderstands the role of an "ally". Allies are people who support a group who are commonly the subject of discrimination, prejudice, etc, but who are not members of that group.
In this case, a male ally of feminism - which asks for respect and equality for all genders, but particularly women under law and culturally - would be challenging's Knowland sexist crap. Not wittering on about the need to forgive him or lamenting the impact on his career prospects.
You seem to be confusing forgiveness with enabling.
It's interesting that many of the examples of manhood Knowland provides in the video are either pre-Christian (King Leonides), pre-Christian mythological (Thor, Sisyphus) or fictional.
If that's Leonidas as portrayed in 300, he's fictional and not pre-Christian. (The real Leonidas was probably even more unpleasant.)
It is a clip from 300. I haven't seen the film, and assumed it was the Leonidas who died 480BC. Apologies.
What capacity do any of us have to forgive anyone for a wrong they have done to someone else? That is imagining one can usurp something that only the victim can do.
But what is the opposite of forgiveness, in your lexicon ?
What would you say you do to the perpetrator if you don't forgive them ? Hold it against them ? Continue to blame them ?
Leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to forgive or to "hold against" is fine.
What's not fine is to be the sort of "ally" who's prepared to "hold against" on another person's behalf but isn't prepared to forgive on their behalf. Because that's the sort of toxic behaviour that tilts the world against forgiveness.
Although you can argue that talk of forgiveness is premature until it has been established who has wronged whom...
Since unfair dismissal is a civil and not a criminal matter, the "traditional basis" is balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. As such "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't come into it.
The presumption of innocence always comes into it. What you're talking about is merely the standard of proof that is applied.
Civil cases are not about guilt or innocence, not in the sense you're appealing to here at any case.
It would be about establishing, in this hypothetical case, whether it's more likely than not that an individual was motivated by racial hatred rather than and contrary to due process. There is no presumption either way in a civil case, and the fact that the defendant could be shown to harbour racial hatred would be absolutely relevant to the plaintiff's case.
In many countries, the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.
Presumption of innocence is a restatement of the criminal trial burden of proof. It is irrelevent in a civil case and it appears that the distinction @russ is trying to draw between the legal burden of proof and presumption of innocence does not exist.
It is a clip from 300. I haven't seen the film, and assumed it was the Leonidas who died 480BC. Apologies.
300 is based on the death of that Leonidas, for a sufficiently loose sense of based. The characters have the same names. Its reputation among classicists is that whenever given a choice between the facts and stuff that would appeal to people like Mr Knowland it goes with the latter.
An idle thought - if the video had been made to be shown to teenage boys in an inner- city ethnic-minority state school, would the right wing be saying that there should be freedom of speech to promote male violence as innate, and to minimise rape and domestic violence?
What do you think is likely to happen the first time that a black employee makes a claim of unfair dismissal etc., claiming racial bias on the part of this man?
Clearly what should happen is that the case is judged on the evidence of his behaviour in the workplace, on the traditional basis that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
An employee making a claim of unfair dismissal is different from a criminal charge against the manager. Unfair dismissal is a civil claim, and is judged on the balance of probabilities. Usually, employers choose not to defend unfair dismissal cases if there's a decent chance they might lose: they just cut their losses and pay up. In the case we're discussing, no rational employer would bother to go to court. They'd say "oh shit" and settle as fast as they possibly could.
An idle thought - if the video had been made to be shown to teenage boys in an inner- city ethnic-minority state school, would the right wing be saying that there should be freedom of speech to promote male violence as innate, and to minimise rape and domestic violence?
Of course not, but those condemnatory comments would come with a side order of casual racism.
Just like I'd bet the farm that I don't actually have that Knowland wouldn't be getting the same levels of support if he was less white and posh.
What do you think is likely to happen the first time that a black employee makes a claim of unfair dismissal etc., claiming racial bias on the part of this man?
Clearly what should happen is that the case is judged on the evidence of his behaviour in the workplace, on the traditional basis that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
An employee making a claim of unfair dismissal is different from a criminal charge against the manager. Unfair dismissal is a civil claim, and is judged on the balance of probabilities. Usually, employers choose not to defend unfair dismissal cases if there's a decent chance they might lose: they just cut their losses and pay up. In the case we're discussing, no rational employer would bother to go to court. They'd say "oh shit" and settle as fast as they possibly could.
Even more relevantly, we don't have to presume innocence or guilt in this case because the facts of the case are not in dispute. Mr. Knowland published a horrifically misogynistic video and made sure his association with his employer was known to anyone viewing that video. He refused to take it down after multiple requests from his employer, and was terminated for that reason. Neither party disputes this sequence of events.
A lot of this toxic masculinity stuff has racist subtext anyway.
That invites an invitation to unpack...
It's bound up with notions of cultural decline: 'our' culture was originally pure and manly, so manliness is equated with cultural and racial purity. Furthermore, 'our' culture declined, partly by letting in people from other cultures as immigrants, and in particular by contact with effeminate cultures who corrupted us by introducing luxuries. There's also a line in manly men fight to protect their women from beastly foreigners.
Presumption of innocence is a restatement of the criminal trial burden of proof. It is irrelevent in a civil case and it appears that the distinction @russ is trying to draw between the legal burden of proof and presumption of innocence does not exist.
Speaking only of here (but probably in India, England, Wales, Canada, NZ and the US*), there are different standards of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which is required to prove guilt of the offence charged (or of one which by statute may be available to a jury) beyond reasonable doubt. In most non-criminal cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a case on the balance of probabilities.
* I'm not sure of Sri Lanka or South Africa, where Roman-Dutch law has a heavy influence.
Presumption of innocence is a restatement of the criminal trial burden of proof. It is irrelevent in a civil case and it appears that the distinction @russ is trying to draw between the legal burden of proof and presumption of innocence does not exist.
Speaking only of here (but probably in India, England, Wales, Canada, NZ and the US*), there are different standards of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which is required to prove guilt of the offence charged (or of one which by statute may be available to a jury) beyond reasonable doubt. In most non-criminal cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a case on the balance of probabilities.
* I'm not sure of Sri Lanka or South Africa, where Roman-Dutch law has a heavy influence.
Erm yeah - that's what I said. I was trying to explain to @Russ that his presumption of innocence is just a restatement of the criminal standard of proof and so irrelevant in a civil case.
"What capacity do any of us have to forgive anyone for a wrong they have done to someone else? That is imagining one can usurp something that only the victim can do."
I think that's what (eg) Catholic and other Priests do in giving absolution - pronouncing God's forgiveness and saying "your sins are forgiven".
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Erm yeah - that's what I said. I was trying to explain to @Russ that his presumption of innocence is just a restatement of the criminal standard of proof and so irrelevant in a civil case.
It certainly takes what you said but goes further in an attempt to make it clear to Russ just what the position is, and how it's of wider application than just England.
A lot of this toxic masculinity stuff has racist subtext anyway.
That invites an invitation to unpack...
It's bound up with notions of cultural decline: 'our' culture was originally pure and manly, so manliness is equated with cultural and racial purity. Furthermore, 'our' culture declined, partly by letting in people from other cultures as immigrants, and in particular by contact with effeminate cultures who corrupted us by introducing luxuries. There's also a line in manly men fight to protect their women from beastly foreigners.
Yet oddly the people promoting these ideas always seem to be proud of being Anglo-Saxons. Or as the indigenous people at the time would have put it, beastly foreigners and immigrants.
A lot of this toxic masculinity stuff has racist subtext anyway.
That invites an invitation to unpack...
It's bound up with notions of cultural decline: 'our' culture was originally pure and manly, so manliness is equated with cultural and racial purity. Furthermore, 'our' culture declined, partly by letting in people from other cultures as immigrants, and in particular by contact with effeminate cultures who corrupted us by introducing luxuries. There's also a line in manly men fight to protect their women from beastly foreigners.
Yet oddly the people promoting these ideas always seem to be proud of being Anglo-Saxons. Or as the indigenous people at the time would have put it, beastly foreigners and immigrants.
North East Quine:
Indeed! And if Steven Pinker is so ready to wade in on the basis of total ignorance, how many others are lending support without watching the video?
The video is unintelligent, glorifies male violence as what really turns women on and is just offensive bollocks and if that is meant to display the high quality of argument of Eton, I wouldn't want any kid of mine go there.
Depends on how hard line a libertarian you might be...
Well that's the funny thing. A hard line Libertarian would surely be defending Eton's right to hire and fire at will - they normally oppose laws which limit that "freedom of association". Doesn't seem to be that way when someone gets fired for saying something appalling though.
I appreciate that many people on this forum will disagree with Mr Knowland, but do you really agree that it should be okay to terminate someone's employment because they argue that gender is not socially constructed?
A short reading of everyone else's description of what the video actually contains makes the claim that it's about "whether or not gender is socially constructed" completely fanciful.
EDIT: And then it transpires as I read on that you haven't watched the video yourself. Are you not the same person who complained about fake news on the BBC, only to then ultimately reveal that you don't watch the BBC?
I suggest you stop creating threads on topics you openly admit to having no knowledge of.
Why would anyone put their name to supporting a video which they had not watched?
Because it's possible to disagree with what someone says and yet defend their right to say it ?
This is an illogical claim, as has already been pointed out, but let me point it out again because the kind of thoughtlessness in this knee-jerk response is so prevalent it really is worth pointing it out just how thoughtless it is.
You cannot disagree with what someone says if you have no idea about what they said.
In this case, Makepeace didn't even claim to disagree with what the teacher said in the video. Makepeace simply claimed that lots of other Shipmates would disagree with what the teacher said in the video.
Only it transpired that Makepeace had very little idea what the teacher might have said. Having not watched the video.
The notion of disagreeing what what someone says and yet defending their right to say it involves doing the basic homework of knowing what it is that the person said. Otherwise it is perfectly possible to end up defending stuff that is not merely a matter of a difference of opinion, but stuff that is demonstrably, factually wrong, or stuff that is incredibly dangerous, or stuff that is illegal because of laws on incitement or whatever.
Unless you're going to defend the right of everyone to say everything, ranging from Holocaust denial to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, part of the responsibility of arguing for someone's right to say something is to know the text that you're talking about. And I use the term 'responsibility' because not doing that work is grossly irresponsible.
Besides which no-one was saying he couldn't say it. Just that saying it had consequences.
This is the anomaly in the right wing defence of free speech. As you say, they assimilate consequences into free speech, thus, I should be free to say anything, whether or not it infringes otheŕ rules, esp. with regard to employment. A nice example is calling someone a liar in parliament, which is not allowed.
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
Define "reasonable views", with reference to incidents of no-platforming.
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
The theory behind no platforming is that toleration of intolerance is self-defeating. The kinds of views that are in theory no platformed are those that hold that certain classes of people, based on identity criteria (*), are to be talked about rather than listened to.
(*) As usual with identity criteria, the identity criteria in origin are imposed by other people, who then complain when the people on whom the identity criteria are imposed use that as a way of talking about their common experiences.
Apparently a Harvard professor, Steven Pinker, who had written in support of Knowland has now withdrawn his support, having seen the video.
Why would anyone put their name to supporting a video which they had not watched?
I haven't managed to find out what Simon Pinker first thought, and how his mind changed. I've tried, but failed. Every article that I have found that mentions this particular spat is too simplistic to be of any value. However, at a guess, the issue may not just be freedom of speech.
As shipmates will know, there's a variance in intellectual opinion as to whether human nature is totally malleable or whether there are some characteristics which are hard wired into the species. Which is true has major sociological consequences. Those who take the former view will optimistically take the line that everything can be changed just by getting people to think different. The 'New Soviet Man and Woman' was an example of this. Those who take the latter view will say that attempting to change some things is pointless or even destructive. You have to accept and put up with how people are made. If they aren't made that way, nothing can change them to fit your model.
Whether there are inherent differences between the sexes, either absolute or as preferences, is one of the characteristics that the debate often crystallises on.
There are subsets to both options. To the former, even if people are infinitely malleable, is the model you want to mould them to a good or a bad one? To the latter, which characteristics are the ones that are hard wired and which aren't?
Pinker has been quite an outspoken advocate of the latter position, which he thinks is the one that objectively the evidence predominantly supports. So his initial assumption might well have been that Knowland had been sacked for saying the same. Only later, when he'd prematurely issued his verdict, does he seem to have discovered that Knowland had put out his arguments without substantiating them with evidence at all.
The theory behind no platforming is that toleration of intolerance is self-defeating. The kinds of views that are in theory no platformed are those that hold that certain classes of people, based on identity criteria (*), are to be talked about rather than listened to.
Everyone's views lie on a spectrum. Some people's views are so inimical to reasonable debate that no-platform makes sense. On the other hand, there are raving nutjobs wanting to no-platform people like Peter Tatchell. You don't have to agree with all of Mr Tatchell's positions, but someone who thinks his views are so extreme that you can't have a rational discussion with him rather exposes themselves as not worth paying serious attention to.
Consider, for example, the no-platforming of TERFs. Before I start, let me say that, following @Doc Tor's earlier hostly admonition, I'm not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of the TERF position in this thread. But I think this doesn't stray in to Epiphanies territory:
Dafyd raises the question of people who are "to be talked about rather than listened to". If I were to boil the structure of the trans discussion down to its simplest terms, trans women are looking at cis women and saying "we are like you". (The same discussion obviously applies, mutatis mutandis, to trans men.) So you have person A saying to person B "I am like you." Surely person A and person B have equal standing in a discussion about whether this is true? Person A is best placed to understand how they experience the world; person B is best placed to understand how they experience the world. The statement "I am like you" is a statement about the overlap between person A and person B; that statement involves both people equally.
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
How does this apply to the Eton case?
That was my first question as well.
No one is saying that you can't say whatever you like. Just that saying what you like may have consequences.
In many of the high profile cases, the person who's experienced the consequences is complaining because they don't like them. Because consequences are for other people.
Enoch, I thought the Eton case wasn't about free speech, but the teacher refusing to take down his video, and second, fears at Eton that it infringes Equality law. I don't really know if his appeal will be based on free speech.
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
How does this apply to the Eton case?
That was my first question as well.
No one is saying that you can't say whatever you like. Just that saying what you like may have consequences.
In many of the high profile cases, the person who's experienced the consequences is complaining because they don't like them. Because consequences are for other people.
There is also context. I might want to argue that gravity is caused by tiny elfs pulling things down. Should a scientific journal be obliged to publish this? OK, this is an extreme example, but applies widely. My last publisher turned down one of my books, is this about freeze peach?
The problem, IMO, is that as with most principles the right to freedom of speech is not, and never has been, absolute. What disturbs me, however, is that abridgement of that right, especially platform denial of reasonable views, has become increasingly popular on the left. It is all very well to criticise the right for defending free speech, but if the left is becoming less open-minded where else are its guardians to be found?
How does this apply to the Eton case?
Mr. Knowland has been "deplatformed" as evidenced by his views being widely reported in popular media. . . . Wait, I'll come in again.
Mr. Knowland has had his rights to free speech abridged because he has the same right to employment at Eton as you, me, and everyone else. Where's my teaching position? . . . Wait, one more try.
Mr. Knowland lost his ability to post stupid videos on YouTube by his employer failing to have him remove a video from YouTube.
This is the "everyone has a right to their own cable news show" school of free speech. Most of its adherents already have their own cable news show (or other high profile public platform) and most non-adherents don't. The fact that a whole lot of people don't have their own cable news show (or similar platform) never really seems to be taken into consideration by those advocating such a position. It's a view of freedom of speech that combines freedom from consequences with the freedom to make other people pay attention to you (a.k.a. the right to an audience of your choosing).
Actually I think free speech is about the right to avoid certain kinds of consequences. It's certainly not about your ability to disseminate your views: unless you happen to own or work for or win a contract with a media platform you had until the internet a rather limited ability to air your views to a wider audience. It does not mean anyone is under any obligation to help you air your views, so whatever the rights and wrongs of no platform policies they don't violate anyone's rights to free speech.
Free speech means you have impunity from retaliation from the state (and I think also criminal or paramilitary organisations). It doesn't mean you have impunity from criticism of your views. Whether it means you have impunity from boycotts, summary dismissal by your employers, or so on, is a different and more complex matter.
Comments
You're missing the point. Whenever something like this happens, it's never the fault of the perpetrator of, in this case, galaxy class levels of sexism. It's always the someone's fault. In this case the woke or the politically correct.
Their particular ism is something their targets should be expected to accept and not challenge - despite the negative consequences of that ism for them.
Because, however bad the ism, a chap experiencing a personal catastrophe or wreaking their bright employment prospects is far, far worse.
Forgiveness isn't the same as letting someone off the hook. It also has to be asked for. There's no evidence of him doing that so far.
So no, I don't think I should be expected to remember that this is hard on Knowland. It's not like being on the receiving end of his kind of sexism has been particularly great for me.
Yes, @Enoch.
But what is the opposite of forgiveness, in your lexicon ?
What would you say you do to the perpetrator if you don't forgive them ? Hold it against them ? Continue to blame them ?
Leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to forgive or to "hold against" is fine.
What's not fine is to be the sort of "ally" who's prepared to "hold against" on another person's behalf but isn't prepared to forgive on their behalf. Because that's the sort of toxic behaviour that tilts the world against forgiveness.
Although you can argue that talk of forgiveness is premature until it has been established who has wronged whom...
The presumption of innocence always comes into it. What you're talking about is merely the standard of proof that is applied.
(Even in this post you insist on, innocent until proven guilty, for people whom you regard as victims, while not applying the maxim to progressives.)
That completely misunderstands the role of an "ally". Allies are people who support a group who are commonly the subject of discrimination, prejudice, etc, but who are not members of that group.
In this case, a male ally of feminism - which asks for respect and equality for all genders, but particularly women under law and culturally - would be challenging's Knowland sexist crap. Not wittering on about the need to forgive him or lamenting the impact on his career prospects.
You seem to be confusing forgiveness with enabling.
It is a clip from 300. I haven't seen the film, and assumed it was the Leonidas who died 480BC. Apologies.
Civil cases are not about guilt or innocence, not in the sense you're appealing to here at any case.
It would be about establishing, in this hypothetical case, whether it's more likely than not that an individual was motivated by racial hatred rather than and contrary to due process. There is no presumption either way in a civil case, and the fact that the defendant could be shown to harbour racial hatred would be absolutely relevant to the plaintiff's case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Presumption of innocence is a restatement of the criminal trial burden of proof. It is irrelevent in a civil case and it appears that the distinction @russ is trying to draw between the legal burden of proof and presumption of innocence does not exist.
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
An employee making a claim of unfair dismissal is different from a criminal charge against the manager. Unfair dismissal is a civil claim, and is judged on the balance of probabilities. Usually, employers choose not to defend unfair dismissal cases if there's a decent chance they might lose: they just cut their losses and pay up. In the case we're discussing, no rational employer would bother to go to court. They'd say "oh shit" and settle as fast as they possibly could.
Of course not, but those condemnatory comments would come with a side order of casual racism.
Just like I'd bet the farm that I don't actually have that Knowland wouldn't be getting the same levels of support if he was less white and posh.
That invites an invitation to unpack...
Even more relevantly, we don't have to presume innocence or guilt in this case because the facts of the case are not in dispute. Mr. Knowland published a horrifically misogynistic video and made sure his association with his employer was known to anyone viewing that video. He refused to take it down after multiple requests from his employer, and was terminated for that reason. Neither party disputes this sequence of events.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/what-came-before-metoo-himpathy-that-shaped-misogyny/
Related concept: Dude Process.
Speaking only of here (but probably in India, England, Wales, Canada, NZ and the US*), there are different standards of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which is required to prove guilt of the offence charged (or of one which by statute may be available to a jury) beyond reasonable doubt. In most non-criminal cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a case on the balance of probabilities.
* I'm not sure of Sri Lanka or South Africa, where Roman-Dutch law has a heavy influence.
MMM
Thanks - it used be when I was a lad, but strange things happen. Scotland was rather different.
Erm yeah - that's what I said. I was trying to explain to @Russ that his presumption of innocence is just a restatement of the criminal standard of proof and so irrelevant in a civil case.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1.Timoyhy 2.5
It certainly takes what you said but goes further in an attempt to make it clear to Russ just what the position is, and how it's of wider application than just England.
Yet oddly the people promoting these ideas always seem to be proud of being Anglo-Saxons. Or as the indigenous people at the time would have put it, beastly foreigners and immigrants.
The word you're looking for is expat.
Why would anyone put their name to supporting a video which they had not watched?
Good question!
Indeed! And if Steven Pinker is so ready to wade in on the basis of total ignorance, how many others are lending support without watching the video?
The video is unintelligent, glorifies male violence as what really turns women on and is just offensive bollocks and if that is meant to display the high quality of argument of Eton, I wouldn't want any kid of mine go there.
The mind boggles at the support he's getting.
Because it's possible to disagree with what someone says and yet defend their right to say it ?
Although in that case it would be rather inconsistent to withdraw the support after watching it as Pinker has done.
Surely you would want to know what it was that you were defending the right to say?
Well that's the funny thing. A hard line Libertarian would surely be defending Eton's right to hire and fire at will - they normally oppose laws which limit that "freedom of association". Doesn't seem to be that way when someone gets fired for saying something appalling though.
A short reading of everyone else's description of what the video actually contains makes the claim that it's about "whether or not gender is socially constructed" completely fanciful.
EDIT: And then it transpires as I read on that you haven't watched the video yourself. Are you not the same person who complained about fake news on the BBC, only to then ultimately reveal that you don't watch the BBC?
I suggest you stop creating threads on topics you openly admit to having no knowledge of.
This is an illogical claim, as has already been pointed out, but let me point it out again because the kind of thoughtlessness in this knee-jerk response is so prevalent it really is worth pointing it out just how thoughtless it is.
You cannot disagree with what someone says if you have no idea about what they said.
In this case, Makepeace didn't even claim to disagree with what the teacher said in the video. Makepeace simply claimed that lots of other Shipmates would disagree with what the teacher said in the video.
Only it transpired that Makepeace had very little idea what the teacher might have said. Having not watched the video.
The notion of disagreeing what what someone says and yet defending their right to say it involves doing the basic homework of knowing what it is that the person said. Otherwise it is perfectly possible to end up defending stuff that is not merely a matter of a difference of opinion, but stuff that is demonstrably, factually wrong, or stuff that is incredibly dangerous, or stuff that is illegal because of laws on incitement or whatever.
Unless you're going to defend the right of everyone to say everything, ranging from Holocaust denial to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, part of the responsibility of arguing for someone's right to say something is to know the text that you're talking about. And I use the term 'responsibility' because not doing that work is grossly irresponsible.
This is the anomaly in the right wing defence of free speech. As you say, they assimilate consequences into free speech, thus, I should be free to say anything, whether or not it infringes otheŕ rules, esp. with regard to employment. A nice example is calling someone a liar in parliament, which is not allowed.
Define "reasonable views", with reference to incidents of no-platforming.
How does this apply to the Eton case?
(*) As usual with identity criteria, the identity criteria in origin are imposed by other people, who then complain when the people on whom the identity criteria are imposed use that as a way of talking about their common experiences.
As shipmates will know, there's a variance in intellectual opinion as to whether human nature is totally malleable or whether there are some characteristics which are hard wired into the species. Which is true has major sociological consequences. Those who take the former view will optimistically take the line that everything can be changed just by getting people to think different. The 'New Soviet Man and Woman' was an example of this. Those who take the latter view will say that attempting to change some things is pointless or even destructive. You have to accept and put up with how people are made. If they aren't made that way, nothing can change them to fit your model.
Whether there are inherent differences between the sexes, either absolute or as preferences, is one of the characteristics that the debate often crystallises on.
There are subsets to both options. To the former, even if people are infinitely malleable, is the model you want to mould them to a good or a bad one? To the latter, which characteristics are the ones that are hard wired and which aren't?
Pinker has been quite an outspoken advocate of the latter position, which he thinks is the one that objectively the evidence predominantly supports. So his initial assumption might well have been that Knowland had been sacked for saying the same. Only later, when he'd prematurely issued his verdict, does he seem to have discovered that Knowland had put out his arguments without substantiating them with evidence at all.
Everyone's views lie on a spectrum. Some people's views are so inimical to reasonable debate that no-platform makes sense. On the other hand, there are raving nutjobs wanting to no-platform people like Peter Tatchell. You don't have to agree with all of Mr Tatchell's positions, but someone who thinks his views are so extreme that you can't have a rational discussion with him rather exposes themselves as not worth paying serious attention to.
Consider, for example, the no-platforming of TERFs. Before I start, let me say that, following @Doc Tor's earlier hostly admonition, I'm not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of the TERF position in this thread. But I think this doesn't stray in to Epiphanies territory:
Dafyd raises the question of people who are "to be talked about rather than listened to". If I were to boil the structure of the trans discussion down to its simplest terms, trans women are looking at cis women and saying "we are like you". (The same discussion obviously applies, mutatis mutandis, to trans men.) So you have person A saying to person B "I am like you." Surely person A and person B have equal standing in a discussion about whether this is true? Person A is best placed to understand how they experience the world; person B is best placed to understand how they experience the world. The statement "I am like you" is a statement about the overlap between person A and person B; that statement involves both people equally.
That was my first question as well.
No one is saying that you can't say whatever you like. Just that saying what you like may have consequences.
In many of the high profile cases, the person who's experienced the consequences is complaining because they don't like them. Because consequences are for other people.
There is also context. I might want to argue that gravity is caused by tiny elfs pulling things down. Should a scientific journal be obliged to publish this? OK, this is an extreme example, but applies widely. My last publisher turned down one of my books, is this about freeze peach?
Mr. Knowland has been "deplatformed" as evidenced by his views being widely reported in popular media. . . . Wait, I'll come in again.
Mr. Knowland has had his rights to free speech abridged because he has the same right to employment at Eton as you, me, and everyone else. Where's my teaching position? . . . Wait, one more try.
Mr. Knowland lost his ability to post stupid videos on YouTube by his employer failing to have him remove a video from YouTube.
This is the "everyone has a right to their own cable news show" school of free speech. Most of its adherents already have their own cable news show (or other high profile public platform) and most non-adherents don't. The fact that a whole lot of people don't have their own cable news show (or similar platform) never really seems to be taken into consideration by those advocating such a position. It's a view of freedom of speech that combines freedom from consequences with the freedom to make other people pay attention to you (a.k.a. the right to an audience of your choosing).
Free speech means you have impunity from retaliation from the state (and I think also criminal or paramilitary organisations). It doesn't mean you have impunity from criticism of your views. Whether it means you have impunity from boycotts, summary dismissal by your employers, or so on, is a different and more complex matter.