I'm not quite there in terms of outright dismissing those things though. There's a lot of nuance, and improvements that can be made, it's the authoritarian aspect to the mindset I have concerns about.
Presumably, you disagree with the emphasis on group identity above the individual? Unfortunately, wokeness is creeping into various areas of public life:
Judiciary declines to confirm if revised version will contain 'problematic' sentences brought to bench book editors' attention.
www.lawgazette.co.uk
Quinn and Monteith approached nine leading race experts for their thoughts before writing to the editors.
Professor Anton Emmanuel, head of the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, said the wording of the two sections 'is delivered with the implication that there is such a thing as a common view held by the majority of individuals of any particular social group, including those of a particular racial group. The implication that there are racially-underpinned beliefs fails to grasp the individuality of opinion and offers validity to the notion that such assumed common views exist. This is a prejudiced concept.'
Dr Shabna Begum, interim co-chief executive of The Runnymede Trust, said the statements ‘whilst purporting to assist the reader to think beyond stereotypes, operate to do the exact opposite by endorsing the premise of shared group characteristics’.
It wasn’t holocaust denial or support for Isis that led to Maya Forstater pleading her case at an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT); it was her insistence that there are two sexes of human being and…
thecritic.co.uk
As noted by EHRC, the original ET ruling “spent two pages addressing the disadvantages experienced by transpeople” and “three pages on the protections the law provides to transpeople against discrimination”. The inference here is clear, the ET indulged in a value judgement about the validity Forstater’s beliefs, rather than addressing her right to hold them. As noted by Rozenberg, “It is surprising and worrying that the tribunal saw it as its role to dissect beliefs in this way and to dictate what is or is not an acceptable basis for a belief; and it shows just how far off the rails the tribunal went.”
One suspects that today Judge James Tayler will be feeling somewhat judged. In the two years since he passed judgement things have changed; the illogical and petulant demands of trans activists are being challenged.
[...]
From the Equal Treatment Bench Book (the guidance to which judges refer) to the Ministry of Justice’s membership of the Stonewall Champions Scheme, transgender ideology has permeated the judiciary. But slowly, as cases are put before the higher courts, much needed light and scrutiny is being shone on policies made in the dark.
What One More Solo has posted is the backdrop for the age old question of, what is offense and who decides when something meets that threshold?
People that hold grievances, and then have inconsistencies in their judgement based on perceived (or otherwise) sympathies for one group over another, are not really best placed to be making those judgements. (especially when things like CRT are involved. Please, go read How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and then say you are happy to be that person that judges people based on the colour of their skin?).
If offense was judged by whether someone 'felt' offended by it, then that will vary case by case, and if I use myself as an example, anything said to be by that definition would likely never be offensive enough for me to take it and therefore become and 'offence'. Whereas others, with a different threshold, may take the offense at the tiniest comment and in the eyes of certain judges, and the law, have a case to prosecute.
For the law to be fair, should the threshold of 'offensiveness' be defined more objectively? Otherwise, how do you REALLY know the boundaries of the law and how to operate within it without taking a vow of silence.
What is offense? And why is taking it a good thing?
“There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.”
And
“Parliament cannot have intended to criminalise the conduct of a person using language which is, for reasons unknown to him, grossly offensive to those to whom it relates, or which may even be thought, however wrongly, to represent a polite or acceptable usage.”
Both seem reasonable concepts. It would still be really hard to draw the line between ok and not ok. That said, I don’t think anyone would argue that former police officers using the n-word is anything other than knowingly, grossly offensive to a reasonable person.
It's grossly offensive if public. In private, I kind of have issues with criminalising that, however distasteful and wrong it clearly is.
WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted - it's supposed to be even more private than say a conversation in your living room (technically could be overheard by neighbours) - the reliance on the prosecution was making those private chats public. Without that, no one in the public knows. There's an argument of public interest, but then they aren't serving, so appears more motivated by morals which I know some value more over others.
Argh, I dunno, I just think it's the wrong way to go about it. In public? Yea, throw the book at them, it's beyond reasonable to assume someone will be offended. In private? Yes, it's distasteful, but it wasn't intended to be seen/heard by those it relates to. It's not ok, but a crime? Pah, I just think of East Germany and the level of civilian surveillance that was prevalent during those times.
It's messy, but ultimately, as the lines of acceptable language changes, anyone could get caught up for being edgy in a private chat if there is a betrayal of confidentiality.
Those paraglider pictures were clearly displayed publicly with some kind of intent behind them. What that was, who knows. The difference in punishment seems to be on the content of the subject matter, in the eyes of a judge with maybe questionable levels of impartiality, rather than the intention of knowledge of who they may be targeting it at and whether it may cause offense. It doesn't appear to be "fair" and consistent, which is what I expect the law to be to some extent.
It fans and proponents often like to make their usual, wild accusation of others being 'anti semitic' 'Nazi's' or 'fascists' for using the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' by claiming it was a phrase used by the Nazi's to attack their opponents.
Such people are just demonstrating their ignorance.
The Nazi's uses the phase 'Cultural Bolshevism' (Kulturbolschewismus) when talking about what they perceived as degenerate artistic expression and cultural practises. They weren't describing the application of the basic marxist theory to systems outside of capitalism.
Also, as is very common with these sorts of people, the usage of the phrase originally came from 'progressive' literature before it's wider use.
Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies
In this intellectual history of British cultural Marxism, Dennis Dworkin explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought. Tracing its development from beginnings in postwar Britain, through its various transformations in the 1960s and 1970s, to the emergence of British cultural studies at Birmingham, and up to the advent of Thatcherism, Dworkin shows this history to be one of a coherent intellectual tradition, a tradition that represents an implicit and explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar British Left.
Limited to neither a single discipline nor a particular intellectual figure, this book comprehensively views British cultural Marxism in terms of the dialogue between historians and the originators of cultural studies and in its relationship to the new left and feminist movements. From the contributions of Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Sheila Rowbotham, Catherine Hall, and E. P. Thompson to those of Perry Anderson, Barbara Taylor, Raymond Williams, Dick Hebdige, and Stuart Hall, Dworkin examines the debates over issues of culture and society, structure and agency, experience and ideology, and theory and practice. The rise, demise, and reorganization of journals such as The Reasoner, The New Reasoner, Universities and Left Review, New Left Review, Past and Present, are also part of the history told in this volume. In every instance, the focus of Dworkin’s attention is the intellectual work seen in its political context. Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain captures the excitement and commitment that more than one generation of historians, literary critics, art historians, philosophers, and cultural theorists have felt about an unorthodox and critical tradition of Marxist theory.
So despite both phases using the word 'cultural' and both using words connected with socialism 'bolshevism' and 'Marxism' they describe different things
So Cultural Marxism is the use of the key ideas and roles of 'classical' Marxism outside of the bourgeoisie/ proletariat/ capitalism framework (to be replaced by other supposed roles of oppressor class, oppressed class and systemic means of oppression)
Originally 'woke' was used by black Americans talking about supposed systemic racism in the US. They claimed to be 'awake' about the interaction between blacks (the oppressed class) whites (the supposed oppressor class) and 'white supremacy/ systemic racism' (the supposed form of oppression).
The word was later co opted by largely white collectivists to describe being 'aware' to a wider array of supposed oppressor/ oppressed/ systemic oppression systems such as those supposed to be in play in gender identity.
It them of course because a widely used pejorative to describe basic faux virtue signalling types who support often fraudulent orgs and causes with easily refuted claims that certain demographics are 'marginalised/ vulnerable' subject of a 'genocide'.
Connected terms
Critical theory - the 'study' of Marxist style supposed systems of oppression.
'X' lens - a way at looking at the world through a particular 'framework' often one of the aforementioned variants of cultural Marxism hence a person looking at differences between ethnicities through a 'racial lens' will see that disparities are caused by an oppressor group using a systemic form of oppression to subjugate and 'oppressed' racial group regardless of the facts
'Progressivism' / 'progressives' - a meaningless word intended to to show ones adherence and submission to political right think often by subscribing to the tenets of things like Cultural Marxism. There is nothing inherently 'good' about change 'progress'. The sensible person knows that changes have to be assessed by measuring their results/ outcomes.
Intersectionality - the application of multiple vectors of supposed oppression, as outlined by cultural Marxism, whereby some may claim to be the victims of multiple forms of systemic oppression or other might simultaneously be accused of being both oppressed and oppressor, in different ways (like a gay white man - gay so oppressed by heterosexual normative systems. But 'oppresser' as 'CIS' and white)
Progressive stack - the attempt to apply the nonsensical and incoherent ideas of cultural Marxism and intersectionality to generate a 'pecking order of oppression'. Commonly deployed to intentionally and actively discriminate against people for unwarranted reason such as in higher education admissions, jobs and by telling some people they can't talk or offer an opinion on a particular matter because they aren't as 'oppressed' as someone else.
Examples include people who think shouting "but your a white man!" Is a substitute for actually having a argument when confronted with some facts that undermine a narrative.
Much like the attempts to implement 'classical' Marxism were a disaster Cultural Marxism is also terrible idea.
This reasons for this include the following:
1) It arbitrarily chooses which groups and axes of supposed oppression to be concerned with and which should be given more weight than others
2) It then looks at the group as whole ignoring issues such as there can be more variation within groups than between the averages of groups
3) It assumes unfavourable or bad metrics/ outcomes for supposed oppressed groups are mostly/ solely down to 'systemic oppression' and disregards evidence that would explain those differences by other means
and finally its a really bad idea because, at a higher level, the proponents of 'woke/ Cultural Marxism' see it as a means to destabilise and eventually overturn the existing social order which the hope to over throw and replace with their alternative.
This doesn't mean that all or even most people espousing 'woke' ideas understand this or desire this outcome.
'Woke' culture likes to wear a perverse skin suit of nobility and much like religious fervour leave its adherents with the impression that are doing the 'right' thing.
Of course any mention of 'Cultural Marxism' is almost guaranteed to bring some of its proponents out frothing. In true Orwellian fashion they hate inconvenient facts about their ideology being mentioned especially when a large part of 'wokeism/ Cultural Marxism' revolves around changing and often inverting the meaning of words.
Examples include the DIE cult of 'Diversity', 'Inclusion; and 'Equity'
Section 127 – Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
Section 127 of the communications Act 2003 is a terrible piece of law based on archaic ideas that just aren't relevant to todays communications.
Its origins lie in a time where actual human operators still existed who had to connect calls manually. The precursor law to S.127 was designed to stop issues such as these operators being abused by callers.
Its obviously ridiculous that someone like Jimmy Carr can get up on stage and make a joke about a subject in front of thousands but yet two people privately sharing the same sort of jokes on an 'end to end' encrypted messaging service the operates internationally could be prosecuted if those messages came to light (for clarity I'm not suggesting comedians be prosecuted for making 'edgy' jokes. I am saying S.127 should be repealed)
Its obviously ridiculous that someone like Jimmy Carr can get up on stage and make a joke about a subject in front of thousands but yet two people privately sharing the same sort of jokes on an 'end to end' encrypted messaging service the operates internationally could be prosecuted if those messages came to light (for clarity I'm not suggesting comedians be prosecuted for making 'edgy' jokes. I am saying S.127 should be repealed)
I agree, but judges have to apply the law as it stands and not what it should be.
@Fubsy I also agree with a lot of what you’re saying. The public/private point is an interesting one. On the one hand, prosecuting people for what they say in a private setting feels like an overreach, but on the other you can’t give people impunity to spout grossly offensive things simply by selecting the audience. I can think of both pros and cons for this kind of law, but I do lean towards the cons purely because it places a huge burden on judges.
It's grossly offensive if public. In private, I kind of have issues with criminalising that, however distasteful and wrong it clearly is.
WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted - it's supposed to be even more private than say a conversation in your living room (technically could be overheard by neighbours) - the reliance on the prosecution was making those private chats public. Without that, no one in the public knows. There's an argument of public interest, but then they aren't serving, so appears more motivated by morals which I know some value more over others.
Argh, I dunno, I just think it's the wrong way to go about it. In public? Yea, throw the book at them, it's beyond reasonable to assume someone will be offended. In private? Yes, it's distasteful, but it wasn't intended to be seen/heard by those it relates to. It's not ok, but a crime? Pah, I just think of East Germany and the level of civilian surveillance that was prevalent during those times.
It's messy, but ultimately, as the lines of acceptable language changes, anyone could get caught up for being edgy in a private chat if there is a betrayal of confidentiality.
Those paraglider pictures were clearly displayed publicly with some kind of intent behind them. What that was, who knows. The difference in punishment seems to be on the content of the subject matter, in the eyes of a judge with maybe questionable levels of impartiality, rather than the intention of knowledge of who they may be targeting it at and whether it may cause offense. It doesn't appear to be "fair" and consistent, which is what I expect the law to be to some extent.
The idea that something you say in private can end up in front of an, as you say, a judge that has "questionable levels of impartiality" is quite concerning.
I think this judge needs not to be a judge anymore.
Argh, I dunno, I just think it's the wrong way to go about it. In public? Yea, throw the book at them, it's beyond reasonable to assume someone will be offended. In private? Yes, it's distasteful, but it wasn't intended to be seen/heard by those it relates to. It's not ok, but a crime? Pah, I just think of East Germany and the level of civilian surveillance that was prevalent during those times.
thought that about the whole labour candidate/rochdale thing - private conversations off-mic clandestinely recorded , will probably see more during election campaign. [in other news - new woke railway stations lioness/windrush/weaver/liberty/suffragette/mildmay - but maybe they'll avoud them on mornington cresent]
Or is there another definition that deem 'woke' to be?
Just want to make sure we know exactly where you coming from because as @Fubsy says, 'woke' gets thrown around a lot by folk who struggle to define exactly what they mean by it.
The idea that something you say in private can end up in front of an, as you say, a judge that has "questionable levels of impartiality" is quite concerning.
I think this judge needs not to be a judge anymore.
Again, the role of the judge is to interpret and apply the law as it stands based on the facts as presented. Putting aside the principle of whether or not someone should be tried for things said in private - something the judge does not give a ruling on - is there any doubt that repeatedly using the worst racial slurs is grossly offensive? The OP is dangerous because it compares two cases that are actually quite different in how the law treats the offences committed, and the articles prey on the fact that a lot of people don't understand how the legal system works.
If you have a problem here, it's with the law and not the judge in this case.
With regards to the other case, it's interesting that none of the articles I've seen make reference to the sentencing guidelines for the offence committed. It feels important to understand whether the sentence handed down was significantly out of step with the guidelines or not.
@dowie, you point to the OP, is this your definition of woke?
Or is there another definition that deem 'woke' to be?
Just want to make sure we know exactly where you coming from because as @Fubsy says, 'woke' gets thrown around a lot by folk who struggle to define exactly what they mean by it.
Fusby had it right as I said already, the reason for questioning whether the judge was woke was in the part of the post I already highlighted previously - see the bit re: wokeness.
I think this is another example of lacking professional standards. Once someone in a position of power indicates that they aren't neutral then any case they are presiding over should be re-heard, and the judge sacked.
Once upon a time, a group of retired police men and some young plebs, struggling to understand the world around them walked into a bar. The barman says, I make no distinction between you two groups. The two groups get into a fight. The Judge at the end of the bar disagrees with the barman. The barmaid complains the decision of the judge. The world made an attempt to move on. The end.
There was another example shared later in the thread, see the Law Gazett article and the employment case re: the "gender-critical" woman the judgment of which was rather embarrassing and later overturned.
Perhaps he doesn't then again perhaps you don't either, regardless, thanks to the power of Twitter, we can also see what people who do have a clue think! Such as these Barristers:
It doesn't seem like the sort of standard we ought to expect from a Judge and it has caused obvious issues re: the perception of bias or indeed apparent bias.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.lawgazette.co.uk
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
