Free speech is under threat in Britain because people feel they cannot speak out for fear of offending others over race, religion and immigration, according to research for the Commission for Countering Extremism, which advises the Government.
Moreover, almost half of Britons believe people are too easily offended.
Older, white males are among those who feel the most restricted, and the more outspoken a person’s views, the more likely they are feel constrained by the risk of offending others.
The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain and was first reported by the Telegraph.
People who are white, male, older and not university educated were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but feel most restricted in what they can say.
Reporting on the study, the Daily Mail said more than a third of Britons felt they had to self-censor their views on race or ethnicity while 32 per cent said they felt they could not speak freely about immigration or religious extremism.
Some 41 per cent felt they had to hold back their views on transgender issues while 31 per cent felt constrained from discussing the conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas terror attack.
This reinforces the thrust of the article about the increasing erosion of free speech posted on PoO yesterday.
Fear of reprisals of some sort seems to be stronger in universities.
The Christian Institute references a survey which found almost eight in ten university staff believe that free speech has become more restricted in the last decade.
Of 452 respondents in 28 countries surveyed by Times Higher Education, 77 per cent agreed that academic freedom of speech is more limited than it was ten years ago. Only 12 per cent disagreed, with 11 per cent undecided.
The view was particularly strong in psychology and clinical health, where “sex and gender issues loom large”.
When asked which factors most impacted their free speech, the majority (68 per cent) cited self-censorship.
The most common reason for withholding views was out of “fear of suffering professional consequences for doing so, such as being disciplined or being overlooked for a grant or a promotion”.
A British psychologist said she was “careful about discussing issues of sex/gender around students because I don’t want to provoke an argument, and so sometimes I avoid the topic where possible. This is despite the relevance of this area in psychology”.
A female academic in Arts and Humanities said she, too, was “very, very careful now”, after she was branded a “transphobe” by an anonymous group of students and the university’s HR department backed the process against her.
In the United States, “Americans are self-censoring at record rates” according to a report of results from surveys conducted since 1954.
To quote the authors: “This trend is worrisome on its face. In comparison to the McCarthy era, it is ghastly.”
They go on to conclude that the data make nonsense of attempts to deny the existence of cancel culture.
They also found this problem gets worse as education increases (full report here). Twenty-seven percent of those without a high school degree, but 45% of those with a college degree said they do not feel free to speak their minds.
It’s a troubling issue in this country too.
The consequences of saying what you think are well illustrated in a Stuff report this week headed Period products in male bathrooms led to employment dispute.
The report was focused on a case considered by the Employment Relations Authority.
The case involved Christine Massof, who had worked at Inland Revenue for 14 years when she made a comment on the organisation’s intranet in late 2023.
Massof’s boss said the comment, about free period products being made available in men’s and women’s bathrooms, was “seen as a dig at gender diversity” and she was advised to keep her opinions to herself.
Massof resigned and claimed she had been unjustifiably dismissed, but the Employment Relations Authority found no grounds for her claim.
Whether or not she was unjustifiably dismissed is not the point of this PoO article.
The concern, rather, is the matter which led to her resignation.
Christine Massof had worked at Inland Revenue for 14 years when she made a comment on the organisation’s intranet in late 2023.
On becoming aware that free period products were being provided in male and female bathrooms, Massof wrote:
The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain and was first reported by the Telegraph.
People who are white, male, older and not university educated were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but feel most restricted in what they can say.
Reporting on the study, the Daily Mail said more than a third of Britons felt they had to self-censor their views on race or ethnicity while 32 per cent said they felt they could not speak freely about immigration or religious extremism.
Some 41 per cent felt they had to hold back their views on transgender issues while 31 per cent felt constrained from discussing the conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas terror attack.
This reinforces the thrust of the article about the increasing erosion of free speech posted on PoO yesterday.
Fear of reprisals of some sort seems to be stronger in universities.
The Christian Institute references a survey which found almost eight in ten university staff believe that free speech has become more restricted in the last decade.
Of 452 respondents in 28 countries surveyed by Times Higher Education, 77 per cent agreed that academic freedom of speech is more limited than it was ten years ago. Only 12 per cent disagreed, with 11 per cent undecided.
The view was particularly strong in psychology and clinical health, where “sex and gender issues loom large”.
When asked which factors most impacted their free speech, the majority (68 per cent) cited self-censorship.
The most common reason for withholding views was out of “fear of suffering professional consequences for doing so, such as being disciplined or being overlooked for a grant or a promotion”.
A British psychologist said she was “careful about discussing issues of sex/gender around students because I don’t want to provoke an argument, and so sometimes I avoid the topic where possible. This is despite the relevance of this area in psychology”.
A female academic in Arts and Humanities said she, too, was “very, very careful now”, after she was branded a “transphobe” by an anonymous group of students and the university’s HR department backed the process against her.
In the United States, “Americans are self-censoring at record rates” according to a report of results from surveys conducted since 1954.
To quote the authors: “This trend is worrisome on its face. In comparison to the McCarthy era, it is ghastly.”
They go on to conclude that the data make nonsense of attempts to deny the existence of cancel culture.
They also found this problem gets worse as education increases (full report here). Twenty-seven percent of those without a high school degree, but 45% of those with a college degree said they do not feel free to speak their minds.
It’s a troubling issue in this country too.
The consequences of saying what you think are well illustrated in a Stuff report this week headed Period products in male bathrooms led to employment dispute.
The report was focused on a case considered by the Employment Relations Authority.
The case involved Christine Massof, who had worked at Inland Revenue for 14 years when she made a comment on the organisation’s intranet in late 2023.
Massof’s boss said the comment, about free period products being made available in men’s and women’s bathrooms, was “seen as a dig at gender diversity” and she was advised to keep her opinions to herself.
Massof resigned and claimed she had been unjustifiably dismissed, but the Employment Relations Authority found no grounds for her claim.
Whether or not she was unjustifiably dismissed is not the point of this PoO article.
The concern, rather, is the matter which led to her resignation.
Christine Massof had worked at Inland Revenue for 14 years when she made a comment on the organisation’s intranet in late 2023.
On becoming aware that free period products were being provided in male and female bathrooms, Massof wrote:
“This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, now that men can menstruate, free products are available in IR bathrooms.”
Some employees were offended by the comment, and one of the chairs of Inland Revenue’s rainbow network reported it to Massof’s manager.
How many chairs of the rainbow network are there in the IRD?
And did this one talk with Massof before going to her boss?
The manager met with Massof to discuss the matter. This was followed by a letter to Massof in which the manager told her the comments were “seen as a ‘dig’ at gender diversity at IR”.
“While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it’s essential to exercise discretion when expressing your views to colleagues, particularly in situations where those views could potentially cause offence or division among peers,” the letter said.
Massof was advised to be “mindful of the impact your opinions might have and refrain from sharing them in contexts that could lead to conflict or upset amongst colleagues… I suggest that you take a prudent approach and refrain from sharing your opinions altogether,” it said.
In April last year, Massof resigned, and filed claims with the Employment Relations Authority saying she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably constructively dismissed.
At a hearing, before authority member Claire English, Massof said she had felt vulnerable, ostracised and “effectively silenced” at work, and said the letter and meeting were “substantively unjustified”.
And:
Massof objected strongly that she was asked to remain mindful of others when expressing her views in the workplace, and said that it amounted to constructive dismissal.
Among the points made to explain her rejection of Masssof’s claim, English said:
“Asking a long-serving employee with some 14 years’ experience in the workplace to ‘be mindful’ of her colleagues when having conversations in the workplace is not ‘effectively silencing’ Ms Massof,”
English said that for a claim of constructive dismissal to succeed, the dismissal had to occur at the initiative of the employer. Massof’s evidence showed she did not want to continue working at Inland Revenue and her departure was not due to any breach of obligation by her employer.
Maybe not.
But let’s revisit the statement which landed Massof in trouble with the rainbow bunch and – when they reacted – her boss:
“This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, now that men can menstruate, free products are available in IR bathrooms.”
Can no-one smile at the absurdity of menstrual products being provided in the men’s dunnies at IRD?
But whoa – any smile should make way for curiosity that IRD is collecting our money to do all sorts of things, including ensure that period products are made freely available to all its staff.
This brings the collection of fringe benefit taxes into consideration.
Fringe benefit tax is a tax payable when certain benefits are supplied to employees or shareholder-employees, including free, subsidised or discounted goods and services.
Let’s applaud IRD for providing this fringe benefit free of gender bias.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
I agree that there is no way the manager's letter constitutes constructive dismissal. But if it had constituted a formal warning, Ms Massof should have taken a personal grievance over that. As I understand her intranet comment, she is not making a dig at gender diversity but pointing out that it was only once period products became a LGBTQ+ and woke issue that those products were supplied free.
The real concern is how the causing of offense has become so subjective that ordinary people cannot express any opinions at all, which goes completely against our traditions of democracy. Benjamin Doyle has freedom of speech to go on about bussys, thinking pedophilia is funny, but nobody is allowed to complain because complaining about that is offensive. The real problem is that the public service, the Greens and the media are against democracy.
A good example of the oppressed becoming the oppressors.
There are others that are known to readers of these annals........
Even tolerance can be taken too far.
Post a Comment