Tyranny of the minorities

I came across an interesting article in?The Daily Mail UK? a while ago. Written by Quentin Letts, he starts by saying: Quote:

We live in an age of mob rule by minorities in which anybody who disagrees with them is censored and freedom of expression is something only THEY enjoy… End of quote.

Here on Whaleoil, of course, we have known about this for some time, but it does often feel as if the rest of the world has no idea. So, it is comforting to know that others are seeing what is happening, and calling it for what it is.

Because, sometimes, it just gets too ridiculous for words. Quote:

….our so-called liberal Left went into convulsions of illiberality after author Lionel Shriver mocked the latest diversity madness. Writing in The Spectator, Ms Shriver poked fun at box-ticking, multi-cultural political correctness at publisher Penguin Random House, which is planning to commission authors on the basis of racial, gender and other quotas.? End quote.

From ‘positive discrimination’ in the 1970s, where there was a deliberate policy to employ at least one black actor on a TV show, or take in a few black students at a college, we have somehow ended up in the ridiculous position where race, gender or lack of conformity is more important than anything else. Only diversity matters.

But it gets worse. Quote:

At our universities, which are meant to be bastions of free thought, guest speakers are barred for fear they might so much as question Left-wing dogma. This happens to even such distinguished liberals as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell.

The forces of political correctness impose their unyielding views everywhere. End quote.

Germaine Greer was a groundbreaker for feminism in the 1960’s and should be revered as such. But not with today’s modern feminists. Quote:

At Oxford and Cambridge, there are calls for statues of historic benefactors to be torn down because they do not comply with fashionable modern positions on minority rights. At Newcastle University, meanwhile, the students? union demanded sanitary bins in men?s loos so as not to upset any students ?with a range of genders?. End quote.

This is the really sad part. Not the sanitary bins in men’s loos (God forbid, what is the world coming to, really)? but the destruction of history. This has already started in America, but I am really saddened to see it happening in Britain. Our history tells of the journey we have travelled to get to where we are now. It goes without saying that our ancestors did not hold the same values as we do today. But to tear down statues of people who have shaped our world because their thinking was different from ours today is nothing short of madness. Times were very different. We should celebrate how far we have come. Quote:

Theatre companies are left in no doubt that they will not be given Arts Council subsidies unless they cast a number of ?non-traditional? actors ? i.e., women playing Shakespearean kings or Afro-Caribbeans as English Regency fops.

Firms ban employees wearing crosses in case they offend non-Christians or atheists (but it?s fine to wear a burka).

Elsewhere, a popular fun run is told it should no longer ask runners to declare if they are men or women (campaigners insist that ?non-binary? athletes might take mortal offence).

The Armed Forces are pressured to spend precious funds on almost totally unnecessary gender-neutral lavatories. End quote.

Good point. Much needed resources are spent on gender-neutral toilets which hardly anyone will ever use. What percentage of the world population is transgender really? Apparently, 0.3% of Americans identify as transgender. That’s an awful lot of toilets for practically nobody. Quote:

We live in an age of the minority mob. An odd expression, I know. Mob rule used to be an assertion of power through violence by the great unwashed, be it in the French Revolution or America?s racist deep south, when it lynched individuals.

It has been replaced by the no less illogical (and hardly less chilling) hysteria of a knot of activists who weaponise minority rights ? they seem particularly obsessed with lavatories ? and wield them as a political threat against the majority. More often than not, these agitators themselves are not part of the minorities that have allegedly been offended. They belong instead to a class of professional busybodies who seize on the minorities game for their own ends.

Their strategy is to expunge divergence of views and crush resistance to their creed of racial and sexual egalitarianism. Freedom of expression is something only they can enjoy.

Ms Shriver proceeded to cite a questionnaire sent to Penguin authors about gender, sexuality and ethnicity. What had this to do with their writing ability? She concluded that Penguin was ?drunk on virtue? and no longer regarded its raison d?etre the ?acquisition and dissemination of good books?.

?Rather, the organisation aims to mirror the percentages of minorities in the UK population with statistical precision. Thus, literary excellence will be secondary to ticking all those ethnicity, gender, disability and sexual preference boxes.

In any sane country, Lionel Shriver?s article would be acclaimed as common sense. She was putting a meritocratic case ? ie, people should be judged on their ability and talents. And who can really argue with meritocracy?

When we board an aeroplane, do we worry what sexuality or ethnicity the pilot has? No. We merely hope she or he knows how to operate the controls.

For the egalitarian commissars, higher considerations apply. For them, talent and ability come second to quotas of race, gender and sexual inclination.

This is because they want to broadcast that they are morally superior beings who support minorities. The politicians among them hope that, by appealing to those who identify themselves as minorities, they will win votes. This is called identity politics, but really it is the politics of the lunatic asylum.

There is a profoundly worrying problem with this tyranny of the minorities. By insisting every minority has preferential rights, you end up denying the majority their rights.

Diversity is supposed to stop discrimination. But what is this if it is not discrimination? Diversity is supposed to provide greater opportunities for people no matter their colour, creed, sexuality, gender, ethnicity or inside leg measurement. A reasonable onlooker will say ?but we should encourage minorities?. Of course we should. But Penguin?s appalling policy will achieve the very opposite.

The entirely noble idea of diversity thus becomes an inflexible rod. It becomes a menace. This will not make the majority feel more kindly towards minorities. It will ignite resentment. And how exactly does it comply with equality laws which forbid treating people differently according to ethnicity, race, sexuality or disability?

In medieval Spain, the Inquisition caused terror by chasing down anyone who uttered public heresy (i.e. questioned Roman Catholic dogma). The Inquisition itself was small, but it was brutally effective at snuffing out dissent. With fire and torture, it came down hard on a few prominent free-thinkers and that was enough to create widespread repression.

But the thing about tyrannies is that they are ruled, ultimately, by bullies. The way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them, as Lionel Shriver has done with such brave clarity.

British public life is a place where the lively conflict of views should be welcomed as an essential part of a flourishing democracy. Freedom of expression has been fought for with blood over the centuries and is vital for liberal, civilised behaviour. No minority mob should ever be allowed to destroy that. End quote.

But they are destroying it. They already have. And no one knows how it will all end but it won’t end well. History has already shown that. If we insist on tearing down history, how can we ever learn from it? Or move forward? We can’t.