Category Archives: Political Correctness

Not a great week for journalism at the ABC, News Corps Sharri Markson tweeted on Monday, when the week was barely a day old.

It is hard to remember the last time a News Corp columnist declared it was a great week for journalism at the ABC. Marksons tweet linked to a story in The Australian that quoted former Attorney-General Christian Porter saying his dropping of his defamation claim against the ABC was a humiliating backdown by the ABC.

Apart from reporting the settlement, the main basis for the article was that the ABC had warned its staff not to claim victory following Porters withdrawal, and to be careful in the way they talked about it.

At such a legally sensitive moment, one might have thought the ABC warning to staff was mere prudence, but it also points to more recurring issues about how media organisations view their journalists statements on social media. These issues are likely to become more common, not less.

Read more: View from The Hill: Porter decides it's time to 'fold em' in ABC defamation case

Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a story quoting Liberal Senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson saying the national broadcasters social media policy was woefully inadequate.

There are genuine dilemmas here. Journalists as professionals and employees are subject to certain disciplines. What they tweet can and will affect the way others perceive their work.

Conversely, as citizens, they also have the right to free expression.

In April, The Australians economics editor, Adam Creighton, sent this tweet:

Does such a cri de coeur affect how readers regard his judgement and capacity to report? Or should he have the right to say how he feels?

The ABC is the Australian media organisation that has most earnestly sought to resolve these dilemmas. It has four eminently sensible guidelines:

do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute

do not undermine your effectiveness at work

do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views

do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.

Henderson pointed to two breaches of these guidelines. One was from an ABC lawyer who called the Coalition government fascist and Prime Minister Scott Morrison an awful human being on Twitter, and then resigned. Henderson said he should not have been allowed to resign, but should have been fired.

Her other example involved what she called Laura Tingles trolling of a prime minister last year. This is an inaccurate use of the word trolling, but increasingly politicians (and journalists) seem to equate any criticism of themselves on social media as trolling.

Tingles single offending tweet concluded we grieve the loss of so many of our fine colleagues to government ideological bastardry. Hope you are feeling smug Scott Morrison. The tweet was posted late at night after a farewell function for her friend and colleague Philippa McDonald, and it was deleted the next morning.

Read more: Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy

It is asking a lot of ABC journalists to feel detached and impartial about government cutbacks to their own organisation that adversely affect the careers of their colleagues. Nevertheless, the ABC has a large investment in Tingles public credibility, and the tweet was immediately addressed internally.

ABC Managing Director David Anderson injected an unusual note of common sense when he was asked whether Tingle was reprimanded during a Senate estimates hearing. He called Tingles tweet an error of judgement and said theres a proportionality that needs to be applied.

The larger danger is that journalists, especially those at the ABC, will get caught up in public controversies surrounding their own work. While at one level they clearly should have the right to defend themselves, the problem is the temptation to succumb to the cheap point-scoring in which critics often engage, to be dragged down from the professional standards of the original program.

Though recent public controversies have focused on apparent breaches on social media not being sufficiently punished, there are also dangers and potential injustices in an unduly restrictive approach.

The most obvious victim of a journalist being punished for social media activity was SBS football commentator Scott McIntyre, who posted a series of tweets on ANZAC Day in 2015 about the cultification of an imperialist invasion.

Read more: Conspiracy theories on the right, cancel culture on the left: how political legitimacy came under threat in 2020

Then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull thought they were despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned, and contacted the head of SBS, Michael Ebeid. Ebeid fired McIntyre the same day.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson was then quoted as saying McIntyres freedom of speech was not being curtailed, and that his historical claims will be judged very harshly.

Whatever the merits of his ANZAC tweets, they had no relationship to his role as a football commentator. Is his reporting on soccer compromised by his views on the ANZAC tradition?

This episode illustrates that political correctness and cancel culture are found across the political spectrum and media organisations will continue to grapple with these issues as the social media profiles of their journalists continue to grow.

Follow this link:

Journalists are not going to stop tweeting. But should media outlets exert more control over their posts? - The Conversation AU

By Xela VS

Of course, I am pro-Palestinian. That is, if I use the definition most people invoke when they hear the word Palestinians: an oppressed people living under the terror of the Israeli coloniser, who only have a few miserable stones to defend themselves against the high-tech violence of the Israeli army.

Yet this definition calls for nuance. Or rather, for thorough revision. The Palestinians are indeed oppressed, and their human rights are not respected. But the oppressor is not the worlds most demonised country called Israel, but Hamas, an islamofascist terror group that rules with an iron fist over a people systematically indoctrinated from birth to hate and exterminate Jews. This inherent antisemitism is nothing new under the Palestinian sun. Just ask the Mufti of Jerusalem, who conspired with Adolf Hitler to bring the Shoah to the Middle East. A historical tidbit seldom mentioned in our ever-radicalising neo-Marxist, islam-glorifying academic institutions former bastions of knowledge, nowadays strongholds stinking of political correctness.

Hamas is not a democratically elected government, as Westerners naively believe, but a bunch of terrorists funded by jihadist billionaires who mock democracy. Neither do they believe in human rights. Thats why they hang adulterous women and throw homosexuals off buildings. A whole lot less merrymaking than the gay parade in Tel Aviv, where transgender people of all religions are jumping to the beats of Lady Gaga.

This islamofascist mob is also not afraid to use innocent Palestinian women and children as living shields on tanks bought with the millions of dollars they receive from the United Nations to build homes, hospitals and schools. But instead of building infrastructures for health care and education, they dig subterranean tunnel networks to smuggle weapons and fire thousands of missiles at Israeli shopping malls, kindergartens, and Jerusalem, which they hypocritically claim to be their cherished Holy City.

Digging tunnels and firing missiles are an expensive affair, paid for by not only the UN, but also by zakat, muslim donations that go to charity funds largely controlled by Hamas. The families of suicide bombers, or freedom fighters as journalists worldwide like to call them, receive a reward from the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund, starting from several hundreds of dollars up to 5000 dollars a painful, yet lucrative sacrifice to parents who apparently can tolerate the idea of their beloved child pressing the detonation button. Does the perspective of paradise, where martyrs can indulge in rivers of wine and decadent orgies, make the decision easier? Or is the hatred for jews so great that sacrificing a son or daughter is a price they are willing to pay for the greater good? As Golda Meir famously said: Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.

President Donald J. Trump has successfully tempered this murderous hatred for four years and made the world understand that Jerusalem was and will be the eternal capital of the Jewish nation by moving the American embassy there. Now that his successor has taken power and the threat of American retaliation is diminished, Hamas dares to kill Jews again and muslims along the way, for that matter their recent rocket attacks have buried a Palestinian man and his young daughter alive.

Meanwhile, the Western world applauds Hamas, like ignoramuses who do not realise they are helping to oppress the Palestinians by not recognising the hideous crimes of terrorists who would kill them too, if they could. Out of silly political correctness, nauseating antisemitism disguised as antizionism, willful ignorance, or a nauseating blend of the three? Who will tell?

A rapid scroll through social media feeds shows the increasing level of support for Palestine as if the Palestinian people were one unanimous entity, forced into Apartheid by the Zionist devil. What nobody talks about, or cares to talk about, is the bloody violence resulting from the rivalry between adherents of Hamas and Fatah a Palestinian antagonism making far more victims than the defensive actions of Tsahal. But the international media remain deafeningly silent about those victims. Facts not involving Jews are not that exciting, and the truth is annoying if it distorts ones narrative.

What the media also avoid discussing, are Arabs with Israeli citizenship who dont live under the terror of Hamas, but still choose to burn the Israeli flag and stab their fellow Jewish citizens with knives. They could just leave the country they despise and emigrate to one of the twenty-two Arab states, where Shiites and Sunnis diligently butcher each other. Perhaps life in Israel, the only country that gives their Palestinian brothers work, food, water, and free medical care, is not so terrible after all.

Israeli initiatives for peace agreements, including the one proposed by the former US commander-in-chief, have been plentiful, but unfortunately, unsuccessful. It takes two to tango, and, as one might suspect from terrorists, Hamas is not interested in peaceful coexistence. The preamble of their Covenant clearly states that they will not rest until the complete annihilation of the Jewish state through jihad is a tangible fact: Israel will exist and continue to exist until islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

The greater the animosity against Israel, the greater the need for it to continue existing, so that the horrors of the past cannot be repeated. Am Israel Chai! The Promised Land is here to stay.

Hopefully, the awfully limited vision of Israeli oppression versus Palestinian victimhood is hereby nuanced. How regrettable that these nuances are being made by unknown individuals like me, and not by the journaille of the Western mainstream media, misleading their readership with cherry-picked facts and straight-out lies. Their detestation of Israel far outweighs their love for the Palestinian people. Otherwise, they would have called out their real enemy a long time ago.

Xela VS is a freelanche writer.You can follow her on xelaphilia.com.

Continue reading here:

The Enemy of the Palestinian People - European Jewish Press

Navy SEAL veteran Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) recently took to Twitter to announce a newly created whistleblower website to help root out the scourge of wokeness in the U.S. military and he is getting trolled hard over it.

The trouble started on May 28, when the former SEAL officer-turned-congressman posted a call to action on Twitter encouraging service members to reach out to his office, and to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a former Army officer, with evidence that woke ideology has infiltrated the ranks of the U.S. armed forces.

It is not uncommon for members of Congress to solicit tips through whistleblower and complaint pages: After all, its a useful tool for hearing from constituents, informs lawmakers of issues facing folks in their district, and it might lead to impactful legislation that resolves whatever problem someone blew the whistle on.

That said, Crenshaws recent call to action is somewhat atypical, seeing as these sorts of campaigns usually focus on gathering evidence to illustrate the severity of a single concrete problem like sexual assault and harassment in the military, government malfeasance, and other systemic issues like corruption, not for something as vague and subjective as woke ideology in the ranks. It might also strike some as ironic that Crenshaw has offered up whistleblower protection seeing as he made headlines not too long ago and faced the possibility of an ethics committee investigation over his alleged involvement in a plot to go after another veteran who blew the whistle on sexual harassment at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For those who have been hiding under a rock (or something), the typical complaint about wokeness in the U.S. military goes a little something like this: Because some of the branches in the military created maternity flight suits and updated their hair regulations for servicewomen, this proves that the Department of Defense is caving to pressure over political correctness and isnt focusing enough on warfighting. The counter-argument to this is they can do both: Servicewomen can wear their hair in a ponytail and shoot the enemy at the same time, probably more effectively since their Kevlar helmet wont be pushed down over their eyes due to a tight hair bun.

The complaint that the U.S. military has become too woke isnt entirely new, but it has become a favorite line among some Republican lawmakers as of late. Indeed, Crewnshaws call to action came just one week after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) retweeted a video that included Russian propaganda that was cut over a new Army recruitment commercial with the words Holy crap. Perhaps a woke, emasculated military is not the best idea. The Army recruitment video told the story of an actual soldier, and her path to joining the service, and Cruz was blasted for criticizing a soldier who volunteered to serve her country, and for using a sweaty Russian military video to do it. Other videos from the same campaign were similarly trolled over alleged wokeness to the point that the service shut down the comment section on YouTube for the videos.

And so, with the internet being the internet and with Twitter serving as the de facto proving grounds of snark on social media, a bunch of people, some of whom were veterans, had a field day using the whistleblower site (which is still live, by the way).

Some of the responses specifically parodied the effort to source examples of wokeness in the military. But others took a different approach, and started writing out the plotlines for movies and shows, like the one above which referenced Stripes. They then took screenshots of their submissions and shared them online.

My platoon deployed to Klendathu, wrote Peter Lucier, a Marine veteran and past contributor to Task & Purpose, based on a screenshot of the whistleblower submission page posted to Twitter. Big K. It was a slaughter. That motivated me to go to officer candidate school. Now I have to sit through History and Moral Philosophy classes? Are you kidding me?

For the section that asked respondents to lay out their goals, Lucier wrote Kill the bugs in an obvious head nod to the 1997 sci-fi action flick and bastardization of Robert Heinleins book Starship Troopers.

The trend quickly got on. Woman in authority implied I was a little short for a storm trooper, wrote another, this one a reference to Star Wars Episode IV. And then it just picked up steam from there:

Now, Im not sure what the original plan really was here if Crenshaw and Cotton expected droves of service members to descend upon their whistleblower page with stacks of documents laying out all the ways the U.S. military has gone soft because it changed a few regulations to allow some of its service members to be comfortable in their day-to-day jobs. Or if they expected hard evidence that would explain how celebrating the voluntary service of a diverse group of people has eroded the fighting power of the U.S. military.

Based on these responses, it doesnt seem like it worked out that way. On the upside, this is a pretty great movie and TV watch list, so long as youre willing to wade through the tidal wave of sarcasm.

Update: This article has been updated after publication with additional submissions from readers and respondents online.

Related: What Ted Cruz doesnt understand about those woke Army recruiting commercial

Originally posted here:

Dan Crenshaw wants people to blow the whistle on woke ideology in the military and hes getting roasted for it [UPDATED] - Task & Purpose

Draymond Green and Charles Barkley make for a very entertaining duo on Inside the NBA. They proved this yet again during Mondays games.

Youve gotta remember that Barkley is the same former NBA superstar who once said Im not a role model. The Chuckster will say what he feels when he feels like saying it. Expecting political correctness from the Sixers and Suns legend is like expecting an early Christmas.

Having said that, Barkley is also a man who never takes himself too seriously, even on live TV. Hes always down with joking about his own experiences. And yesterdays Inside the NBA gave us yet another neat example of his easygoing nature (skip to 14:00 in the video below).

Chuck: I think they [the cops] did arrest him [the fan who ran onto the court].

Dray: Yes, but arrested doesnt mean you went to jail.

Kenny: Two guys that know a little bit about that.

Chuck: Lets just say this, every time Ive been arrested, I went to jail.

Also Read:Is Anthony Davis playing Game 5 tonight vs Suns? Los Angeles Lakers release groin injury report for The Brow ahead of clash against Chris Paul and co

Charles Barkley keeps reminding us time to time that hes been arrested a number of times, so thats hardly front-page news at this point. What is front-page is the comic relief that he provides, as many people noted on NBA Twitter.

Also Read:Michael Jordan is the GOAT, but tonight, LeBron James can make a resounding statement: Skip Bayless piles pressure on Lakers Finals MVP ahead of Game 5 vs Suns

But there is another side to the way NBA fans responded to this discussion. Instead of taking light-hearted discourse on basketball-related issues for what it is, some people expect accuracy and correctness at every moment.

Its pretty safe to say that if youre getting arrested, youre more likely than not getting held at a police station lockup. What happens later is a matter of judicial processing.

More:

"Every time they took me to jail when I got arrested": Charles Barkley jokes about his past misdemeanors with... - The Sportsrush

Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is reportedly considering the development of tools that would help Americas children discern truth from lies and know when they are being fed disinformation.

The Washington Times, which first reported the story, says a department spokesperson declined to give details, but that more information would be revealed in the coming weeks.

Mayorkas might want to start by fact-checking his recent claim that the U.S. southern border is closed. He made the statement when news pictures showed waves of people crossing the border. Should kids believe him, or their lying eyes?

Should anyone, regardless of political party or persuasion, be comfortable with government telling especially children what they can believe and whom they can trust? This is what totalitarian states do. Its called propaganda.

We are already inundated with political correctness, cancel culture and woke-ism. TV networks spend more time delivering opinion and slanting stories to particular points of view than what once resembled if not objective journalism then at least fairness.

The list of government officials who have lied is long and dates back to the founders of the nation. Some lies could be defended on national security grounds. Others were used to cover up wrongdoing or enhance the image of the one who lied.

In recent years, we recall President Clintons denial of having sex with Monica Lewinsky, President Obamas claim about his health care program: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, President George H. W. Bushs Read my lips, no new taxes, assertions by the George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Richard Nixons lies about Watergate, the lies told by Lyndon Johnson, members of his administration and generals about how we were winning the war in Vietnam (Johnson had pledged during the 1964 campaign not to send Americans to fight in Vietnam, another lie), and the CEO of R.J. Reynolds telling a congressional committee in 1994 that cigarette smoking is no more addictive than coffee, tea, or Twinkies. The Washington Post reported in January that by the end of his term, former President Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day.

I could go on, but you get the point.

George Orwell was prescient when he wrote in 1984 about Newspeak and the Ministry of Truth. We have already achieved the former in what we are allowed to say, or not say, lest we be smeared with nasty rhetorical stains. Lets revisit the Ministry of Truth for those who havent read the book or need a reminder.

The Ministry of Truth was related to Newspeak in that it had nothing to do with truth, but propaganda by another name. Its job was to falsify historical records in ways that aligned with government policies and its version of those events. It was also tasked with defining truth, which sometimes resulted in doublespeak, or contradictions, that served the purposes of the state.

Truth has become subjective and relative in modern times and is now personal. You have your truth and I have my truth. Even when they contradict each other, it doesnt matter as long as we both feel good about it.

This flawed notion has contributed to our cultural decline.

Try this experiment if you want to see how far we have moved from objective truth. Go to any popular definition website and type in truth. They assume truth exists and can be discovered.

The truth is supposed to set us free, but if we cant recognize or define it, we will be in bondage. Secretary Mayorkas should reread Orwells novel and then abandon any plans to indoctrinate schoolchildren.

Editors note: Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas latest book Americas Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States (HarperCollins/Zondervan).

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:

Will Homeland Security be Ministry of Truth 2.0? | News, Sports, Jobs - Marquette Mining Journal

On Sept. 2, 2020, Laurie Schipper addressed a two-page letter to Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence board members. It has been a challenging and reactive time with so many opportunities to make transformative changes, it began.

Three months earlier, in the midst of the racial reckonings brought forth by the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other Black people, Schipper and leaders of 44 other sexual assault and domestic violence coalitions from 33 states signed the Moment of Truth letter, which acknowledged the ways that their leadership failed underrepresented survivors, leaders and movements, specifically people of color. In it, they detailed changes they would support surrounding partnerships with police departments and the criminal justice system. The work that led to the letter was not easy, nor was it an easy road after, as the stance was seen as controversial by some in the state and nationally.

She received feedback from several leaders of ICADVs culturally specific programs. Those are great words, but wheres the action? they asked. Schipper came to the decision that it was time for her to step aside and make space for a person of color to hold leadership.

We tell ourselves that because were in Iowa, a white-majority state, that its too hard for us, that the numbers [of qualified people of color] are not there. It is hard, because you dont get the numbers unless you do the internal work, Schipper said.

She wrote in her resignation letter: This is a truth I have been thinking about for a number of years, recognizing that I am one of those white women who took on a leadership role at age thirty and stayed forever, never making room to center the leadership of women of color. ... It became clear to me during our staff discussions that it was, indeed, time for me to move on.

She was 58 and had been the executive director for nearly 30 years. ICADV board members and staffers were surprised, but supportive. Schipper called on the board to hire a new executive director as soon as possible, and indicated that she would stay on through the spring to help train her replacement. At the same time, Schipper and other ICADV staff members created a five-year action and accountability plan.

What we found is that the work that weve done publicly around supporting communities of color and leaders of color brought an amazing group of women to the position as candidates, Schipper said. There were a lot of women of color that could have filled this position. Thats something that white-led organizations should know, even if its Iowa.

In January 2021, ICADV hired Maria Corona, who is a three-time graduate from Iowa State University with degrees in womens studies and international studies, a masters degree in family and consumer sciences, and a Ph.D. in human development and family studies. Before her hiring at ICADV, Corona worked closely with Latina and Latino survivors of domestic violence at Iowa States Child Welfare Research Training Project and worked as a diversity outreach coordinator and advocate for survivors of domestic violence at Assault Care Center Extending Shelter & Support (ACCESS).

Schipper has transitioned out of her role as senior consultant to the executive director and now works for Galvanize USA, a national womens empowerment and voter engagement organization.

The following conversation with Schipper and Corona has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Laurie, when did you come to the decision that you would step down and make space for a woman of color?

Schipper: Its important to acknowledge that Ive thought about it for years, and as a white woman, Ive had the privilege of setting it aside and asking if it was convenient for me at this moment. It started in 2015, although it wasnt a specific plan. It was working with folks at the national level thinking about what it would look like to center the leadership of women of color and the needs of marginalized communities. That work was really transformative and led us to the Moment of Truth letter.

After the letter was released, our culturally specific programs were holding us accountable. At the time it was really painful; now I know it was a gift.

I was talking to some of my friends who run national programs, and they said, Do it. Just do it. I still didnt think it was financially possible in my life. But hearing them say to do it stuck with me. I was in a place of great privilege and I had waited way too long. And if not me, who could we ask to do this? It was hard and scary and sometimes I felt sorry for myself. I was defensive, threatened and sad that people didnt beg me to stay. But leadership is taking the leap.

Because I had been here so long and because the Moment of Truth letter caused a lot of commotion politically with law enforcement and legislators, it was important for me to stay in a role of leadership so Maria could get her feet planted and I could help open doors or deflect anything that was my fault so she didnt have to. Its a complicated role and I wanted to make it easier. I had to do a lot of white fragility work in a short period of time. That transition has been the growth experience that I didnt anticipate and that will always be every time I see Marias face, something that I am so humbled by and so appreciative of and love her so much for.

Corona: Its important to know that the national folks that Laurie tapped into for support through this process are also women of color. If you dont surround yourself with diverse thoughts and people who come from underrepresented communities, youre not really going to hear and feel what it means to give up your space as a white woman. So that support that Laurie had was essential to this transition. She could have easily just talked about it with her white friends and they might have said, Are you crazy? Why would you leave that role?

It may feel like a very micro-level thing that happened, but its actually huge. Im a state-level leader, but Im on a national stage because of our position as a coalition and what we do policy-wise at the national level.

Throughout this transition, I never felt that Laurie framed this experience as, Im doing this for you. Its not a hand-me-down. Its her own reckoning. I appreciate Laurie for staying as long as she did, because this is a really hard job.

I have knowledge, skills and experience. Ive been organizing in the community and Im well-versed in research, grant-writing and other administrative pieces. There are other areas that I need support in, and her staying really gave me the space to take a breath, to think about the transition and really assimilate into the role and feel what its like to be in this powerful space.

My undocumented mother would never think of this as a reality, and shes so proud. To have the opportunity to do this and show my skills and compete, and I know there were a lot of other great candidates, it was all about showing that this is my purpose. I went to grad school for this. Its a marathon that Im still running. There will be rocks along the way and things thrown at me and other barriers that I have to face as part of my identity. [Schippers] staying so long gave me a sense of support and it made me feel like Ive got this. I can do this. It also allowed me to learn from her.

Schipper: I took Marias job at the age of 30, with one job experience under my belt and a bachelors degree. Maria would have likely not been able to get hired at that point in time. Maria has articulated to me that in order to feel heard by the world, she had to get a Ph.D. So this wasnt about going to look for somebody who may or may not be qualified. Maria was very qualified and would not have been considered likely because of structural racism.

This isnt about being a white savior. Its about white folks taking on a super hard reckoning and learning things about themselves that they dont want to know, and then stepping aside. I want white folks to know that my world didnt come to an end. It was hard, but wow, what I get to watch happen now. This is where Maria was supposed to be.

You mentioned the notion that women of color often have to be extra qualified to even be considered for jobs. What are other barriers or challenges that women of color face in being hired for leadership positions?

Corona: Women of color always have to prove that were good enough, that we are in this space because we have the skills, the capacity and that weve done the work. As a Latina, I come from a very collectivistic space. We are very community-driven, and what we do in our life, its all driven out of love for my community. Yes, its out of love for my family, but also for other families who look like mine, or that experience systemic racism. Thats how I drive my leadership, based on lived realities and experiences of people. Thats something that I think women of color also have to constantly prove is valuable.

Because theres a lack of representation, theres a limited number of folks I can look to for support. Theres very few Latino/Latinx nonprofit directors. I cant really reach out to people who are like me and vent.

Another barrier is the space within your organization. Do people believe in you? What perceptions do they have of you? Do they believe youre capable enough? If you dont have a team that respects who you are and recognizes your value as a human and a professional, youre not going to feel welcome. Youre not going to feel supported. Youre going to be constantly battling within your own organization. I have never been in a space with majority-white people that actually believe in me. And it sucks. Youre always wondering, Should I say something? Should I say that a comment was racist? Should I have a conversation? Im thankful to say that as of now, I havent had to do that. ICADVs team is amazing and they are all ready to do the anti-racism work. Before I came here, they put together an action and accountability plan for working toward being antiracist and uplifting and centering the BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, people of color] community. Having that space ready, I didnt have to come in as a new leader and walk on eggshells because someone is doubting me and my skills. I am so lucky to say that, even more so because Im in Iowa.

For me, after graduating from Iowa State University, I wanted out. I was like, I need to get out of Iowa. I need to go somewhere where I know my community is and I know I can feel the love and respect that I need and deserve. I never expected that at ICADV. Im still building relationships its my fourth month on the job but I feel very comfortable. With the video of the 13-year-old Latino kid that was killed by police in March, I was able to come in and say, This is really heavy on me right now. And theyre there for me telling me to take care of myself. You can really be your full self at ICADV. Im so proud to be here. Im so proud of my team. Its all a matter of us holding ourselves to the action and accountability plan.

Another barrier is relationships with community leaders and leadership across member programs. What do they think about me? Never in my life would I have thought that I would be able to get on a call with the attorney general. When that happened for the first time, when I hung up the phone, I cried. I come from a community and a family that said, if you see a cop, go the other way. You dont talk to them. You dont call them. Im calling the biggest cop in town now. Im getting on a phone call with him to ask him to do something for me. That is incredible. I would have never thought that thats something that I would be doing in my life. It gives me a sense of so much responsibility, not just for survivors of violence, but for communities of color. To know that Im in this position is amazing. It fills me with lots of strength and it makes me feel empowered. It also makes me feel a little afraid because of the amount of responsibility that I have for my people, for my community and for communities that are underrepresented.

Laurie is one of the women that has paved the way for people like me, for women like me. She gave space for my community, for the undocumented community, for folks that are typically not given the room to speak up. That means a lot. And it was really thoughtful. Everything was really intentional, thoughtful, and set up for me to succeed.

Schipper: Not all white-led organizations will necessarily be ready for this. There have been a lot of casualties before Maria [at ICADV] in wanting to diversify for the political correctness of it and hiring women of color when we werent ready to look at our own white supremacy culture. For those women, it was never a fair playing field when they came into our organization and they all left. We have lots of reckoning to do around that. I wanted to make sure that we took on several years of really intensive work around our own white fragility, anti-racism work before our team was ready for this.

So as much as I would want to encourage people to look at their ability to center the leadership of women of color, I also think you have to do the work to get there. I am haunted by the women before Maria that didnt find the space welcoming, that didnt find it a place where they could fulfill their potential and left.

Corona: Thank you for saying that. Thats why Im lucky to be here now. If I were to have come on 10 years ago, I probably would have not been in the same space that Im in now. I could see the internal work that the staff does on their own; its really beautiful to see that growth. Its scary for white people to do that. You get lots of feelings like shame and guilt. Youre uncomfortable. But its courageous to stay in those feelings and work on them and process them. To say, Im going to work on myself and Im going to work on my behaviors and habits that have caused harm and that continue the ideology of whats supposed to be professional, thats courageous. The team is doing that work all the time. And when they dont, they call each other in. Ive witnessed that and its amazing.

You mentioned the notion of doing the work. What does that look like?

Schipper: We had a book club that met regularly over a two- or three-year period. It was mandatory for all white folks at the coalition. We took recommendations from folks of color on staff who thought we should read specific pieces. We had hard conversations where we challenged each other. Then we asked ourselves about how many groups we could join where we could support leadership of color. We delivered cookies to organizations that we didnt know anything about except that their work was something that we wanted to support. We did listening tours all around the state, and met with natural leaders in communities of color, like ministers and day care operators. We went to all kinds of places where people could tell us what we could do to be supportive as a white-led organization and how we could open doors for their agenda.

I had thought this was a great plan on my part. I wrote up an introductory letter, saying that well bring the cookies and that we just want to hear about what you need, and that we have some political power and that we can open doors for you. Immediately it was clear that the organizations didnt buy that for a second. It took so much energy and relationship-building to get organizations to believe that we really meant it, and that we werent there to mine information or resources from them. It took probably three years of us having cleared our legislative agenda completely, saying, We will only support what the community wants and that we will not support the criminal justice system as the primary intervention for community safety. It took a lot of time to [prove] that we meant it.

Corona: Thats important, because youre going into a community and youre listening. Youre not going in there with an agenda, which is a typical thing for white-led organizations to do. It is hard for us as people of color to tell people especially white people what we need from them. We are accustomed to always giving up something for them because they always need something from us.

Another thing weve done internally is modify personal practices to support staff of color specifically. For example, if theres an internal promotion happening, its a priority to consider BIPOC staff. Its one thing to say something, and its another to actually write it into your personnel policies. Another example is through ICADVs victim counseling training. We now center intersectionality and the systemic issues that survivors especially survivors of color have to navigate. Its our lens of how we look at the training. Other things include investing in racial and social justice action and activism.

What Laurie did was intentional and thoughtful. It was very well-planned. All of that internal work she did as a leader and as a team, that is not something our community knows. So its very easy for them to perceive that what she did is performative when actually things have been worked on for a very long time. Its something that you have to actively do every day. Nationally, other coalition directors in the field are doing the same thing now. That is beautiful. It just takes one person to actually do the things that everybody is thinking about but is too afraid to do.

What will it take for us as a collective society to reach a point where its just ingrained to elevate women of color?

Schipper: Until its not us and them anymore. When we were creating the action and accountability plan, someone challenged me in my language in that I continued to say us and them. So my language was still portraying us meaning the white people on staff creating the plan and how they would respond to that.

I have dear friends who are white and are leading organizations who cant do this for financial reasons or because theyre not ready. And its super important to know that some of them mentored me to this point. Some of their work was holding me accountable and keeping me honest. Just because you cant leave your organization to center folks of color doesnt mean you cant lead. I couldnt have done what I did without their help and expertise around anti-racism issues. Other folks who are in a position of privilege and can leave, I would want them to know that its never too late to keep growing and challenging yourself and being afraid. Its OK. Jump.

Corona: It takes boldness from leaders that hold the power to hire and change policies. Its about hiring, but its also about making the space welcoming. Its about making policies equitable for all identities. You really have to center BIPOC folks when youre crafting your policies and creating a culture. What does it mean to be in a space that is all white? Is there going to be a safe space for those people? Its more than just hiring people, its about retention.

Schipper: I stepped into this role in 1993. Ive been here a long time and didnt do the work. So I want to acknowledge that. Yes, we came to a point where we knew we had to be proactive for it to be successful. I think there were folks that felt that what I was doing was performative in some ways, but in my heart I really wanted to protect Maria in any way and give her space to get to her feet. The learning that I got from this is that theres a way to do that without standing in front. Maria didnt need me to stand in front at all. Maria is brilliant. I dont think I was brilliant, and I didnt have to be. I just had a lot of skills. And I think thats whats really significant here. We are losing so much by not giving folks like Maria a chance to lead. I am so humbled by her fearlessness. This is not an easy job under normal conditions, and we are in a hard world right now. So my bravery and leadership is nothing compared to what she is doing right now.

Corona: Imposter syndrome is going to kick my [butt] every day. Having Laurie to go to is very rewarding for me. There are going to be good things and there are going to be rough things that happen. I know I can count on Laurie, I can call her even just to cry it out. Ive already done that. She is willing to give up this space and uplift a woman of color, but shes also willing to be there for the hard parts. That says a lot about who she is. I couldnt be more thankful for that.

Schipper: I always thought my legacy would be that I was hardcore and that I stood up to the system and that I changed laws, but watching this have a rippling effect on the people in my life and in the field if I had to pick a legacy, thats the one I would want.

Read more:

'It was time for me to move on' - Business Record

The protesters who made their way through Center City on the first day Philadelphia saw mass demonstrations following the murder of George Floyd were looking for places to direct their anger.

They came upon the statue of Frank L. Rizzo, the late mayor and police commissioner whose legacy so perfectly captured the style of policing they were fighting against that the monument could have been placed there for the occasion. Rizzo supporters got the statue installed outside the Municipal Services Building in 1999. Mayor Jim Kenney ordered it removed in the middle of the night amid the sweeping protests last June.

A year later, Philadelphia is still grappling with place names and monuments that honor people whose legacies many find offensive and how to implement a better system of commemoration going forward.

There has been a renewed push, for instance, to rename Taney Street, which is believed to be named after the U.S. Supreme Court justice who authored the racist Dred Scott decision denying citizenship rights to African Americans. Meanwhile, significant questions remain about the two statues that became flashpoints last year: the Rizzo statue, which the city is storing at a secret location, and the Christopher Columbus statue in Marconi Plaza, the fate of which remains before a state court.

After the protests, the Kenney administration launched a commission to review current commemorations and formalize a process for green-lighting future ones.

Who the city visibly commemorates is important to the mayor, Kenney spokesperson Kevin Lessard said in a statement last week. The mayor would like to see more influential Philadelphians of color represented in public monuments.

Adam Waterbear DePaul, a member of the Lenape Nation of Pennsylvanias tribal council, has long hoped for greater awareness of the history and current experiences of indigenous people in the Philadelphia area.

He didnt anticipate that such a moment would be sparked by the police killing of an unarmed Black man in Minneapolis. But ever since then, the Nation has been inundated by people curious about us, about indigenous issues, really about all human rights issues.

Consistent controversies in cities across the country have included renaming Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples Day as Kenney did this year or removing statues of Columbus, who founded slave colonies at the outset of the genocide against the Americas indigenous populations.

Obviously, it comes out from an incredibly unfortunate circumstance, but its a great thing to see that the social consciousness is changing in this way, DePaul said.

READ MORE: The Rizzo statue disappeared. Philadelphia is still unpacking its legacy.

The Nation hasnt taken a stance on whether governments should get rid of Columbus Day or remove monuments. But it supports the celebration of Indigenous Peoples Day and wants to see more accurate portrayals of the areas indigenous communities, in education and monuments.

Every part of Lenape history in current life has been incredibly erased, especially here in our Eastern woodland homelands, and all of it needs to be brought more into the public consciousness through education, DePaul said. And it would be great for the city to have a part in that.

That could mean a physical monument, he said, but only if the city works with the Nation to shape the design, because so many monuments are problematic.

They tend to root us in the past, DePaul said. They foster the narrative that the Lenape and all Native Americans are a people who once lived long ago, rather than a people today who drive cars and have jobs and have iPhones and walk among you.

Such an inclusive process is what the Kenney administration hopes to achieve with its Landmarks and Monuments Review Commission. The commission has created a database of 7,000 place names, public art, and memorials, and is crafting a process to review the commemorations.

The citys chief cultural officer, Kelly Lee, who is leading the effort, was unavailable for an interview, Lessard said.

The commission should be careful not to move too quickly to erase potentially problematic names or monuments, said Ken Lum, cofounder of the Philadelphia-based Monument Lab, a public art and history studio that says it facilitates participatory approaches to public engagement and collective memory.

That needs to be done with great sensitivity because it could be misconstrued as some sort of extreme [political correctness] project or something like that, said Lum, an artist and University of Pennsylvania professor. The exercise could be a very worthwhile pedagogical learning time for the city.

The fight over the statues isnt over, despite the monuments being out of sight. Lawyer George Bochetto has filed lawsuits on behalf of groups upset with the citys handling of the Rizzo and Columbus statues.

The Frank L. Rizzo Monument Committee, which raised money to commission the statue, is challenging the Kenney administrations handling of the removal, and seeking to have it returned to them. Bochetto said he knows where the statue is but cant disclose the location due to a confidentiality agreement in the federal case.

Its in a city warehouse, sitting on a flatbed truck in a prone position, somewhere damaged, he said in an interview.

Bochetto also represents a group suing the city over the Columbus statue. The 145-year-old statue is still at Marconi Plaza in South Philadelphia, but has been encased in plywood since last June. With Kenneys support, the citys Art Commission and Historical Commission voted last year to remove it.

READ MORE: Philly lawmaker and Italian American groups sue Mayor Kenney for renaming Columbus Day

Bochetto accuses the city commissions of failing to follow their own rules and procedures when it comes to the removal of statues.

Both of them are kangaroo courts, Bochetto said of the two commissions that sided with Kenneys administration.

The city is preparing to remove the Columbus statue even as the court battle unfolds.

While these matters work their way through the court system, the city is laying the groundwork to prepare for the statues eventual removal, Lessard said in a statement. In addition to satisfying any requirements set forth by the two commissions or the court, the ultimate timing will also depend on availability of the conservation team and execution of the contracting process.

The Rizzo statue still carries political weight.

On the campaign trail this year as he seeks a second term, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a criminal justice reform advocate, has framed its removal as evidence of the progressive direction in which many Philadelphia voters have gone in recent years. Krasner won a primary challenge last month in a landslide.

There is one factor thats going to be very hard for anyone to get around, which is that the Frank Rizzo statue is gone, he said early in the campaign. And that says a lot in the city, where Rizzos influence even now continues, but where his shadow has been disappearing more and more over time.

See original here:

Philly grapples with statues of Frank Rizzo, Christopher Columbus, and more a year after protests - The Philadelphia Inquirer

While the current trend in Europe appears to be censoring social media content, the Czech Republic is considering the opposite.

Czech MPs have passed the first reading of a legal amendment that would criminalise social media firms if they ban content that is deemed to be in the public interest.

It's being seen as an attempt by the Czech right-wing to fight back against the so-called cancel culture seen elsewhere in Europe.

The motion was brought forward to the lower house of parliament by Vaclav Klaus Jr, the son of a former prime minister and founder of the small right-wing Trikolora party, as well by MPs from various other political parties.

If passed, the amendment to the country's criminal code could lead to social media operators or administrators facing a three-year prison sentence, a temporary ban on activities or a hefty fine if they censor content that is either in the public interest or does not violate domestic criminal law or international treaties.

Czech MPs appear to be cutting their own path as other European legislatures introduce laws that require social media firms to remove content when demanded by national regulators.

Last May, France introduced a new government-sponsored law to compel social media operators to take down hateful content flagged by users within 24 hours. But the French Constitutional Council a month later struck down most provisions of the law as they were deemed unconstitutional, for violating freedom of speech.

In Germany, the 2017 Network Enforcement Act that requires social networks to remove content that infringes on hate and defamatory speech in the German Criminal Code has caught on elsewhere on the continent.

If ratified, the EUs long-planned Digital Services Act, a draft for which was released by the European Commission last December, will greatly empower social media operators to choose what content they deem permissible or not through notice-and-action mechanisms.

Klaus Jr has proposed such a change to the law since at least 2018 and the amendment was first tabled in the Czech parliament in January 2019.

The coalition government opposes the measure. So, too, does the Pirate Party, the parliament's second-largest opposition group.

The amendment was co-sponsored by Radim Fiala, vice-president of the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD). Some members of the ruling ANO party, of Prime Minister Andrej Babis, also supported the amendment, as did lawmakers from the centre-right Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the largest opposition party.

Proponents of the amendment argue that not only does censorship by social media firms violate the EUs Charter of Fundamental Rights, there are also currently no laws that stop the firms from deleting content posted on their platforms. The amendment has now been sent to parliaments constitutional and legal committee for review.

Miroslav Mares, a Czech political scientist and expert on right-wing politics at Masaryk University, reckons there is a chance that MPs could adopt the amendment but its almost certain to be rejected by the Senate, parliament's upper house, or the Constitutional Court.

But even if it is eventually rejected, Mares added, the issue of free speech may become important on the political rights campaign trail ahead of Octobers general election, which is expected to be tightly fought and could see a number of far-right parties hold sway over which of the larger parties forms the next government.

According to a survey published in 2017 by global monitoring agency vpnMentor, the Czech Republic had one of the lowest rates of internet censorship in the world. But Mares said the issue of free speech is becoming divided between two competing narratives in Czech politics.

For some, Mares noted, the issue of free speech is tied to liberal democracy and the legacy of Vaclav Havel, an anti-communist figurehead who defined the Czech Republics liberal establishment when he became the first president of the country after the fall of communism in 1989.

In direct opposition, Mares added, are those who see the fight for freedom of speech as a rejection of Western progressivism", a loose label by which they mean current debates surrounding cancel culture, political correctness and the limits of offensiveness.

It means that traditional prejudices and expressions towards various entities are protected by these people, mostly from the nationalist spectrum around President [Milos] Zeman and Klaus, said Mares.

Klaus Jrs father, Vaclav Klaus Sr, was a major political figure in the 1990s, serving as prime minister between 1993 and 1998, and a nationalist whose politics were in direct contrast to Havels liberalism. Klausism became an epithet for a national conservatism commingled with economic liberalism.

Last year, President Zeman sparked controversy when he lashed out at the Black Lives Matter movement for being racist, since all lives matter.

Expecting a public backlash over what he saw as political correctness, he added: I do not need any new Big Brothers; I do not need any new opinion leaders.

In his speech to parliament when introducing the amendment, Klaus Jr railed against what he called the new left, a label he and other politicians from the political right often use to describe the Pirate Party, which tends to champion progressive issues.

I want to defend freedom of speech and democracy and not let the attacks of the new left grow, Klaus Jr stated.

They distinguish between Hate Speech and Fair Speech, between evil statements and correct ones... This is, of course, devastating for the society in which we live, he went on, adding that the new left wants to destroy freedom of speech.

Mares, of Masaryk University, said that the new left label is an attempt by certain parties to present the Pirate Party as a vanguard of Western neo-Marxism, a term that is commonly used across Europe and North America to refer to progressives.

Tomas Martinek, an MP for the Pirates, admonished the amendment as being vaguely worded and almost impossible to enforce, as well as hypocritical, alleging that Klaus Jr regularly blocks people and deletes content on his social media pages.

Pavel Havlicek, a research fellow at the Prague-based Association for International Affairs, said the amendment is more a question of far-right fringe parties against the political mainstream, along the lines of the traditional populist agenda of anti-elitist, anti-mainstream logic.

Klaus Jrs Trikolora party -- which he formed in 2019 after being expelled from the centre-right ODS -- has been endorsed by and likened to Nigel Farages Brexit Party in the UK and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbans Fidesz.

At the time of its formation, Klaus Jnr was ranked the most trusted Czech politician, after a survey by local pollster CVVM. He resigned as the party leader in March, citing personal issues but retained his seat in parliament. It remains unclear whether hell retake the mantle ahead of Octobers general election.

The agenda of the far-right parties, like Trikolora and the SPD, said Havlicek, is to argue that some [imaginary] powers are trying to silence them, which is not the case.

However, it may not be an unpopular idea in Czech society. Last September, dozens of personalities, including game developer Daniel Vavra, musician Pavel Fajt and writer David Zabransky, signed a petition calling on the government to impose legislation to oppose censorship on social media.

Political parties including the Trikolora and the SPD have been at the foreground of anti-lockdown protests since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which they have argued that government-enforced restrictions on freedom of movement are comparable to a paternalistic limit on free speech for the sake of political correctness.

The Czech publics trust in their government and parliament has fallen to the lowest in the EU, according to the latest Eurobarometer report, released last week. The share of the Czech population who trust their government fell from 40% to 19% since early 2020. Confidence in the Czech Parliament dropped 10 percentage points to 15%

The latest survey by Kantar CZ, a local pollster, puts the new Pirates and Mayors coalition - formed late last year by the Pirate Party and the Mayors and Independents party - in the lead if Octobers general election was held today, with 27% of the popular vote.

ANO, the main party in the current ruling coalition, has lost considerable support since the beginning of the pandemic and enjoys just a 20% vote share, according to Kantar CZ. The Social Democrats (CSSD), ANOs junior coalition partner, is widely tipped to lose most of its parliamentary seats come October.

The governing coalition also last month lost the support of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM), whose 15 lawmakers Prime Minister Babis minority government had depended upon to get legislation through parliament.

Because neither the Pirates and Mayors coalition nor ANO are likely to win enough seats to form a government by themselves, and if ANO cannot rely on its current Social Democrat ally, both groups will likely have to find new partners if they want to form the next government.

Up until now, Babis has vowed not to ally with the far-right SPD, which currently holds 20 seats in parliament and is predicted to be the fourth largest political group after the general election, according to Kantar CZ polls. However, in October the far-right could become kingmakers.

Every weekday, Uncovering Europe brings you a European story that goes beyond the headlines. Download the Euronews app to get a daily alert for this and other breaking news notifications. It's available on Apple and Android devices.

See the article here:

How the right-wing is fighting back against 'cancel culture' in the Czech Republic - Euronews

A student in Berlin conjugates a verb for class. (Scherhaufer/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

This report focuses on attitudes in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK about what it takes to be truly part of the countrys nationality. It also includes questions about the importance of tradition and national pride, among other issues.

For this analysis, we use data from nationally representative telephone surveys of 4,069 adults from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK. In addition to the survey, Pew Research Center conducted focus groups from Aug. 19 to Nov. 20, 2019, in cities across the U.S. and UK (see here for more information about how the groups were conducted). We draw upon these discussions in this report.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and the survey methodology.

As issues about culture and identity continue to be at the center of heated political debates in the United States and Europe, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that views about national identity in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK have become less restrictive and more inclusive in recent years. Compared with 2016 when a wave of immigration to Europe and Donald Trumps presidential campaign in the U.S. made immigration and diversity a major issue on both sides of the Atlantic fewer now believe that to truly be American, French, German or British, a person must be born in the country, must be a Christian, has to embrace national customs, or has to speak the dominant language.

People in all four nations have also become more likely to believe that immigrants want to adopt the customs and ways of life in their countries. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) now hold this opinion, up from 54% in 2018, and the share of the public expressing this view in Germany has jumped from 33% to 51% over the same time period.

The survey also finds that more people think their countries will be better off in the future if they are open to changes regarding traditional ways of life. Still, this issue is divisive, as a substantial minority in every country prefer to stick to traditions.

Other cultural issues also divide these publics. For example, when it comes to issues of political correctness, at least four-in-ten in every country say people should be careful what they say to avoid offending others even while around half or more in every country but Germany say people today are too easily offended by what others say.

Outside of France, more people say its a bigger problem for their country today to not see discrimination where it really does exist than for people to see discrimination where it really is not present.

Depending on the country, people are also divided over which groups are facing discrimination in society today. In the U.S., for example, nearly half say Christians face at least some discrimination, though fewer than a third say the same in the European countries surveyed. Similarly, in France, the public is somewhat evenly divided over whether Jews face discrimination. In every country surveyed, though, a large majority think Muslims face discrimination.

All of these issues are also ideologically divisive. In every country surveyed, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to prioritize sticking to traditions, to say people today are too easily offended by what others say, and to say the bigger societal problem is seeing discrimination where it does not exist.

Those on the right are also more likely to say each factor asked about being born in the country, adopting its customs and traditions, speaking the dominant language and being Christian are very important for being part of the citizenry.

Even issues of national pride have become ideologically tinged in the U.S. and UK. In every country, around four-in-ten say they are proud of their country most of the time, one-in-ten or fewer say they are ashamed of their country most of the time, and the balance say they are both proud and ashamed. But, while those on the left and right are equally likely to say they are proud most of the time in both France and Germany, in the U.S. and UK, those on the right are more than three times as likely to say they are proud most of the time than those on the left (or conservatives are about three times as likely to say they are proud most of the time than liberals, in American parlance). In these two countries, those on the left are equally likely to describe themselves as ashamed most of the time as to say they tend to be proud.

Focus groups conducted in the U.S. and UK during the fall of 2019 shed light on which issues were points of pride and shame for Americans and Britons in their countries, respectively. Most notably, issues of pride for some were often sources of shame for others. In the UK, one such issue was the concept of empire. Those on the ideological right praised the historic empire for its role in spreading English and Western culture overseas, while those on the ideological left discussed how the UK had disrupted local cultures and often left chaos in its wake in its former colonies.

Why would you be ashamed of history? Woman, 55, Birmingham, Right Remainer

Although its an impressive feat to expand the empire as far as it went, that came with quite a lot of shameful things. Man, 34, Newcastle, Right Leaver

In the U.S., too, whereas groups composed of Republicans discussed American history through the lens of opportunity, groups composed of Democrats stressed the inadequacy of how American history is taught and how it often glosses over racism and inequitable treatment of minority groups. Republican participants, for their part, even brought up how political correctness itself makes them embarrassed to be American while Democratic participants cited increased diversity as a point of pride.

Themes of pride and shame were also present in focus group discussions in these two countries regarding what it means to be British or American, respectively. These conversations revealed that national identities are changing, driven in part by globalization and multiculturalism. Quotations from the focus groups appear throughout this report to provide context for the survey findings. They do not represent the opinion of all Americans or Britons on any given topic. They have been edited lightly for grammar and clarity.

Pew Research Center conducted 26 focus groups from Aug. 19 to Nov. 20, 2019, in cities across the U.S. and UK (for details on how the groups were stratified, see the methodology). All groups followed a discussion guide designed by Pew Research Center and were asked questions about their local communities, national identities and globalization by a trained moderator.

This report draws from those discussions, and we have included quotations which have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity. Quotations are chosen to provide context for the survey findings and do not necessarily represent the majority opinion in any particular group or country.

I think [America] was better [in the past], pre-cancel culture, which is the weaponization of difference, basically Now that politics is so divided, to be blunt, the left, myself included, have just been like no, if you are not living up to my ideals, I dont need to interact with you. I think it has become problematic and that is why you have this polarity and extremism.

Man, 34, Seattle, Democrat

While Britons are as ideologically divided as Americans on issues of pride, when it comes to every other cultural issue asked about in this report, Americans stand out for being more ideologically divided than those in the Western European countries surveyed. For example, on whether the country will be better off in the future if it sticks to its traditions and way of life, the gap between the left and right in the U.S. is 59 percentage points more than twice the gap found in any other country (the UK is the next most divided country, at 28 points). The ideological divide in the U.S. is also around two times larger than that in any other country when it comes to whether people today are too easily offended by what others say (a 44-point liberal-conservative gap in the U.S.) and whether it is a bigger problem for the country today that people see discrimination where it does not exist (a 53-point liberal-conservative gap).

The ideological gap between liberals and conservatives has also widened in recent years over what it takes to be truly American. While liberals and conservatives are equally less likely today to say being Christian is important for being truly American compared to the past, on each of the other criteria asked about, liberals have shifted significantly more than conservatives. For example, 54% of liberals now say its important to speak English to be truly American, down from 86% who said the same in 2016. But among conservatives, 91% say its important to speak English, largely unchanged from the previous 97%. Still, conservative opinions have shifted markedly on the issue of whether its important to have been born in the U.S. and whether immigrants want to adopt the countrys customs. For more on how the U.S. stands out ideologically, see Ideological divisions over cultural issues are far wider in the U.S. than in the UK, France and Germany.

These are among the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey conducted from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, among 4,069 adults in the France, Germany, the UK and the U.S.This report also includes findings from 26 focus groups conducted in 2019 in the U.S. and UK. In addition to ideological divisions, the survey also finds that cultural attitudes split along other dimensions including age, populist party support and religion. For example:

See the original post here:

National Identity Becoming More Inclusive in U.S., UK, France and Germany - Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

Cancel culture, as a concept, feels inescapable. The phrase is all over the news, tossed around in casual social media conversation; its been linked to everything from free speech debates to Mr. Potato Head.

It sometimes seems all-encompassing, as if all forms of contemporary discourse must now lead, exhaustingly and endlessly, either to an attempt to cancel anyone whose opinions cause controversy or to accusations of cancel culture in action, however unwarranted.

In the rhetorical furor, a new phenomenon has emerged: the weaponization of cancel culture by the right.

Across the US, conservative politicians have launched legislation seeking to do the very thing they seem to be afraid of: Cancel supposedly left-wing businesses, organizations, and institutions; see, for example, national GOP figures threatening to punish Major League Baseball for standing against a Georgia voting restrictions law by removing MLBs federal antitrust exemption.

Meanwhile, Fox News has stoked outrage and alarmism over cancel culture, including trying to incite Gen X to take action against the nebulous problem. Tucker Carlson, one of the networks most prominent personalities, has emphatically embraced the anti-cancel culture discourse, claiming liberals are trying to cancel everything from Space Jam to the Fourth of July.

The idea of canceling began as a tool for marginalized communities to assert their values against public figures who retained power and authority even after committing wrongdoing but in its current form, we see how warped and imbalanced the power dynamics of the conversation really are.

All along, debate about cancel culture has obscured its roots in a quest to attain some form of meaningful accountability for public figures who are typically answerable to no one. But after centuries of ideological debate turning over questions of free speech, censorship, and, in recent decades, political correctness, it was perhaps inevitable that the mainstreaming of cancel culture would obscure the original concerns that canceling was meant to address. Now its yet another hyperbolic phase of the larger culture war.

The core concern of cancel culture accountability remains as crucial a topic as ever. But increasingly, the cancel culture debate has become about how we communicate within a binary, right versus wrong framework. And a central question is not whether we can hold one another accountable, but how we can ever forgive.

Its only been about six years since the concept of cancel culture began trickling into the mainstream. The phrase has long circulated within Black culture, perhaps paying homage to Nile Rodgerss 1981 single Your Love Is Cancelled. As I wrote in my earlier explainer on the origins of cancel culture, the concept of canceling a whole person originated in the 1991 film New Jack City and percolated for years before finally emerging online among Black Twitter in 2014 thanks to an episode of Love and Hip-Hop: New York. Since then, the term has undergone massive shifts in meaning and function.

Early on, it most frequently popped up on social media, as people attempted to collectively cancel, or boycott, celebrities they found problematic. As a term with roots in Black culture, it has some resonance with Black empowerment movements, as far back as the civil rights boycotts of the 1950s and 60s. This original usage also promotes the idea that Black people should be empowered to reject cultural figures or works that spread harmful ideas. As Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America at the University of California Santa Barbara, told me in 2019, When you see people canceling Kanye, canceling other people, its a collective way of saying, We elevated your social status, your economic prowess, [and] were not going to pay attention to you in the way that we once did. ... I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.

As the logic behind wanting to cancel specific messages and behaviors caught on, many members of the public, as well as the media, conflated it with adjacent trends involving public shaming, callouts, and other forms of public backlash. (The media sometimes refers to all of these ideas collectively as outrage culture.) But while cancel culture overlaps and aligns with many related ideas, its also always been inextricably linked to calls for accountability.

As a concept, cancel culture entered the mainstream alongside hashtag-oriented social justice movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo giant social waves that were effective in shifting longstanding narratives about victims and criminals, and in bringing about actual prosecutions in cases like those of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. It is also frequently used interchangeably with woke political rhetoric, an idea that is itself tied to the 2014 rise of the Black Lives Matter protests. In similar ways, both wokeness and canceling are tied to collectivized demands for more accountability from social systems that have long failed marginalized people and communities.

But over the past few years, many right-wing conservatives, as well as liberals who object to more strident progressive rhetoric, have developed the view that cancel culture is a form of harassment intended to silence anyone who sets a foot out of line under the nebulous tenets of woke politics. So the idea now represents a vast assortment of objectives and can hold wildly different connotations, depending on whom youre talking to.

Taken in good faith, the concept of canceling a person is really about questions of accountability about how to navigate a social and public sphere in which celebrities, politicians, and other public figures who say or do bad things continue to have significant platforms and influence. In fact, actor LeVar Burton recently suggested the entire idea should be recast as consequence culture.

I think its misnamed, Burton told the hosts of The View. I think we have a consequence culture. And that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society, whereas they havent been ever in this country.

Within the realm of good faith, the larger conversation around these questions can then expand to contain nuanced considerations of what the consequences of public misbehavior should be, how and when to rehabilitate the reputation of someone whos been canceled, and who gets to decide those things.

Taken in bad faith, however, cancel culture becomes an omniscient and dangerous specter: a woke, online social justice mob thats ready to rise up and attack anyone, even other progressives, at the merest sign of dissent. And its this the fear of a nebulous mob of cancel-happy rabble-rousers that conservatives have used to their political advantage.

Critics of cancel culture typically portray whoever is doing the canceling as wielding power against innocent victims of their wrath. From 2015 on, a variety of news outlets, whether through opinion articles or general reporting, have often framed cancel culture as mob rule.

In 2019, the New Republics Osita Nwanevu observed just how frequently some media outlets have compared cancel culture to violent political uprisings, ranging from ethnocide to torture under dictatorial regimes. Such an exaggerated framework has allowed conservative media to depict cancel culture as an urgent societal issue. Fox News pundits, for example, have made cancel culture a focal part of their coverage. In one recent survey, people who voted Republican were more than twice as likely to know what cancel culture was, compared with Democrats and other voters, even though in the current dominant understanding of cancel culture, Democrats are usually the ones doing the canceling.

The conceit that the conservative right has gotten so many people to adopt, beyond divorcing the phrase from its origins in Black queer communities, is an obfuscation of the power relations of the stakeholders involved, journalist Shamira Ibrahim told Vox in an email. It got transformed into a moral panic akin to being able to irrevocably ruin the powerful with just the press of a keystroke, when it in actuality doesnt wield nearly as much power as implied by the most elite.

You wouldnt know that to listen to right-wing lawmakers and media figures who have latched onto an apocalyptic scenario in which the person or subject whos being criticized is in danger of being censored, left jobless, or somehow erased from history usually because of a perceived left-wing mob.

This is a fear that the right has weaponized. At the 2020 Republican National Convention, at least 11 GOP speakers about a third of those who took the stage during the high-profile event addressed cancel culture as a concerning political phenomenon. President Donald Trump himself declared that The goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated and driven from society as we know it. One delegate resolution at the RNC specifically targeted cancel culture, describing a trend toward erasing history, encouraging lawlessness, muting citizens, and violating free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and speech.

Ibrahim pointed out that in addition to re-waging the war on political correctness that dominated the 1990s by repackaging it as a war on cancel culture, right-wing conservatives have also attempted to launch the same rhetorical battles across numerous fronts, attempting to rebrand the same calls for accountability and consequences as woke brigade, digital lynch mobs, outrage culture and call-out culture. Indeed, its because of the collective organizational power that online spaces provide to marginalized communities, she argued, that anti-cancel culture rhetoric focuses on demonizing them.

Social media is one of the few spaces that exists for collective feedback and where organizing movements that threaten [conservatives] social standing have begun, Ibrahim said, thus compelling them to invert it into a philosophical argument that doesnt affect just them, but potentially has destructive effects on censorship for even the working-class individual.

This potential has nearly become reality through recent forms of Republican-driven legislation around the country. The first wave involved overt censorship, with lawmakers pushing to ban texts like the New York Timess 1619 Project from educational usage at publicly funded schools and universities. Such censorship could seriously curtail free speech at these institutions an ironic example of the broader kind of censorship that is seemingly a core fear about cancel culture.

A recent wave of legislation has been directed at corporations as a form of punishment for crossing Republicans. After both Delta Air Lines and Major League Baseball spoke out against Georgia lawmakers passage of a restrictive voting rights bill, Republican lawmakers tried to target the companies, tying their public statements to cancel culture. State lawmakers tried and failed to pass a bill stripping Delta of a tax exemption. And some national GOP figures have threatened to punish MLB by removing its exemption from federal antitrust laws. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs.

But for all the hysteria and the actual crackdown attempts lawmakers have enacted, even conservatives know that most of the hand-wringing over cancellation is performative. CNNs AJ Willingham pointed out how easily anti-cancel culture zeal can break down, noting that although the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was called America Uncanceled, the organization wound up removing a scheduled speaker who had expressed anti-Semitic viewpoints. And Fox News fired a writer last year after he was found to have a history of making racist, homophobic, and sexist comments online.

These moves suggest that though they may decry woke hysteria, conservatives also sometimes want consequences for extremism and other harmful behavior at least when the shaming might fall on them as well.

This dissonance reveals cancel culture for what it is, Willingham wrote. Accountability for ones actions.

CPACs swift levying of consequences in the case of a potentially anti-Semitic speaker is revealing on a number of levels, not only because it gives away the lie beneath concerns that cancel culture is something profoundly new and dangerous, but also because the conference actually had the power to take action and hold the speaker accountable. Typically, the apocryphal social justice mob has no such ability. Actually canceling a whole person is much harder to do than opponents of cancel culture might make it sound nearly impossible, in fact.

Its true that some celebrities have effectively been canceled, in the sense that their actions have resulted in major consequences, including job losses and major reputational declines, if not a complete end to their careers.

Consider Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, and Kevin Spacey, who faced allegations of rape and sexual assault that became impossible to ignore, and who were charged with crimes for their offenses. They have all effectively been canceled Weinstein and Cosby because theyre now convicted criminals, Kelly because hes in prison awaiting trial, and Spacey because while all charges against him to date have been dropped, hes too tainted to hire.

Along with Roseanne Barr, who lost her hit TV show after a racist tweet, and Louis C.K., who saw major professional setbacks after he admitted to years of sexual misconduct against female colleagues, their offenses were serious enough to irreparably damage their careers, alongside a push to lessen their cultural influence.

But usually, to effectively cancel a public figure is much more difficult. In typical cases where cancel culture is applied to a famous person who does something that incurs criticism, that person rarely faces serious long-term consequences. During the past year alone, a number of individuals and institutions have faced public backlash for troubling behavior or statements and a number of them thus far have either weathered the storm or else departed their jobs or restructured their operations of their own volition.

For example, beloved talk show host Ellen DeGeneres has come under fire in recent years for a number of reasons, from palling around with George W. Bush to accusing the actress Dakota Johnson of not inviting her to a party to, most seriously, allegedly fostering an abusive and toxic workplace. The toxic workplace allegations had an undeniable impact on DeGeneress ratings, with The Ellen DeGeneres Show losing over 40 percent of its viewership in the 202021 TV season. But DeGeneres has not literally been canceled; her daytime talk show has been confirmed for a 19th season, and she continues to host other TV series like HBO Maxs Ellens Next Great Designer.

Another TV host recently felt similar heat but has so far retained his job: In February, The Bachelor franchise underwent a reckoning due to a long history of racial insensitivity and lack of diversity, culminating in the announcement that longtime host Chris Harrison would be stepping aside for a period of time. But while Harrison wont be hosting the upcoming season of The Bachelorette, ABC still lists him as the franchise host, and some franchise alums have come forward to defend him. (It is unclear whether Harrison will return as a host in the future, though he has said he plans to do so and has been working with race educators and engaging in a personal accountability program of counsel, not cancel.)

In many cases, instead of costing someone their career, the allegation of having been canceled instead bolsters sympathy for the offender, summoning a host of support from both right-wing media and the public. In March 2021, concerns that Dr. Seuss was being canceled over a decision by the late authors publisher to stop printing a small selection of works containing racist imagery led to a run on Seusss books that landed him on bestseller lists. And although J.K. Rowling sparked massive outrage and calls to boycott all things Harry Potter after she aired transphobic views in a 2020 manifesto, sales of the Harry Potter books increased tremendously in her home country of Great Britain.

A few months later, 58 British public figures including playwright Tom Stoppard signed an open letter supporting Rowlings views and calling her the target of an insidious, authoritarian and misogynistic trend in social media. And in December, the New York Times not only reviewed the authors latest title a new childrens book called The Ickabog but praised the storys moral rectitude, with critic Sarah Lyall summing up, It made me weep with joy. It was an instant bestseller.

In light of these contradictions, its tempting to declare that the idea of canceling someone has already lost whatever meaning it once had. But for many detractors, the real impact of cancel culture isnt about famous people anyway.

Rather, they worry, cancel culture and the polarizing rhetoric it enables really impacts the non-famous members of society who suffer its ostensible effects and that, even more broadly, it may be threatening our ability to relate to each other at all.

Its not only right-wing conservatives who are wary of cancel culture. In 2019, former President Barack Obama decried cancel culture and woke politics, framing the phenomenon as people be[ing] as judgmental as possible about other people and adding, Thats not activism.

At a recent panel devoted to making a nonpartisan Case Against Cancel Culture, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen expressed great concern over cancel cultures chilling effect on the non-famous. I constantly encounter students who are so fearful of being subjected to the Twitter mob that they are engaging in self-censorship, she said. Strossen cited as one such chilling effect the isolated instances of students whose college admissions had been rescinded on the basis of racist social media posts.

In his recent book Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture, human rights lawyer and free speech advocate Dan Kovalik argues that cancel culture is basically a giant self-own, a product of progressive semantics that causes the left to cannibalize itself.

Unfortunately, too many on the left, wielding the cudgel of cancel culture, have decided that certain forms of censorship and speech and idea suppression are positive things that will advance social justice, Kovalik writes. I fear that those who take this view are in for a rude awakening.

Kovaliks worries are partly grounded in a desire to preserve free speech and condemn censorship. But theyre also grounded in empathy. As Americas ideological divide widens, our patience with opposing viewpoints seems to be waning in favor of a type of society-wide cancel and move on approach, even though studies suggest that approach does nothing to change hearts and minds. Kovalik points to a survey published in 2020 that found that in 700 interactions, deep listening including respectful, non-judgmental conversations was 102 times more effective than brief interactions in a canvassing campaign for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Across the political spectrum, wariness toward the idea of cancel culture has increased but outside of right-wing political spheres, that wariness isnt so centered on the hyper-specific threat of losing ones job or career due to public backlash. Rather, the term cancel culture functions as shorthand for an entire mode of polarized, aggressive social engagement.

Journalist (and Vox contributor) Zeeshan Aleem has argued that contemporary social media engenders a mode of communication he calls disinterpretation, in which many participants are motivated to join the conversation not because they want to promote communication, or even to engage with the original opinion, but because they seek to intentionally distort the discourse.

In this type of interaction, as Aleem observed in a recent Substack post, Commentators are constantly being characterized as believing things they dont believe, and entire intellectual positions are stigmatized based on vague associations with ideas that they dont have any substantive affiliation with. The goal of such willful misinterpretation, he argued, is conformity to be seen as aligned with the correct ideological standpoint in a world where stepping out of alignment results in swift backlash, ridicule, and cancellation.

Such an antagonistic approach effectively treats public debate as a battlefield, he wrote. He continued:

Its illustrative of a climate in which nothing is untouched by polarization, in which everything is a proxy for some broader orientation which must be sorted into the bin of good/bad, socially aware/problematic, savvy/out of touch, my team/the enemy. ... Were tilting toward a universe in which all discourse is subordinate to activism; everything is a narrative, and if you dont stay on message then youre contributing to the other team on any given issue. What this does is eliminate the possibility of public ambiguity, ambivalence, idiosyncrasy, self-interrogation.

The problem with this style of communication is that in a world where every argument gets flattened into a binary under which every opinion and every person who publicly shares their thoughts must be either praised or canceled, few people are morally righteous enough to challenge that binary without their own motives and biases then being called into question. The question becomes, as Aleem reframed it for me: How does someone avoid the reality that their claims of being disinterpreted will be disinterpreted?

When people demand good-faith engagement, it can often be dismissed as a distraction tactic or whining about being called out, he explained, noting that some responses to his original Twitter thread on the subject assumed he must be complaining about just such a callout.

Other complications can arise, such as when the people who are protesting against this type of bad-faith discourse are also criticized for problematic statements or behavior, or perceived as having too much privilege to wholly understand the situation. Remember, the origins of cancel culture are rooted in giving marginalized members of society the ability to seek accountability and change, especially from people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, power, and privilege.

[W]hat people do when they invoke dog whistles like cancel culture and culture wars, Danielle Butler wrote for the Root in 2018, is illustrate their discomfort with the kinds of people who now have a voice and their audacity to direct it towards figures with more visibility and power.

But far too often, people who call for accountability on social media seem to slide quickly into wanting to administer punishment instead. In some cases, this process really does play out with a mob mentality, one that seems bent on inflicting pain and hurt while allowing no room for growth and change, showing no mercy, and offering no real forgiveness let alone allowing for the possibility that the mob itself might be entirely unjustified.

See, for example, trans writer Isabel Fall, who wrote a short story in 2020 that angered many readers with its depiction of gender dysphoria through the lens of militaristic warfare. (The story has since become a finalist for a Hugo Award.) Because Fall published under a pseudonym, people who disliked the story assumed she must be transphobic rather than a trans woman wrestling with her own dysphoria. Fall was harassed, doxed, forcibly outed, and driven offline. These types of cancellations can happen without consideration for the person being canceled, even when that person apologizes or, as in Falls case, even when they had little if anything to be sorry about.

The conflation of antagonized social media debates with the more serious aims to make powerful people face consequences is part of the problem. I think the messy and turbulent evolution of speech norms online influences peoples perception of whats called cancel culture, Aleem said. He added that hes grown resistant to using the term [cancel culture] because its become so hard to pin down.

People connect boycotts with de-platforming speakers on college campuses, he observed, with social media harassment, with people being fired abruptly for breaching a taboo in a viral video. The result is an environment where social media is a double-edged sword: One could argue, Aleem said, that theres now public input on issues [that wasnt available] before, and thats good for civil society, but that the vehicle through which that input comes produces some civically unhealthy ways of expression.

If the conversation around cancel culture is unhealthy, then one can argue that the social systems cancel culture is trying to target are even more unhealthy and that, for many people, is the bottom line.

The concept of canceling someone was created by communities of people whove never had much power to begin with. When people in those communities attempt to demand accountability by canceling someone, the odds are still stacked against them. Theyre still the ones without the social, political, or professional power to compel someone into meaningful atonement, but they can at least be vocal by calling for a collective boycott.

The push by right-wing lawmakers and pundits to use the concept as a tool to vilify the left, liberals, and the powerless upends the original logic of cancel culture, Ibrahim told me. It is being used to obscure marginalized voices by inverting the victim and the offender, and disingenuously affording disproportionate impact to the reach of a single voice which has historically long been silenced to now being the silencer of cis, male, and wealthy individuals, she said.

And that approach is both expanding and growing more visible. Whats more, it is a divide not just between ideologies, but also between tactical approaches in navigating those ideological differences and dealing with wrongdoing.

It effectuates a slippery-slope argument by taking a rhetorical scenario and pushing it to really absurdist levels, and furthermore asking people to suspend their implicit understanding of social constructs of power and class, Ibrahim said. It mutates into, If I get canceled, then anyone can get canceled. She pointed out that usually, the supposedly canceled individual suffers no real long-term harm particularly when you give additional time for a person to regroup from a scandal. The media cycle iterates quicker than ever in present day.

She suggested that perhaps the best approach to combating the escalation of cancel culture hysteria into a political weapon is to refuse to let those with power shape the way the conversation plays out.

I think our remit, if anything, is to challenge that reframing and ask people to define the stakes of what material quality of life and liberty was actually lost, she said.

In other words, the way cancel culture is discussed in the media might make it seem like something to fear and avoid at all costs, an apocalyptic event that will destroy countless lives and livelihoods, but in most cases, its probably not. Thats not to suggest that no one will ever be held accountable, or that powerful people wont continue to be asked to answer for their transgressions. But the greater worry is still that people with too much power might use it for bad ends.

At its best, cancel culture has been about rectifying power imbalances and redistributing power to those who have little of it. Instead, it now seems that the concept may have become a weapon for people in power to use against those it was intended to help.

Read more:

What is cancel culture? How the concept has evolved to mean very different things to different people. - Vox.com