The feminist left's ban on Mark Driscoll is absurd - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Opinion
Like many religious maniacs, he has some atrocious views, including the view that women are the natural servants of men. One comment he has made to his male followers is simply off the chart in its ridiculousness:
views are outrageous, but this is an overt call for censorship, which
is quite frankly, just as outrageous. Our governments are not in the
business of banning people from entering Australia for matters of
morality or taste. And it is striking that some on the left are now
calling for them to do so.
Once upon a time liberal values were
the bedrock of leftist thought. Freedom to be self-defining, to love
whomever one wanted and to reject oppressive moral codes were the raison
d'être of left-wing activists. When Germaine Greer published The Female
Eunuch in 1970 she wrote that freedom was fragile and must always be
protected.
So a left-wing call for state interference over matters
of morality is paradoxical. It breaks down one of the most fundamental
distinctions between left and right, and makes leftists look like
reactionaries. Authoritarian personalities, like Nurse Ratched from One
Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, have always been associated with
religious conservatives, not free-wheeling hippies. Yet these days, it
seems that Nurse Ratched would fit right in with some on the left,
Destroy the Joint included.
Driscoll is not a well-known figure outside of
religious circles. He seems to be a mediocre Christian preacher whose
main audience is low-status men. His comments about women are offensive,
but they're not hate-speech. He does not vilify any groups or
individuals, nor does he seem to promote violence. Yet Destroy the Joint
doesn't even pretend that Driscoll's comments qualify as
hate-speech or incitement to violence. Their call for censorship merely
rests on the assumption that bad ideas need to be banned.
Societies
function best when abstract principles of justice and fairness are
applied consistently across the board. If individuals are to be barred
from entering Australia on the grounds of offensiveness, then it's a
slippery slope to having every activist, artist or thinker banned
whenever someone in power says so. If Driscoll is banned today, what's
to stop someone like Cory Bernardi banning transgender activists or
radical feminists tomorrow?
As a reminder, when governments start suppressing ideas, a number of things may happen.
Firstly,
suppression absolves the wider community of the moral and intellectual
responsibility to counter bad ideas with scrutiny and debate. Secondly,
it sets a terrible precedent for future abuses of power in ways that
cannot be anticipated - by anyone. And thirdly, it forces bureaucrats
who are obliged to be politically neutral to partake in petty disputes,
undermining their wider respect in the community.
It may come as a
surprise to some on the left, but Christianity is not the only religion
with some outdated views on women. Just last month the University of
Western Sydney's Muslim Students' Association hosted an event, attended
by Hizb ut-Tahrir representatives, in which women were asked to sit apart from men, at the back of a lecture hall.
Yet a Google search for Destroy the Joint and "Hizb ut-Tahrir" returns
no results. Why the cherry picking? Ultimately, Destroy the Joint are
leftists before they are feminists. And like many on the left they view
white men, Christianity and colonialism as being at the root of all
inequality. Criticising Hizb ut-Tahrir would come too close to being
politically incorrect, so we are left with a stonewall of silence
instead.
Yet today's feminists would be better off taking a leaf
out of Greer's book, reading some history, and learning about just how
fragile freedom actually is. Championing liberty for all women - instead
of calling for government censorship - might bring Australian feminism
out of the quagmire of rabid partisanship that it currently finds itself
in. It might also bring the movement back into line with true liberal
values.
Claire Lehmann is a Sydney-based freelance writer. She is currently completing a master of forensic psychology. You can follow her on Twitter @clairlemon.
Opinion
By Claire Lehmann
Photo:
Mark Driscoll is absurd, but so is some of the reaction against him. (facebook.com)
Photo:
Mark Driscoll is absurd, but so is some of the reaction against him. (facebook.com)
The views of US preacher Mark Driscoll
are outrageous, but the call from the feminist left for him to be barred
from coming to Australia is just as outrageous. It goes against the
liberal values that once underpinned their movement, writes Claire
Lehmann.
Mark Driscoll is an unorthodox American Christian preacher who, until recently, was planning to come to Australia.are outrageous, but the call from the feminist left for him to be barred
from coming to Australia is just as outrageous. It goes against the
liberal values that once underpinned their movement, writes Claire
Lehmann.
Like many religious maniacs, he has some atrocious views, including the view that women are the natural servants of men. One comment he has made to his male followers is simply off the chart in its ridiculousness:
Ultimately, God created you and it is His penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.Driscoll is completely absurd. But what might be even more absurd than Driscoll's views is the reaction to his planned visit by some on the left, specifically, the feminist left. Jenna Price recently remonstrated:
Knowing
that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife.
And when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is
shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.
WeDriscoll's
would have to ask the Australian Government why it will allow a person
who promotes this sort of inequality to come to Australia.
views are outrageous, but this is an overt call for censorship, which
is quite frankly, just as outrageous. Our governments are not in the
business of banning people from entering Australia for matters of
morality or taste. And it is striking that some on the left are now
calling for them to do so.
Once upon a time liberal values were
the bedrock of leftist thought. Freedom to be self-defining, to love
whomever one wanted and to reject oppressive moral codes were the raison
d'être of left-wing activists. When Germaine Greer published The Female
Eunuch in 1970 she wrote that freedom was fragile and must always be
protected.
So a left-wing call for state interference over matters
of morality is paradoxical. It breaks down one of the most fundamental
distinctions between left and right, and makes leftists look like
reactionaries. Authoritarian personalities, like Nurse Ratched from One
Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, have always been associated with
religious conservatives, not free-wheeling hippies. Yet these days, it
seems that Nurse Ratched would fit right in with some on the left,
Destroy the Joint included.
Driscoll is not a well-known figure outside of
religious circles. He seems to be a mediocre Christian preacher whose
main audience is low-status men. His comments about women are offensive,
but they're not hate-speech. He does not vilify any groups or
individuals, nor does he seem to promote violence. Yet Destroy the Joint
doesn't even pretend that Driscoll's comments qualify as
hate-speech or incitement to violence. Their call for censorship merely
rests on the assumption that bad ideas need to be banned.
Societies
function best when abstract principles of justice and fairness are
applied consistently across the board. If individuals are to be barred
from entering Australia on the grounds of offensiveness, then it's a
slippery slope to having every activist, artist or thinker banned
whenever someone in power says so. If Driscoll is banned today, what's
to stop someone like Cory Bernardi banning transgender activists or
radical feminists tomorrow?
As a reminder, when governments start suppressing ideas, a number of things may happen.
Firstly,
suppression absolves the wider community of the moral and intellectual
responsibility to counter bad ideas with scrutiny and debate. Secondly,
it sets a terrible precedent for future abuses of power in ways that
cannot be anticipated - by anyone. And thirdly, it forces bureaucrats
who are obliged to be politically neutral to partake in petty disputes,
undermining their wider respect in the community.
It may come as a
surprise to some on the left, but Christianity is not the only religion
with some outdated views on women. Just last month the University of
Western Sydney's Muslim Students' Association hosted an event, attended
by Hizb ut-Tahrir representatives, in which women were asked to sit apart from men, at the back of a lecture hall.
Yet a Google search for Destroy the Joint and "Hizb ut-Tahrir" returns
no results. Why the cherry picking? Ultimately, Destroy the Joint are
leftists before they are feminists. And like many on the left they view
white men, Christianity and colonialism as being at the root of all
inequality. Criticising Hizb ut-Tahrir would come too close to being
politically incorrect, so we are left with a stonewall of silence
instead.
Yet today's feminists would be better off taking a leaf
out of Greer's book, reading some history, and learning about just how
fragile freedom actually is. Championing liberty for all women - instead
of calling for government censorship - might bring Australian feminism
out of the quagmire of rabid partisanship that it currently finds itself
in. It might also bring the movement back into line with true liberal
values.
Claire Lehmann is a Sydney-based freelance writer. She is currently completing a master of forensic psychology. You can follow her on Twitter @clairlemon.
