Honestly, it’s worth paying For two things: Firstly, your exceptional clarity when you breakdown, confusing, competing narratives. Secondly, the use of the expression “bellend jamboree.” When you say I get nothing for my subscription, that is not true. I shall now be incorporating this into my collection of expletives, and I may or may not credit you depending on my mood.
Get in touch with old mate Phillip Adams, he would love to know you are in Oz and host you at his farm !!! Could do a pod together, now that is something I would pay buckets for and sell tickets!!
I’m less convinced this is an “outrage problem” than an institutional cowardice problem. People have always complained, protested, written angry letters, flounced. That’s democracy doing its noisy thing. What’s changed is that boards now treat reputational anxiety as a decision-making framework and slap the word “sensitivity” on it to feel virtuous.
This is where the symmetry arguments start to stink. Writers objecting to a speaker is politics. A ministerially appointed board rolling an editor, inventing a sub-committee, and hiding behind bureaucratic fog is power. Those aren’t moral equivalents, no matter how tidy the theory.
Adelaide didn’t implode because disagreement got spicy. It imploded because governance panicked, froze, and outsourced judgment to whoever yelled loudest that week. Once “don’t be tomorrow’s headline” becomes your core principle, free speech is already gone. You’ve just delayed the invoice.
Free speech survives offence, bad faith, and people saying dumb things. What it doesn’t survive is institutions that no longer have the nerve to decide anything at all.
I did have to laugh at the usual (and tedious) dig at the evil left there Ian. You are aware that a survey done of UK Universities 'cancel culture' revealed that, over a five year period, there were just seven, yes, seven cancelled speakers. Of those, five, were speakers invited by the SU itself, and where cancelled, quite obviously, due to issues beyond their views. The remaining two, both became headline news in the right wing press, highlighting the 'problem' of cancel culture. Two. If that's the right wing/Liberal worlds idea of rampant cancel culture, I'd hate to see what their idea of a real problem is...
It should also be noted, that among Blue Labour, should anyone care to read their articles, despite being Liberal hero's, the comments indicate what their view of cancel culture is, no matter how they try to hide it in a word salad. That is, if you don't agree with their views, you need to shut up and be banned pronto....
Hey Ian, I actually work for a corporate events company that put things in across Australia, sadly just looked at our summit schedule and it seems you’re in Melbourne where you may have fit in Sydney and vice versa 😔
Having said that if you’re interested a beer/tour with a local (well I’m English but came here when I was 10) when you’re in Sydney then let me know and I can email you catch up details 😁
Thanks for the Assorted Crisis Events recommendation. And as you are in Australia and may have some time on your hands, I can recommend Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta - a genuinely mind expanding book.
Maybe I'm biased, but I would argue: liberals genuinely believe in free speech, whereas populists only believe in free speech they agree with. Sweeping generalisation, I know!
All that free time in Oz, provides a great opportunity to read some books. Stuff that is going to make you smile, rather than make you think: "Shit! We're fucked!". I highly recommend "Let's Pretend This Never Happened" by Jenny Lawson. It's the story of her formative years. If it's true, it's no surprise she's bat-shit crazy. If it's not true, she's bat-shit crazy for coming up with this stuff. And hey, you can always do an extra Substack or two.
Indeed it is. Lets have a look at that shall we, just for shits and giggles? Who is behind most of the 'outrage' over comments about say, the LGBT community, ethnic minorities, and women's rights? The left you cry! Actually, no. The permanently outraged on the liberal side, are, more often than not, - well heeled liberals. The left has no power, no voice, and certainly not the influence, the liberal centre has, and always has had, in the UK. Yes, Labours left (the few remaining) are often on the coat tails of 'outrage' story's, but they aren't the instigators. As a quick look at who is, confirms. Sorry.
Indeed it is not. Nor is typing after a 'lot' of the old firewater. Agree with you totally. I didn't mean outrage as in genuine issues that people are rightly angry about (Ie every time Tice, Badenoch, Farage, 30p, our wonderful 'blue labour' home secretary, Starmer, or any of the other rotten politicians that dose out hate on a daily basis, spout off), as you nicely put it, its the faux outrage designed to shut down debate, and preferably stop those championing a particular cause I meant.
Welcome to Australia. Long time listener of Late Night Live, OGWN and Origin Story. If you do score some Melbourne events please let us know so that we can come along. Enjoy the wine 🍷Alex M
Voltaire would be proud of you. Free speech and tolerance. If the speech isn’t tolerant is it still free? Defending people’s right to say things you disagree with gets into deep water when what they are saying is that they have the right to free speech but you don’t. I guess the get out is that having the right to say something doesn’t make it true.
Well, on the principle that all publicity is good publicity: before reading this blog, I had never heard of Adelaide Writers' Week or the Adelaide Festival. So, nice to learn that these things exist.
Can't disagree with the message here, though - putting aside the specifics of this case, if freedom of speech means anything it has to be for everybody, and that universal principle seems to have been lost somewhere. 'Freedom for the speech that we hate' might be the most important kind of all.
The only gap in your argument is the unequal distribution of power or access to power/influence that various voices in society have.
It is not radical to say that no society is equal and no society give the same access to free speech to all citizens.
Thomas Friedman is published by the New York Times while Abdel-Fatteh has been banned from more than one writer’s festival, had her government research grants “reviewed” and her statements regularly twisted and misinterpreted to diminish her.
One fact you leave out of this post is that the whole thing kicked off last October because one festival board member- an ex CEO of the largest merchant bank in Australia- resigned because of Abdel-Fattehs inclusion. This resignation triggered the intervention of the State Premier to “not interfere but encourage “ the board to disinvite her. This fact has not been included in much media reporting. If only every minority group had such access to power and protection.
Honestly, it’s worth paying For two things: Firstly, your exceptional clarity when you breakdown, confusing, competing narratives. Secondly, the use of the expression “bellend jamboree.” When you say I get nothing for my subscription, that is not true. I shall now be incorporating this into my collection of expletives, and I may or may not credit you depending on my mood.
Get in touch with old mate Phillip Adams, he would love to know you are in Oz and host you at his farm !!! Could do a pod together, now that is something I would pay buckets for and sell tickets!!
Fabulous idea! Yes perfect match. I’ve also let Sydney Writers Festival know Ian is about!
What an excellent idea 👍🏻 You could be guaranteed of having an exhilarating time e with Phillip and his family 💕💕💕
I’m less convinced this is an “outrage problem” than an institutional cowardice problem. People have always complained, protested, written angry letters, flounced. That’s democracy doing its noisy thing. What’s changed is that boards now treat reputational anxiety as a decision-making framework and slap the word “sensitivity” on it to feel virtuous.
This is where the symmetry arguments start to stink. Writers objecting to a speaker is politics. A ministerially appointed board rolling an editor, inventing a sub-committee, and hiding behind bureaucratic fog is power. Those aren’t moral equivalents, no matter how tidy the theory.
Adelaide didn’t implode because disagreement got spicy. It imploded because governance panicked, froze, and outsourced judgment to whoever yelled loudest that week. Once “don’t be tomorrow’s headline” becomes your core principle, free speech is already gone. You’ve just delayed the invoice.
Free speech survives offence, bad faith, and people saying dumb things. What it doesn’t survive is institutions that no longer have the nerve to decide anything at all.
Sorry you got messed about by that epic fuckup - but yay that you’re coming down! Please have a Sydney meetup, I’d be honoured to buy you a beer 🍻
I did have to laugh at the usual (and tedious) dig at the evil left there Ian. You are aware that a survey done of UK Universities 'cancel culture' revealed that, over a five year period, there were just seven, yes, seven cancelled speakers. Of those, five, were speakers invited by the SU itself, and where cancelled, quite obviously, due to issues beyond their views. The remaining two, both became headline news in the right wing press, highlighting the 'problem' of cancel culture. Two. If that's the right wing/Liberal worlds idea of rampant cancel culture, I'd hate to see what their idea of a real problem is...
It should also be noted, that among Blue Labour, should anyone care to read their articles, despite being Liberal hero's, the comments indicate what their view of cancel culture is, no matter how they try to hide it in a word salad. That is, if you don't agree with their views, you need to shut up and be banned pronto....
Hey Ian, I actually work for a corporate events company that put things in across Australia, sadly just looked at our summit schedule and it seems you’re in Melbourne where you may have fit in Sydney and vice versa 😔
Having said that if you’re interested a beer/tour with a local (well I’m English but came here when I was 10) when you’re in Sydney then let me know and I can email you catch up details 😁
Hi Ian
I am reading 'How to be a Liberal" for the second time and I would love you to sign my copy so if you sign up for any events in Melbourne please post.
Thanks for the Assorted Crisis Events recommendation. And as you are in Australia and may have some time on your hands, I can recommend Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta - a genuinely mind expanding book.
Maybe I'm biased, but I would argue: liberals genuinely believe in free speech, whereas populists only believe in free speech they agree with. Sweeping generalisation, I know!
All that free time in Oz, provides a great opportunity to read some books. Stuff that is going to make you smile, rather than make you think: "Shit! We're fucked!". I highly recommend "Let's Pretend This Never Happened" by Jenny Lawson. It's the story of her formative years. If it's true, it's no surprise she's bat-shit crazy. If it's not true, she's bat-shit crazy for coming up with this stuff. And hey, you can always do an extra Substack or two.
Indeed it is. Lets have a look at that shall we, just for shits and giggles? Who is behind most of the 'outrage' over comments about say, the LGBT community, ethnic minorities, and women's rights? The left you cry! Actually, no. The permanently outraged on the liberal side, are, more often than not, - well heeled liberals. The left has no power, no voice, and certainly not the influence, the liberal centre has, and always has had, in the UK. Yes, Labours left (the few remaining) are often on the coat tails of 'outrage' story's, but they aren't the instigators. As a quick look at who is, confirms. Sorry.
First off, I'm going to correct my "brain fart"! I meant "populists", not "progressives". Typing without thinking... is not good!
I don't think "outrage" is (necessarily) synonymous with wanting to shut down free speech. It's the "faux-outraged" who try to engineer that.
Indeed it is not. Nor is typing after a 'lot' of the old firewater. Agree with you totally. I didn't mean outrage as in genuine issues that people are rightly angry about (Ie every time Tice, Badenoch, Farage, 30p, our wonderful 'blue labour' home secretary, Starmer, or any of the other rotten politicians that dose out hate on a daily basis, spout off), as you nicely put it, its the faux outrage designed to shut down debate, and preferably stop those championing a particular cause I meant.
Thank Ian. That recommendation on Assorted Crisis Events looks good for my birthday wish list to my family this month. Cheers.
I live in Melbourne and would happily drink wine with you 🙂
The thought of a bellend jamboree got me giggling more than it should’ve.
Welcome to Australia. Long time listener of Late Night Live, OGWN and Origin Story. If you do score some Melbourne events please let us know so that we can come along. Enjoy the wine 🍷Alex M
Voltaire would be proud of you. Free speech and tolerance. If the speech isn’t tolerant is it still free? Defending people’s right to say things you disagree with gets into deep water when what they are saying is that they have the right to free speech but you don’t. I guess the get out is that having the right to say something doesn’t make it true.
Well, on the principle that all publicity is good publicity: before reading this blog, I had never heard of Adelaide Writers' Week or the Adelaide Festival. So, nice to learn that these things exist.
Can't disagree with the message here, though - putting aside the specifics of this case, if freedom of speech means anything it has to be for everybody, and that universal principle seems to have been lost somewhere. 'Freedom for the speech that we hate' might be the most important kind of all.
The only gap in your argument is the unequal distribution of power or access to power/influence that various voices in society have.
It is not radical to say that no society is equal and no society give the same access to free speech to all citizens.
Thomas Friedman is published by the New York Times while Abdel-Fatteh has been banned from more than one writer’s festival, had her government research grants “reviewed” and her statements regularly twisted and misinterpreted to diminish her.
One fact you leave out of this post is that the whole thing kicked off last October because one festival board member- an ex CEO of the largest merchant bank in Australia- resigned because of Abdel-Fattehs inclusion. This resignation triggered the intervention of the State Premier to “not interfere but encourage “ the board to disinvite her. This fact has not been included in much media reporting. If only every minority group had such access to power and protection.