When they came for Jonathon Ross, I said nothing…

[f4f3]

Well OK, that’s not strictly speaking true. When they came for Jonathon Ross, accusing him of being the poster-boy for racism and sexism, and he retaliated by calling one of the posters stupid, I said I was on his side in this one. If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply. (If they said I was an outsider and knew nothing of the Genre, I’d definitely think they were stupid, even if I didn’t have a pedigree of writing comics and SF and promoting the genre in mainstream cultural outlets).

For this, someone I’ve known in comics circles for 20 years said that I was “Not a deliberate collaborator but your approach had that effect.”

Round about then I flung my toys out of the pram. I may have used the words “pitchfork” and “lynch mob”. I was also castigated for not taking it on trust that because Ross had been accused of racism and sexism he was, ipso facto, a racist sexist. I hadn’t done my research (the primary sources I had neglected to investigate, apparently, were the dozens of tweets showing his racism and sexism, many of which my accuser had personally retweeted).

By that time, the point was moot, since Ross had already offered to withdraw and the Convention had grabbed at his offer gratefully.

Ross, apparently, is a comedian. I’m not a huge fan of his, because I don’t watch talk shows, and I don’t go to too many awards dinners. I liked him on the BBC’s film show, and I thought his Vampire Mobsters comic was a bit meh, but showed a lot of promise for a first timer.

Apparently his crimes, which have made him an unfit person to present the Hugo Awards (and don’t get me started on the Hugo awards) was that he’d told jokes which had been construed as sexist, racist, or both, and that he hadn’t been sufficiently contrite.

Well you know who else that rules out from hosting our little awards ceremony? Bill Hicks. Billy Connolly. Billy Crystal (you’re not telling me that Miracle Max isn’t a Jewish caraciture? That his "When Harry Met Sally" character isn't a women hater?) Dave Allan. Chick Murray. Miranda Hart (her portrayal of large women as clumsy and inarticulate is degrading to large women everywhere). Sandi Toksvig (she was nasty about the Scots on News Quiz the other week). Briefly, anyone. Everyone. Anyone who can be accused (because the accusation is all it takes) of being sexist, racist, sizeist.

I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged). And if I look at my Twitter timeline, I’ve made comments that the Westminster government is greedy, heartless and obsessed with passing power to their friends. And though I haven’t checked lately, I’m sure some of them are women. Some of them might even be black. Maybe I should just turn myself in now? Plus, I read Flashman books. I'm a fan of Cerebus. And I laugh at them. Take me away, please, it's for my own good...

Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption.

Fandom is not a safe place for me, and I won’t be any part of it. For those of you who think this bullying and shaming is acceptable behaviour, ask yourself who’ll speak up when they come for you?

Comments

[andrewducker]

Exactly. What the flying fuck was the committee doing inviting someone along to run a ceremony that's supposed to be at a convention with a fucking _code of conduct_ that says "Loncon 3 should be a place where everyone feels welcomed and comfortable." doing inviting someone who would make people feel uncomfortable?

It's boggling to the mind.

[andrewducker]

Not, by the way, that I think Jonathan Ross is that bad. I think this was a salvageable situational. Ross is someone who has learned from situations (see this for example.

But he definitely has a reputation, because of things like the insensitive remarks that led to that video, and bringing him in required some tact and salesmanship on the part of the committee (see the link in my first comment).

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

This is why LJ is better than Twitter - for the things that LJ is better at than Twitter, anyway.

Instead of dropping off a 140 character retort, I got to go away and think about what is making me uncomfortable here.

And it can be summed up in two words: Mary Whitehouse (or Tipper Gore, for those geographically othered).

When I grew up, the censors were the enemy. The aforementioned Mrs Whitehouse, and her Viewers and Listeners association, who held firm against nudity, and bad language, and poofs on our TV. The Lord Chancellors office, banning "The Romans In Britain" for showing naked poofs. Glasgow District Council, who banned "Life of Brian" from Glasgow's cinemas, and made me go to Bearsden if I wanted to watch it. And a long line of other censors, from Oz to Lady Chatterly, from the Windmill Theatre to Lenny Bruce, all of whom justified banning something not because it offended, but because it was likely to cause offence.

When did we become the people who warned our parents about the kind of people we used to be?

I'm profoundly uncomfortable about being on the side of the censors. On the side of those who think it's ok to ban something because someone might be offended. Because those who might be offended are protesting about it.

I can't help thinking that banning something because someone is uncomfortable with it, or might be uncomfortable with it, is not a good thing to do, whether those people are blue-rinsed or bi-sexual.

[andrewducker]

I'm against banning things. I fully support the right of Nick Griffin to say whatever he likes.

But that doesn't mean that I want to invite him to give a talk to a bunch of my friends.

Now, Jonathan Ross is not Nick Griffin, and I completely disagree with people who were labelling him as The Worst Person Ever (or whatever they were doing). But that doesn't mean he provides a friendly welcoming atmosphere to people, and if we're doing that (and Loncon is trying to do so) then they need to invite a speaker who _does_ provide that atmosphere.

I mean, I think Frankie Boyle is frequently hilarious - but I wouldn't invite him to be the host either.

And yes, LJ > Twitter for conversations. Twitter is shit for conversations, and FB is barely better.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yes, although I think I would have invited Frankie Boyle - I'm twisted that way, and he did appear in GTA5 (see, that's the sort of comment that gets me into trouble).

I don't have anything to say, really, about whether Ross should have been asked to be host - I can see both sides of that story - but I think he was bullied and shamed when it was announced, and I don't think that's acceptable. And attacking people who say it isn't acceptable is also not acceptable. (Do I need to say that you've done no such thing? Probably not, but, for the avoidance of doubt, you've done no such thing).

[gmh.livejournal.com]

I do not think that reducing this to a 'censorship is good/bad/other' issue is entirely helpful.

What I think this is is the latest of skirmishes in a long and ongoing war in UK fandom (and wider, in Western culture as a whole); the progressive versus the pragmatic.

Many of the people going 'oh, hell no, not Wossy!' are what I'd class as the progressive wing of fandom; trying to make it safe and inclusive for all genders, ages and body types - and some of the things that have been said or done by the progressives would have been called 'political correctness' or 'affirmative action' in other spheres.

(Panel parity. Codes of conduct.)

To the progressive, SF fandom already has a lot of bad history and culture that needs to change - e.g. Harlan Ellison committing a sexual assault while MC'ing the Hugos, which was less than a decade ago!

Thus the attempt to push against the established culture of fandom by objecting to an MC who embodies a lot of what has previously been wrong with fandom.


To the pragmatists, Ross was the sort of Geeky Big Name who'd grab attention and the 'doing it for free' was the cherry on the top. Massive publicity for Loncon, bums on seats and a win for UK fandom.

So the pragmatist backlash against the progressives has been to say that they're purists, determined to keep SF the domain of the ideologically sound, shooting UK fandom in its own feet - and that the progressives should just shut up and sit down.

And this last is the key sentence.

It's not a question of 'censorship' versus 'no censorship'. It's a question of 'which censorship?'

I was in the panel room at Eastercon 2012 when the 2013 and 2014 bids were discussed; and someone asked if the 2014 Eastercon was going to follow the example of the 2013 Eastercon and institute panel parity during the Convention.

The 2014 Concom were definitely on the pragmatist side - and mocked the question as well. At which point the progressives in the room (a small minority) started objecting; and they were shouted down by the pragmatists. When the yea-or-nay vote on the 2014 bid was taken, only three people dared to vote against the bid - Farah, Paul Cornell and myself; and we were subjected to personal unpleasantness as a result.

That, too, is censorship - the censorship of the entrenched power base, the censorship that does not perceive itself as such, but dissuades anyone from speaking unless they're speaking along the accepted line.

Censorship happens - but in such cases, I'd rather it be done to benefit those who are usually marginalised and silenced.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. You have an insider's view that's informative and reasonable, and I'm glad I got to read it. I agree heartily that the whole storm was of LonCon's making, and that there will be consequences for the committee and the convention as a result of it. But I came to the fiasco later, and commented on someone being hounded out because their face didn't fit, and subject to some pretty vicious bullying and shaming, which I didn't think was acceptable.

I don't want to get into a discussion about political correctness or affirmative action (I'm so old that I still think both of these are positive things), and I wouldn't have had anything to say at all if a genre savvy woman had been chosen to MC the awards. I'd probably have nodded and thought "another positive step". But I do have a problem with "our censorship (and invective, and public shaming) is better than their censorship".

Do I have to say I'm against the marginalisation of minority voices? Promoting those voices (not tolerating them, promoting them) is a good thing. That's using a positive tool, and I know you can argue that affirmative action means excluding excellent candidates in favour of the right kind of candidate, but I don't think that argument holds water. Besides, after my joke about my not needing to apply to present the awards, I'm not taking any more chances of being seen as a whining exponent of male privilege.

Censorship is never a good tool to use, whatever the reason. To widen this out to something you weren't commenting on, insults, bullying and shaming are also not good tools. Your censorship is not better than their censorship.

Means. Ends. You know what I mean.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Can we change "progressive" and "pragmatic" to "fundametalist" and "liberal"?