People cannot debate traditional issues because of liberal 'censoriousness', says Lord Neuberger

First topic message reminder :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10696507/People-cannot-debate-traditional-issues-because-of-liberal-censoriousness-says-Lord-Neuberger.html
Traditional attitudes to issues such as sexuality are being shut out of debate by a new form of liberal “censoriousness” which only allows “inoffensive” opinions to be heard in public, Britain’s most senior judge has warned.


Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said that Britain could be becoming less diverse rather than more because once common opinions are now deemed “unacceptable”.


He likened the new form of “moral reaction” to the opposite but equally restrictive attitudes of previous generations.


The judge also warned that the children of Britain's elite will have to settle for worse jobs than their parents in coming years.


His comments came in a lecture at the House of Commons in which he spoke about improving representation of minorities including women, ethnic minorities, gay people and those from poorer backgrounds in the law and other professions.


Related Articles
Judges should be discouraged from allowing cases to be heard in private, says head of Supreme Court
05 Mar 2014
Why always footballers who take out gagging orders, asks top judge
03 Mar 2014
Why is it always footballers who take out gagging orders, asks top judge
03 Mar 2014
Theresa May failed to 'put up a fight' to deport foreign killer
11 Jan 2014
Supreme Court rules will is valid despite admin error
23 Jan 2014
Sarosh Zaiwalla: the first non-white lawyer to start a practice in the City
02 Feb 2014


But he said that in the area of sexual attitudes, attempts to improve diversity risked bringing a new restrictiveness of their own.

It follows complaints from traditionalists who opposed gay marriage that they were unfairly being treated as homophobic because of their stance on matrimony.

At the height of the debate over the issue, a housing trust manager from Trafford, Greater Manchester, was demoted from his job and accused of discrimination because he said in a private Facebook posting that he thought same-sex weddings in churches were a step too far.

Lord Neuberger said: “A tendency appears to be growing in some quarters which is antithetical to diversity in a rather indirect and insidious way."

In a reference to the Larkin poem Annus Mirabilis, which jokes that “sexual intercourse began in 1963”, he added: “As Phillip Larkin suggested in his famous poem, 1963 heralded a rather permissive period, partly no doubt in reaction to the very conventional and straight-laced post-World War Two outlook.

“Possibly as a counter-reaction to the permissive society, a combination of political correctness and moral reaction appears to be developing.

“While I have no wish to comment on, let alone criticise, this development, I fear that it may risk spilling over into a censoriousness about what views people can publicly air as to the merits of diversity or other issues which indirectly relate to diversity.

“As has been said on more than one occasion, freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having.

“The more that arguments and views are shut out as unacceptable the less diverse we risk becoming in terms of outlook.

“And the less diverse we become in terms of outlook, the more we risk not valuing diversity and the more we therefore risk losing diversity in practice.”

Lord Neuberger also said increased social mobility and the economic downturn would be "painful" for the "sons and daughters of those at the top".

He said: "Now that we have an economy that is expanding more slowly; consequently, improving diversity in the higher levels through increased social mobility is much more difficult, because the number of available jobs is hardly expanding.

"And increased social mobility is potentially much more painful, because, if the top echelon of jobs remains static, it is logically inevitable that the sons and daughters of those at the top will have to go down the snakes in order to enable those from less privileged backgrounds to go up the ladders."

What a rather good well argued opinion. I know straight away that the left on here will wish to censor his opinion.

kevins58 wrote:It has nothing to do with UKIP it is you blurring the lines between fairness and subterfuge.

Never mind if that is your benchmark of what you think is right that is your call.

Oh behave and pick up your dummy off the floor mate, at least I can reason with many posters and see their points, you act like a child these days mate, grow up

Again my views are about showing inconsistencies in arguments by UKIP which I have shown easily, you are anti EU, good luck with that, many others including myself want to have a say in talks before a referendum is held, which there is nothing wrong in doing

People can't debate properly because of mass ignorance and lack of education.

Some morons think there is a sky giant that magically controls everything, how can you get a sensible answer out of that.

veya_victaous wrote:People can't debate properly because of mass ignorance and lack of education.

Some morons think there is a sky giant that magically controls everything, how can you get a sensible answer out of that.

Does that mean it is acceptable to make them think mentioning their beliefs is unacceptable?

sphinx wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:People can't debate properly because of mass ignorance and lack of education.

Some morons think there is a sky giant that magically controls everything, how can you get a sensible answer out of that.

Does that mean it is acceptable to make them think mentioning their beliefs is unacceptable?

Well having faith in no detailed policies is very daft, but hey each to their own eh

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Does that mean it is acceptable to make them think mentioning their beliefs is unacceptable?

Well having faith in no detailed policies is very daft, but hey each to their own eh

Are you really that desperate to get the last word?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Well having faith in no detailed policies is very daft, but hey each to their own eh

Are you really that desperate to get the last word?

I have no need to though your last is hypocritical as it could be claimed you are doing the same, the fact is you are clearly upset I am easily able to bash and show up your party as flawed.

Welcome to the real world where Tories, Labour and Liberals have had the same for years

The only person to whom my upset is clear is you - nobody else can see it which is something you might want to consider.

How am I being hypocritical - I am asking if it is acceptable to make people think they are not allowed to voice an opinion because I dont think it acceptable to do so.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Well having faith in no detailed policies is very daft, but hey each to their own eh

Are you really that desperate to get the last word?

lol