The Tribune

IN the context of ‘wokeness’, which I wrote about in a recent column, there were two interesting developments in Britain last week. One was a speech by a Cabinet minister about the Conservative values of equality and individual responsibility while the other was a report by a leading think tank about the importance of free speech in universities. These are significant issues in modern society that can affect many people – even indirectly – so they are, perhaps, worth examining further.

As a reminder, the word ‘woke’, which originated in the US, is defined as a political term referring to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social and racial justice and participation in the movement against inequality and prejudice. Apparently, being woke was at first associated with black Americans fighting racism. But it has been appropriated by other activist groups and it has now become a wider phenomenon both in the US and in Britain.

In a major speech, Liz Truss, the Equalities minister – with the formal title of Minister for Women and Equalities – spoke forcefully about the need for the debate about equality to be “led by facts, not by fashion” and not to be dominated by an unrepresentative minority; and it is interesting that this comes when senior Tories are voicing reservations about the politicisation of Black Lives Matter and warning that this risks undermining the struggle for racial equality. She criticised identity politics and loud lobby groups and she dismissed, in relation to employment, the idea of quotas and targets based on ethnic representation – together with notions like “unconscious bias” – as “tools of the Left”. Announcing that training in unconscious bias in the Civil Service was being scrapped, she stressed that in a fair and transparent society there should be equality before the law, together with equality of opportunity for everybody rather than giving preference to any particular group.

In stating that Conservatives believed people should be defined by their individual character – and not by being part of some oppressed group whose views on matters should not be the only opinion allowed – she was echoing Martin Luther King’s words that all should be judged by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin.

Inevitably, this speech has been attacked by the Left as not addressing properly the claimed huge impact of institutional discrimination, unfairness and bias in people’s day-to-day lives. Many believe that the fight for truth, humanity and justice must be more effective while persistent race inequality should not be played down – and they dismiss Ms Truss’ well intentioned speech as a meaningless collection of clichés and generalisations.

Others, however, have praised it as a dose of common sense – particularly at such a fraught and sensitive period in the nation’s history as Britain reasserts its identity outside the European Union. Furthermore, they claim the speech reflects the views of the so-called silent majority whose voters ensured a substantial victory for a new Tory government in last December’s election. Judging from the UK press, which these days publishes thousands of comments by its readers, there is a widespread view that fairness of opportunity for all goes to the heart of the equality debate. People should be selected and rewarded not on the basis of gender or ethnicity but, rather, in relation to competence, capability and performance. They should be assessed on their ability to do a job and rewarded and promoted on merit.

So a quota system for minority groups imposed by law not only produces unfair discrimination but it is inherently inequitable.

The other separate development last week was a new report from the UK think tank, Civitas, which found that some seventy per cent of universities have been involved in a free speech controversy in recent years as both students and academics have found themselves unable to discuss important issues like race, gender or religion because of fears about censorship or the imposition of some sort of penalty, including in relation to grading their work. These universities were found to be imposing restrictions on freedom of speech as part of the existing “cancel culture” to restrict any controversial views by staff, students or visiting speakers, including ‘no-platforming’ when speakers are denied the chance to express their beliefs because students might find them unacceptable.

With Boris Johnson’s government now intent on stamping out the “cancel culture” by bringing in new laws against censorship, it seems that a new tolerance of differing opinions might be another victory for common sense. Who can reasonably deny that universities should be centres of learning where debate and discussion are encouraged – and, as such, they should be bastions of free thought and free speech. In the opinion of many, they should not be allowed to steer away from this for fear of an adverse reaction by an unrepresentative minority. Moreover, as a wise man once said, forcing someone’s views on another is seldom productive or workable and may have the opposite of the intended effect.

I happen to think that on the whole Britain is a remarkably tolerant and open country which has traditionally placed a strong emphasis on freedom of expression and the right to individual action within the law. It also has a good record in relation to social interaction and integration. The nation is certainly not gripped by racial discord as some minority groups maintain. But there is always more to be done in order to promote harmony amongst people and to work towards equal opportunity for all.

Too many conflicts around the world

Amidst the plethora of information on television and the internet, I spotted recently a brief news item about the publication by the International Rescue Committee of its 2021 emergency list of countries around the world facing humanitarian crises.

The IRC, a non-governmental organisation based in New York and currently headed by a former British foreign secretary, is reportedly funded mainly by the US State Department and is regarded as a resettlement agency. It is a global humanitarian aid, relief and development organisation and, according to its website, its role is to help refugees and others, whose lives have been shattered by conflict or other disaster, to survive and rebuild them. The IRC responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps to restore health, safety, education and economic wellbeing to those who are suffering.

All too often, such crises are precipitated by wars around the world. With some forty armed conflicts in different countries, the number of people affected has apparently doubled over the past decade. Apart from the larger wars that are widely publicised – for example, in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine – others, of lower geopolitical or economic importance, are generally less well known.

Many of the countries on the IRC’s emergency list are in Africa where there are so many conflicts – caused by political instability, the mushrooming of armed groups of extremists, food shortages and competition for resources, population growth, climate change and scarcity of water – and now, to make matters even worse, the coronavirus pandemic. The main consequence of these and other conflicts around the globe has been the mass displacement of people who may also be impacted in other ways.

Against this background of an uncertain and troubled world, it is surely incumbent on the larger and richer nations to offer aid, support and advice in a quest to help the poorest and, by whatever means, to steer other countries away from conflict – and it is good to know that Britain is continuing to play its part as a generous donor on the world stage.

All this, of course, puts the lie to the general contention that war appears to be declining. That is only true insofar as in the period since the end of the Second World War the great powers have not confronted one another in direct conflict, apart from the Korean War which ended in 1953. The richest and largest countries have not engaged in such armed conflict, though it is the case that there have been many proxy wars, particularly in Africa; for example, in a country like Angola during the 1970s where Cuban troops were involved.

So it is the case that wars between states are now rare. But how long will that remain? As everyone knows, human beings, including world leaders, possess aggressive impulses and all too often are overcome by greed, fear, pride, tribalism, intolerance and self-deception in protecting their interests, values, ideologies and beliefs.

It is comforting for the rest of us, however, that there are so-called safety catches and trip wires in today’s international system in the form of the UN and numerous international groupings and gatherings where political leaders can talk directly – in the words attributed to Churchill but also used by former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, “jaw, jaw is better than war, war”.

Passing of a master storyteller

In his biography in 2015 of John le Carré, the famous author of bestselling spy novels who died last week aged 89, Adam Sisman quoted him as saying that people who have unhappy childhoods are good at inventing themselves and making up stories. How le Carré, whose real name was David Cornwell, did that - during the course of a long writing career that produced more than 20 novels - is legendary. Not only did he play an important role in the rich British tradition of espionage writing but, as claimed in one of the many obituaries written about him, he “lifted the spy genre to literature”. So high was his reputation that John le Carré has become widely regarded as one of the most significant English writers of the post-war period.

His biographer explains how the budding author worked for both MI5 and MI6 and began writing fiction in his late twenties when commuting to his London office from his home in the Buckinghamshire countryside. He hit the big time with publication of his novel The Spy Who Came in from The Cold in 1963 which earned unstinting praise from Graham Greene, one of Britain’s most celebrated writers, who said it was the best spy story he had ever read. The book was a stunning success and duly became a bestseller. It was later turned into a film starring Richard Burton and Claire Bloom.

Le Carré then changed his career and turned himself into a full time writer. Apart from being an excellent storyteller in his books, he was also recognised as an amusing raconteur. He became renowned as a sophisticated and subtle writer – with one reviewer praising what were termed his silky skills – and a master of dissimulation as his books became famous for their complex and intriguing plots; and it is said that –- like any novelist – in spinning his intricate tales he took inspiration from real life stories and from his own experience.

His titles are too numerous to mention here, but I particularly liked A Perfect Spy which was another of his bestsellers in America and was considered by serious reviewers to be a work of the highest literary merit. I also enjoyed A Small Town in Germany which was based on life in Bonn – the then capital of West Germany before reunification in 1990 – and depicts so vividly the work of a British Embassy. But, most enjoyable of all perhaps, was his autobiographical book entitled The Pigeon Tunnel which he called on its front cover Stories from My Life. Published as recently as 2016, it is a wonderful read – with one reviewer calling it “an uproarious, darkly poignant and precious book”.

The Financial Times praised this book for offering ‘thrills of recognition as le Carré’s archetypes spring to life’ and another reviewer summed up his work over the years by saying: ‘It is the quality of observation, linked to empathy and intelligence, which has made him the remarkable, indeed great, novelist he is. There is no one quite like him’. What more is there to say about John le Carré? He will long be remembered quite simply as a giant among English writers.

Merry Christmas to all.