According to a recent BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42193826), Damien Green, described as one of the PM’s closest allies, has been sacked from the cabinet. An investigation found he breached ministerial code. The key issues seem to be:
- the discovery of legal pornography on his computer, which appears to have been a direct breach of the code
- an incident with Kate Maltby
I will start by saying that watching pornography is not immoral. You should not regulate or pry into people’s private, legitimate, affairs. As a public figure, he should, of course, expect greater scrutiny, and should conduct himself with more decorum than the general public. However, you have to draw the line somewhere, and seeings as his taste for pornography caused no public harm, I think it is wrong to vilify him.
Let’s be honest, sex is in itself a sordid, animalistic act, if you want to put it that way. It’s even more-so that pornography. After all, with pornography, you’re just looking. Should we therefore sack all people who have had sex? Of course not.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Next, we have the Kate Matlby thing:
The 31-year old [Kate] claimed the minister “fleetingly” touched her knee in a pub in 2015 and in 2016
Sorry Kate, but you’re going to have to come up with something more substantive than that if you want to ruin a man’s reputation.
The article continues:
sent her a “suggestive” text message which left her feeling “awkward, embarrassed and professionally compromised”.
OK, so what does that mean? Was it merely flirtatious, which she found unwelcoming; or was it predatory? There’s a difference.
Her statement is so vague and insinuating that, by itself, there is no reasonable grounds for censoring Green.
Here we run into the problem of “pussification of the west”. Adults are reduced to infants, unable to handle small trifles. It is narcissistic and self-entitled. It is an insidious evil – and make no mistake, it is an evil – where people are harmed merely by vague accusation or act of slight.
We now have policies of Zero Tolerance throughout the workplace.
Let us not forget some basic principles of law: de minimus non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) and culpae poenae par esto (the the punishment fit the crime).
You can see that Zero Tolerance, as an idea, doesn’t stack up well against principles that have been established over many centuries. Zero Tolerance lacks any leeway, the application of common sense and reason, judgement and a sense of proportionality; and really, a sense of justice. This is the legacy of Cultural Marxism. It is regressiveness parading at progressiveness. Political correctness gone haywire.
Great harm will come from this.
Update 21-Dec-2017: I’ve just seen a bit more on the BBC. Apparently, the chief cause of concern was the statements that Green made to the police about the possession of pornography. It seems that the possession itself was not the issue, nor was the matter with Kate. It seems that May’s hands were effectively tied on the issue (figuratively speaking, of course): lying to the police was a serious breach of the ministerial code which she could not allow to go unanswered. Although one does wonder as to why the police were snooping around Green’s laptop. So May’s actions seem justifiable, based on this reading.