A Safe Space?

An ugly ‘anti-harassment’ imbroglio has spilt out from the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club. It's played out through Twitter, then across the local newspapers and radio. Some club members are asserting freedom of speech is under threat from a badly drafted policy.

Others feel the culture of the FCC is arcane, with drunken men, most expats, allegedly misbehaving. Given the FCC’s self-appointed status as the freedom of speech bastion, this is intriguing.

Let me start by saying, I’m not a member of the 76-year-old FCC. I have attended functions there, generally having a cracking night in mixed company. As sometimes occurs, when alcohol is taken, the banter becomes raunchy, with the ladies contributing their fair share.

At the end of one evening, a bear-like hug by a stout Dutch lady lingered too long. I took no offence because she gave none. That’s the norm for well-adjusted adults. 

Also, I recognise that times have changed. The laddie behaviour of my younger years is no longer acceptable. That’s understandable. As a father of daughters, I grew aware of these issues.

Unfortunately, and increasingly, I've encountered professional victims who will seek offence in anything. These types appear driven by a postmodern agenda that attributes all the world’s problems to me and other white blokes.

Of course, both women and men have a legitimate expectation of using the FCC free from harassment. Although, and here's the rub, there is a balance to be struck. Otherwise, we’d go through life never communicating for fear of offending someone.

The Twitter feed over this issue has given us an insight into the ongoing dispute. Appears one lady wants to get physical - copy below.

For the record, I realise that as a white male my views are irrelevant to the hard-line third wave feminists.  My colour and gender mark me as a vile creature beyond the pale. Such is the discourse in the identity politics culture wars.

At the FCC, on one side, we have members objecting to the policy. These are not all old white men, as some claim. The evidence points to half of this group being female. They’ve raised concerns that the anti-harassment policy as drafted suppresses free speech.

The FCC definition states harassment is "any unwelcome conduct, comment or display that is reasonably known to offend, intimidate or humiliate the recipient on the basis on the basis of appearance, gender, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, physical size or weight, age, marital/family status, nationality, language, ancestry or place of origin.”

​As with all such definitions, it’s subjective and rests on the interpretation of the receiver. 

Definitions like this led the London Metropolitan Police to the madness of banning the expression ‘black coffee’.  Instead, officers ask for ‘coffee without milk.’ 

You can see how misappropriation of such a policy is possible. 

Certainly, the endless line of people wanting to join the claimed victimhood hierarchy get a leg up. Thus, it would be easy to weaponise the policy to address personal grudges. 

Let's suppose two people are discussing the rape of children by Catholic priests. On the next table a person over hears the conversation and is offended, feeling such a discussion is inappropriate. Is that harassment?

On the other side is a group of women and men, who feel that the FCC is not a safe space. They allege leering, unwelcome attention and sexual harassment. 

The discussion I’ve seen between FCC members is an ideologically ladened debate. It's akin to no-platforming discussions seen at some Western universities. All the language of the woke world is there; mansplaining, patriarchy, victim-shaming, racism, sexism, micro-aggressions and white-man privilege.
​
One female journalist has taken to the press writing an opinion piece. In this, she conflated the anti-harassment policy with many matters including the murder of journalists, female prostitution and the pay-gender gap.

Also, it appears a photo of two topless women in the FCC caused some anxiety. That picture went. A photo of a Scottish soldier's bottom didn’t seem to deserve similar action. Interesting.

If we're allowed to conflate on equal terms, I could argue that women's sport is over thanks to a woke generation asserting transgender rights. Likewise, black kids in London face an onslaught of stabbings because a PC culture prevents action. I could go on, but I won't because it's too depressing. 

An FCC member speaking on Radio 3 alleged harassment at the main bar is common. When asked if any of this was reported, the questioner faced immediate castigation as ‘victim-shaming'.

This tactic comes from the third-wave feminists. In the same way, some people play the 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' card when caught out in a debate on race. 

If you simply shout ‘victim-shaming’ at every question you don’t like, you tend to loose the argument. The vilification of opposing opinions is then linked to the other person being depraved. Meanwhile, the legitimate question goes unanswered.

I have a question. If our journalists are not bold enough to challenge lousy behaviour in the FCC, how can we expect them to be their job? 

The FCC issued a statement asserting part of the problem is excessive drinking by some members. Is this a tacit admission that the FCC is a disorderly place. Such may constitute a breach of the liquor licensing conditions.

The licensee is not permitted to allow drunkenness, quarrel or other disorderly conduct on the premises. Perhaps the FCC shouldn’t worry about their lease because without alcohol the club is finished anyway — I’ll take my tongue out of my cheek now.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, except to say I favour free speech within limits. Furthermore, I recognise people must have protection from harassment. How the FCC balances these matters will be interesting to observe.