Does Russia now respect free speech more than the West?

[Sultan Of Swing]

PETER HITCHENS: Silenced... by our boot-faced commissars of thought crime

Interesting article.

And please read the article before posting.

As the author rightly acknowledges: "I have no illusions about Mr Putin’s Russia. It is a sinister tyranny where those who challenge the president’s power or expose his wrongdoing suffer very nasty fates.

But in public, in private, in offices, on public transport, you have no need to guard your tongue as you did in the communist days, when a poem could get you executed and a joke could send you to an Arctic labour camp for 20 years."

Thoughts?

Are the 'frenzies of persecution' regarding Kevin Roberts (these are his condemned comments, make of them what you will) and earlier Sir Tim Hunt justified? Do they deserve loss of employment and reputation?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

PETER HITCHENS: Silenced... by our boot-faced commissars of thought crime

Interesting article.

And please read the article before posting.

As the author rightly acknowledges: "I have no illusions about Mr Putin’s Russia. It is a sinister tyranny where those who challenge the president’s power or expose his wrongdoing suffer very nasty fates.

But in public, in private, in offices, on public transport, you have no need to guard your tongue as you did in the communist days, when a poem could get you executed and a joke could send you to an Arctic labour camp for 20 years."

Thoughts?

Are the 'frenzies of persecution' regarding Kevin Roberts (these are his condemned comments, make of them what you will) and earlier Sir Tim Hunt justified? Do they deserve loss of employment and reputation?

This is one of the UK's most right-wing & dishonest columnists writing in one of the UK's most right-wing & dishonest papers. Hitchens ignores the fact that Roberts himself said he resigned because he "inadvertently embarrassed" the company with his "miscommunication" - which is not something a high ranking executive should be doing - to engage in histrionics.

Kind of sad that people like Hitchens want to twist this for their own political agendas.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

This is one of the UK's most right-wing & dishonest columnists writing in one of the UK's most right-wing & dishonest papers. Hitchens ignores the fact that Roberts himself said he resigned because he "inadvertently embarrassed" the company with his "miscommunication" - which is not something a high ranking executive should be doing - to engage in histrionics.

Kind of sad that people like Hitchens want to twist this for their own political agendas.

Oh, you think Roberts wasn't pressured to resign by the board? You don't think if Roberts didn't resign, the board would have been forced to sack him after the furor? It seems a little dishonest on your part to think this was some friendly and entirely voluntary resignation, with no pressure attached.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Oh, you think Roberts wasn't pressured to resign by the board? You don't think if Roberts didn't resign, the board would have been forced to sack him after the furor? It seems a little dishonest on your part to think this was some friendly and entirely voluntary resignation, with no pressure attached.

I hadn't thought about it in those terms. You make a good point. Assuming that that's true and Roberts was pressured into quitting; there's still no reason to assume it's not for tarring the company's image and because of Hitchens' invented thought-police boogeymen.

 

[Thanda]

I hadn't thought about it in those terms. You make a good point. Assuming that that's true and Roberts was pressured into quitting; there's still no reason to assume it's not for tarring the company's image and because of Hitchens' invented thought-police boogeymen.

Why would telling the truth (just assume for a moment it was true) tar a company's image?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Why would telling the truth (just assume for a moment it was true) tar a company's image?

If the board of directors have worked hard to ensure that Saatchi and Saatchi is seen as an equal opportunities company then statements like this will harm that goal and negatively influence peoples' perceptions of the company. That the statement in question came from someone so high up in the company means it will carry more weight than if some lower management grunt said it because of the inherently greater influence Roberts had.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If the board of directors have worked hard to ensure that Saatchi and Saatchi is seen as an equal opportunities company then statements like this will harm that goal and negatively influence peoples' perceptions of the company. That the statement in question came from someone so high up in the company means it will carry more weight than if some lower management grunt said it because of the inherently greater influence Roberts had.

How would Roberts' statements have affected their image as an equal opportunities company? He did not endorse or imply any sexual discrimination when considering job offers, nor in promotion.

 

[Thanda]

If the board of directors have worked hard to ensure that Saatchi and Saatchi is seen as an equal opportunities company then statements like this will harm that goal and negatively influence peoples' perceptions of the company. That the statement in question came from someone so high up in the company means it will carry more weight than if some lower management grunt said it because of the inherently greater influence Roberts had.

Sultan has kind of said it but how is being an equal opportunity company in opposition to recognizing this difference in work goals between men and women? Surely women are not to be forced into positions of power just for a company's image. Surely each woman needs to evaluate themselves and decide what their career goals are and then act accordingly to achieve them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the author has never heard of ***** Riot if he thinks Russia has more respect for free speech than what the West does, and he is in dire need of a reality check if he thinks the West is turning anything that remotely resembles the totalitarian Stalinist Soviet Russia.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How would Roberts' statements have affected their image as an equal opportunities company? He did not endorse or imply any sexual discrimination when considering job offers, nor in promotion.

Some might view Roberts' statement as rehashing gender-based stereotypes that women are not good leaders or reinforcing gender norms by implying that women are submissive - it's a small step from these sentiments to 'these are the reasons women are unsuitable for these positions'. Some might view these statements as harmful because they put women off from applying for high-level vacancies. I'm not sure of the reasons myself. This is just speculation on my part.

Sultan has kind of said it but how is being an equal opportunity company in opposition to recognizing this difference in work goals between men and women?

What differences would these be? Women presumably want what men want from a job at the end of the day: success and job & wage security.

Surely women are not to be forced into positions of power just for a company's image. Surely each woman needs to evaluate themselves and decide what their career goals are and then act accordingly to achieve them.

I seriously doubt that would be the case. Making statements that might discourage women from going for high-ranking positions wouldn't exactly encourage this.

 

[Jumi]

Depends on the topic. Trying to proselytize your foreign religion in Russia could end you up in jail as an extremist. JWs have felt these laws... LGBT topics are also taboo.

 

[Thanda]

What differences would these be? Women presumably want what men want from a job at the end of the day: success and job & wage security.

On what basis do you presume this?

I seriously doubt that would be the case. Making statements that might discourage women from going for high-ranking positions wouldn't exactly encourage this.

How would a woman be discouraged for going for high-ranking positions? Apparently, on Kevin Roberts own watch the the company already has 32% of women in leadership which should be sufficient evidence for any woman with ambition that if she wants a top position she can get it.

If a woman therefore gets discouraged by a statement which might very well be true from going for the top position then maybe she never really wanted the top jobs in the first place.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

On what basis do you presume this?

That doesn't answer my question. What differences are there in work goals for men and work goals for women?

To answer your question: I presume it upon common sense because people with a job take comfort from the fact they have a steady, reliable source of income that isn't going to vanish suddenly - and that one's sexual organs are not going to decrease the likelihood of taking comfort from wage & job security.

How would a woman be discouraged for going for high-ranking positions? Apparently, on Kevin Roberts own watch the the company already has 32% of women in leadership which should be sufficient evidence for any woman with ambition that if she wants a top position she can get it.

If a woman therefore gets discouraged by a statement which might very well be true from going for the top position then maybe she never really wanted the top jobs in the first place.

You make an excellent point. I wasn't aware the company had as many women in high-ranking positions. I confess to ignorance on this.

 

[DeepShadow]

The OP is a false analogy, or even a bait-and-switch. There was no threat to the actual legal right of free speech here, just the public practice of speaking freely. "Free speech" means it's not a crime (as in punishable by the government) to speak your mind on a given matter. But this was not a government punishing a person for a crime of words. It was a public pressure forcing a company to take action for economic reasons. Whether or not someone should resign for this, that's another matter. But let's not say this is about someone's right to free speech. That was never in danger.

 

[Thanda]

That doesn't answer my question. What differences are there in work goals for men and work goals for women?

To answer your question: I presume it upon common sense because people with a job take comfort from the fact they have a steady, reliable source of income that isn't going to vanish suddenly - and that one's sexual organs are not going to decrease the likelihood of taking comfort from wage & job security.

You have effectively answered your own question. Most employees, male and female, look for a decent wage and job security from their places of work. Some of them, male and female, are more ambitious and are looking for more than comfort and security. Some are looking to get the top jobs and are willing to leave their comfort zones and forgo their job security in pursuit of moving up the ladder. And it may be that, as men have been proven to be greater risk takers than women (which makes women better at some things than men but also makes men better at some things than women) this latter, smaller but more ambitious group is made of up of more men than women.

 

[Jumi]

What do you think of the new Russian anti-terror law with proselytizing clauses:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/11/u-s-churches-to-russia-were-not-leaving/

The new laws require a government permit to engage in proselytizing activities and ban those activities outside any registered religious organization, such as a church. Russia has numerous “house churches” — groups that meet in people’s homes — and those are now illegal under the new law.

Violations will result in fines of $780 for an individual, upward of $15,000 for an organization, and can lead to deportation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with Scotsman and DeepShadow (hi by the way).

Peter Hitchens' article seems disingenuous on two levels: (1) the examples of free speech being impeded in the West aren't particularly compelling ones (e.g. Tim Hunt didn't lose his livelihood and it's been shown his words were taken out of context, and many people defended him); (2) it's ridiculous for Peter to claim speech and thought are "more free in Russia" while admitting that "Mr Putin’s Russia ... is a sinister tyranny where those who challenge the president’s power or expose his wrongdoing suffer very nasty fates". I am not sure how that claim and that admission can be reconciled, especially when the "very nasty fates" he refers to entail being assassinated.

If Peter were simply arguing, as many people in the West have, that Tim Hunt was treated unfairly or he should be free to speak as he pleases, he would have a point.

Instead Peter runs off the deep end and tries to draw analogies to gulags and assassinations. It reads more like a semi-hysterical rant than a careful analysis by an objective thinker.

 

[dust1n]

I hadn't thought about it in those terms. You make a good point. Assuming that that's true and Roberts was pressured into quitting; there's still no reason to assume it's not for tarring the company's image and because of Hitchens' invented thought-police boogeymen.

Apparently free speech now extends to private entities firing whomever they like for whatever reason.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Apparently free speech now extends to private entities firing whomever they like for whatever reason.

Where I come from, we don't call it "free speech," we call it "freedom of religion."