Earlier this month, the day after I had written a report on the European Court of Justice’s ruling to allow companies to ban employees from wearing visible religious signs — a move that has been widely condemned by religious organisations and rights groups — I received an email from a reader who took issue with these criticisms. Why couldn’t firms do as they wanted and choose to hire and fire as they liked? Or, as he put it: “If I start an organisation, should I not have the rights to run the show?” While his position was different from mine, the email was very courteous. I replied in a similar vein, stating my views (namely that companies shouldn’t be seen in isolation from society, and as they took as much as they contributed to society, they had responsibilities). A debate ensued. He elaborated on how liberalism had gone too far across the world — from the treatment of Dalits in India to minorities in the U.S. — and spoke of the need for whites to be “given some leeway”. Unity in diversity would not work everywhere, he concluded.
What struck me was the tone of our debate. I’m fortunate among journalists to have received very few troll-esque responses, but I am very aware that many of my colleagues, as well as others on social media, have been less so, receiving abuse on a daily basis for standing up for their views. Reporting on the aftermath of Brexit over the past year , I’ve become acutely aware of how many of us live to a large extent within bubbles of reinforcement: we live and discuss issues with like-minded people, and judge others who have different points of view. Largely gone are the days for civilised debate where ideas are thrown around rather than abusive words.
And people across the political spectrum are equally guilty. In the U.K., while those who have questioned the ability to succeed outside the EU are dubbed remoaners (people who voted Remain) and branded unpatriotic (in much the same way as people have been dubbed “anti-national”), I’ve seen pro-European groups treating all those who voted to leave the EU as ignorant racists.
The debate with the reader ended fairly abruptly. He thanked me for my lengthy response and left it at that. I can’t say that he’s changed my view in any way, and I assume that my views have had little impact on his, but I hope like me he enjoyed having his world view challenged in such a civil way. And to other readers: if you think we’re wrong in our views, do write to us! We relish debate and need your voices to keep us on our toes.
