Urgent re-education
And another thing. Where I come from, diversity training means something along the lines of learning not to express stupid dislike of people for absurd reasons such as race sex class sexual orientation foreignness and the like. But at the Foreign Office it apparently means more than that.
All the staff involved in producing the memo are to be sent on “urgent diversity training”…”Although [the memo] was intended only for internal use, it was ill-judged, naive and disrespectful of some key tenets of the Catholic faith.”
Clearly this urgent diversity training will be for the purpose of teaching staff to respect all key tenets of the Catholic faith – so “diversity” now means not just different kinds of people but different kinds of beliefs and “tenets,” and the underlying assumption is that they all have to be respected.
But – but – but some ideas are just stupid and wrong. Some of the tenets of the Catholic church are just fictitious and wrong but others of them are harmful and wicked. People shouldn’t be trained to respect them. I can see the FO wanting narrowly vocational training in when to say what and to whom, although I’m not sure I can see extending that to internal memos – but I know I can’t see extending it to what to think, which is what this kind of “diversity training” amounts to.
One issue that’s always puzzled me about such “diversity/sensitivity training” is this: what happens when two groups one is supposed to learn respect and sensitivity for collide? If one must learn to “respect” and “be sensitive” to Catholicism, does this mean also being “understanding” of its misogynist and homophobic beliefs and learning to be “sensitive” to devout Catholics’ concerns in those areas? (One might say the same of a lot of Muslims and Orthodox Jews, among others.)
I have noticed that sometimes this issue is “dealt with” by evading the issue: stomping of feet and denunciation of the one who notes this incompatibility as being “intolerant” or “racist” or “insensitive.” Another way is simple denial: “No, it’s not!” “But what about X, Y, and Z?” “That’s either not ‘real’ Religion X, or else it’s ‘really’ because of something else — disadvantaged environment, colonialism, oppression, racism, etc. — never the religion!”
Alternately, “It’s only misogynist and homophobic if you accept narrow Western/Eurocentric conceptions of feminism and/or sexuality! Catholicism is really woman-friendly, if you’d open your mind and stop being a bigot, and you’re being disparaging of millions of modern Catholic women by denouncing their church!” (This is also the way that hijab/feminist discussions also frequently go: “By putting down the hijab as the product of male domination and misogyny, you’re being contemptuous of those Muslim women who do choose to veil and you’re not letting their voices be heard and you’re not respecting their choices!”) Or, “Homosexuality is really a Western colonialist construct, and claims that sexual orientation is inborn is just another myth peddled by the imperialist Gay Lobby.” (A real line of argument in certain extreme left-wing anti-imperialist circles, actually — which puts those making it into the same camp as those fanatical fundamentalists who say that gays can be cured and/or are a danger to society.)
“what to think, which is what this kind of “diversity training” amounts to”
That is precisely what it amounts to, and is the intended result. You may think only what you are permitted to think. The fact that what you are permitted to think varies from time to time in according to the currently-prioritised victim group is an added bonus; the permitted thoughts may change at any time without notice, making your current thoughts wrong and giving power to those who decide what the allowed thoughts are.
Lisa: out of interest, there is a piece on the hijab here:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/05/of_sartorial_ch
It sounds more like the Catholics could benefit from ‘sensitivity training’ in the values and advantages of a free society.
#3 The Happy Crow
Hmm…that post you linked has some good points, especially considering that a lot of the women who would wear the full veil face a lot of other problems that a ban would hardly solve, but I take issue with some of it. First, it mentions “…the hubris of the Belgian and French brand of secularism”. Well…French laïcité might seem overly oppressive to somebody coming from an Anglo-American background with an emphasis on “free exercise” of religion, but it’s a pillar of modern French society and its main “enemy” over the decades has been the Catholic Church. The fact that this stance bans overt displays of religion in public space might fall more heavily on some religions than on others, but that’s how it is, and I’ve always found it slightly disingenuous for, e.g., American critics to complain about how insensitive or brutal or hubristic the French approach is on such subjects while ignoring France’s history and political culture. While it is entirely possible to use laïcité as a tool to beat up on immigrant communities, that’s hardly its primary goal, and allowing special exemptions from it for any religious group is, of course, quite antithetical to its spirit.
Another quote: “Before we make judgements and decisions about the sartorial choices that certain groups of women make, have we spared the time to ask these women themselves if they are complicit in their own oppression?” Well, this of course isn’t a foolproof test, one must admit. Ask any devout Catholic women with a dozen children and who denounces contraception in the fiercest terms if she’s “complicit in her own oppression” and what do you suppose she’ll say? Not that I want to take away her right to live her life as she pleases (or wear whatever she wants, incidentally), but people who have been raised or have adopted a particular way of life, religious or not, aren’t always very objective about whether it’s really best for them or not! (I can certainly identify with that!)
I notice also an odd sort of disconnect between arguments regarding the hijab: on the one hand, defenders of it will say, “oh, it’s only a piece of cloth and not a big deal, and women in Iran and elsewhere have much bigger problems,” but at the same time there are also accounts about how important it is to devout Muslim women and how it’s a horrific violation of their rights if they’re not allowed to wear it in schools or universities or other public places (think of the rallies in favor of it in Turkey and France). Also, isn’t it the clerics who make such a big deal about how Islam requires the hijab, and wasn’t it the Iranian mullahs, to take one example, who felt that veiling was so important it needed to be mandated by law and enforced, sometimes violently, by morality patrols? There were also huge rallies by Iranian women against compulsory hijab when the law was first passed, suggesting that a lot of women didn’t see it as merely “a piece of cloth” and unworthy of a second thought. If it really is just a piece of cloth and not such a big deal, why does it need to be enforced by acid-throwing thugs and Saudi mutawa’een?
Oh come on! It doesn’t take diversity training to make an adult human being realise that you don’t use a position of privilege to insult foreign dignitaries and pointlessly anger large numbers of your own citizens.
This FO twit wasn’t standing up for women, minorities, ethnic diversity or anything else. He was a smug home counties jackass behaving to type. “I say you chaps! I’ve had a jolly wheeze. Let’s send round a joke email about the Pope’s visit then leak it to the press. What Larks! Oh dear, no-one’s laughing except us. These Oiks just have no sense of humour do they?”
You don’t have to be a fan of the current Pope or the teachings of Catholicism to see why their idiotic remarks were found offensive. Its also perfectly true that they would not have been mede about any other religion than Christianity. It’s an easy target as the believers don’t generally offer to cut your head off, or murder your family if you offend them.
At the very least it is worrying that a supposed FO “high flyer” who we are told is fantastically clever, eloquent, blah, blah blah, is so lacking in judgement that he sends a joke memo around and it gets leaked to the press. I have had plenty of experience oveseas of Carlton Browne of the FO types who are more trouble than they are worth; who create chaos and do little if any work, yet I have been assured all the while that they are the last word in intellectual excellence and sound judgment; mainly because they are posh Oxbridge types.
How many other diplomatic incidents of a more serious kind will this fool be responsible for in future; some of them no doubt with potentially fatal consequences for someone?
Thees people knew perfectly well what they were doing and it was behaviour more suited to a sixth form common room than the Foreign Office. They are supposedly employed to smooth realtions with foreign powers; not create diplomatic incidents. If they can’t handle something as low key as a Papal visit, what earthly use will they be dealing with a crisis?
If nobody in the FO has the guts to stand up to the pope, that will do in the meantime. Gift horse, mouth.
It is disturbing that this is the only way criticism of the pope can even be conceived of by the ruling class in the UK.
And it is disturbing that the reaction is suppression and re-education, whatever kind of upper class twit of the year we are talking about.
This whole fiasco began as a (semi) private joke among colleagues! What is the issue here? That some thin-skinned FO boffin decided to make it public and cause a stir? Doubtless a catholic who couldn’t take a joke, and his response, and then the response of the Vatican, and then the grovelling response of the FO, showed how silly the whole lot are. Bishops talking about lurking anti-catholicism – well, of course, why wouldn’t there be? – and hurtful offence – again, why not? – and then the FO trying to show how responsibly it can manage perceived shortcomings in its inner circle. But shouldn’t the idiot who revealed it all be under the magnifying glass here? Something that began as a lark ended up being a matter of state, when all that happened is that an overvalued dictator of a non-existent state was made fun of in private. Really, these guys need to get some perspective.
Andrew, Then I must be one of the oldest sixth formers in the country as I found the memo hilarious. Anything that pokes fun at the anachonism that is the Roman Catholic Church deserves the widest circulation possible IMHO. Support of child abuse, mysogeny, etc. etc. should not be tolerated in a civilised 21st century democracy, and the sooner religion in general moves out of the Dark Ages the better for everyone. I for one am totally opposed to the visit of the so-called “mouthpiece of god” until I see the RCC hand over the child molesters to the proper authorities for prosecution.
And while all of this is going on a hypothesis I have held for a long time gets proven right.
A German priest who is getting accused of molesting kiddies was moved to South Africa, where he is being accused of… molesting kiddies.
And he has copped to the German charges. Meanwhile Britain is busting a petty official’s balls for criticising the Church’s handling of the paedophilia scandal and the AIDS crisis in a joke email.
Good grief, Andrew – what a lot of nonsense. What do you mean “foreign dignitaries”? That’s a very woolly and manipulative bit of rhetoric. Yes Ratzinger is foreign of course, but so what? And what is a “dignitary”? It’s a good word-choice for purposes of bluster, because it’s so empty. The pope is at the top of a very old, absurd, fundamentally meaningless hierarchy; it’s not self-evident that he deserves respect because of that position. And as for the large numbers of your own citizens – are there large numbers of Catholics in the UK? And even if there are, are they all passionate fans of the pope? It is my understanding that a great many Catholics don’t particularly admire the pope, and that even more of them ignore the papal rules that the FO guy was teasing.
But the Catholic church isn’t a foreign power. It’s just a church. The Vatican is supposedly a state, but it’s a very anomalous state, which is probably one reason it’s joke-worthy.
Andrew
May 5, 2010 at 2:04 amIdiotic as in – the Pope should actually do something about his employees fucking kids?Or as in – the Pope should actually not make the African AIDS crisis worse?What was actually idiotic in that email Andrew? Or is that post just your way of dealing with what an ass you are?
I’m not sold.
I read the choice of ‘sensitivity training’ as a pretty clear signal that everyone in the FO knows that there’s a lot of disrespect for the Pope in the institution, but that you’re expected to know never to actually put those opinions out where the public – meaning the press, of course! – will actually get at them. (Which is kind-of fair enough, though I’d rather see a ballsier, less ‘respectful’ FO myself.) It’s a slap on the wrist for scewing up <i>in public relations</i>, not in actual beliefs. If lack of respect for religion was really seen as a threat then the silly bugger who wrote that memo would be out on his ear (in which I see it as analagous to cases where a racist cop is sentenced to ‘sensitivity training’. Pur-lease).
The FO could hardly issue a statement to the effect that they were sending their staff on a course in how to keep their silly traps shut, could they? Yadda yadda about ‘respect’ is <i>de rigeur</i> these days, and loathesome though that may be there’s no need to assume it actually <i>means</i> anything in a public statement like this. It’s… I dunno, it’s like oil companies coming out with statements about renewables. It’s <i>media</i>. Hot air. <i>Lip service.</i>
At least, I believe and hope so. If only because the alternative would be to believe there are idiots in the FO management credible enough to believe that ‘sensitivity training’ will actually change anyone’s attitudes, which would suggest a level of naivete I couldn’t bear to imagine actually running a part of the government.
@ dirigible #7
Some perspective please ,how much guts does it take to stand up to the Pope-these days? He’s a relatively soft target.There are far nastier individuals than the Pope who are rarely lampooned,curious isn’t it.
Do many of those nastier individuals get as much automatic deference and “respect” as the pope gets? Curious, isn’t it.
@Ophelia ,
Well, how could we judge the amount and quality of respect and deference the Pope gets compared to say one of the ayatollahs infesting Iran and why is it relevant to my comment?Does the amount of respect determine the degree of ridicule? Certainly giving the Pope the finger is far less dangerous to one’s health than giving it to, say, a Chinese Communist party official or one of the previously mentioned ayatollahs. It takes remarkable courage in those societies to be a dissenter.
So,unless the Pope calls for the assassination of liberal critics, I won’t be handing out any medals to those ‘brave’ lads in the British FO, just yet.
FYI- I’m not a Catholic and have no sympathy for the Church, or its mission,or any religion in fact.
Russell, it’s relevant to your comment because it differs from it.
What are you talking about? Where do the ayatollahs infesting Iran get respect and deference? In some quarters of Iran and in some Islamist circles, of course, but other than that?
The pope, on the other hand, gets actively and energetically groveled to by the UK government, and until recently he got the same treatment from the “mainstream” media in the US.
As for danger to health, I don’t know why that’s the issue. I don’t generally frame these things in terms of physical danger, because I don’t think there is any, and because I don’t think it’s all that counts.
If people want “sensititvity training” in the matter of handling/dealing with issues around the RC church, then there is one obvious place for them to start.The town of Lewes, in Sussex, preferably on November 4th and 5th every year.
Google “Lewes bonfire” and you’ll see what I mean.Enjoy!
@ Ophelia,
Now, I’m confused. I was originally commenting on ‘dirigible’s’ remark in regard to the ‘guts’ needed to ‘stand up’ to the Pope,which seemed somewhat exaggerated. We seem to have gone off at a tangent. I do frame ‘these things’ in terms of physical danger,when the quality of courage is mentioned,this is important to me but not to you.
As to ‘grovelling’ –people can grovel to whomever they please,as long as it’s not compulsory, anyway I can’t distinguish genuine grovelling from the insincere variety. This is obviously important to you, but not to me. Since a large section of any population is religiously inclined,grovelling to this particular old charlatan or his successors,is here to stay,at least, for the foreseeable future.
Yes,Idon’t think there’s any physical danger either- from the Pope or his minions.
Thanks.