The awful price of silence on madness
WHO killed Roald Dahl? Everyone. Everyone who didn’t stand up for free speech when it mattered. Everyone who didn’t stand up against censorship when it mattered. Everyone who cheered on while statues were pulled down and history was whitewashed. That’s who.
As the whole world now knows, new editions of Dahl’s work have been edited to remove supposedly offensive words such as “fat” and “ugly”. The move — by new owners Netflix (of course) — has been met with near-universal condemnation. But where were all these champions of artistic freedom when we needed them?
Self-proclaimed progressives are now starting to see the horror of what they have created. This is the endproduct of a process they started, limitless policing of language that has now resulted in historical works of fiction being literally rewritten to suit whatever the latest ideology or glossary may be.
The smart ones are starting to realise this. A beloved friend of mine who self-deprecatingly refers to herself as a “champagne socialist” summed it up perfectly in a text she sent me this week.
“Oh comrade, what are we doing to Roald Dahl?? WTF!!!”
In just one word — “we” — she demonstrated more insight than the rest of the censorious left combined. She realised her erstwhile allies were now destroying childhood memories.
She also meant me and her. While I have always been doggedly committed to fighting poverty and disadvantage, supporting public education and closing our shameful Indigenous gap, I could have no truck with a trendy inner-city left more obsessed with hashtags than homelessness.
And most especially a puritanical and dogmatic left that actively attempts to — and often does — destroy artworks and shut down freedom of expression. My friend too has become increasingly disillusioned, hence the ironic and world-weary “we”.
Miraculously, the Age and Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Cathy Wilcox, a darling of the urbane left, also seemed to have an awakening of sorts when she published a cartoon this week lampooning the move to de-offensify Dahl.
A parent is reading Roald Dahl to a child in bed with the voice bubble “…then Charlie was nonthreateningly pursued by a pleasantlooking creature of average height, weight and socio-economic status…” The child is already bored to sleep.
Clearly this is a stand against artistic censorship. So had Wilcox likewise rushed to the defence of her fellow cartoonist Bill Leak when he was being hounded by the baying mob — to death as it turned out — over a controversial cartoon he had drawn?
Nope, she joined it. Unlike a number of other high-profile cartoonists who nobly defended Leak and the inherently provocative work of editorial cartoonists, Wilcox added to the opprobrium, saying Leak’s piece was unhelpful and racist — although she at least had the decency to defend his right to say it.
Likewise Michael Leunig found himself a latter-day convert to freedom of expression when the progressive mob turned on him, first over a cartoon that seemed critical of mothers and then later over his criticism of vaccine mandates.
So he must have been fullthroated in his support of Leak too, right? Of course not. Leunig too joined the pile-on, calling Leak’s cartoon “cruel” and a “terrible mistake”.
How many people now shocked at the Dahl whitewash stood up then? When it would have actually been an act of bravery instead of bandwagonjumping? When it would have actually been useful instead of too late?
At best they were silent. I know of countless people on the left — good, decent, smart people — who thought all of this was idiotic and even scary but said nothing while people like me copped all the flak for speaking out.
I said they were smart — maybe they were smarter than me. But now that old Roald’s been cancelled or culled I’m not sure that silence was a smart move after all.
This is not to say that Dahl’s an angel or an innocent. By all reports he was a bad husband, bad father and a pretty ordinary bloke all-round. He’s also been busted as an antiSemite.
But none of that is the point. Picasso was also an arsehole. Do we get someone in to retouch the Weeping Woman because he was such a prick to almost every woman he met?
It also raises the same question: What sort of person who claims to be on the side of good would even think of doing such a thing, let alone devote their time to it?
This is a sickness, a global mania that must be stopped.
Indeed, it would be tempting to say that if anything needs to be erased from history it is those attempting to erase history. But in fact, like all bad historical actors, we must record and remember them so that their sins may never be repeated.