Why does it Matter?
- Hard-won freedoms are being undermined
- People are afraid to address controversial issues
- Political debate has become so toxic ordinary people are disillusioned and become reluctant to be involved
- Society is becoming increasingly polarised by intolerant polemic which will not listen to other viewpoints or even allow them to exist. This destabilises the social order and leads to an increased likelihood of civil strife, hatred and public harm
- People are losing jobs or facing criminal investigation for holding private opinions irrelevant to their duties
- Printers and similar businesses could be forced to produce propaganda for causes with which they might profoundly disagree. This would deny those in such businesses the choice to operate according to a non-monetary ethic
Freedom of conscience is what guarantees our other freedoms. It enables a liberal democracy to function, because it enables people to debate public issues without fear. Until relatively recently, everyone was encouraged to contribute to public debate and no one needed to be afraid of expressing their opinion. At least, any fear would be generated only by extremist groups of which society, as a whole, disapproved. No one needed to fear mainstream society.
Now, all that is under threat as a new kind of pseudo-liberal who will tolerate nothing except their own position has gradually replaced the genuine liberality which allowed all positions to co-exist. A society aspiring to be genuinely diverse has been replaced with a one-size-fits-all orthodoxy of diversity, which is no diversity at all, and will pillary and stigmatise any who dare hold a different view. Moreover, it will use that stigma to threaten people’s security and livelihood in order to generate fear and force compliance.
Because this behaviour is more akin to totalitarianism than liberalism, the Diverse Diversity Campaign uses the term Pseudo-liberalism to refer to it. This is a tendency which masquerades as liberalism but is clearly false in that claim because it is fundamentally intolerant. Other terms could be used but whatever we call it, the negative impact is the same.
This is a kind of intolerance that cannot form part of a free and fair society. Join the DDC and show the world you value freedom and fairness and proper informed debate.
Welcome to the Diverse Diversity Campaign
What is Diverse Diversity?
Diverse Diversity is formally defined as:
“Diversity which seeks to enable all groups to conform to their own internal beliefs and practices inasmuch as these do not prevent the conformance of other groups to their own principles. Diverse Diversity therefore opposes any view of diversity which seeks to impose a universal perspective across all groups, as if there were only one correct way of viewing the world to which all others must conform. That is not to deny the right of any group to believe its principles are absolute, but it does prevent any group being subjected to principles it considers alien by another group which considers itself superior in some way.”
Which is a rather lengthy way of saying it’s about the Freedom to be Different, the freedom not to conform to someone else’s expectations, the freedom to be oneself.
These pages will contain information on what we can do to preserve and increase hard-won freedoms, tolerant and informed debate, and our very diverse ways of life against those who seek to bully, coerce and control for their own ends, usually in the name of one or other minority group being used as an instrument of oppression against others.
Why Diversity must be Diverse
It might seem obvious, if we talk about diversity, that it will be diverse, but that is not the reality. In practice, many who claim to champion diversity have a limited view of what it means. In particular, they might single out certain categories of divergence as legitimate but refuse to recognise those who define categories differently, or who disagree about the limits of diversity or whom should be protected. Frequently, protection will take the form of oppressing those who disagree for some reason with the protected group, denying the legitimacy of disagreement in the name of protecting the particular group against criticism, which will be said to favour their enemies and thus encourage harm to those whose diversity must be protected.
There are fallacies here. Firstly, disagreement, even disapproval, is not the same as oppression and violence, and should not be treated as equivalent. If we are not able to disagree we are not able to debate, and it might well be that preventing debate is the real purpose of delegitimising disagreement. It is politically convenient for those who have some form of power to suppress dissent.
Secondly, it is not true that agreeing with a position is the same as justifying any means to secure it. I do not approve of burglary; it does not follow that I would support a gang of vigilantes patrolling the streets claiming they were hunting burglars or wish to see such a gang assaulting a passer-by in the belief he or she might be one. I can be against violence without supporting one side in a fight. It is not a straight choice between supporting one side’s violence or the other’s. I can disapprove of violence as a method, whichever side I support. I do, in fact, disapprove of violence as a method. Those who claim otherwise are limiting choices in order to force people to take sides, when taking sides might not be the most constructive thing to do. They are manipulating the situation for their own purposes.
Diverse Diversity resists that manipulation. It is based on the belief that a truly diverse society tolerates all ideas including conflicting ideas. Rather than trying to eliminate conflict by disparaging one side of the argument and trying to silence those who support it, Diverse Diversity sees such conflicts as an opportunity to hone arguments more sharply, to examine underlying issues, and to develop methods of promoting fair debate. This is where Diverse Diversity differs from other ideologies; it is about methods rather than content. Methods of expression and promoting ideas must be fair, rather than the ideas themselves. Fair debate will enable listeners to understand and evaluate the content without fear or favour and make up their own mind. Fair debate will enable those who disagree to argue without harm to each other or wider society. Ideas must stand and fall on their merits as understood by those who hold them, but for that to work the methods employed in argument must be fair and no one must feel intimidated because their views are unpopular. Equally, no one must be allowed to pretend to feel intimidated as a means of silencing others.
Only in a truly diverse, truly tolerant society can truth flourish as arguments are weighed by their hearers. Only a society based on truth can be truly fair and just, and only in a fair and just society can human beings flourish and find their true potential.
That is why Diversity must be diverse, and not limited by one faction’s views of what it should mean. Truth is a collective good, and to be true must be collectively held in plurality so its relative facets can all be accessed and considered.