![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerMr Jeremy Clarkson, the well known motorist, apparently advocated that striking public sector workers be shot "in front of their families" and various people are defending the comment on the grounds that it is "funny" and "outrageous" and that he was saying it "in character." Article here.
The first claim needs no rebuttal from me. I don't believe I know anyone who would laugh at the suggestion that people should be shot for striking. Outrageous it certainly is, in that it rightly inspires outrage. As for being "in character," I would believe it if he ever stepped "out of character" and admitted, for instance, that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is at least worthy of consideration.
Should he be sacked? Well, let's see. If he is simply "speaking in character" (as his friend David Cameron seems to be claiming) then the issue of freedom of speech does not arise and he or his scriptwriters should be sacked for being publicly offensive, as with the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand incident. If he is speaking his true opinions, then perhaps some sort of psychiatric evaluation might be in order. That would be my choice.
But I suspect he will not be, or if he is then (as with Ross) it will be merely a cosmetic exercise till he can be brought back. And I think this is because people agree with him, that if someone demands their rights they deserve to be shot.
I'm just glad I don't know any of them.
The first claim needs no rebuttal from me. I don't believe I know anyone who would laugh at the suggestion that people should be shot for striking. Outrageous it certainly is, in that it rightly inspires outrage. As for being "in character," I would believe it if he ever stepped "out of character" and admitted, for instance, that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is at least worthy of consideration.
Should he be sacked? Well, let's see. If he is simply "speaking in character" (as his friend David Cameron seems to be claiming) then the issue of freedom of speech does not arise and he or his scriptwriters should be sacked for being publicly offensive, as with the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand incident. If he is speaking his true opinions, then perhaps some sort of psychiatric evaluation might be in order. That would be my choice.
But I suspect he will not be, or if he is then (as with Ross) it will be merely a cosmetic exercise till he can be brought back. And I think this is because people agree with him, that if someone demands their rights they deserve to be shot.
I'm just glad I don't know any of them.