Latest news with #A.C.Grayling
Sky News AU
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Media Watch Dog: ABC host infantilises Liberal Michael Sukkar with 'what would your mother say' rebuke, SMH's letters page compares Peter Dutton to Judas
It started off badly. And then it got worse – or 'better' – in the saying attributed to Josef Stalin that 'worse is better'. In any event, it has taken Media Watch Dog a week to recover from the occasion. Now Ellie's (male) co-owner regards the British philosopher A.C. (Anthony Clifford) Grayling as a septuagenarian in search of a (Marxist) hairdresser. He is, in English language terminology, a ' Guardian Reader' with orthodox leftist views. And he has an avowed faith in atheism, of the sneering secularist kind. No surprise, then, that A.C. Grayling is on the speakers' list at the forthcoming leftist stack that is the 2025 Sydney Writers' Festival. But MWD digresses, not for the first time. It so happened that your man Grayling was interviewed on the ABC Radio National Saturday Extra program. The date was 12 April 2025 – and Barbara Miller was standing in for the usual presenter Nick Bryant. This is how the Saturday Extra producer foreshadowed the occasion. The rise of social media appears inextricably linked to the fuelling of today's culture wars. People expressing views deemed offensive, dangerous and out of date run the risk of being cancelled. Those who are cancelled meanwhile hit back at so-called 'wokeness' with accusations of censorship. It's the messy politics of the culture wars. Well, that's pretty clear then. Comrade Grayling was expected to run the line that people expressing views with which he disagreed should be cancelled. But those expressing views that he agreed with should be heard. He did this, sort of. But the, er, loquacious philosopher threw the switch to verbosity. Let's go to the transcript: A.C. Grayling: There are two different kinds of cancelling endeavours. One is a protective cancelling. That is where you try to stop people using a position of influence or power which allows them, or has allowed them, to do harm to people. Then there is negative cancelling, or discriminatory cancelling, which is what, of course, historical, has happened to those groups now seeking a fairer place in society. And discriminatory cancelling is the thing that wokeism and political correctness and the civil rights movement in the 60s and so on have been fighting against. The Trump administration pushback against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is a major example of cancellation. Barbara Miller: Let's fast forward to Trump a little bit later. You take a history perspective here and you say that Adam and Eve, for example, were cancelled. Is that where the history of cancelling begins? A.C. Grayling: I mean since there were no Adam and Eve – it's a figurative way of pointing out that history is about cancelling. It's about conflicts and competition of interests…. Let's stop there. A.C. Grayling is all for protective cancelling (i.e. the silencing of his political enemies) but hostile to negative or discriminatory cancelling (since this allegedly favours his ideological comrades). And then Comrade Grayling returned to the ABC's favourite topic. To wit, President Donald J. Trump. Barbara Miller: What does your study of the history of cancel culture tell us about where that current culture war might go – might end? A.C. Grayling: Well, I think and hope at the same time that the general trend of history – if we survive the Trumps and Putins of today – is towards a greater sense of justice in society. A much fairer dissemination of the goods and opportunities that society offers. It's just that if you thought of a situation in which every individual respected fully individual human rights of all other people there would be no discrimination. How about that? Your man A.C. sees President Donald J. Trump as much the same as President Vladimir Putin, the one-time KGB operative who runs what is effectively an elected dictatorship in Moscow and murders his opponents inside and outside Russia. As Dr Grayling (for a doctor he is) spoke to Ms Miller equating Trump to Putin, the president of Russia was directing Russian forces to indiscriminately shell civilians in Ukraine by means of missiles and drones. But Barbara Miller did not contest Grayling's view. Can You Bear It? SARAH FERGUSON ASKS THE 'WHAT WOULD YOUR MOTHER SAY?' QUESTION ABOUT MICHAEL SUKKAR'S INTERJECTIONS – OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT SHE HERSELF INTERRUPTED HIM ON 16 OCCASIONS A media highlight of the year occurred on ABC TV's 7.30 on April 17 when there was a debate between Housing Minister Clare O'Neil and Shadow Housing Minister Michael Sukkar. Let's go to the transcript: Sarah Ferguson: ..By how much and how many houses will you build? Michael Sukkar: We'll continue Housing Australia, we'll continue the Affordable Housing Bond aggregator, and we'll find ways of just directly funding social – Sarah Ferguson: No one's heard a number from you Michael Sukkar. You say you're going to do it. We know how many houses you've built while you were in government in that area, it was a few thousand. Clare O'Neil: No it wasn't a few thousand. Sorry, Sarah, I will correct the record on that. Sarah Ferguson: Let me just get – I'm going to ask you one more time, and everyone is listening to me ask this question, how many social and affordable houses will you build? Michael Sukkar: Well, we will fund social and affordable housing. Sarah Ferguson: Alright, that's it. You're not answering. Clare O'Neil? Clare O'Neil: You're not getting an answer. You'll get an answer out of me. Michael Sukkar: How many have you built? Sarah Ferguson: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Clare O'Neil: We've got an acute shortage of housing around our country, but particularly in the social and affordable housing space, for those of you at home who are wondering why there is growing homelessness around your suburb and your town, why we have an acute problem with women not being able to leave violent relationships, why we have an extraordinary issue with older women being our biggest growing group going into homelessness. All this comes back to an acute undersupply of social and affordable homes. Now our government has come into office. We are building 55,000 social and affordable homes over five years. 28,000 – Michael Sukkar: Currently being built? Sarah Ferguson: What would your mother say? Hearing you interrupt her? Just – Clare O'Neil: It's okay. I'm unflappable Sarah. I've done, this is my third run at this this week. How about that? Clare O'Neil had spoken some 103 words when Sukkar politely asked whether the number of houses, to which O'Neil referred, were currently being built. And Sarah Ferguson responded in anger: 'What would your mother say? Hearing you [Sukkar] interrupt her [O'Neil]?' Over the Easter Weekend, Ellie's (male) co-owner decided to view the debate again and count the interjections. Here's his report: Sarah Ferguson's interruptions: Of Sukkar: 16 interruptions Of O'Neil: eight interruptions Interruptions of each other: O'Neil interrupted Sukkar: nine interruptions Sukkar interrupted O'Neil: seven interruptions In other words, Sarah ('What would your mother say?') Ferguson was the interrupter-in-chief during the 7.30 debate. But she dressed Michael Sukkar down – despite the fact that he interrupted the least during the debate. Can You Bear It? ALLEGEDLY CASH-STRAPPED ABC FLIES REPORTERS TO ROME TO REPORT ON POPE FRANCIS' DEATH The taxpayer funded public broadcaster's chair Kim Williams AM AB (aka Always Begging) is invariably asking for more taxpayer funds for the ABC. He calls it an 'investment'. Really. In view of this, it might be expected that the ABC would be frugal with expenses. But this appears not to be the case. Media Watch Dog happened to watch ABC TV's News Breakfast on Monday 21 April. Lo and behold, Ellie's (male) co-owner noticed that the Melbourne-based News Breakfast co-presenter Emma Rebellato was in Rome to cover the death of Pope Francis. She happened to be talking to the ABC European correspondent Kathryn Diss at the Holy See. Now MWD just loves it when ABC journalists interview other ABC journalists. But, in view of the fact that the ABC is always crying poor, it seems odd that it should fly a Melbourne-based reporter to talk with a London-based reporter in the Holy City to report the fact that the ailing Pope has died – which was hardly news on the morning of Monday 21 April. Can You Bear It? When in Rome do what the ABC does: Melbourne-based Emma Rebellato discusses Pope Francis' death in the Holy See with London-based Kathryn Diss. SNEERING LEFTIST RICHARD DENNISS GETS FREE KICK FOR THE TEALS/GREENS TEAM ON RN BREAKFAST As Media Watch Dog has reported, there are considerable examples of the ABC giving special coverage to individuals and organisations whose policies are in line with the Teals and the Greens. On Thursday 24 April, ABC Radio National Breakfast (producer Rob Kelly) interviewed Richard Denniss, the executive director of The Australia Institute. Here's how the interview commenced – with Sally Sara in the presenter's chair – with this introduction and first response. Dr Denniss (for a doctor he is) used the occasion to fang the Defence Policy of both the Coalition and Labor – from a sneering leftist perspective, including mock laughter. Let's go to the transcript: Sally Sara: Joining me to discuss these figures and the language being used to sell them, is executive director of The Australia Institute, economist Richard Denniss. Richard, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast. Richard Denniss: Good morning. Sally Sara: Both sides are looking to increase defence spending, at the same time, they're pitching themselves as responsible economic managers looking to reduce debt and deficit. Are all of those things possible at the same time? Richard Denniss: [Laughs] No. I mean, when it comes to defence, we have entirely different rules for economics, it seems…. So there you have it. Comrade Sara did not mention that Comrade Richard Denniss is a committed leftist close to the Teals/Greens ideology. And Comrade Denniss used the occasion to mainly bag the Coalition's defence policy with a side swipe at Labor's policy. All done with occasional mocking laughter of a leftist kind. Can You Bear It? THE NINE NEWSPAPERS' UPDATE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD LETTERS EDITOR FIRES AT PETER DUTTON WITH RANTS, CLICHÉS, HYPERBOLE AND AN EASTER COMPARISON WITH JUDAS There was enormous interest in this segment last week which focused on Letters to the Editor published in Nine's Sydney Morning Herald on 8 April 2025 and 14 April 2025. They were 100 per cent antagonistic to Opposition leader Peter Dutton. Media Watch Dog was not so concerned about the fact that these two editions of the newspapers were hostile to Peter Dutton and the Coalition. After all, Nine Newspapers are written by the left, for the left, and are unlikely to be read by swinging voters. However, MWD focused on the written clichés, low-quality puns and abuse which the Letters Editor saw fit to print. It was much the same on Monday 21 April. Here we go: The heading of the Letters Page was 'The Voice was only ever about politics for Dutton' – and related to a profile by Deborah Snow in Nine Newspapers on 19 April. Gary Stone (of fashionable Springwood) declared that Peter Dutton's opposition to The Voice referendum was 'a political exercise' and added: 'Says it all, really'. Then Bruce Wright (Latham, ACT) commenced his rant as follows: 'One thing I detest about Dutton is….' Enough said. Then Mukul Desai (from fashionable Hunters Hill) declared that 'it seems that the Coalition and its media allies had only one bullet to win the election and that was Trumpism'. Overlooking the fact that Peter Dutton, unlike Donald Trump, is not a high tariff advocate. Your man from Hunters Hill then threw the switch to cliché and wrote that the Opposition leader's 'chickens have come home to roost'. Groan. Then Maurice Critchley (Mangrove Mountain) picked up the cliché movement and referred to Peter Dutton as 'a man who sees life in black and white and is not warm to those who are not in the 'white camp''. A cliché-driven accusation of racism. Then Geoff Nilon (Mascot) suggested that Dutton was a 'pariah' and declared that Dutton's (alleged) attempt to distance himself from Donald Trump is 'reminiscent of Judas' betrayal of Jesus'. Really. The SMH Letters Editor chose to publish this hyperbolic sludge. On Easter Monday, no less. Letters Editor chose to publish this hyperbolic sludge. On Easter Monday, no less. Then Paul Casey (Callala Bay) attempted to score a point against Peter Dutton by quoting from Don Schlitz's song 'The Gambler'. And then Peter Miniutti (Ashbury) commenced his rant as follows: 'Dutton, the Trump wannabe, would do anything from spraying his face orange to sacrificing a chicken if he thought he would win the election.' What a collection of literary sludge. The intellectual level of this abuse posing as letters is woeful. And the SMH claims to be 'Independent. Always.' DOCUMENTATION DAN ILIC RETURNS FOR ANOTHER CRACK AT THE BEGGING BOWL Avid MWD readers may be aware of Dan Ilic. For those who do not recall, Ilic – who self-identifies as an investigative humourist (yes, really) – has had the typical career of an Australian comedian of leftist bent. That is, bouncing around various TV projects, none of which ever attract much of an audience and many of which are paid for by the taxpayer at either the ABC or SBS. Comrade Ilic also has a long history of crowdfunding campaigns, putting out the begging bowl asking members of the public to fund various Coalition-bashing projects. Dan Ilic's It's Not a Race in no comment mode about Climate 200 finance On Monday 21 April it was reported in The Daily Telegraph that one of Ilic's operations, It's Not a Race, received $588,000 from the Teal political operation Climate 200 in the lead up to the 2022 Federal Election. Both Ilic and Climate 200 declined to comment on whether It's Not a Race had received any additional funding for the current election. Ilic later deleted a number of 2022 posts by It's Not a Race after being asked by The Daily Telegraph why they did not feature authorisations. Your man Dan is apparently quite frustrated by having to follow election laws. The current fundraiser for It's Not a Race features a whiny message about having to disclose the names of large donors and not being able to accept foreign donations 'Because the Australian Government doesn't like criticism'. Given his previous employment by Al Jazeera perhaps Comrade Ilic was hoping for a generous donation from the Qatari royal family? Though since he was fired by Al Jazeera for apparently using company equipment to film an audition for The Daily Show, so maybe not. Not content with the largesse received from the Climate 200 donors including multi-millionaire Simon Holmes à Court, Ilic still crowdfunded for It's Not a Race in 2022 (and is doing so again in 2025). By the way, this was all in addition to the $228,171 he raised for his Jokekeeper campaign in 2021. Oh, and the ongoing crowdfunding for his podcast A Rational Fear . Investigative humourism sure is expensive. So, what do donors receive for all this cash funnelled to Ilic and his mates? Well in the case of It's Not a Race the answer seems to mostly be a bunch of memes and short videos posted to moderately successful social media accounts. This seems like the kind of thing a politically motivated public figure could do free of charge during election campaigns. But perhaps the rate of posting would be lower if Ilic had to seek gainful employment to pay the rent. For those confused by the name ' It's Not a Race ', it is a reference to a comment made by Scott Morrison about Australia's vaccine rollout in 2021. Not bothering to update it to a more current political reference is typical of the lack of effort on display in all of Ilic's output. As covered by MWD at the time, his Jokekeeper campaign was not much better. It started with Ilic paying for anti-Coalition billboards to be displayed in New York and Glasgow in the lead up to the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference. This at least attracted a lot of attention to Dan Ilic, who got on CNN to bizarrely proclaim he had forced Scott Morrison into attending the conference. Which allowed him to raise more money for more billboards for the 2022 election. Alas, despite all the money raised, the output by Jokekeeper for the election was a bit pathetic. Ultimately, it devolved into awkwardly-worded roadside signs referencing faecal – and false – rumours about Scott Morrison and leftist fantasies about future climate prosecutors punishing 'politicans' [sic]. Perhaps if he'd just raised another couple of hundred thousand, Ilic could have paid himself to proofread. Dan Ilic's Self-Proclaimed 'Investigative Humour' in Action in a 2022 Billboard Rant Against the Coalition Enter Julia Zemiro The quality of Ilic's efforts has not improved much in 2025. A recent video posted by It's Not a Race featured another leftist comedian (and ABC and SBS stalwart) Julia Zemiro lecturing viewers on the benefits of 'strategic voting'. Here's how Zemiro explained it: Julia Zemiro: If you don't want this man [Peter Dutton] to become Prime Minister, vote 1 for your local Independent candidate. Here's how it works. In your electorate the Labor and Greens candidates may never get enough votes to win. But you're lucky to have a community-backed Independent running, who can win. All we need to do is add enough of that Labor and Greens vote to the Independent vote. Then the Liberals lose a seat in Parliament that Dutton needs to form government, and that's it. By voting strategically, you too can keep Peter Dutton out of power. This is a very strange message to be sending out to voters. This kind of strategic voting can matter a great deal in countries without preferential voting but, in Australia, who you give your first preference to only matters in certain unusual scenarios where more than two candidates have a chance of winning. Specifically, it could come into play in a seat where the Coalition candidate finished first without attaining an absolute majority. And also, where the Teal independent candidate and Labor candidate were competing to finish second after the exclusion of the minor parties. Then whoever finishes in second would move on to the final allocation of preferences against the Coalition candidate, while the candidate who finishes third would be eliminated. If the Teal candidate would receive a stronger preference flow from Labor than the other way around, whoever finishes second could determine whether or not the Coalition wins the seat. Obviously, this is not the case in the vast majority of seats. For instance, the Zemiro video shows someone marking a '1' next to the Independent in Peter Dutton's seat of Dickson. Although Dickson is a marginal seat, it is not one where more than two of the candidates are likely to receive a significant proportion of the vote, instead being a typical Labor vs Coalition seat. Of the seats contested by a Teal at the last election, only the (since abolished) seat of North Sydney featured a somewhat close contest for second place between Labor and the Teal. And as for the mention of The Greens, there is very unlikely to be any three-way Coalition vs Teal vs Greens seats, so their inclusion in the ad is just bizarre. By far the most likely seats where this sort of strategic voting could make sense are the LNP vs Labor vs Greens seats in Brisbane (where there are not even going to be any Teals on the ballot). Will Comrade Ilic's 'Investigative Humourist' career outlast AI? It's Not a Race's other efforts mostly involve juvenile memes. These seem designed more to amuse the kinds of people who donate money to Dan Ilic than to persuade voters in marginal seats. So, it would seem whoever is footing the bill for the 2025 iteration of It's Not a Race is not getting much bang for their buck. However, this has never stopped Dan Ilic before and – MWD looks forward to covering his 2028 crowdfunding campaigns, assuming the made-up job of investigative humourist hasn't been replaced by AI by then. CORRESPONDENCE This overwhelmingly popular segment of Media Watch Dog usually works like this. Someone or other thinks it would be a you-beaut idea to write to Gerard Henderson AC (Always Courteous) about something or other. And Hendo, being a courteous and well-brought-up kind of guy, replies. Then, hey presto, the correspondence is published in MWD – much to the delight of its avid readers. There are occasions, however, when (the late) Jackie's (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other – who, in turn, believes that a reply is in order. Publication in MWD invariably follows. There are, alas, some occasions where the well brought up Henderson sends a polite missive – but does not receive the courtesy of a reply. Nevertheless, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place. For the record – and in the public interest, of course. All (RELATIVELY) QUIET ON THE JOHN LYONS TRUMP-TRANSLATION FRONT It was not so long ago – 18 March, in fact – that the ABC announced that John Lyons, then its global affairs editor, had been appointed to the position of Editor Americas in Washington DC – in spite of the fact that the taxpayer funded public broadcaster already had three journalists based there. It would seem that Comrade Lyons has replaced Virginia Miller, who returned to Australia from the United States recently. Now here is Ellie's (male) co-owner's essential problem. On 18 March John Lyons told ABC TV Breakfast viewers that 'It's great to be trying to translate the Trump presidency to an Australian audience'. This was open to the interpretation that the ABC trio then in Washington DC could not do this so well as your man Lyons. The appointment of John Lyons to Washington DC implied that he needed to be based there in order to put together his translations of President Trump and his team. But now he is back in Sydney, MWD has had lotsa trouble working out what's going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So, Media Watch Dog hopes for Mr Lyons' quick return – since 'translating' the Trump administration from Sydney is not quite the same as doing so from Washington DC. Or so the taxpayer funded public broadcaster appears to believe. Here is Gerard Henderson's correspondence with ABC Communications. Read on s'il vous plait. Gerard Henderson to ABC Communications – 14 April 2025 at 2.32 pm I am wondering what has happened to John Lyons. As you know he was recently appointed as Americas Editor – or some such title – and said that he would be covering US politics for the next three years. However, he has said little since then. I plan to mention this in my Media Watch Dog on Friday. But I do not want to draw attention to this if John is unwell or if there is another reason for his small contribution in covering the big news from the US in recent times. Your response would be appreciated. Cheers Gerard + + + + ABC Communications to Gerard Henderson – 14 April 2025 at 6 pm Hi Gerard. To the contrary, John Lyons has been an integral part of our coverage with reporting and analysis across the website, TV and radio, including being a key driver of our coverage of the Trump tariffs and their impacts on Australia. This is in addition to carrying out his role leading the Washington bureau. He is currently in Australia for a short period and will resume the role in Washington soon. Cheers. + + + + And later the same day at 7.08 pm, there was this. ABC Communications to Gerard Henderson – 14 April 2025 at 7.08 pm Hi again. Just to give you one example, in case it's useful, John's analysis of the Trump-China tariffs was the second most-read story on the ABC website last week, and ABC NEWS is the most-read Australian news website. + + + + To which the following response was sent on 15 April. Gerard Henderson to ABC Communications – 15 April 2025 at 10.30 am Thanks for your prompt response. I always like to check the facts. The problem I had was that the ABC proclaimed that John Lyons had been appointed the ABC's Americas Editor and he said that he was in Washington DC to 'translate' the Trump administration to Australia. However, in recent weeks I have not seen/heard John on such key ABC news/current affairs programs as News Breakfast , 7.30 , AM , PM , etc. And now I find that, after being introduced from Washington on 18 March as the ABC's lead in Washington, John is 'back in Australia for a brief period and will resume the role in Washington soon'. No wonder I was confused. Cheers Gerard + + + + Meanwhile MWD hopes that Comrade Lyons' return to Washington DC will not be long delayed. After all, MWD needs his 'translations' from the US each and every week. * * * * * Until next time. * * * * *
Telegraph
25-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
A.C. Grayling: The anti-wokeists are guilty of a massive cancelling endeavour
When it comes to 'campaigns of cancellation', there is no better current example than Meghan Markle, says A.C. Grayling. 'The attempt to cancel Meghan Markle was and is huge. I mean, there are so many different media outlets and groups in society that are really dumping on her.' There's something very amusing about her name in his mouth. After all, this is Prof A.C. Grayling, philosopher and bestselling author of Philosophy and Life: Exploring the Great Questions of How to Live. For the past hour, we have been ricocheting from the origins of Christianity and the Roman emperor Theodosius to Holocaust denial. Then, out of nowhere, up pops the royal Kardashian, her name carefully enunciated. 'Now, I'm completely neutral on her score, since I really don't know all the details,' the 75-year-old goes on when I ask what he thinks the reasons behind this cancellation campaign may be. Because as someone who has 'dumped on her' more than once, I'm thinking some of them may be valid. 'It's not impossible to exclude the racial thing,' he says. 'The idea that people don't want a woman of colour in the Royal family, while others didn't like the way she behaved.' Indeed. 'People are very possessive over the Royal family. There's a standard of purity which has to be met, because it preserves the heart of things. Then, if it's penetrated by someone deemed to be a little bit too woke…' He breaks off with a low chuckle, perhaps at how distant all that royal stuff feels from the gorgeous Left Bank apartment in which we are sitting, drinking coffee from tiny colourful cups. This Saint-Germain flat has been the Francophile's home on and off for the past three years. Like the philosopher, who is dressed down today in a hooded top, casual trousers and stripy socks – it's cosy and unpretentious. The sitting room-cum-study is book-lined, sheepskin rugs cover the armchairs, and there's a piano in the corner that he likes to play daily. Ask him whether he's happier here than in London (where he still owns a property in Bloomsbury), and he shrugs: 'Well, this is where I write.' Which might very well answer the question. His desk overlooks one of the city's prettiest squares (featured extensively in Emily in Paris), and aside from the church bells and cooing doves, it's blissfully quiet. 'Listen,' he resumes, 'I don't know what it is about her personally that seems so abrasive and barbative to people. I cited her as an example of a massive cancelling endeavour on the part of the anti-wokeists to make a point.' Which is? 'That if that amount of attention were directed at something truly awful like white supremacists? Then there would at least be a bit of a balance, wouldn't there?' It's a point he expands upon in his forthcoming book, Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars. A timely examination of the incendiary debate around culture, the book takes us on a journey through the history of cancellation, from Ancient Greek 'ostracism' through to witch trials, then to the Second World War. Like all Grayling's works – and he has written over 30 on philosophy, religion and current affairs – this one is thought-provoking and meticulously researched, so that even when you disagree with his stances (he thinks cancellations can often not only be just but necessary), you can't deny that the arguments are firmly backed up. Grayling admits in the book's preface that his sympathies 'both intellectually and emotionally lie in the woke direction'. Working on the basis that woke causes are just and that to be against discrimination is a no-brainer, Discriminations concentrates chiefly on the 'woke wars' themselves, and how alarming the pushback is. 'We see it now in spades,' he says, 'with the Trump administration really just dumping on diversity, equity and inclusion [DEI] thinking.' 'DEI absolutely has to stay,' he insists. 'Even if people find it very tiresome to be told by their organisations that they have to do this thing, if they can recognise that it's important, it's very salutary.' The pushback, he explains, is actually 'proof progress has been made. A really interesting product of the success of 'the woke cause'. Because as layers of discrimination are peeled away, deeper layers [of discrimination] are exposed.' Slavery might be over, he argues in the book, 'but racism in both systemic and subtler forms persists. Overt sexism might have diminished, but structural barriers to equality for women in public and economic life continue.' The Meghan phenomenon – where a person or issue becomes emblematic of everything people loathe about wokeism, thereby incurring a disproportionate amount of vitriol – is one of the most obvious manifestations of that pushback, he says. 'You've got the same extraordinary thing happening with the transgender issue,' he goes on, adding that although there are more 'pressing' issues, such as the climate catastrophe and women still lagging way behind men, a debate about 'between 0.5 to 1 per cent of the world's population' takes up an enormous amount of oxygen. Although Grayling is quite right about us sometimes focusing on the wrong things, I would argue that seemingly trivial things can also, on occasion, be emblematic of much larger cultural shifts. That the gender-neutral loo debate, for example, is about deeply concerning issues – not least, female safety. Given the word 'woman' has become unacceptable in some quarters, doesn't it make sense that 'people who menstruate' feel they are in danger of being eradicated? 'When you are trying to discredit a person or cause,' says Grayling, 'you first ridicule what people say – so 'women with penises' and so on.' In his mind, the trans community has been chosen as a target simply 'because it's so easy to attack'. How so? 'Because they are so vulnerable, and if you want to discredit all the woke causes, you pick the most vulnerable and use it [to that aim]. You generalise by saying that it's woke to be pro-transgender and that woke in general is bad.' However small the global statistics seem, he goes on, 'there are, by the way, 48,000 of them in the United Kingdom, which is quite a significant number. A very small number of those will be pretendians who just want to get into women's changing rooms.' He will agree that often 'it's the people in the stands, like at a football match', who are stoking divisions and that social media plays a huge responsibility. As a father of four – with two children, Joylon, 48, and Georgina, 52, from his first marriage to Gabrielle Smyth and a daughter, Madeleine, 25, and stepson, Luke, 29, from his 18-year second marriage to bestselling novelist Katie Hickman – 'I have seen the difference in children who grew up in the age of the screen,' he says. 'Social media in particular has proved to be a toxin.' Largely because 'since all communication has to be short, it's like a referendum question every time, with everything oversimplified, and people disappearing down these social media silos that only reinforce division.' When I later ask his views on JK Rowling, Grayling says: 'That is what happens when these people who began really moderately, like her, by saying: 'Look, I'm very sympathetic to pushback becomes so unpleasant: you do become more entrenched and extreme. We see people who don't feel comfortable with the gender they were assigned, but I'm worried about the place of women in all this', but then people really have a go at them. They cancel them and stop buying their books.' Grayling fully accepts that this form of cancellation is wrong. 'Because there was a phase where Rowling repeatedly attempted to explain exactly what she meant, but people just kept on saying she was horrible.' He also agrees that in our arguments on this issue, we need to differentiate between trans adults and the pushing of trans ideologies on kids. On the day we meet, it has been reported that Health Secretary Wes Streeting is refusing to intervene over NHS plans to test puberty blockers on children, and when I point out that there isn't a sane person in the world who would agree with the stand-alone idea of medical experimentation on children, Grayling nods vigorously. 'You're quite right. These issues need to be separated. There's a parallel between being sympathetic and having an open mind. You want an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. You can be very sympathetic to a cause but still see that you need to think very clearly about all the implications.' The 'peace' he offers up so tantalisingly in the title of his book – how can it be achieved? 'If you could say 'let's just respect people's individual human rights', all discrimination would simply cease,' he maintains. 'The 'woke wars' are a conflict between the rights of those whose rights are not being fully respected (and hence suffer the consequences of this) and those whose interests are, or are perceived to be threatened [by according respect to those rights].' The writer's sympathies make a lot of sense when you consider his background. Born in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), Grayling spent the entirety of his childhood in Africa, where his father worked as a banker. 'My own mother was an emphatic racist,' he writes in Discriminations, but 'because I was brought up by Africans, most dear to me among them 'Johnny' Penza and his first wife Besta, who cared for me when I was little and with whom I spent much of my time, the adverse treatment they experienced troubled me profoundly, and the sentiments thus engendered have not changed.' It would take four days by train for him and his older brother, John – now 80 and a retired brewer – to get back home from their Cape Town boarding school, 'which meant that we didn't see our parents very often.' When he was home, Grayling tells me that he was 'conscious of the fact that the people in the nice part of the house, where there was food and warmth and laughter, all had black skin. And the people in the cold, silent part of the house where they kept shushing us all had white skin.' Understandably, this 'reinforced my whole attitude to life and discrimination', he says. At 19, not long after Grayling came to live in the UK, attending Sussex University, he suffered a dual tragedy that also had a huge impact on his life and beliefs. His 27-year-old sister, Jennifer, was found murdered in Johannesburg, and his mother then had a fatal heart attack after identifying her daughter's body. 'For a long time, I never used to talk about it,' he told The Telegraph in 2016, 'because I felt faintly embarrassed about having such an awful tragedy happen in my family. When I did open up, I found to my surprise how easily upset I am about it even after many, many years.' Although he had been attracted to Humanism from the age of 14, these tragedies 'confirmed' the philosophy for him, he tells me. Most appealing, he says, 'was this idea that you approach human beings, no matter what they are or where they come from with sympathy – unless or until they behave badly. As Emerson said: 'We should give people the same advantage that we give a painting, the advantage of a good light.' Having lectured in philosophy at Bedford College-London (now Royal Holloway), St. Anne's College-Oxford and Birkbeck College-University of London, he then founded the Northeastern University London (formerly New College of the Humanities) in 2012. The idea of a for-profit private university (then charging £18,000 a year) proved controversial, with academics branding the idea 'odious' and students shouting down the author at public events. One room, in a central London bookshop even needed to be evacuated after a smoke bomb was lit. 'I was more hurt than surprised,' says Grayling, 'because I thought my bona fides (among those academic colleagues who took exception) were enough for it to be regarded as a sincere effort - as it quickly proved itself to be by its success.' It would be hard to argue with that. 'Whereas there were 50 students when we first opened the doors, there are now 3000, and we have vastly expanded our range.' Many of his books have also been polemical, not least his Good Book (2011), a kind of re-written, secular Bible. Some have even been banned in places like the UAE. But today, he is serene, even a little proud of his latest censorship. 'I've actually been kicked off X,' he tells me. 'Yes, I reposted a tweet about Musk and corruption at the end of January, and then when I couldn't get into my account and contacted them, they told me I'd been banned.' Quite a badge of honour, I would think. 'I suppose it really is,' he agrees. Ask him what his predictions are, given the new world order, and he gives a weary sigh. 'Who was it who said that prophecy is always a risky business, especially if it's about the future? Things are so disrupted now. Here we are in March, and already the world order has been turned on its head. Now, look what's happened because of Trump and Putin. We're having to increase defence spending from 1.5% to maybe 3 or even 4%. That's a vast sum of money, which could be used for health and education and foreign aid – and it's forcing us to go back to bad old ways. This is what bad people do to the world.' As a remain campaigner he does think 'the Ukraine emergency has brought the UK back to being much closer to the EU and puts a bit of a wind behind us rejoining.' Because of his campaigning, he knows a number of people on the European side, 'and I know that Europe is mad keen to have us back.' I should let Grayling get back to his writing – he has another book, on the rise of authoritarianism and the dangers of democracy coming out at the end of the year – but before I do, I have to ask about a throwaway comment he made in the Guardian, last year, when asked who he might most like to punch. 'Oh, I would still punch Boris,' he assures me, with a laugh. 'And it's not totally unimaginable that he might be able to worm his way back,' he groans. 'I mean, imagine if he were captured by Reform, and Farage could bear to share the limelight with anybody else. You could see that kind of scenario happening.' Why does he object to him so strongly, out of interest? 'He's a liar and a self-interested, bloviating narcissist who paid no attention to matters of policy. I think he's a very bad person. Completely amoral. Amoral people say that they will do things and don't. He's a petty individual, as well, and he knows that he's in danger of being found out all the time. He has, in fact, been found out.' By this point, we're both laughing. Why not tell me how he really feels? And the main points of difference between Johnson and Trump, I push? After all, they are often compared to one another in character. 'The key difference is that Boris has charm – quite a lot of charm, unfortunately. Whereas Trump has no charm at all.' I'm still chuckling when I make my way down the narrow stairs onto the streets of Paris. One of the key tenets of Grayling's writings has always been 'how to live a good life.' It seems that he, at least, has succeeded. A C Grayling talks to Stephen Law, 'Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars' at Oxford Literary Festival, in partnership with The Telegraph, on Wednesday 2 April. Tickets: Telegraph readers can save 20 per cent with the code 25TEL20. Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars by A C Grayling is published by on 3 April (Oneworld, £12.99)
