Michael Kelly: Tackling the right to express what we believe

I AM going to have to pick my way carefully through this one. In these politically correct, hostile days, people of my generation can unwittingly give offence to the younger set by innocently using words or concepts that society arbitrarily has ruthlessly outlawed.

My norm for judging freedom in our democracy has been the familiar aphorism of Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That standard has been torn down over recent years. Across wide areas, particularly those of equality and discrimination, we may still have the right to say what we think but it now comes with heavy sanctions.

I have to start with the obligatory condemnation of the laughably inaccurate remarks made by Andy Gray and Richard Keys of Sky about women football officials because in today's unsophisticated society few are able, or willing, to distinguish between defence of a principle and agreement with objectionable views.

My astonishment was that such a trivial incident would make major headlines. It is easy to see where that prejudice arose. In the olden days, women did not play football, nor were most interested in it. Why then would they bother to try and understand the offside law? Now with many more women playing and watching, of course, they know what is going on. And Sian Massey's brilliant interpretation of the law which made the commentators look even more foolish should surely, in a less hysterical age, have been the end of the matter. (Can I get away with "hysterical" in this context, given its origins? I'll have to wait for the letters to find out…)

And was that the worst thing you could say about an assistant referee - that she is a woman? In Scotland we can get away with much stronger stuff. We can call them incompetent, biased, cheats. We can suspect them on the basis of their religion, their Irish sounding names, the secret societies to which they might or might not belong, the teams they supported as boys - and get away with it.

Just like Basil Fawlty thought he'd got away with mentioning the war. Because political correctness is inconsistent and biased against conservative views. Basil's anti-German episode was clearly racist, yet it is repeated on national television without a voice of dissent. And the English are forever expressing, without inhibition or condemnation, their dislike of all things French. "Fascist" seems to be quite acceptable as a comment. It was made to me on Facebook after I praised Tony Blair's latest public performance. But be careful how closely you link suicide bombers with Islam.The importation of political correctness from America was useful in making us aware of vocabulary that we accepted as innocuous which was, in fact, deeply offensive. But like many things American (if that's not racist) - like McDonald's and "wars on terror" - it's been taken too far.

It is now beginning to interfere with cultural heritages. The fact that the new edition of Mark Twain's classic Huckleberry Finn replaces "nigger" with "slave" and "Injun" with "Indian" shows the pedantic lengths to which it is being taken. The fact that the word for a black slave is now printed with stars to replace some of the letters in even the most serious discussions shows an over-sensitivity that should be resisted. Printing it in full in the appropriate context would emphasise the difference between its legitimate use and an insult.

The seizing on words used and opinions expressed in private to condemn people is even more dangerous in an environment where electronic spying is simple and widespread. Given the ready availability of recording devices one can never be certain when an enemy, a rival, a colleague or even a friend is setting one up. The current argument over tabloid phone-hacking is just the most recent example. To be allowed to broadcast or to use similarly subversively gathered material is anti-democratic and should be outlawed.

We are in danger of handing enormous power to already dominant groups at the expense of the individual. Where, for example, does the ability of employers to dismiss employees for deviant views currently end? Gray and Keys were disciplined for saying things they thought were in private. But they did say them on their employers' premises and in the employers' time. What if the same views had been expressed and recorded at home? In the court of public opinion should people be penalised for their private views? Soviet Russia encouraged children to denounce their parents. That's where we are heading.

People will always have views that, for one reason or another, they do not wish to express in public. It would be a dysfunctional society otherwise. What could be more disruptive for social intercourse, business or politics if people went around telling the unvarnished truth all the time? They make comedies about that.

We should be slow to condemn the contradiction of public and private views. To do otherwise is to turn the public into an Orwellian thought police. Evoking sanctions against people with views contrary to the conventional wisdom is not only anti-democratic it stifles the language of debate. It must be resisted.

Thus I thought it courageous of Joan McAlpine on these pages yesterday to say of Nicola Sturgeon's running of the NHS that "it helps that a female is heading this department". I agree with her fundamental premise that Sturgeon has been the success of this sad government.But would Andy Gray get away with saying of an English Cup Final "It helps that all the officials are male?"

It may have been foolish to debate such a risky topic on these pages. I hope I have steered my way through this without causing offence. If I have hurt anyone I must do that other political correct thing which, sorry or not, is profoundly to apologise - thus complying with another Voltaire bon mot driving our public figures, "to succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered".