Rowan Atkinson, the British comedian, actor and writer known for sitcoms, including Mr. Bean and Black Adder, apparently not a fan of “cancel culture”.
Speaking to the UK outlet Radio Times, as reported by Deadline, Atkinson condemned the creation of online polarization algorithms. “The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic and binary view of society,” he said. “It becomes a case of whether you are with us or against us. And if you are against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled’ ”.
“It is important that we are exposed to a wide range of opinions, but what we have now is the digital equivalent of the medieval crowd roaming the streets in search of someone to burn,” added Atkinson. “So it is scary for anyone who is a victim of this mob and it fears me about the future.”
By Australian newspaper The Australian, Atkinson added that he does not believe in having a social media presence, calling it “a side show in my world”.
For years, several celebrities and public figures protested against “canceling culture”, a hazy term that often comes down to “being criticized for expressing unpopular and often offensive or abusive opinions”. Despite the screams of people like JK Rowling and Bari Weiss, “canceling culture” is not comparable to, say, government censorship; it is, more than anything, a bogeyman – one that allows powerful people to avoid having to question their own positions, while blaming other people for any professional repercussions for their words and actions.
But these statements are not out of the ordinary for Atkinson, who has historically campaigned against hate speech laws on the grounds that they would stifle free speech – a familiar line that many comedians have used to support their complaints against the call “cancellation culture.”
In 2005, Atkinson joined National Theater director Nicholas Hytner and author Ian McEwan to fight a measure aimed at expanding anti-racial hatred laws to also cover religious hatred. (The legislation eventually evolved into the Racial and Religious Hate Act.) The law was intended to curb Islamophobia that grew rampant after the September 11 terrorist attacks – but Atkinson believed its implications were broader.
“The excuse for this legislation is that certain religious communities have been harassed and a law is needed to resolve this,” said Atkinson The Guardian at the time. “That in itself is a perfectly good reason, and that is what this amendment that we are launching today addresses. But it is not the real reason behind it [the home secretary’s bill]. “
“The real reason, it seems to me, is that since the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic verses, a hard core of religious thought in this country has sought a law that grants religious beliefs and practices immunity from criticism, unfavorable analysis or ridicule, ”continued Atkinson, adding:“ The government has prepared a weapon of disproportionate power that can be used on your behalf at any time. “
In 2009, Atkinson urged the House of Lords to vote against removing the freedom of expression clause from the Coroners and Justice bill, a measure designed to remove protections for homophobic speech.
Atkinson freely admitted that he did not believe that the move would lead to his own lawsuit, he said he was concerned about the broad “culture of censorship” that such a move would create. He added that religious groups are “particularly concerned” about the measure. (Guess why.)
And more recently, the comedian was criticized last year for a letter opposing the Scottish government’s hate crime bill. This legislation, like the religious measure, aimed to expand extended protections based on race to cover a wider range of characteristics.
“The failure of the bill to require that intent be proven in court in some crimes can have a significant inhibiting effect on freedom of expression,” the letter said. “That is why the UN Rabat Plan has six tests to control hate speech, including that all laws must ensure that the intention is proven. This strikes a sensible balance between protecting individuals from hate crimes and protecting freedom of expression, and the bill needs to be changed to achieve this properly.