Thoughtcrime
I disapprove of this modern trend for sacking people for personal remarks made outside the course of their normal occupation. I am referring, of course, to the sacking of John Galliano by his employer Dior.
I appreciate Dior’s desire to distance themselves from someone seen to represent them, but the fact remains that Galliano was being a racist prat on his own time and technically that’s not really any of their business. If he’d minced onto the catwalk covered in shiny pink swastikas, then fair enough, but he didn’t.
I don’t condone Galliano’s views or actions but I will defend his right to say what he thinks, however unpalatable, odious or politically incorrect, on his own time. Very few of us can honestly say that we are absolutely pure of mind. Have you truly never had a slanderous, politically incorrect or downright wicked thought? Or is the crime to express them? We have all said stupid, regrettable things, usually on the spur of the moment or in an outburst of emotion, or as in Galliano’s case, when drunk! Is that now a crime?
There is also a double standard at work here. Politicians, who represent the wider populace, really have a responsibility to live up to the upstanding public persona they created in order to win our votes. Thus, it is fitting that they lose their jobs when they express views or act in a way that is at odds with what we have been led to believe about them. If I’d known he was a racist/dishonest/etc…I’d never have voted for him. On the other hand, if they are representing a racist, bigoted minority, then that is fine. I can’t see Nick Griffin getting the sack for the same kind of remarks because we’d expect that kind of thing from him. I voted for him because he represents my bigotry. (No, not me ! I didn’t vote for him!) Jeremy Clarkson does rather well out of publicly horrifying the sensibilities of the politically correct, yet dubious off camera remarks made by other presenters are a sackable offence.
Similarly, footballers, who are supposedly sporting heroes and should be good role models, rarely face any castigation from their employers when caught, as they so frequently are, behaving badly. At worst, they are just given the opportunity to move on and make even more money elsewhere. The reason being, that it matters to their employers more that they are good at their job, than that they are good people.
Football clubs won’t lose supporters over their players being bad boys, but Dior are getting their knickers in a twist because they could lose money. Also because their even bigger star, Natalie Portman has refused to work with Galliano. It certainly has nothing to do with his ability to design a nice frock. It also begs the question why, if Galliano really is such an awful anti-semite, have they done nothing about it before. I’m pretty sure Dior would have been aware of it by now, given that he’s been there since 1996. So much for the honesty of their moral outrage or indeed their lack of loyalty to someone who has made them good money for 15 years.
The conclusion we can drawn from this is that if you want to be free to express your views or misbehave on your own time, choose your employer carefully. Personally, I am truly alarmed by the tendency towards a Big Brother view of thoughtcrime and I think that freedom of speech should be just that. These things have a way of finding their own level.
2 March 2011
The House of Dior has not been without involvement in this sort of thing before. They were happy to dress the wives of prominent Nazis and French collaborators back in the day.
He was clearly plastered, but he was also calmly expressing his opinion that the woman at the next table and her mother and grandparents should have been gassed. He also admitted to idolising Hitler – and not for the trains running on time, I suspect 😉
I do not know what Dior’s clientele list is, but if you are Jewish, you’ll not be wanting to give John Galliano’s pockets a quick stuffing. Dior would suffer. But Dior will suffer without him because he is a glorious designer with a massive talent but I’m sure he’ll not disappear into obscurity 🙂
Perhaps if the mobile phone footage wasn’t doing the rounds, clearly showing that he was subsequently lying about what the conversation was, things might have panned out differently for him?
When you are synonymous with Dior, as he is, I wonder whether he was fired REALLY because he lied to his employers?…..
AX
Most probably, but I think he would have been fired because Dior’s only loyalty is to its pockets and clearly ever ’twas thus. To some extent, this is fair enough. They’re a business not a political party, the politics of its clients should be none of their concern but then if they take that stand, neither should the politics of their designers.
My point, I suppose, was the rank hypocrisy and double standards of such things. I probably would have had more respect for them if they’d said they don’t concern themselves with politics only with fashion and when you buy their frocks it is for the design and not the political ideology of one of their designers. Walt Disney reputedly had some fairly dubious political views but you don’t boycott Disney films for that reason (unless you’re a conspiracy theorist)
I have occasionally (while entirely sober) expressed the view that someone who annoyed me should have been drowned at birth. This does not make me a supporter of Nazi eugenics, just a rather irritable individual with a propensity to sounding off.
I think that if you are in the public eye, you can be taken to be representing your company at all times: therefore, you do have to watch what you say, as it reflects back on your employer. Like Alison, I doubt Dior’s decision was morally-based, but rather, financially and publicity-based. But the irony isn’t lost on us the viewers – Hitler would have gassed those like Galliano also
You are quite right, but there is still a strong whiff of hypocrisy around this story.
Ania –
Yes, this is hypocrisy. Having said that, the gentleman should have expected to be fired. Fair or not, we all do understand that whoever our employer is, they do have expectations that their employees (or those contracted to work for them), will speak and act in a certain manner.
In this case, Iam sure that the gentleman will come out on top,with an even better position that the House of Dior. 😉
Blessings,
Bonnie
I suspect not, Bonnie. It seems that being a drunken twat in possession of vile opinions is enough to get you prosectuted in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12626610
It’s a pity that the “offended” parties didn’t punch him rather than just giggling and continuing to ask him questions. It would have been interesting to see whether the moral outrage would have been about the assault or the opinion.