The Sickening Hypocrisy Over Laurence Fox

Let me confess at the outset to having a dog in this fight. No, it’s not Laurence Fox. It’s not even the journalist and publicly-proclaimed victim in this latest gender debacle, Ava Evans; it’s simply free speech. Perhaps unfashionably, I’m not remotely interested in silencing anyone, least of all my enemies. Naturally, this has nothing to do with me being a good guy or in any way virtuous, but merely stems from a practical desire for self-preservation. To my mind, any genuinely dangerous views must be aired, lest they turn into dangerous actions. Give me Anjem Choudary and his unabashed desire to see the flag of ISIS fly over number 10 Downing Street any day of the week, over the taqiya espoused by a proportion of his co-religionists. It’s good to know where people stand, particularly those one disagrees with. 

Since we’re on the record, I am certainly no fan of bullies either. Genuine injustice, which ought to be opposed with every fibre of one’s being, is a cause worth fighting. Alas, there is a trend these days for a particular kind of bully – one who hides behind the victimhood afforded by identity, and then proceeds to cudgel others into submission. That’s what the latest GB News kerfuffle appears to distill to, with the only victim Fox himself. 

For anyone late to the party, let me give a quick recap of the furore. In response to the apparent dismissal of male suicide rates as the fact that ‘women are unsuccessful’ in their own attempts, Fox was clearly aggrieved by the journalist Ava Evans. In a segment on Dan Wooten’s show for GB News earlier this week, this is what Fox said:

‘We’re past the watershed so I can say this: Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman, ever, ever, who wasn’t an Incel? That little woman has been fed, spoon-fed oppression day after day after day… starting with the lie of the gender wage gap, and she’s sat there and I’m going, “if I met you in a bar and that was like sentence three, chances of me just walking away are just huge”. We need powerful, strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves, we don’t need these sort of feminist 4.0… they’re pathetic and embarrassing. Who would want to shag that?’

Perhaps we can all agree that Fox’s choice of words was not ideal. His use of the phrase “that little woman”, and the reference to sex are of course ungentlemanly. More importantly I believe, in failing to provide a more nuanced argument Fox handed his enemies the perfect opportunity to ignore his message in favour of claiming offence. The point he’s making here (and for my money a valid one), is that for an obviously attractive woman, Evans’ worldview is enough to render her entirely unattractive. In other words, through their ill-concealed misandry, feminists are literally turning men off – a considerable achievement, albeit one which may not disconcert them. 

If you dislike what Fox said, and / or think GB News was wrong to air it – fine; one can always switch off, and naturally I take no issue with that. If you wish to claim you don’t think and talk discourteously on occasion, then I believe you’re already on a sticky wicket. And if you desire to take the matter further, as a great many do, calling for heads to roll – then I respectfully suggest you might need to examine your rationale.

Take Evans herself, who has predictably claimed to be “shocked” and “really hurt” by Laurence Fox’s comments. Really?! Why was she shocked that her own favourite tactics were used against her?

Evans may claim to be a feminist, but surely that implies one believes in equality and equal treatment? Is there an obvious difference between questioning one’s ‘shaggability’ repeatedly on Twitter, and doing so live on television? Perhaps there is, but it’s not obvious to me. Furthermore, in the light of Evans’ comments that men are “the most powerful virus of all”, and her well-documented opinions that men “should be frightened” lest sexual encounters turn into rape accusations, it’s hard to see her as anything other than a misandrist. Again, misandry is a perfectly reasonable point of view – but should it be smuggled in beneath the cloak of feminism? 

We really shouldn’t need to go over this, but to save time for the cheap seats let us acknowledge that the crime of causing ‘offence’ is a one-way street. No feminist is going to complain about Dame Joan Bakewell calling Laurence Fox a ‘dick’ over this. No one batted an eyelid when Ofcom bleater, Marina Purkiss similarly questioned Fox’s personal sexual allure. There were no consequences when Jo Brand joked about throwing acid over Nigel Farage, when Miriam Margoyles admitted she wanted Boris Johnson to die, or when Sophie Dukes joked about ‘killing whitey’ – and we all know why.

Every one of those individuals can hide behind the protection afforded by being either female, left-wing, or non-white. Unfortunately for Fox, like most straight, white men he has no such victim status to shield him. In other words, Fox’s crime has little to do with what he actually said, and everything to do with that it was he who actually said it – that is pretty far from equality.

Everything about this storm in a teacup is fake, and it’s enough to turn the stomach. Evans’ faux victimhood will cement her career, and cost Fox his. Ofcom meanwhile, are visibly salivating at the opportunity to undertake another non-investigation into GB News. Rival media organisations, embittered at the success of GB News, are claiming faux outrage in an attempt to get the channel shut down once and for all. And as for the hordes of beta males leaping valiantly to the defence of this undistressed damsel, not only are they chronically unlikely to get their legs over, they fail to realise they have just made it even harder for themselves. 

Contrition in these matters serves no purpose. Dan Woott0n, who wimped out at the earliest opportunity, has nonetheless seen himself sacked from Mail Online. Fox initially refused to back down, but has since made what I believe to be a genuine apology; albeit one he knows full well will not save his neck. 

In an ideal world, might we not hope our men live up to the expectation of unfaltering chivalry? Absolutely. But with misandrist feminists the norm, why on earth should they? What’s the point, when all you get is spit in the face? Feminism was undoubtedly once a noble cause, but its modern incarnation certainly isn’t. Dismissing male suicide, weaponising rape accusations, and using your sexuality as a battering ram ought to forfeit any woman her right to complain of unchivalrous treatment. In my view, not only does Evans deserve no apology whatsoever, she might even consider making one herself. As for feminists generally, they’re going to have to make up their mind whether they desire equality or special treatment; either’s fine, but you need to pick one. 

Worst of all in this sorry affair, is the conduct of GB News itself. Despite parading itself as the home of free speech, the channel has proved in the past that it is anything but. The station has further impugned its honour by suspending the popular presenter Calvin Robinson, after he opined that his bosses were “scared” of Ofcom, the “woke mob” and “careerist vultures” within GB News. With GB News previously content to throw Mark Steyn under the bus for his brave stance against lockdowns and the dangers of the Covid vaccines, I see little opportunity for Fox – who admits his days may be numbered. He can probably take care of himself, which is just as well, but who is going to fight the next battle for free speech? Should it only be multi-millionaires comfortable in expressing uncomfortable opinions?

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!