Watch out for the thought police

Although it is fashionable these days to claims Socrates as homosexual, the jury is still out as his pupil Plato did not record any romantic affiliation of his mentor (beyond the latter's self-deprecating comment on his ugliness). I'm sure Socrates would have welcomed women to his classes had they not been barred from Greek intellectual life, except in the fields of poetry and the priesthood. Further, homosexual studies are dead against applying the mores of the last 50 years to any period before that.

Yet even if Socrates were inclined that way, I have a feeling he would be defending Tyson Fury from the calumnies being poured over his head by the liberal establishment, whilst censuring him for his threats to journalists. I am, of course, referring to the controversy of the boxing heavyweight champion of the world (and effectively undisputed given that one of the belts he won from Vladimir Klitscho was removed in the days after due to the boxing politics that have debilitated the sport) being on the BBC Sports Personality of the Year shortlist.
The BBC, quite commendably, have said this is not an endorsement of his view that the legalisation of gay marriage is a beginning of the End of Days or his condescending remarks about women that wouldn't be out of place from the 1970s. He is there simply for his sporting achievement, not for his personality (making a bit of a mockery of the title).
But 'progressive' lobby groups, led by LGBT activists have set up a petition to have him banned and one LGBT campaigner even reported him to police for his comments about gay marriage, under the 2007 Equality Act (or more accurately the Hemlock Administering Act).  Socrates would have been shocked at the actions of these thought police.  The ancient philosopher famously claimed to know nothing - the perfect way to debunk the arguments of those who challenged him.  He would not need to attack the self-evident crassness of Fury but the righteous intolerance of those who wanted him silenced and marginalised.

It is interesting that the Equality Act was piloted by Harriet Harman - her ultra-liberal credentials not at issue, given her interactions with PIE in the 1970s - but it is a highly divisive piece of legislation.  It is in direct counterpoint to the US Constitution's First Amendment - the right to free speech.  And it makes redundant the phrase attributed to Voltaire - "I disagree with you but I will defend to the end your right to say it." - as the police would have become involved long before that point had been reached.  It is fundamentally a bad law, indicative of the way Labour lost it's way in its third term.

Fury is a fool and may have mental health issues (one too many punches to the head, perhaps), a point lost on the 'progressives' in their fury.  His statements are gauche, but the homophobia and misogyny are comparatively light.  I don't think Jessica Ennis-Hill (also on the shortlist) would have lost any sleep over that 'she slaps up well'.  That a women's place 'is in the kitchen or on her back' is the kind of thing said ironically by university students everywhere and Fury's manager did say his client likes to wind up people.  And if his religious views are found offensive by some, well then they are protected under the provisions of the Equality Act too (though a provision of a right to free speech would be a firmer guarantee).   He may not like gay marriage (which, as genuine liberals admonished Nick Clegg, does not make you a bigot) but in his interviews he has not veered into overt homophobia of the general kind or launched personal attacks.  Shane MacGowan of The Pogues used far harsher language to describe The Pet Shop Boys after they beat his Fairytale of New York to Christmas No. 1. What is terrifying is that people are expected to be conditioned in to what they like and don't like according to the prevailing morals of the day.  We are still as much in a 1984 society as in George Orwell's day.
Yet there are plenty of people who don't see a contradiction in the term 'liberal intolerance'.  "I am intolerant of intolerance," is still something that can lead you to commit acts that far exceed the 'crimes' of those who you despise.  Socrates would never have agreed with it.

The best way to undermine Tyson Fury is to vote for one of the other candidates - by all rights, enough people would be repulsed not only by Fury but pugilism in general.  Trust in the instincts of the British people to not vote for him in sufficient numbers. Trying to sweep him under the carpet and forget him, will annoy far more people through such intolerance than his comments have done.