FOR the last couple of years, I have sat back and watched a pandemic, more voracious and psychologically insidious than the Covid-19 variant, ripple out across the globe.
Its wide reaching implications are multi-faceted - it takes careers, it takes relationships, it takes esteem, and leaves very few survivors in its wake. It's public condemnation - an after-effect of political incorrectness, of social faux pas, that seems to me to be a more ravenous punishment, disproportionate to the alleged 'crime' itself.
We are no longer permitted to be flawed beings, capable of growth. Nay, we are held to a higher - and some might say impossible - standard, where any misdeed or mistake is long held overhead as a perpetual swinging dagger.
You must repent. That is the sentiment of this social outrage movement, where it is now a trend to lambaste others for mistakes, to not allow them to grow or learn but instead to cut them off at the knees and relish in their 'cancellation'.
Just as crowds would flock to the gallows to watch criminals hang, there is a perverted mob mentality amongst those who follow the PC wave.
We are not without sin, but as the world becomes more about virtual signalling and enforcing mirrored ideologies, we are seeing a new generation of unabashed intolerance and mass censorship. The minority groups have quickly become the authoritarians - you must comply, you must think the same and you must not falter, lest you be classed as one of the 'undesirables'.
While good intentions are at the root of this cancel culture movement, there are many who argue that the long-term condemnation does not fit the crime. After all, who has not made mistakes? Does that make you a bad person? Rarely.
We've just recently seen Barnaby Joyce ridiculed for his sidewalk siesta - with the MP marched on camera to explain himself to the masses. Do we see him as relatable or do we condemn him? Is he not fit to sit in Parliament or is he just another Aussie bloke who had a big night?
The most recent mass condemnation has spawned from the NRL world - with Roosters forward Spencer Leniu copping an eight-week ban for calling Broncos half Ezra Mam a "monkey" at the league's season opening venture in Las Vegas.
While Leniu has no doubt learnt his lesson, clear through his public apology - the public march to the gallows continues.
One of my personal NRL favourites, Johnathan Thurston, expressed his disappointment with Leniu's sentence, and said he felt let down by the NRL for not taking a stronger stance on the slur.
A quick glance at Leniu's social media accounts - which show that comments have now been limited - shows a scourge of outrage from the public - with users labelling him a "racist gronk", with one person even directing racist slurs towards Leniu himself.
My question is it ethical to bully someone who has done wrong? At what point do we stop punishing those who transgress and allow them room to grow and learn?
I am a strong proponent of doing to others as you would like done to you - kindness, compassion and empathy always. But for those who genuinely wish to grow, who own up to their wrongdoings, is it not in the best interest of society as a whole to allow them to integrate back into the fold and become a better person?
Surely we cannot expect people to be cast out into the cold with no hope of return? Let's give each other a chance to be better, and kick cancel culture to the curb.
