From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way

1.

Amber Rudd Incident (2020):
Context: Amber Rudd, former Home Secretary, was invited to speak at an Oxford University event. However, just before she was set to speak, the invitation was rescinded due to her role in the Windrush scandal.
Accusation: Rudd’s involvement in policies seen as hostile to immigrants led to her being labeled as complicit in racism. Critics argued that allowing her to speak would platform racist policies, despite the fact that the event was meant to discuss these very issues.
Outcome: The decision to cancel Rudd’s talk was widely criticized as an example of “cancel culture” and shutting down debate rather than engaging with opposing views.

2.

Trevor Phillips Suspension from Labour (2020):
Context: Trevor Phillips, former head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, was suspended from the Labour Party over accusations of Islamophobia.
Accusation: Phillips, a long-time critic of multiculturalism, was accused of racism for comments he made regarding the integration of Muslim communities in the UK. His comments, which questioned the compatibility of certain Islamic practices with British values, were deemed Islamophobic.
Outcome: The suspension was highly controversial, with many arguing that it exemplified how legitimate concerns about integration and multiculturalism are dismissed as bigotry within left-leaning circles.

3.

David Starkey Controversy (2020):
Context: Historian David Starkey made comments in an interview where he said, "Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?”
Accusation: Starkey was widely condemned as racist for these remarks, which led to him losing multiple academic and publishing roles. However, critics also pointed out that Starkey’s entire body of work and other views, which include criticisms of immigration and multiculturalism, were suddenly dismissed as racist without engaging with the content of his arguments.
Outcome: Starkey's example is often cited as a case where the response to his controversial remarks extended to branding all his views as racist, without debate or discussion of his broader positions.

4.

Priti Patel’s Accusations of Racism (2021):
Context: As Home Secretary, Priti Patel has been heavily criticized for her stance on immigration, particularly her support for tough immigration policies, including the controversial Rwanda asylum plan.
Accusation: Patel, despite being of Indian descent, has been labeled by some as a “sell-out” to her race, or accused of perpetuating racist policies. The backlash against her policies often includes accusations that any support for her views is inherently racist or xenophobic.
Outcome: The criticism of Patel frequently avoids substantive debate on the policies themselves, focusing instead on labeling the policies and those who support them as racist.

5.

Keir Starmer and Labour Anti-Semitism Scandal (2020):
Context: The Labour Party, under Jeremy Corbyn, was embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal, which many argued was mishandled by the leadership.
Accusation: When Keir Starmer became Labour leader, he attempted to address the issue, but the debate often devolved into accusations of racism against those who either defended Corbyn or who were seen as not doing enough to combat anti-Semitism within the party.
Outcome: This incident showcases how discussions around racism and bigotry can often overshadow substantive debate, with accusations taking precedence over a reasoned discussion of the issues at hand.

6.

Nigel Farage’s Departure from LBC (2020):
Context: Nigel Farage, former leader of UKIP and the Brexit Party, was dropped from his show on LBC radio after comments he made comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Taliban.
Accusation: Farage was labeled a racist for his comments, and there were widespread calls for him to be deplatformed.
Outcome: Farage’s dismissal from LBC was seen by some as an example of how voices that challenge certain narratives, especially on topics like immigration and national identity, are swiftly silenced with accusations of racism, rather than being debated or discussed.

1.

Amber Rudd Incident (2020): You dismissed this as irrelevant by suggesting the criticism of Rudd was justified due to her association with the Windrush scandal. However, my point was about the broader pattern of shutting down debate by disinviting speakers, rather than addressing the issues they were meant to discuss. This example illustrates how "cancel culture" can stifle discussion, even when controversial figures are involved.

2.

Trevor Phillips Suspension from Labour (2020): This example directly supports my claim that the left can label people as racists or bigots for raising concerns about immigration or cultural integration. Phillips was suspended over comments that questioned aspects of multiculturalism and the integration of Muslim communities, which were deemed Islamophobic. This is precisely the kind of overreach that I was highlighting.

3.

David Starkey Controversy (2020): You argue that Starkey's comments were clearly racist and therefore justified his being labeled as such. While Starkey’s comments were indeed controversial and offensive, my point was that the response often extends beyond condemning specific remarks to dismissing the entirety of someone’s work or contributions. This broad-brush approach prevents any nuanced discussion of the underlying issues.

4.

Priti Patel’s Accusations of Racism (2021): You questioned who labeled Patel as racist or xenophobic. The reality is that criticism of her policies, particularly regarding immigration, often includes such accusations. My argument is not that these labels are never warranted, but that they are sometimes used to shut down debate rather than to foster it.

5.

Keir Starmer and Labour Anti-Semitism Scandal (2020): The anti-Semitism scandal within Labour, particularly under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, became a highly charged issue. While it's crucial to address and root out any form of racism, the way this scandal was handled raises significant questions. Despite the intense media scrutiny and internal investigations, the evidence of widespread or institutional anti-Semitism within Labour was far from conclusive. The scandal often appeared less about tackling genuine instances of anti-Semitism and more about undermining Corbyn's leadership.

6.

Nigel Farage’s Departure from LBC (2020): You argue that Farage’s comments were racist and therefore his removal was justified. However, the broader issue here is that dismissing and deplatforming voices like Farage’s without engaging with the concerns they raise only deepens divisions. Farage taps into real, albeit controversial, sentiments that resonate with a significant portion of the electorate. Ignoring or silencing these voices without addressing their concerns can fuel the rise of populism.

1.

Rotherham Grooming Scandal (2021):
In the wake of the Rotherham grooming scandal, concerns were raised about how the authorities failed to act for fear of being labelled as racist. This concern was often dismissed by parts of the Left as an attempt to stoke Islamophobia. However, the official report found that over 1,400 children had been sexually abused, and the failure to address this was partly due to fears of being accused of racism, which was dismissed as a non-issue by some commentators on the Left.

2.

Labour Party’s Internal Report on Anti-Semitism (2020):
Concerns about anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn were frequently dismissed by certain segments of the party as being overblown or as part of a smear campaign by opponents. While legitimate concerns about the party’s handling of anti-Semitism were raised, they were often brushed aside, contributing to a broader sense that issues like this were not being taken seriously.

3.

Channel Crossings and Public Services (2022-2023):
The issue of migrants crossing the English Channel has been a major topic of public debate. Concerns about the impact on public services such as housing, healthcare, and welfare were often dismissed as xenophobic by certain media outlets and commentators. However, the strain on local services in coastal towns has been documented, showing that the concerns are based on real-world impacts.

4.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry (2021-2023):
During the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, some of the concerns about how the local government and housing associations ignored the complaints of residents (many of whom were immigrants) were initially dismissed by some as attempts to stir up racial tensions. However, it was later revealed that there were significant failures that disproportionately affected the immigrant population living in the tower, showing that these concerns were legitimate and needed addressing rather than dismissal.

1.

Kathleen Stock Controversy (2021-2022):
Professor Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at the University of Sussex, faced significant backlash and calls for her to be removed from her position due to her gender-critical views on transgender issues. Despite being a respected academic, Stock was subjected to protests, and her work environment became so hostile that she eventually resigned from her position. This case highlights how expressing dissenting opinions on sensitive issues can lead to severe professional and personal consequences, effectively silencing debate.

2.

J.K. Rowling and Transgender Debate (2020-Present):
J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has faced significant backlash and calls for her books to be boycotted after she made comments on social media that were perceived as transphobic. Despite her history of progressive views, Rowling has been publicly vilified, with some publishers and bookstores distancing themselves from her work. This has become one of the most high-profile examples of cancel culture, where an individual’s entire body of work and contributions are dismissed due to a single set of opinions that go against the current orthodoxy.

3.

David Starkey’s Comments on Slavery (2020):
Historian David Starkey made controversial comments in an interview where he downplayed the impact of slavery, saying, "Slavery was not genocide, otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?" Starkey faced swift and severe repercussions, losing multiple academic and publishing roles. While his comments were widely condemned as offensive, the response also led to broader discussions about whether Starkey's entire career and body of work should be dismissed due to one set of remarks. This case illustrates how quickly a person can be deplatformed for voicing controversial opinions.

4.

Germaine Greer and University Deplatforming (2015):
Feminist writer Germaine Greer was disinvited from speaking at Cardiff University after students protested her appearance due to her views on transgender issues. Greer has been a vocal critic of certain aspects of transgender ideology, and despite her long history of feminist activism, she was labelled as transphobic and faced efforts to silence her. This incident is an example of how even long-standing figures in social movements can be deplatformed if their views conflict with current trends.

5.

No-Platforming of Israeli Academics (2018-2022):
Several Israeli academics and speakers have been no-platformed from UK universities in recent years due to their perceived support of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. Events featuring these speakers were often cancelled due to protests and threats of disruption. This has raised concerns about the stifling of academic debate and the exclusion of voices based on political positions, rather than engaging in open discussion.

1.

Brexit Referendum (2016):
The Brexit referendum is perhaps the most prominent example of the dangers of using a referendum to decide on a complex issue. The choice presented to voters—whether to remain in or leave the European Union—oversimplified a highly complex political, economic, and social relationship into a binary decision. The campaign leading up to the vote was marked by misinformation and emotional appeals, with populist rhetoric, particularly from the Leave campaign, playing a significant role. The aftermath of the vote has seen years of political instability, deepening divisions within the UK, and significant economic uncertainty. The complexity of the issue and the simplistic nature of the referendum result have led to widespread debate about whether such important decisions should be made through referendums at all.

2.

Scottish Independence Referendum (2014):
The Scottish independence referendum is another example where a binary choice on a complex issue led to significant and lasting divisions. While Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, the close result (55% to 45%) highlighted deep divisions within the country. The debate leading up to the vote was highly charged, and the result has left Scotland politically polarised. The question of independence continues to dominate Scottish politics, with calls for a second referendum persisting, demonstrating how referendums can entrench divisions rather than resolve them.

3.

Catalonia Independence Referendum (2017):
In 2017, the Catalonian government held an independence referendum, despite it being declared illegal by the Spanish government. The referendum, which asked a simple yes/no question on independence, led to significant unrest and a violent crackdown by Spanish authorities. The result, with a large majority voting for independence, was marred by low turnout (as many unionists boycotted the vote) and the broader political crisis it triggered. The situation in Catalonia remains unresolved, with the referendum exacerbating tensions between the region and the central Spanish government.

4.

Colombian Peace Referendum (2016):
In 2016, the Colombian government held a referendum on whether to accept a peace deal with the FARC guerrillas, aimed at ending decades of conflict. The referendum result was a narrow rejection of the deal (50.2% to 49.8%), which came as a shock to many. The referendum was criticised for reducing a complex and deeply emotional issue to a simple yes/no question, leading to a result that many felt did not adequately reflect the needs and desires of those most affected by the conflict. The government eventually bypassed the referendum result by approving a modified version of the peace deal through the Colombian Congress, highlighting the limitations of referendums in resolving complex issues.

5.

Swiss Minaret Referendum (2009):
Switzerland’s 2009 referendum on whether to ban the construction of minarets is an example of how referendums can be used to push populist agendas. The referendum, which resulted in a ban on the construction of new minarets, was criticised for targeting a specific religious group (Muslims) and for fuelling xenophobic sentiments. The campaign was marked by fear-mongering and misinformation, and the result has been seen as a step backwards for religious freedom and tolerance in Switzerland. This case illustrates how referendums can be manipulated to serve populist ends, with significant social and political consequences.

1.

Evergreen State College Protests (2017):

1.

Keir Starmer’s Stance on Free Speech within the Labour Party (2020-Present):

1.

The Purging of Jeremy Corbyn (2020-2021): Jeremy Corbyn's suspension from the Labour Party and the broader efforts to marginalise his influence within the party are reminiscent of Maoist purges, where those who deviate from the accepted ideology are publicly denounced and excluded. Corbyn, who represented a more traditional left-wing stance, was increasingly isolated and criticised by the party leadership under Keir Starmer, not for any criminal act but for ideological differences. This is similar to the Maoist approach of enforcing ideological conformity by silencing or removing dissenting voices.

2.

Labour’s Approach to Internal Dissent (2020-2024): Under Starmer's leadership, Labour has shown a tendency to quash internal dissent, particularly from the party's left-wing faction. Members who express views that deviate from the leadership’s centrist approach have faced disciplinary action, suspension, or expulsion. This mirrors the Maoist tactic of ensuring that all party members adhere strictly to the official line, with little tolerance for diversity of thought or debate within the organisation.

3.

The Response to Criticism of Labour’s Stance on Israel (2021-2024): Those within Labour who have criticised the party’s stance on Israel, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have often been met with severe backlash, including accusations of anti-Semitism. While anti-Semitism is a serious issue that must be addressed, the manner in which accusations have been used to silence critics—often without a thorough examination of the actual content of their statements—echoes the Maoist tactic of labelling and punishing those who do not align with the party’s current ideological stance.

4.

Expanding Use of Surveillance Technology (2024): The proposal by Keir Starmer to expand the use of live facial recognition technology can be seen as an extension of this Maoist tendency towards control and conformity. Just as Maoist China relied on widespread surveillance and the suppression of dissent, the deployment of such technology in the UK raises concerns about the state’s ability to monitor and control its citizens. This move further aligns with an authoritarian approach that prioritises state control over individual freedoms​.

1.

No-Platforming in Universities (2020-2023): A growing trend in British universities has been the no-platforming of speakers whose views are deemed controversial or offensive. For instance, in 2020, former Home Secretary Amber Rudd was disinvited from speaking at an event at Oxford University due to her role in the Windrush scandal. This incident, along with others, highlights how universities are increasingly avoiding engagement with challenging ideas, instead opting to shield students from viewpoints that contradict their own. This approach discourages open debate and critical thinking, fostering an environment where only a narrow range of ideas is considered acceptable.

2.

Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings (2021-2024): The increasing use of safe spaces and trigger warnings in universities, while intended to protect vulnerable students, has been criticised for stifling debate and limiting academic freedom. Critics argue that this culture creates an environment where students are shielded from any ideas that might cause discomfort, leading to a generation less capable of handling dissent or engaging with challenging viewpoints. This mirrors the authoritarian approach of controlling discourse to maintain ideological conformity.

3.

The Handling of Controversial Research (2022-2024): In recent years, there have been instances where academics conducting research on controversial topics, such as gender and race, have faced significant backlash. For example, in 2022, a professor at the University of Sussex was harassed and forced to resign due to her gender-critical views. Such incidents illustrate how academic institutions are becoming increasingly hostile to research that challenges prevailing social justice ideologies, reflecting a broader trend of ideological conformity within academia.

4.

Pressure on Universities to Conform to Governmental Expectations (2024): Under the Starmer government, there has been increased pressure on universities to align with state policies, particularly in the areas of surveillance and social conformity. The expansion of live facial recognition technology, as discussed in the Guardian article on Starmer’s proposals, raises concerns about the role of academic institutions in normalising state surveillance. Universities, which should be centres of critical thinking and resistance to authoritarianism, are instead being co-opted into supporting and legitimising these measures​. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/02/starmer-live-facial-recognition-plan-would-usher-in-national-id-campaigners-warn

1.

Labour Party and Group Identity Politics (2023-2024): Under Keir Starmer's leadership, the Labour Party has seen a shift towards emphasising group identity politics. For example, during the 2024 general election campaign, there was significant pressure within the party for candidates to conform to specific ideological stances on issues such as trans rights and Israel-Palestine, irrespective of their personal beliefs. This trend towards enforcing ideological conformity based on group identity has led to internal tensions within the party and alienation of members who do not fully align with the dominant narrative.

2.

Criticism of Gay Conservatives (2023): A notable instance of this occurred in 2023, when a prominent gay Conservative MP faced significant backlash from LGBTQ+ activists and within his own community for supporting government policies on immigration and national security. The criticism was not based on the content of his views, but rather on the notion that, as a gay man, he should align with the more progressive, left-wing stance typically associated with LGBTQ+ advocacy. This illustrates how group identity is being used to enforce ideological conformity, rather than allowing individuals to hold diverse opinions.

3.

Women's March Leadership Controversy (2022): In 2022, there was significant controversy within the Women’s March movement, particularly regarding the inclusion of Jewish leaders who did not align with the movement’s stance on Israel. These leaders were pressured to step down, with their Jewish identity being used as a basis for ideological exclusion. This case highlights how group identity is used to enforce ideological purity, sometimes at the expense of inclusivity and diversity of thought.

4.

Criticism of Ethnic Minority Tories (2023-2024): Ethnic minority Conservatives, including figures like Kemi Badenoch and Priti Patel, have often faced accusations of being "race traitors" or "sell-outs" for holding conservative views on issues like immigration and national identity. This criticism is not based on their policies but rather on the expectation that their ethnic background should align them with left-wing, progressive stances. This expectation erodes individual agency and reduces people to their group identities, rather than recognising the legitimacy of diverse viewpoints within any community.

5.

Gender and Identity Politics in Universities (2022-2024): In academic settings, there has been growing pressure on students and faculty to conform to specific ideological positions based on their gender identity. For instance, students who identify as feminists but hold gender-critical views have faced ostracism and even disciplinary action in some universities. This enforcement of a monolithic gender ideology undermines the principle of academic freedom and discourages critical thinking.