Nobody has tested my commitment to liberalism so sorely as Edinburgh University’s Feminist Society. I know I should believe in freedom of speech and changing minds with arguments, not punishments, and all the rest of it. Trust me, I do. Or rather I did, until the moment Edinburgh’s feminist students said they wanted to kick the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) out of their campus.
The British National Party (BNP) of the left has had a malign influence on public life far beyond its numbers. In the universities, it has been at the forefront of thuggish demands that there must be “no platform” for fascists or supporters of Israel or, it seems, anyone else it disagrees with.
The desire to censor has reached the absurd state where the academic left has banned women’s rights campaigners, who have upset transsexuals, and admirers of Friedrich Nietzsche, who have upset students who had not read him, but know he was a bad person.
Illustration: Mountain People
After this disgraceful record, it is worth enjoying the plight of the SWP for hours — maybe weeks. The censor faces censorship. The fanatics who have screamed down so many others could be screamed down themselves.
No one can deny that Edinburgh’s women have good reason to go after the Trots. Like priests in the Catholic Church and celebrities in light entertainment, the leaders of a Marxist-Leninist party are men at the top of a hierarchy that demands obedience. Last year, a succession of women alleged that senior figures in the party had demanded their sexual compliance. Rather than tell them to take their cases to the hated “capitalist” courts, the SWP set up its own tribunals. The alleged victims said it subjected them to leering questions worthy of the most misogynist judge about their sex lives and alcohol consumption, then duly “acquitted” the “accused.”
Eleanor Brayne-Whyatt of the Edinburgh Feminist Society had a point when she said that universities would show they do not tolerate “rape apologism and victim blaming” if they order the SWP to leave.
Even if you want to differ, you might find the task of contradicting her beyond you. We have reached a state where arguing that a speaker has the right to free speech is the same as agreeing with his or her arguments.
If you say that racist or sexist views should not be banned, you are a racist or rape apologist yourself. Your opponents then go further and accuse you of ignoring the “offence” and “pain” of the victims of racism and sexism have suffered and turn you into an abuser as well.
With remarkable speed this double bind knots itself around its targets. Defend a repellent man’s right to speak and you become that repellent man and his victims, real or imagined, become your victims too. Small wonder so many keep quiet when they should speak up.
Observer readers might not care, as most modern prohibitions on speech are — to put it crudely — instances of left-wing censorship of prejudiced views. If so, you should notice how easy the right finds it to march in step alongside you.
British Member of Parliament Chris Grayling, a Conservative Party bully boy, last week announced that he would quadruple the maximum jail sentence for Internet trolls who spread “venom” on social media or, rather, he fed an old story from March to a naive and punitive media.
Even though Internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection, there are many reasons not to nod through yet another hardline restriction of personal freedom. Interest groups like nothing better than exploiting the law.
We have already seen supporters of the McCanns, who were understandably aggrieved by the abuse the family received online, turn into troll catchers. They collected a dossier and passed it to Sky News and the police. The hunters unmasked one of the McCanns’ tormentors as Brenda Leyland, who took her own life within hours of her exposure, a reminder that many trolls are mentally ill and need treatment rather than prison.
Meanwhile, as the free speech campaigners at English Pen reminded me, the white right and far right have learned from the left and can be as politically correct. Their most recent success was to demand that the police prosecute one Azhar Ahmed from Dewsbury, England. He admitted posting a Facebook message two days after the killing of six British servicemen in Afghanistan: “All soldiers should die and go to hell,” it read.
A disgusting statement, no doubt, but put in different terms, the belief that British troops should not be in “Muslim lands” is a political sentiment, not a criminal act. The court nevertheless found him guilty of the criminal offense of making a “grossly offensive communication.” The prosecutors did not say that he was inciting violence against British troops, simply that he was offensive.
Two can play at that game. The Islamic religious right could respond in kind and demand prosecutions for Islamophobia, and before you know it we would be off on a cycle of competitive grievance.
Only last week, the authorities recalled Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the extreme right English Defence League, to prison — apparently for tweeting that he planned to criticize the police.
I carry no brief for the man, but his detention feels all wrong.
It would be far better if social media sites and newspapers stopped inciting people’s ugliest instincts by allowing them to post anonymously. It would be better still if politicians reformed a law that is alarmingly vague.
The state can charge citizens for words that are “grossly offensive,” as Ahmed found. No government should be allowed to get away with such a catch-all charge. Every sentiment beyond the blandest notions “offends” someone. “Offensive” is a subjective term, which is wide open to political manipulation by loud and vociferous interest groups and the government of the day.
The only respectable reason for banning organizations or punishing individuals is if they incite violence against others. Unless feminists can prove that the SWP promotes rape as a matter of party policy — and I do not think they can — they remain free to despise it, harangue it and oppose and expose its many stinking hypocrisies, but they have no moral right to order it off campuses.
I know I am going to regret writing that last sentence. Indeed, I am regretting it already. However, it remains the case that a nation where it is a crime to be offensive is a nation where everyone can try to ban everyone else.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US