THE NEW CENSORS OF THE LEFT

OFFENSE IN THE AGE OF THE ONLINE PETITION 

In the 19th and 20th Century’s one of the great fights of the non-communist[1] left was the struggle for free speech. The struggle against censorship in literature, the arts, and political discourse. The enemies off free speech always came from the right whether in a clerical, military, or politically authoritarian guise. 
Now the enemies of free speech are more often to be found on the left. Concerned to maintain politically correct standards of discourse they are happy to close down exhibitions, slander writers and commentators,[2] or in the current jargon ‘deny platforms’ to those of whom they disapprove. This war on free speech and artistic expression is sometimes linked with demands from the Muslim community to censor any comment on Islam deemed to be ‘Islamaphobic.’[3] The link is always the magical word ‘offense.’ Once uttered the heavens must full. The new crime of the 21st Century is the crime of giving offense.
However the extraordinary quality of this crime is its flexibility; anyone, anywhere can make a claim and demand redress. Consequentially the capacity to receive offense is growing exponentially. Amongst the weapons at the new censor’s disposal is the online petition; this serves to attract numbers and with numbers you can  assemble a mob. Thus this week saw the enforced closure of an exhibition at the Barbican following an online petition and a protest that forced its doors closed.  
As far as I can tell, now having been prevented from seeing this exhibit for myself, nobody was forced to attend this exhibition and none of the participating actors was coerced to participate but did so willingly, as they believed in the project. This project, again from what I can ascertain, was aimed to be particularly unsettling and yes offensive, in that it directly placed in your face the reality of man’s inhumanity to man. Racism is offensive and that seems to have been the whole point of the project.  I can understand that some people found the piece troubling as well as offensive. That is what art sometimes does. I can also accept some wanted to criticize the exhibition, after all that is also what a free society is all about. However in the age of the petition it is not enough to criticize, or even to protest an event, if it ‘offends’ it must be closed down.
Those who set out to close this exhibition demonstrate a complete and utter failure to understand freedom of speech and expression. What can they now say when exhibitions of which they do approve are censored and closed down? For make no mistake about it there are plenty of those on the right who wish to follow the example set here, UKIP councillors and EDL activists, to name but two potential complainants waiting in the wings. Already there are groups of people, Christians, Muslims, political activists, metaphorically standing on the toilet cistern to watch the couple across the road so that they can be ‘offended.’
 So something to ponder the next time you feel moved to sign an online petition demanding the closure of some particular ‘offensive’ event, ask yourself whom do you elect to serve as censor in your own case, who will arbitrate over what it is permissible for you to read, to view, to experience?



[1] The communists always opposed free speech, seeing it as merely a bourgeois luxury.
[2] Fascist and or racist being the preferred slur. Both terms are consequently now in danger of becoming meaningless.
[3] To witness this at its most extreme and absurd I recommend Mark Steyne’s book Lights Out, which describes the attempts made by a small group of ‘offended’ Muslims to get his book America Alone banned. It also shines a light on the unholy alliance between some on the liberal left and Islamism. 

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

LONDON BELONGS TO ME PART ONE