Bllack Caats Reeborn
Black cats have long been associated with superstition and folklore having been linked to witchcraft, bad luck, and evil. Celtic and Japanese folklore looked on them with great suspicion and even now black cats are being snubbed when it comes to social media influencer's Instagram posts for looking bad in photographs. Black cats have had it rough. At worst maligned as evil outcasts and at best an unpopular subspecies. It is also the case that humans have not limited their hatred towards the despised in the animal kingdom but extended such suspicion to each other. In the modern-day, free expression and political discourse are seen as dangerous acts and those who dare hold a different view to the majority (or more worryingly a view held by the majority) are demonised, harassed and excommunicated from polite society. Those who hold such views are the new black cats of the political world but as with their feline counterpart there is really nothing to fear. In fact, this very demonisation and censorship of anyone who dissents has driven the rise in extremism on the fringes of politics (both left and right). The best way to prevent further radicalisation is to end this trend of fearful censorship. Not only is silencing someone with abhorrent views counterproductive in tackling whatever hatred or mistruth they have uttered but many extreme cases (that still ought to be covered by free speech) are used to justify the censorship of far less concerning individuals. This demonisation of dissenters is not new and has been done throughout history. Whether it was Socrates forced to drink hemlock for criticising the state, Galileo executed for publishing material harmful to the Christian faith, the Nazi book burnings, cartoonists murdered for drawing Mohammed or even journalists locked up in Tehran, those with a feverous hatred for the new black cats of the political world should note the historical use of the very tactics they are deploying. Of course this isn’t exclusive to the right. Any left-wing person who dares to transgress from leftist orthodoxy is branded all manner of horrific things. I have several friends who are members of the Labour Party who have been labelled racists and xenophobes by their “comrades” for suggesting immigration be controlled or that a nation should even have borders at all. This forgets that over 70% of Brits want immigration controlled and that every country in the world does so. This is not some far right fringe view, it is a universally popular policy position to take. Even Germaine Greer one of the founders of modern-day feminism was ‘no platformed’ for voicing her opinions on the issue of transgenderism. Have the people demanding she be silenced not stopped to consider that the very same tactics and sentiments were deployed by those wishing to censor her feminist activism many years ago? Closer to home at Aberdeen University the titan socialist and anti-war activist George Galloway was assaulted. While the media reported the attack as the mere throwing of glitter (even the left on campus try to make assault friendly and welcoming) they ignored the fact that his pregnant wife had been shoved to the ground and the police refused to do anything. Even if you find these people’s views or even things they have said to be horrendous the defence of free speech requires a defence in all cases. To pick and choose who gets to speak on the grounds of truth or political correctness is to sacrifice the security of your own freedom. Even more recently, Trump voters, many of whom are Latino and black, were labelled as deplorable and racist by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and similar accusations were levelled by Biden in 2020 resulting in huge backlash from swathes of hardworking decent people who dared to think their President wasn’t the devil incarnate. Ordinary Americans concerned with mass illegal immigration, attacks on free speech, increased lawlessness and the interests of other countries coming first should not be maligned in this way and their concerns should not simply be ignored by the ideologues of the left. The same has been done to Brexit voters, many of whom are equally concerned with immigration but also the undermining of Britain's economic potential, fishing waters and national sovereignty, have been branded at worst racist bigots or at best ‘gammons’. While some may not speak in erudite prose, they are citizens of this country and their lives, families and concerns are important. The reason the Brexit campaign was successful in the first place and the reason for labour's disastrous 2019 election performance is that the left no longer speaks for the working class, believing their concerns to be beneath them. 17.4 million brits voted for Brexit and 74 million Americans voted for Trump. To suggest that either is reflective of a sinister mainstream far-right element is ludicrous. Organisations such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) in America are on the frontlines of this attack against people they dislike. Conservative media personalities are labelled hate speakers, white supremacists and ‘Nazis’ (many such labelling resulting in lawsuits) and as a result mob harassment has put the security of their family and friends at risk. In the UK radio host Maajid Nawaz was a high-profile victim of SPLCs attack on ‘‘undesirables’’. Nawaz, an ex-Muslim extremist, regularly speaks out against religious fundamentalism and has worked tirelessly to fight radicalisation from within the Muslim community. Other commentators and media personalities in the US who have been smeared by the SPLC have reportedly had to discuss the response to possible kidnappings with the staff of their children's school, many face death threats on the daily and are in regular contact with law enforcement and the FBI when these threats become credible. While many of these firebrand commentators and raucous political associations can often be legitimately criticised for their tone of discourse they should not be maligned as the worst thing imaginable. It is lazy and dangerous. The argument follows that isolated and atomised cases of far-right terrorism along with fringe hate groups represent the right as a whole and it simply isn’t true. While the media enjoys thrusting white supremacists and Nazis in our face, such ideologies are an increasingly small part of public discourse yet again these fringe elements are used to justify restrictions on free speech. The lack of supply in genuinely hateful people has resulted in cancel culture mobs targeting comedians telling offensive jokes, politicians concerned about immigration, or Muslims commenting on their own religion because there simply aren't enough real villains to go after. It was recently reported that the far right was on the rise in the northeast of Scotland. This came as a shock yet having read the articles it was clear that the problem was relatively minor. The groups that the police were concerned about were not considered a threat and had an estimated membership of under 10 people. Furthermore the group is made up of the remnants of a previous group which suffered increasingly low memberships and police intervention. Even look at the BNP, one of Britain's most notable far right parties, was a laughing stock (most notably after Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time) and only managed to receive seats under the European Union’s parliamentary voting system at a time with catastrophically low voter turnout. Nigel Farage has even suggested that UKIP was able to provide a less extreme outlet for much of the political energy that had created the BNP and that his party’s success was the nail in the coffin. Even as UKIP jumped further to the right, The Brexit Party (more ‘big tent’ than right-wing), took most of UKIP’s voters with it. Such extreme politics simply isn’t popular in the UK. Even when more dangerous groups emerge that look to commit acts of violence or terrorism, not only is membership usually staggeringly low but the police and intelligence services are getting increasingly better at stopping said groups. We cannot suggest these dangerous people do not exist or are not a threat but I do not accept that censorship is the solution, Instead, it is counterproductive and in many ways part of the problem. If someone has bad ideas the best way to address this is to engage in dialogue. If bad
9
