12 minute read
Black Cats Reborn
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.
Advertisement
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-Muslimextremist, regularly speaks out against religious fundamentalism andhasworked 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 dailyandareinregularcontact with lawenforcement andtheFBIwhen thesethreatsbecomecredible.Whilemanyofthesefirebrandcommentators 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.
ideas are pushed underground they are free from scrutiny and opposition which is the perfect breeding ground for extremism. Debate, and the free market of ideas, are vital and to undermine it is to promote hate, not cancel it. In the age of the internet, where echo chambers are so easily formed, free speech is even more important. It is widely documented that those who join both far-right, far-left and religious extremist organisations are often isolated, vulnerable and disenfranchised. The best way to make someone feel disenfranchised is for them to be silenced and side-lined by the bulldozerof censorship. Asdifficult conversations arebeing stifledand thepolitical establishmentremainsapathetic totheconcernsofvast swathes of the population, these aforementioned extremist groups will become the only ones voicing these concerns. This drives people away from mainstream, civil and rational politics and into the realms of dangerous extremism.
This brings me to the breaching ofthe capitol building and the subsequent erosion of free speech. Firstly, the left should note their closeassociation with political violence and their well-placed horror at the death and destruction beg the question where all this emotion was when people were killed in burning streets during the riots this summer? The fact that people cannot commit to a blanket condemnation of political violence is disturbing. Have the media or the left stopped to think that smears may simply intensify anger and division? Did Twitter or Facebook consider whether banning the leader of the free world in response during a time filled with paranoia, conspiracy theories and political division may simply add fuel to the fire? I guarantee there will be trouble on Inauguration Day (signalled in no part to already bolstered security around Washington, D.C.) and Iguarantee it will beblamed solely on Trump. Wemust not allowbig tech to censor without oversight orthe Democrats whouse divisive language, like sedition, to describe concerned citizens and politicians to wash their hands of any blame. Censorship has given credence to conspiracy theories and catapulted the levels of hysteria and anger into new heights. It also proves how foolish the big tech giants are. They really believe that simply purging Trump from the internet will silence his followers. They are in short playing with fire and trampling on free speech as they do so. As pointed out by Sanders-supporting model Emily Ratajkowski (don’t ask why I follow her on Twitter) this attack is likely to be used to usher in a new age of censorship that may target thinkers on the left as well as the right. Trumps ban from social media proves how far such companies are willing to go in terms of censorship (it won’t stop with the president). Indeed, a whistle-blower from Twitter secretly filmed CEO Jack Dorsey stating that these actions would go beyond Trump and that this was all “bigger than one account”. This is worrying because the definition of incitement used by twitter is radically different than that used by the supreme court and enshrined in the constitution.
Trump’s words/tweets could not be considered incitement to violence by any court and is legal under the first amendment yet twitter has decided to adopt its own definition of free speech (setting aside decades of authoritative supreme court rulings) and continues to claim it is not acting like a publisher. If you want to see how high the standard for incitement to violence is, refer to the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case referred to a KKK leader calling for the death of all African Americans, Jews and other minorities. This was held to be protected speech under the 1st amendment. This high standard which requires speech ‘‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’’. Trump did not do this. He told supporters to ‘‘peacefully’’ march and cheer on Republican members of congress. He will not be prosecuted. Some do not point to his words at the rally but pin the blame on his legal challenges to the election. Such people should question whether a legal challenge can ever be legitimately brought again and what that premise means for democracy and election integrity.
While these are private companies, several commentators from across the political spectrum have argued that they are so vital to the functioning of democracy that they ought to be regulated as if they were public utilities. These companies are allowed to do as they have but the question of whether theyshould andhowsuchcensorshipwillbeseenbythemillionsofalreadyfuriousanddesperate Americans. Why weremajornewspapers censored for reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal? Why was the same justification for the censorship not used when Trump’s tax returns were released under similar alleged circumstances? The approach should be consistent and censorship would be wrong in both circumstances. Trump is banned while the Ayatollah of Iran is free to tweet to his heart’s content. Andrew Neil even pointed out that #AssasinateTrump along with tweets asking people to take out the President were allowed to remain on the site. There is a lack of consistency, transparency and most importantly accountability. These companies now have overwhelming control of public discourse and by extension democracy.
Big tech censorship became a huge point of contention for republicans during this election and have been a focal point of both legitimate anger and wild conspiracy theories during the legal challenges brought by trump’s legal team. Contrary to many in the media there was not ‘‘no evidence of voter fraud’’. Whether it was substantial enough to have any impact is questionable yet this illegal activity ought to be investigated to prevent future irregularities in other elections. Instead of allowing the constitution and legal system to handle Trump’s legal challenges, big tech decided to wade in and try and cover the whole thing up. To say this didn’t increase desperation, paranoia and anger is farcical. Not only has this censorship exacerbated the political tensions in America but it will not work and the genie will not be put back in the bottle. As this censorship increases we will see more and more people silenced because the people in charge now have tacit consent to implement their definitions of ‘hate’, ‘truth’ and ‘offence’ when regulating their platforms.
This is worrying as there appears to be a lowering of the bar for entry for being considered a ‘black cat’ for the purposes of censorship. Indeed groups liketheSPLC along with highprofile mediaoutlets haveagreat deal of influence in creating thedominantnarrative used to destroy political ‘black cats’ (many of whom do not deserve the labels attributed to them). Now, the increasingly censorious nature of big tech spawns increasingly dangerous precedents that will essentially kill off free speech for everyone else on platforms now integral to the functioning of democracy, political debate and the dissemination of information. This censorship will result in the intensifying of political division as echo chambers are reinforced while anger and distrust are cultivated. If we want to tackle hatred an extremism in whatever form it arises then we should take advantage of free speech and open dialogue to educate, correct and debate rather than simply brushing the problem under the rug. While it may be an uncomfortable prospect to allow certain political ‘black cats’ to enjoy their right to free speech it may be you who becomes tomorrow’s ‘black cat’, and you will desperately wish (like many who have) you hadn’t cheered on the suppression you will inevitably face.
