Writing for The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill asks “why is there not more disquiet over Yvette Cooper’s promise to crack down on ‘harmful’ beliefs?”
O’Neill argues that “it ranks as one of the most chilling political pledges of the modern era. The thought of a Labour government, or any government, imperiously decreeing which ideas are ‘harmful’ and which are benign leaves me cold. It’s a first step to tyranny and it needs to be walked back.”
O’Neill continues: “The Home Secretary has commissioned a rapid review of ‘extremist ideologies’ as part of a new government counter-extremism strategy. She has vowed to come down hard on people who push ‘harmful or hateful beliefs’. The aim is to tackle head-on any online or offline activity that ‘promotes violence or undermines democracy’. Her mission has acquired a new sense of urgency, it seems, following the recent riots, which were in part fuelled by misleading or outright bigoted blather online.
“No one aside from a handful of nutters will oppose feeling the collars of people who promote violence. Inciting violence is illegal. If you do it you’re in trouble. But Cooper’s other categories of ‘harmful’ thought are flabbier and more troubling. Consider her promise to tackle ideologies that undermine democracy. What does this mean?
“I hate to relitigate the recent past – really, I do – but would it mean that Remainers who tried to block the enactment of the largest democratic vote in the history of these isles might get a knock on the door from Cooper’s crusaders against extremist thought? Perhaps Cooper will pop over to No. 10 itself and have a stern word with her boss, Keir Starmer. After all, as shadow Brexit secretary under Jeremy Corbyn he was forever agitating for a second referendum, which would have entailed voiding the first vote. Was that ‘harmful activity’ that threatened to ‘undermine democracy’?
“Of course, Remainers are going to be fine. Cooper is hardly about to crack down on her own dinner-party set, is she? And therein lies the entire problem with censorship, with entrusting officialdom to sort ideas into boxes marked ‘acceptable’ or ‘unutterable’. It gives government the awesome and terrifying power to shape public discourse to its own ideological tastes. Censorship is always dolled up as a heroic effort to protect the public from ‘harmful’ ideas, but in truth it is about ensuring the public is primarily exposed to ideas the government approves of.”
O’Neill concludes that “a war on ‘harmful’ beliefs would give the government a blank cheque to demonise and shush views that are old-fashioned, possibly unpopular or just not very PC. Labour would do well to remember that one man’s ‘harmful’ belief is another man’s heartfelt moral conviction. To the aloof operators of Yvette Cooper’s Home Office, angry public bristling against mass immigration or impassioned agitation against gender ideology might appear ‘harmful’ – but to many others it is legitimate, important commentary.
“The harms of censorship outweigh the supposed harms of controversial speech every single time. I would far rather be exposed to a ‘harmful’ idea than have my eyes and ears covered by Cooper and her fellow paternalists in Whitehall. At least my autonomy and self-respect would remain intact.”
Worth reading in full.
