Illustration  of a black hand, on a red background, squeezing a white speech bubble
© Ben Hickey

Since the death of the Queen, some British institutions seem to be losing the plot — or at the least their sense of perspective. Children’s fun-runs have been postponed “as a mark of respect”; bicycle racks have been closed for the entire royal mourning period; hospital appointments and cremations have been cancelled. The Bank of England even postponed a crucial interest rate decision by a week — presumably high inflation is the legacy Elizabeth would have wanted.

And then there’s been the disturbing response to anti-monarchy protesters by the police. Earlier this week, an officer demanded the details of Paul Powlesland, a barrister, for the malefaction of holding up a blank piece of paper outside Parliament. If he dared to write the words “Not my King” on the paper, Powlesland could be arrested, he was told, because “someone might be offended”.

Others found guilty of causing offence have been formally apprehended. Someone who yelled “You’re a sick old man!” at Prince Andrew and a young woman holding up a placard reading “Fuck imperialism. Abolish the monarchy”, were both arrested and charged in Scotland. Another man was handcuffed and put into a police van after shouting out “Who elected him?” during the proclamation of the king’s accession in Oxford. He was later de-arrested.

These actions have created an unusual degree of consensus. From the Telegraph to the Independent, from Piers Morgan to Jeremy Corbyn, the police’s heavy-handed response has been roundly condemned. There has been broad agreement over the need — whether you are republican or royalist — to protect free speech.

This is, of course, absolutely correct: having the freedom to express ideas without being censored, prosecuted or restrained is a vital component of a functioning democracy and must be fiercely protected, even when the cost of that is offending or upsetting people. The past few years of increasing authoritarianism in Hong Kong set a troubling example of what can happen, very quickly, when it is not.

But while it is refreshing to see such agreement across the political spectrum, the fact that this is such a rarity is worrying. Free speech used to be a sacred principle of the left — this was the side that gave a voice to the voiceless and challenged the status quo. Free and open debate was the route to progress.

In recent years, though, a large and vocal section of the left has abandoned this doctrine. Even the term “free speech” has itself become a contentious phrase that is considered on a par with “cancel culture”: an eye-roll-worthy rightwing obsession that is a non-issue at best, or a cover for bigotry at worst. So-called “free speech warriors” are stuffy, gammon-faced and probably racist — the kind of people whose opinions can safely be ignored.

“The reason ‘free speech’ warriors don’t kick over stuff like this is very straightforward,” tweeted Owen Jones, the leftwing pundit, in response to news of a royal protester being arrested last weekend. “The ‘free speech’ they actually care about is the right to say bigoted and stigmatising things about minorities.”

Not only was Jones wrong — the most prominent “free speech warriors”, from the Free Speech Union to Spiked Online, a libertarian magazine, have indeed been “kicking off”, loudly — but in trying to point out the hypocrisy of the right, he revealed the insincerity of his concerns about freedom of expression. Even Jones’s use of scare quotes around “free speech” suggests he is uncomfortable with the idea (though, of course, openly coming out as anti-free speech is not something a self-proclaimed “antifascist” could do).

Ruth Smeeth, a former Labour MP who is now the CEO of Index on Censorship, is concerned about the extent to which the left has abandoned the issue. “Every progressive movement, whether that’s civil rights, women’s rights . . . gay rights — they’ve forgotten how they won those battles,” she tells me. “And when you don’t understand your history it’s really easy to forget why some core rights are so incredibly important.”

Both left and right are guilty of endorsing free speech only when it suits them — and the Tory government has displayed a total lack of ideological coherence on the issue. But it is only the left that mocks “free speech warriors” and seems to have lost interest even in defending freedom of expression as a principle.

The danger is that, by designating some issues as not up for debate, by refusing to engage with the other side, and by insisting that “words are violence”, the social activist left push their opponents into ever more extreme positions.

jemima.kelly@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Follow the topics in this article

Comments