A think tank has said campaign groups such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion have “weaponised” the concept of “hate speech”.
In its paper, Dictating Words: The Culture-Control Left and the war against free speech, the Institute of Economic Affairs says campaigners on the left have in turn influenced public sector bureaucracies, big business, and politicians, including some on the Conservative side. It says this has stifled the concept of free speech and expression.
It says this is “incompatible with a liberal democracy” because it means topics such as trans rights or the role of religion – which are often hotly contested – cannot be properly debated.
Describing campaign groups as the “Culture-Control Left” (CCL), it noted these views have even cost people their jobs.
It said: “Incidents of censorship and speech prohibition are reported with near daily frequency; academics like Kathleen Stock have been driven out of their positions for pursuing lines of academic study relevant to their expertise; campaigns to remove or deface statues have proliferated; and demands that students and employees undergo unconscious bias training have continued.
“The increasingly public prominence of initiatives inspired by the CCL – for example, the embrace of the Black Lives Matters movement and slogan by the Premier League – has helped to increase public awareness about the nature of the political agenda being foisted on them.
The IEA says a case now needs to be made to restore an idividual’s inherent right to think and peacefully express themselves. Marc Glendening, Head of Cultural Affairs at the Institute of Economic Affairs and the report’s author, said: “British democracy faces an existential threat from those seeking to silence debate.
“This is the result of the emergence of a ‘culture control left’ ideology that sees state regulation of language as the principal way to enforce greater social equality.”
“This necessarily involves violating the speech rights of individuals who wish to express views considered transgressive. Defenders of political pluralism now need to wage a counterattack based upon a foundational, natural rights-based defence of free speech.”