by The difference between the perceptions of the political events is remarkable. Most of the commentary was of the opinion that the election announcement of Rishi Sunak, who stood outside No. 10 in hard-feeding, embarrassing. At best, a symbol of his poor judgment. At worst, a sign of the lie to come.
But the real people I’m talking about talk about the one thing they found most striking about that scene: the raucous, raucous blast of amplified music from what was described in the broadcast media as a “protest” outside the gates of Downing Street.
As it turned out, this “protest” did not manifest itself in organized discontent with the Government. It was just a puerile appearance by loud-mouthed buffoon Steve Bray who so thoroughly disrupted College Green’s news coverage of the Brexit debate with his incessant antics. On Downing Street, a handful of friends and a boom box played the New Labor song “Things Can Only Get Better” on full volume again.
For fear, the words of the song were lost on those watching on television: what they heard was a senseless rhythmic roar, which did not quite succeed in drowning out the Prime Minister’s speech. What he did was to create a sense of treacherous disrespect, not only for Mr. Sunak and his party but for the institutions of government and the population he was addressing.
What shocked the audience was that any prime minister announcing an election – the most important democratic moment in the life of a free society – could be subject to this absurd charade. with no apparent obstruction from the police or security services. In what other country, many of my interlocutors asked, would this be allowed to happen?
In fact, the police moved in after the speech and the accompanying “protest” was over, and Bray is now allegedly banned from the Westminster area. But the mystery remains as to why this did not happen immediately, since there are now laws to prevent demonstrations that involve noise disturbance.
As it was, there was still a sense of lawlessness and anarchic chaos that could be a reflection of the Government. If the Tories, with record levels of unpopularity, have lost control of the apparatus of authority to such an extent that even their most important official announcements to the people could be treated with open contempt?
But no, that analysis doesn’t really matter. Even Boris Johnson, when he won a direct election with a large popular mandate, was subjected to a screeching cacophony from the pavement outside No. 10 when he tried to speak to the country from its ranks. What is happening here should be offensive to anyone of any political persuasion who believes in the democratic process.
It’s important to see it for what it is: not just a few trashy clowns making a nuisance of themselves but part of a much larger pattern where very small groups of people can dominate public space and bully make cohorts much larger people. silence It must be remembered that the vocal left-wing activists who manage to pack the BBC’s Question Time audience, or who organize rallies on social media against public figures (including elected Parliamentarians) who wish to expressing biological facts – by definition – because political activism of any kind is a minority pursuit.
Their confusion stems from the idea that their interference with the efforts of elected governments to communicate with their populations is sacred freedom itself. The fallacious logic here should be obvious. Of course, the right to protest is essential in a free society, but it cannot take the form of preventing hearing those with whom you disagree. If those who don’t like their opinions don’t have the right to free speech, neither do you.
Elected governments have traditionally had the right to ban certain forms of speech. Until recently this was limited to fairly extreme examples: threats of death or blackmail, incitement to violence, criminal libel. Recently, it has been wildly expanded to include statements that insult tiny niche groups in sarcastic ways. But we have now reached another stage where even the disagreements about what could be said cannot be discussed.
The reality is that it is impossible for activist minorities to debate not only their views but the idea that such views could be debated. There must be any argument about which it is acceptable to argue about. Therefore, what until recently was considered an offensive assertion – for example, that men who call themselves women are women – should not be considered something to discuss. If you comply with this directive and insist that this is a controversial matter open to question, you can silence intimidated mobs who can, apparently with impunity (because they are exercising their right to protest) to take away your right to express your opinion. .
It is not just respect for politicians of a particular party or generation that is being traded: it is the whole enterprise of accountable government. How many legitimate authorities can be said to be a prime minister when a handful of demonstrators with a noise machine can drown out an announcement of this importance? And why should infinitesimal cliques of lobbyists be able to determine the boundaries of public discourse?
The secret of their disproportionate influence is a formula well known to the left for over a century: organization, dedication, discipline. As in the case of Downing Street, tiny numbers can create grossly disproportionate amounts of oppressive noise. Ordinary people – even those who see themselves as active and politically astute – cannot compete with this relentless intervention, which can break out at any point, in any context that offers an opportunity to influence play.
For some reason that future historians will explain, official authority has made a conscious decision to allow minority lobbyists this license to dominate the public stage.
