The Institute of Economic Affairs claims that the emergence of the Culture Control Left (CCL) has weaponized concepts like ‘hate speech.’ According to research, hate speech laws are being enforced in a politically partial and inconsistent manner, with authorities refusing to prosecute cases when they are directed against white people. Marc Glendening, Head of Cultural Affairs at the Institute of Economic Affairs and the author of the report, attributed the growth in “censorious incidents” to the CCL. He argues that they have successfully weaponized concepts like “hate speech” and “har” to push legislation that silences their political opponents.
Glendening described being accused of hate speech as the contemporary equivalent of being charged with blasphemy or seditious libel. Government figures show a 26 percent increase in hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales this year. However, critics argue that the rise is due to the police’s hyper-focus on collating hate crimes.
Glendening listed cases of censorship phenomenon, such as the prosecution of the gender critical feminist Marion Miller under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for a tweet featuring a photo of a ribbon in the Suffragette colors. He claimed that despite the rise in hate crime cases, they are only partially enforced, and in some cases, police refuse to prosecute similar cases directed at white people. He attributes this inconsistency to the underlying commitment to the assumptions of critical race theory, which views racial discrimination as peculiar to white people.
Glendening pointed out high-profile examples where the police refused to pursue cases against white people, such as Bahar Mustafa, who posted the phrase “KillAllWhiteMen” on Twitter, and Munroe Bergdorf, who stated that “white people are socialized to be racist from birth onwards.” Glendening accused the CCL of being a homogenous political phenomenon and a political movement gaining influence in recent years.
The report also quoted Labour MP Nadia Whittome, who stated that “We must not fetishize ‘debate’ as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act.” Glendening argues that Whittome’s reasoning reveals a abandonment of liberal values, as she believes that challenging her views through civil debate is politically undesirable. He warns that censoring views based on alleged harm is incompatible with liberal democracy and poses a significant threat to Britain’s liberal political culture.
The Epoch Times contacted Priyamvada Gopal, Nadia Whittome, and Munroe Bergdorf for comment.