The politics of rage is starting to take over

Campaigning for what you believe in is a worthy calling, but it is important to keep an open mind, too

There is considerable evidence that political debate has become more threatening, menacing and, in some cases, downright nasty. A stubbornness has developed, where people simply don’t want to listen to – or even have to tolerate – the conflicting views of others. The modern desire tends towards the reinforcement of existing and firmly entrenched opinions, with alternative positions crushed – sometimes aggressively – under the weight of popular outrage and anger.

Our universities, once considered bastions of open and rigorous debate, run the risk of falling hostage to the safe-spaces and censorship of the professionally offended. Just this year, we learnt that more than 90 per cent of British university campuses have experienced some form of restriction on freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, much recent attention has also focused on individuals, fuelled by the immediate access and simplicity of social media into generating vile online abuse. But it’s not just some individuals or students who don’t want to hear the views of others. There are plenty of organisations that would rather bully or suppress than debate.

Last week saw the British Pregnancy Advice Service (BPAS) orchestrate a campaign against Boots. The company had refused to drop the price of a morning-after pill, it said, on the grounds that it “would not want to be accused of incentivising inappropriate use”. The morning-after pill is also readily available free for emergency use from outlets including A&E, walk-in medical centres, STD clinics, most GP surgeries and some pharmacies.

In response, BPAS decided to whip up outrage among thousands of women to crush Boots’s resistance. It quickly became a campaign designed to damage the Boots brand by making the company appear sexist. Boots quickly submitted to the pressure.

I recall BPAS running a similar “outrage” campaign against the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, after I agreed a grant, as minister, to a pro-life charity. The grant was specifically for a project that helped to support pregnant women, for example those who were coming out of human trafficking and needed housing. It was rated the best application from over 800 for a grant, but it was vehemently opposed by BPAS. The strength of the project, the good it would do and the fact there were safeguards in place simply did not seem to matter. Facts and context appeared to be irrelevant in the face of moral indignation.

Even where tragedy has struck, nothing is sacred. Immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, the local community was understandably shattered. Yet, it became apparent that organised groups were moving into Grenfell from outside the area.

The storming of Kensington Town Hall was not simply a local protest and is widely believed to have involved activists from a number of Left-wing organisations. A “Day of Rage”, organised by Movement for Justice, urged people to “bring down the Government”. A politically motivated organisation, masquerading as representing the local community’s wishes, was using a dreadful tragedy as an opportunity to forward its agenda.

Most recently, we’ve seen People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), trying to give a monkey rights over a picture while “ruining” a photographer’s life in the process. It began when a monkey took a selfie in the Indonesian jungle having pressed a button on the camera owned by David Slater. The picture has been viewed all around the world and he made an income from the copyright.

This was subject to a legal dispute with Wikipedia, on the grounds the image wasn’t created by a human – a case that Slater initially won. But Peta is challenging this on the monkey’s behalf. The case has left Slater crushed financially, all to prove that a monkey should own copyright of a photo.

It’s clear that to some campaigners, the views, livelihoods and wellbeing of others does not seem to matter a jot. No one objects to individuals and organisations being advocates for a cause – that’s a positive thing and passionate campaigning to make the world a better place shouldn’t be discouraged. The disturbing element, however, is the desire to crush the alternative opinion often through the stimulating of public anger, regardless of any repercussions it might have for a community, group, or an individual.