FIRED FOR THINGS I DIDN’T SAY AND DON’T BELIEVE

TWO WEEKS ago I was sacked from my unpaid position as chair of a Government commission devoted to beauty in building. Given the atmosphere of intimidation that is growing in our country, I have to say that my sacking was no surprise. It is unusual, to say the least, for a believing conservative to be appointed to a position of responsibility by a Conservative Government. The main aim of the Tories in office is to get through to the next Election without being noticed. But I was glad to take on the job, nevertheless. There is no more urgent aim than this one, which is to restore public confidence in the planning process by persuading people that we can build the housing that we need, without spoiling the beauty of our country.

I was naive, however, in thinking that we could achieve this aim by actually believing in it. Look around, and you will quickly see there is a vested interest in ugliness. Powerful people make easy money out of spoiling our built and natural inheritance, and they will sweep aside the obstacles placed in their path by a mere philosopher.

No sooner was my appointment announced than I found myself accused of all the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ in the repertoire (racism and homophobia among them) by people who clearly had not the slightest acquaintance with my writings or thoughts on any subject at all, least of all on the subject of architecture.

Persuaded to remain in the post, I spent four months working as hard as I could, helped by my excellent fellow commissioners and a valuable team of advisers. I was careful not to get drawn into any controversy, knowing how easy it is to be demonised. But I fell into a trap, all the same. My publisher had proposed to mark my 75th birthday by reissuing three of my books, and inviting discussions of my philosophy. I expressed reservations, given the previous attacks, but again allowed myself to be persuaded.

The publisher, Bloomsbury, eventually told me that the New Statesman magazine wished to write a general piece, and would be glad for an interview. It seemed harmless enough: after all I had worked for the Statesman as a wine critic.

In the event, the publicity officer was ill and I was alone with the interviewer, George Eaton, who I saw was recording my words on his phone. I assumed this was simply because, like so many young people, he had never acquired the habit of taking notes.

A week later the New Statesman published an account of the interview, written by Eaton, in which I am portrayed as some kind of racist bigot. Eaton gave maximum publicity on social media to the article and reaffirmed its accuracy when questioned.

ASTATEMENT was released by the Labour Party denouncing me in terms so damaging that I cannot bring myself to repeat them. The Housing Secretary, James Brokenshire, then reacted, without consulting me, and I learned of my dismissal as I travelled back that day from Paris.

Eaton, meanwhile, posted a picture of himself on Instagram, drinking champagne from the bottle and triumphing over the ‘racist and homophobe Roger Scruton’.

I searched my memory for what I might have said that could have led to such a catastrophe, but remembered only the general contours of what I had assumed to be a cordial attempt to communicate my view of the political situation of our continent.

The next day, seeing the terrible headlines, I asked to see the transcript of the interview. Neither Eaton nor the New Statesman editor would release the tape, and so I was forced to flounder in a morass

of accusations, without proof of my innocence.

Meanwhile, the smears were repeated delightedly by all those vested interests that originally objected to my appointment. A Labour MP went so far as to accuse me ( in Parliament) of being a ‘white supremacist’, so associating my name with the mass murderer in Christchurch, New Zealand, and demanding that I be stripped of my knighthood.

The newspapers took up the story and soon the humiliation was complete, with even Tory politicians hurrying to dissociate themselves from me on social media.

Fortunately I have loyal friends, and questions were raised about the justice of my dismissal. Had there been a right of reply? Had the principles of natural justice been followed? Had any evidence of my words actually been produced? From all over the world came st atements of support, defending my character against the worst of the libels. But still no proof of my innocence, since the New Statesman and Eaton refused to release the tapes.

To my great relief they have now been hooked from the cybersphere. Everyone can read the summary given by Douglas Murray in the most recent Spectator magazine – and excerpted in the article on the opposite page – and the New Statesman has responded to the pressure and published a transcript.

The tapes, which can also be heard on YouTube, show clearly that the character assassination, built from t he out- of- context fragments that were published, has no foundation at all.

The important point, though, is that the interview has done its work: the Conservative Party has not regarded me as an asset worth defending, and Brokenshire, who dismissed me without a word of enquiry, has yet to come up with an apology.

Those who dare to defend ordinary conservative values now do so at considerable risk, like the Christian teacher who told The Mail on Sunday last week how she was fired for supporting a Facebook post criticising the teaching of transgender issues in schools.

In the academic world, anyone identified as a conservative is likely now to be defenestrated by the social media mob. Recently, my friend and colleague Ryszard Legutko, a distinguished Polish philosopher and MEP, was ‘disinvited’ by an American college following an attack on social media. A few weeks previously, after a similar assault, Jordan Peterson, the distinguished Canadian psychologist, had an offer of a Fellowship withdrawn by Cambridge University.

All around us, in universities, the media, in Parliament itself, we are observing a determined effort to raise the cost of conservative beliefs to the point where no one dares to express them.

We are to proceed in all our deliberations without the conservative voice. And the sad thing for those who have defended that voice is that Tory politicians will join the stampede to abandon us. But in doing this, they are abandoning those who vote for them, too.

Conservative values are not the caricature kicked around on social media. They are part of the social fabric of this country. If not defended by the Conservative Party, these values will have no part in the political process. And what will happen when the people come to see their values are without a voice in Parliament?

It is surely time for the Tory Party to wake up to the direction in which they are taking us.