An entire generation are puzzled by the idea that anyone has the right to say things they don't agree with

FREE speech is already dead in Britain. It is just that the chattering classes have not realised it yet. Once again we have a clear case of a mob successfully demanding that limits should be placed on what can be said.

Durham’s Professor Tim Luckhurst has had to apologise, because he called his own students ‘pathetic’ for their conformism. Some of them had walked out after a speech at Durham’s South College by the provocative writer Rod Liddle.

You might have thought ‘pathetic’ was a mild rebuke to such behaviour, in a university supposedly dedicated to the open-minded search for knowledge. But no. This one word was enough to trigger a parade of noisy outrage and – more importantly – to send the university authorities running for cover. Did you think they would stand up for him?

There is still a very limited liberty to say a few nonconformist things in some newspapers and magazines, and perhaps in some universities and schools. It is also possible on one or two smaller lowaudience broadcasting stations and bits of the internet.

I am – for the moment – one of the luckier ones. But I do not expect it to last for ever. I can see that, for most people, true free speech has ceased to exist.

Step outside the borders of acceptable thought in a school or a workplace and you can very quickly find yourself being denounced and in serious trouble.

On some issues, such as the transgender controversy, it is virtually impossible to say anything without attracting the attention of the Thought Police.

Fascinatingly, the small group who do speak out on this are mostly Left-wing radical feminists. Actual conservatives would never dare, and wisely hide behind Julie Bindel and J.K. Rowling.

In workplaces, from fire stations to schools, everything must conform with ‘Equality and Diversity’. This is in fact the law of the land. Where trade unions still exist, they support the new speech codes and will not defend you. So most people wisely do not risk it.

A large number of opinions have now been classified broadly as ‘Fascist’. This word does not mean ‘supporter of Fascism’. George Orwell pointed out more than 70 years ago that ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable” ’.

But now it has gone further than that. It is, amusingly, not applied to actual Fascists.

It is very telling that the word ‘Fascist’ was not aimed at Max Mosley, the prominent critic of British newspapers, by the British Left. This was despite the fact that

Mr Mosley, by his own choice, once went brawling on behalf of his father Sir Oswald, a self-proclaimed Fascist. As a young man he also painted Fascist symbols on walls.

Worst of all, he was exposed as the publisher of a leaflet seething with racial bigotry, at an age when he could and should have known better.

But this did not cost him his Leftwing defenders. This was because they enjoyed his attacks on Fleet

Street newspapers too much. They rightly see the surviving national newspapers as one of the last major forces of democratic conservatism in the country, and hope to bring them down.

Laughably, while the Left will not call Max Mosley a Fascist, many of them would certainly use it of me. But it is freely applied to people who oppose Fascism.

Among millions, the idea that you can defend someone’s right to say something you disagree with is now puzzling. They have no idea why anyone would do that. For them, the debate is over, they have won, and those who oppose them are stupid and wrong.

The whole concept of tolerance has almost died in this generation, as far as I can see.

It is fascinating to note that the holders of these dominant opinions are already starting to joke about actually killing those who disagree with them. I mistrust such jokes, as I have known plenty of people who have dressed up their nastiest thoughts and desires as jests.

These new totalitarians no doubt deeply oppose the death penalty for murder. Yet in my own home town, Oxford, I have seen people walking around wearing T-shirts carrying the words A Platform For Fascists and a picture of a guillotine, the instrument by which the radical French Revolutionaries murdered thousands of their conservative opponents after kangaroo trials. You can buy these witty garments for a bargain £12.84 on the internet.

So while I admire the efforts of such people as Toby Young, with his Free Speech Union (to which I belong) to fight against this new dark age, I think the cause is lost.

A few years ago I was given a warning of what is coming. I went to speak to a meeting at Balliol College in Oxford, about a favourite subject – the foolish destruction of state grammar schools. As I neared the college, the organisers intercepted me, to warn I was the object of a protest.

The demonstrators awaited me, carrying hand-made placards declaring ‘History will forget you’, ‘Stop Platforming Hate’, and ‘Welcome to our Heresy Hunt’.

Rather originally, they had decided to object to me in total

In workplaces, from fire stations to schools, everything must conform

They suggest I am motivated by hatred of people rather than by dislike of ideas and policies

For them, the debate is over … those who oppose them are wrong

silence, and they walked backwards in front of me holding the placards and trying to look hostile.

When I saw one of them walking backwards into a bush, I tried to warn her, but she would not listen to my Fascist advice and duly got badly mixed up in the plant.

Trying not to laugh, I accepted a leaflet from one of them, in which I was denounced in detail for many, many offences against political correctness over many years. It was entitled The Words Of Peter Hitchens – A Brief Guide To The Bigotry And Vanity Of Peter Hitchens. The fascinating thing about it was that it was all very nearly true. By using slanted reported speech and partial quotation, it managed to suggest that I was an even more horrible person than I no doubt am. Most of all, it gave the impression I am motivated by hatred of people rather than by dislike of ideas and policies.

And this is the basis of what will eventually happen to everyone like me. It was the indictment I will face at my show trial, which will come if I live long enough. In a few years the sort of people who took part in that demonstration will be police officers, lawyers, civil servants and, of course, BBC journalists.

Nonsense, you will say. Free speech may be a bit tattered in this country, but dissenters will never be put on trial, let alone punished for what they have said. But my

opponents genuinely think I have spread hate and so done actual damage to vulnerable human beings. They do not view my words as expressions of opinion but as incitement to discrimination against certain people, and as ‘hate speech’ intended to harm.

They also view my doubts about the theory of man-made global warming as ‘denial’ of a fact which they regard as proven. To them, this is little short of sabotage of efforts to combat this peril.

All these positions are modern variations of the totalitarian states which grew up between the two world wars of the 20th Century.

All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong.

In Germany, Italy and Russia, this came about through crude seizures of power backed by the threat of street violence. In Spain it followed a barbaric civil war.

Here, in the cleverest revolution in human history, it has come about through a peaceful, often boring and very slow seizure of power over the mind. Do you know what your children are being taught at school about global warming, about sex and marriage, about immigration, about history? Of course you don’t, though some of my readers report that their children received dirty looks from teachers when they revealed that The Mail on Sunday was delivered to their home.

You have assumed that, for them, school is like what you experienced. It is not. Nor is university, where once again one set of ideas is reinforced, over and over again by teachers, books and also by the most powerful clubs and societies on campus.

How we have laughed over the past 30 years at the politicisation of BBC entertainment, in which even Agatha Christie mysteries, Doctor Who and Call The Midwife are used to spread a political message.

How we chuckled at ‘Loony Left’ Labour councils of the 1980s, with their busts of Lenin and Red Flags in the town hall, their courting of Sinn Fein and their agenda of sexual liberation.

Yet, as we laughed, it continued and grew more intense. Ken Livingstone may be a marginal figure now, but what does that matter when his policies are today embraced by the Conservative Party, as they are?

And despite repeated claims that the problem of political conformity on campuses is being tackled, the case of Tim Luckhurst shows that the danger to free speech is stronger, not weaker.

Who knows if he will even keep his job? Will he perhaps be forced to wear a dunce’s cap and paraded round the university with his head bowed and a placard round his neck denouncing his crimes? If this happened, more people would at least grasp what was going on.

Our course begins to resemble the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, when legions of ignorant, indoctrinated Red Guards pulled down everything they did not understand and cleared the way for a new, more intolerant, narrower world.

It is worse than you think and, as I keep telling you, it is so big that you cannot believe its scale, and that is why most people cannot see it until it is far too late.

This revolution has come about through a slow seizure of power over the mind