(Photograph: Mark Steyn Show, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)
Defending Douglas Murray, the associate editor of The Spectator, is akin to defending a lion. He is one of the most effective critics of left-wing identity politics today. Yet in the culture war that this kind of politics has unleashed on the West, it is important for those who are opponents of its claims to take their stand alongside those who like Murray who are its favourite targets. A recent article by Anna Stanley (called ‘Scandalous Indoctrination: Inside a King’s College Counter-Terrorism Course for UK Civil Servants’) has exposed the unjust opprobrium Murray receives. According to Stanley, who attended this course along with civil servants from the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Ministries of Justice and Defence, an academic from King’s College advocated finding ways of ‘suppressing’ Murray for being far-right. Is Murray far-right and what exactly did the academic mean?
The call to silence Murray was not the only scandalous thing Stanley witnessed. First, there was the proposition that terrorism cannot be defined because ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’. If terrorism is a relative concept, then can anyone be targeted by a counter-terrorism strategy? At that point, everyone ought to have closed their lap-tops and returned to their offices.
Then, according to Stanley, came the morally bankrupt argument from one of the civil servant participants that the counter-terrorism strategy ‘Prevent’ is racist because it focuses disproportionately on Islamist terrorism. When Stanley made the point that nearly 70% of terrorist attacks in the UK are Islamist and Prevent is therefore right to focus on Islamism, her view was ‘not well received.’
More nonsense followed such as the view that condemning terrorism is to support the power of the strong over the weak. Again, if that is the case, why have a counter-terrorist strategy? Predictably, Israel featured in the discussion as a prime example of a state that could arguably be defined as terrorist. At that point, the previous assertion that terrorism cannot be defined appears to have been conveniently forgotten.
The conclusion the conference drew was that Islamist terrorism is exaggerated and right-wing terrorism is overlooked. (So, terrorism can be defined after all!) As if to demonstrate what is meant by overlooked far-right terrorism, a lecturer gave the example of Murray. The lecturer asked to what extent Murray ought to be ‘suppressed’ and concluded that as Murray is so popular on social media and de-platforming him would be very difficult, other methods ought to be employed. At that point, Stanley’s article stops as if to give the reader pause to reflect on such an ominous proposition.
The idea that Murray is far-right is risible, but for anyone who believes this about Murray, here is a refutation.
To be far-right means to be a racial supremacist, a nationalist and an advocate of absolute state authority. There is nothing in what Murray has written or said that can be construed in such ways. Murray opposes mass immigration, not because he does not want foreigners to live in Britain and acquire British citizenship, but because the sudden influx of people disrupts the multi-ethnic harmony that Britain has achieved and overwhelms already stretched public services. Murray is a patriot as his recent article ‘In Search of Deep England’ reveals but that is not synonymous with a bellicose ‘my nation right or wrong’ attitude. Murray supports a minimal state which is characteristic of the right but not of the far right that deifies the state. He is a tireless advocate of free speech otherwise The Spectator would not employ him. What is distinctive of the far-right is the suppression of opponents. Perhaps the lecturer who called for Murray’s suppression himself ought to be reported to Prevent?
In an interview with Talk TV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer, Murray said he believes the lecturer in question is Professor Peter Neumann. Murray then announced that his lawyers are looking into the matter and has also called for King’s College and the Home Office to investigate Neumann’s alleged comments. This is a matter that Murray will not let go, not only because it affects him personally, but that it is a question of everyone’s freedom of speech which more than ever these days needs defending.
Peter Harris is the author of two books, The Rage Against the Light: Why Christopher Hitchens Was Wrong (2019) and Do You Believe It? A Guide to a Reasonable Christian Faith (2020).
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
‘’Prevent is racist because it focuses disproportionately on Islamist terrorism”….
That is because the vast majority of terrorist outrages are committed by Islamist terrorists you woke imbecile. Who do you think committed the atrocities on Oct 7th? The Womens’ Institute FFS?
I’d love to have a word with the moron that came up with that BS. Remember, this is a ‘civil servant’ … not entirely indicative of any mental acuity these days I’m afraid.
BTW Islam is no more a ‘race’ than say Catholics or Protestants.
100% Mick
There’s nothing to be said in opposition to any of that except … Is Douglas Murray a conservative? What conservative could say (Telegraph 23/7/2022) “while nothing is more important than the economy and economic growth, the cultural underpinnings of our country matter too.” What conservative thinks that the most important thing in the lives of nations is their economies? What conservative thinks that, while the cultures of nations matter, they do so only as useful underpinnings of the economy?