IF you’re a fan of cancel culture, the last few weeks must have been a blast. From Meghan and Piers, to the call for a night-time curfew on all men living in London, and more importantly, to the passing of the Hate Crime Act in Scotland, the vengeful, irrational and bigoted world of victimhood has been in full flow.

The 18-century Enlightenment that laid the foundations for the emerging rational world challenged and ultimately overcame the aristocratic privilege of truth telling. Truth was no longer something held by particular individuals but was something open to everyone through the use of science, evidence and a reasoned contestation of ideas and beliefs.

Today, through the prism of vulnerability and victimhood, we find that this enlightened approach to the truth is being obliterated by the elevation of emotion, fear and the idea of “my truth”.

This irrational development centres around the cultural elevation of “vulnerable groups”, around victim identities and the subjective idea of emotional abuse and harm.

 

Hate Crime Bill destroys common sense

 

Piers Morgan crossed this line by questioning Meghan Markle’s comments about her suicidal thoughts. It is difficult, perhaps impossible to prove her claim one way or the other, but the important point is that you are not even allowed to speculate or express an opinion. Within this emotionalised world you must simply apologise for your blasphemy or face the consequences.

Questioning the claims of media racism, the director of the Society of Editors, Ian Murray argued that it was the job of the press to find the truth and to challenge powerful individuals like the Duchess. Where is your actual evidence of racism in the press? he asked.

A journalistic backlash ensued, and Murray has also resigned. Eleven of the 30 shock-horror headlines came from non-British sources, while with some, racist quotes were highlighted despite having come from articles that were denouncing racism and defending Markle.

In London the brutal murder of Sarah Everard has been politicised and emotionalised through stories of fear felt by some women. The Prime Minister has said he will act, and calls have been made to enforce a 6pm curfew on all men living in London.

Many women disagree with the politicisation of the murder. Others have questioned whether rational policies should be based on fears rather than facts. A friend of Sarah Everard has even come out and denounced the reaction, arguing that “my friend’s tragic death has been hijacked”. She doesn’t believe that this murder of Sarah is a “symptom of a sexist, dangerous society”. But her voice, her and Sarah’s “truth”, lacks the aristocratic privilege of victimhood and is lost in the politics of fear.

Finally, we discover, once again, that Holyrood is the voice of the new clerisy of victimhood. The Hate Crime Act that now makes it a criminal offence to say certain things in your own home has been passed. Judges will now decide on the “reasonableness” of the thoughts and words you express in your living room. The right to privacy and private thought has been obliterated in the medieval mess of a country called Scotland.

 

Not only has privacy been obliterated but it has been obliterated by a huge majority of politicians, in a vote of 82 to 32, a vote that I would suggest represents the exact opposite percentages if the vote was to be put to the public.

 

How would Scots state deal with ‘offensive’ cartoons?

 

This vote is not a reflection of democracy, it is further evidence of the emergence of a new aristocracy that gains its moral legitimacy through its engagement with fear and the one-sided, often false representation of millions of individuals as vulnerable victims.

Truth can only develop and grow when we have a society in which individuals are free to express their thoughts and are equally free to question any idea of “my truth”.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Herald.