The opening paragraphs from Sir Keir Starmer’s piece for the Sunday Times on Sunday October 6th, marking one year since Hamas terrorists smashed through the Israeli border, killing, torturing and kidnapping innocent civilians in their path, provide a masterclass in what discourse analysts sometimes refer to as passivation: changing a sentence from active to passive voice.
Passivation is a linguistic technique that omits or ‘hides’ the actor performing a certain action or actions in a sentence. In political or media discourse, it’s typically used to obscure agency or responsibility.
(To give you an idea of its rhetorical effects, it’s worth noting that children tend very quickly to become artful proponents of the passive style: “Did you bite your sister?” asks the furious father; “She was bitten,” responds the son.)
Here are some examples of that style as it features in Starmer’s opening remarks. Note that in each case, the material action described (murder, massacre, abduction) has no discernible perpetrator:
- “Jews murdered while protecting their families.” [By whom?]
- “Young people massacred at a music festival.” [By whom?]
- “People abducted from their homes.” [By whom?]
Later on, Starmer’s obfuscatory style intensifies. In the parlance of transitivity analysis, material actions – in which a person is shown causing certain actions to take place – are transformed into existential processes in which there is no actor, and certain actions simply occur, as if of their own volition.
(“Did you bite your sister?” asks the furious father; “There was a nip,” responds the son, who, in this version of the scenario, represents a particularly up-and-coming young rhetorician, well-prepared for his first job as a senior political advisor to a serving cabinet minister.)
“As the hours passed, more and more agonising reports emerged. Rape. Torture. Brutality beyond comprehension.” [Yes, but perpetrated by whom?]
In fact, “Hamas” doesn’t feature once in this, an article ostensibly written to (at least in part) honour the victims of October 7th 2023.
This can’t simply be explained away as a stylistic tic, since later on Starmer is happy to position Israel as a grammatical actor/subject, when it “launches a ground invasion in response [to Hezbollah’s rocket attacks]”.
Oddly enough, when Charles Moore emailed the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) earlier this year to check its official position on the October 7th massacre, he received a similarly passivated response: “The Muslim Council of Britain condemns the killing of innocent people on October 7th.” (Eliding, of course, whether the MCB considers the Israelis killed to be “innocent”.)
But did the MCB agree that the murders of October 7th “were carried out chiefly by Hamas”, Lord Moore asked in a follow-up email that he says didn’t receive a response. “Apparently,” he concluded, “the biggest British Muslim umbrella organisation cannot bring itself to say a bad word against Hamas.”
Curiously, much later on Sunday October 6th, a separate piece appeared under Starmer’s name on the Government’s website. Far fewer people will read it, of course, but here, thankfully, the Prime Minister dispenses with the passive style, stating:
October 7th 2023 was the darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. One year on, we stand together to remember the lives so cruelly taken.
Over a thousand people were brutally murdered. Men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated, and tortured by the terrorists of Hamas. Jewish people murdered whilst protecting their families. [emphasis added]
It’s almost as if, in writing for the Sunday Times, the Prime Minister was attempting to triangulate his message about the slaughter, rape and mutilation of Jewish civilians to avoid antagonising a certain section of the electorate.
A certain section of the electorate? According to the 2021 census, there are now 3.9 million Muslims in the U.K. Together, they make up around 6% of the population.
Traditionally, Muslims have been electorally loyal to Labour, but amid rising anger at Starmer’s reluctance to more strongly condemn Israeli actions in Gaza since October 7th, that support has been fraying around the edges.
During the 2024 local elections, for example, Labour’s vote share in wards with over 70% Muslim voters declined by 39 percentage points. At the national level, while 80% of Muslims voted for Labour at the 2019 General Election, analysis of the 2024 general election results by thinktank More in Common suggests that Labour’s vote share fell sharply in seats with large Muslim populations.
Muslim independent candidate Shockat Adam caused a huge upset by beating Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth, then the Shadow Paymaster General, to become the new MP for Leicester South. According to Jewish News, Adam’s brother is Ismail Patel, the founder of hardline Islamist group Friends of Al Aqsa, who previously said that he “salutes Hamas”, and has even met with senior figures from the terrorist group while visiting Gaza.
The seat of Dewsbury and Batley – a formerly safe Labour seat – was won by another ‘Gaza independent’, Iqbal Mohamed, who delivered a speech during the election in which he told a crowd to search their homes for “Zionist” items and thrown them out. “Tell your kids too – even candy shops can be dangerous,” he added, to gleeful chants from the crowd of “from the river to the sea”.
Another Labour stronghold, Birmingham Perry Bar, was won by independent Ayoub Khan. Previously a Liberal Democrat councillor, Khan was investigated by the party last year after he questioned the extent of Hamas’s October 7th terrorist attack, posting several clips on TikTok stating he had yet to see evidence that any of the terror group’s members had beheaded babies or committed rape.
Other Labour MPs only just fought off Muslim independents to hold on to their seats: Health Secretary Wes Streeting won 528 more votes than British-Palestinian activist Leanne Mohamad in Ilford North, while Naz Shah held her Bradford with a narrow majority of 707 votes over Muhammed Ali Islam.
No doubt it might seem a little far-fetched to suggest Starmer’s passivated rhetoric in the Sunday Times is part of some wider positioning strategy in relation to the Muslim vote and the rise of a dangerous sectarianism in British politics.
And yet it’s interesting to reflect that, of the 220 most marginal seats in the recent General Election, Islam was the largest minority religion in 129 of them (58.6%).
Allied to this is the fact that polling undertaken earlier this year, and described as “the largest of its kind” since October 7th, revealed that just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel, while 46% say they sympathise with the group.
The figures, which were provided by polling company J.L. Partners for the Henry Jackson Society, a counter-extremism think tank, also suggested that younger Muslims described as more “well-educated” – who are, of course, part of an age demographic that is more likely to support Labour –were the most likely to think Hamas did not commit atrocities on October 7th.
Dr. Frederick Attenborough is the Free Speech Union’s Senior Communications Officer. You can find him on Substack here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
With such a high (30%) self censoring, what is the problem trying to be solved?
The problem, that should be obvious, is that anyone is forced to self censor.
Self-censorship doesn’t require force, that’s the beauty of it. It shows that the mind of the individual is being influenced by external messaging to a point where their behaviour has changed.
It requires intimidation:
If you dare criticise the wonder that is Islam, be prepared to be decapitated randomly in public. So we self-censor.
If you dare criticise the wonder that is Judaism, be prepared to be released from your job, debanked, slandered in the media, and gaslighted as some sort of lunatic who’s out of control. So we self-sensor.
If you dare criticise the wonder that is the Communist Party of China, be prepared to receive cyber attacks, malicious emails, threats and intimidation. So we self-sensor.
But of course criticism of Christianity; of Britain and British culture; of all western culture; is fair game, because we allow criticism of our institutions, it is a fundamental feature of democracy. We don’t need to self-censor here, there is no threat. We can say and think we want, do what we want, without fear of being threatened, living freely.
You’re probably free to criticize Judaism but the government of Israel must not be criticized as it routinely smears all its opponents as antisemites and this claim is equally routinely being accepted by everyone.
Should be obvious, but not to me. Forced or choose to self censor?
Choosing to self-sensor is another way of being forced, Graham. Otherwise why would you self-sensor in the first place? Through coercion, nudging, fear of reprisal, manipulation, peer pressure etc etc etc.
I am aware of the peer pressure points, nudging etc etc but a choice is a choice. Equally, perhaps its a generational thing, I expect an “academic” to be of robust character, with self belief and integrity. In my expectations of an academic and the 30% of a large number of “academics” if they possessed such character, you should have lots of independent Tsars.
Basically self censorship is a conscious act.
Well, starting with the most obvious, it’s not that hard to lose your job for saying the wrong thing – generally speaking but probably more so in academia. So a good first step would be protection in law for speech by employees, with the appropriate caveats where that speech was obviously directly detrimental to the employer e.g. don’t buy our products, they are rubbish. Another fairly obvious step is to prohibit any university that takes public money from using flimsy excuses not to allow certain speakers/debates to take place on university premises. I know less about the student side of things so not able to say much of use on that subject.
That second guessing thought process is the problem and the answer is not a Tsar. As Dr Mike Yeadon said on another matter, no one is coming to save us/you. Everyone has to take action.
Well we should all do what we can and no-one is coming to save is, I agree.
I also agree that more state interference is not necessarily the answer, even if the chap is “on our side” (???). But some clear laws would help, and withdrawal of funding to universities.
With such clear laws, there is a danger of reversing principles as happened during the lockdowns. Previously everything was allowed apart from what was prohibited by legislation. During lockdowns everything was prohibited apart from what was allowed by legislation. If a Tsar determines what is allowed, you are on a fast track to that principle.
Wishful thinking on the withdrawal of funding unfortunately
Well it’s all wishful thinking I fear
I’m assuming you mean: With such a high (30%) self censoring how can this solve the problem? Please correct me if I’m wrong. Self-censoring is a product of pressure. Pressure built up over a period of time through a slow trickle, then a flood, of ‘right-speak/right-thought. The trickle took the form of a thousand little nudges, the flood is the brazenly public chastisement of anyone who is deemed to be infected with wrong-think. Any resistance to the flow will lessen self-censoring.
Not really. I have explained a couple of points but strong principled people, acting consistent with their privileged position of an “academic” shouldn’t really need such a role in my opinion.
At the same time as this is happening we have new “Hate Speech” laws, like what is about to come into law in Scotland on April 1st. —–This seems like a great example of “The irresistible force versus the immovable object”. ———-But I suspect that in the age of Cultural Marxism this Tsar appointment will be just another bit of tokenism so Progressive Politicians can say “but look we appointed a Tsar”, in the same fashion as “look we have reduced the small boats” or “the cost of living crisis is over”. It will all just be kidology.
Erm, I’d like to know why, exactly, they’ve appointed a free speech ‘Tsar’ (ridiculous epithet) called Arif Ahmed. If he is a muzlim, as the name suggests, he hardly belongs to a culture that represents the value of free speech as we infidels understand it. If he is an apostate from that religion, he should use his position of supporting free speech to declare it loudly and often. Same applies if he is of another faith or an atheist.
Wasn’t there any White British man or woman, brought up in an era before the evil ‘hate speech’ laws were forced on us by Dictator Bliar and his fluffy sidekick Harriet Harperson, available to fill this role? Well of course there was, but the ruling traitors chose who they chose for cowardly wokey ideological reasons, not because of Ahmed’s suitability for it.
On the same theme but in a different arena, the same craven, bandwagon decisions are made by companies that want to sell beauty products to the majority of women in this country – White women – yet insult them by ignoring their existence altogether. Body Shop, Boots and many other such firms insist on showing Black, Asian (and any other non-white race they can find) models wearing their products. No Caucasians allowed, apparently.
I am so sick of this deliberate white-washing, I boycott these racist companies.
“Self censoring”——–Now where did I see that before again? ——Oh yeah North Korea. ——Over there it is called “Keep your mouth shut or else”
The likelihood of this apparently well meaning intervention working is scant. After twenty-seven consecutive years of authoritarian leftist governance all England’s instituitions are now corrupted beyond redemption. Reform is no longer feasible and radical destruction is required before civilization can develop again.
“radical destruction is required before civilization can develop again.”
Build Back Better then?
It would look better if the “Tsar” was called Fred Smith or Julie Jones but no let’s keep up with the times & have this trustworthy chap doing something that shouldn’t need doing in the first place !
I believe he has been at the front of the fight for quite some time. He led the charge at Cambridge.
Yet another Pakistani Muslim handed a top position, this time a Leftist now in charge of guarding the UK’s Freedom of Speech. Oh, but don’t worry, he claims to be an atheist, as so many do, though his middle name Mohuiddin means “Reviver of Islam”.
“One of the reasons that Professor Ahmed’s appointment was an unusually canny one for the current government is that his political views are largely inscrutable even to those colleagues and friends who know him best.
The son of an immigrant family that came to Britain from Pakistan, Ahmed read mathematics at Oxford and philosophy at Sussex and Cambridge universities. He acted for many years as a case-worker for a trade union. Yet on economic matters he is probably closer to a broadly more libertarian position. His views on immigration would put him at odds with policies that the current government is trying to implement.”
Profile: Professor Arif Ahmed | The Critic | The Critic Magazine
So this Leftist trade union activist of course supports the Mass Third World Invasion of the West, otherwise known as the Invasion of the Muslim Army, though he has carefully obscured his true political views, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It’s just like another Pakistani Muslim with the same surname, Aaquil Ahmed (same caste), being the only person chosen as head of Religion and Ethics at both Channel 4 and the BBC simultaneously, and put in charge of the Christian “Songs of Praise”.
But don’t worry, nothing to see here.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions
Yes, maybe we should all just give up and rename the British Isles as
“Outer Pakistan”.
Well researched. Thanks.
Ab-so-lute-ly spot on. Heretic. I posted something similarly critical before I saw your post, but you know more about this catspaw than I did.
I reckon he’s only got a few months left before he’s kicked out of his job by the next government.
Yeah, then Starmer can appoint another of the same ilk, but even worse. Maybe Chinese?