Dark and the Desert and Destriers me ken,
Sir Richard F. Burton
And the Glaive and the Joust, and Paper and Pen.
This week’s episode of London Calling must surely count as one of the fieriest of all time. It’s a fascinating show, for all the reasons expressed by Michael Brendan Dougherty in National Review, and despite James Delingpole’s surprising evolution from libertarian-conservative to doomy conspiracy theorist and young earth creationist, as a listener, it has always felt like being in the same room with two old friends.
This feeling of being in the same room has edged closer to reality for me after I stumbled into journalism because of the war in Ukraine – my name now keeps popping up as a #TeamToby lackey and minor villain. It began when I wrote an article criticising one of James’s Delingpod episodes and was booted off his Telegram channel (which I’d joined to try to persuade James to write a response to my article), and seems to have intensified following my article about Calvin Robinson – reflecting what Toby described as a “schism” between pro-Ukraine and anti-war elements in the anti-lockdown (and largely pro-Brexit, Right-wing) community. But what I find troubling is not so much that there are disagreements about the war in Ukraine (although I’m disappointed by that), but that the response from James and others has been aimed at cancellation rather than honest debate.
James used to believe in rational debate. He knows that a key tactic of the climate alarmists has been to refuse any kind of debate – in fact, that’s been one of his criticisms of them. And he might broadly agree with the statement that the shutting down of any debate around lockdowns and the Covid vaccines has normalised this practice in the mainstream media in respect of a rather wide range of views and opinions. Anyone challenging the Whitehall-approved line on social media risks being accused of posting ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ and may face a suspension or ban. The suppression of dissent is hardly new, but in its current incarnation it seems to draw from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century and the political Left.
Free speech and debate is essential in a democratic society, or it won’t remain democratic for long; but a belief in rational enquiry and free speech is not a natural tendency – rather, it has to be taught, and fought for, by every generation. With this in mind, when free speech advocates like James Delingpole, Calvin Robinson and Laurence Fox don’t want to engage in debate, but rather seek to cancel other free speech advocates who are arguing in good faith about an important topic of the day, it feels like an important rational principle has been lost in the Sturm und Drang. And while I wouldn’t compare myself to Christopher Hitchens, the response to my articles on Ukraine feels not too dissimilar from his experiences at the hands of the political Left when he went after their sacred cows. And that’s not a good thing.
So I’m throwing down the gauntlet to James, Calvin and Laurence – both individually and collectively – and challenging them to a debate on the topic of Ukraine. I say to them: pick a medium and forum of your choosing and let’s thrash it out.
Of course, I can envisage a few possible objections to this. The first of these has already been raised by James, who’s essentially dismissed me as far too insignificant a person for him to care about or give a platform to. My response would be that, from what I’ve seen (some of which I discussed here), you do care – and anyway the debate doesn’t have to be on your platform.
The second objection might be along the lines of: “I don’t debate shills, and you’re not arguing in good faith.” To which I’d say that I’ve never been paid a penny for any of my Ukraine articles, and as someone with an interest in the Daily Sceptic (having been involved in its creation, although not being on the editorial staff) it’s probably not in my self-interest to be writing articles that a lot of our readers seem to object to. As for any claim about not arguing in good faith, that in itself would be a bad faith argument: an ad hom cheat to avoid good-faith debate.
Another objection might be: “You’re only saying what we hear all the time in the mainstream media. People come to our platforms to hear an alternative point of view.” But this is actually just an appeal to conformity, and I won’t conform.
One final objection might simply take the form of a sneer, or a pleading of lack of time or interest – to which I would offer as rejoinder the traditional pre-joust insult from Malory: “Fie on ye, false recreant knights!”
Stop Press: I’m pleased to report that Laurence Fox has agreed to a debate, although for Calvin Robinson and James Delingpole it was infra dig.
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.