The letter highlighted the increasing limits on freedom of expression – editors fired for publishing controversial articles, academics punished for teaching certain texts, and called for “swift and severe punishment” against those who refuse to conform to a new, illiberal orthodoxy. A victim of these trends is another signatory, JK Rowling, who is being made a non-person by fascists on the Left who object to her expressing a perfectly legitimate and honest view of what a woman really is. Sir Salman, unfortunately, knows all too well the horrific forms that retributive extremism can take: but it has other horrific manifestations, as a growing number of academics, writers and other intellectuals will testify. When Iran imposed a fatwa on Sir Salman 33 years ago, it appeared to be because he, as a Muslim, had committed blasphemy. But there were also deep political reasons, among them Iran’s attempt to wrest from Saudi Arabia the idea that it leads the Islamic faith. However, a cultural clash between Western and Eastern values was widely discussed. There seemed no point in trying to ask the East to respect Western freedom of expression, because theocracies would not have it. Sir Salman apologized, which he later said he regretted. because it made no difference. We cannot ascertain the motive of his attacker. Since before 9/11, attacks by Islamists in America have usually turned out to be politically motivated. When the fatwa was issued, the British Left was quick to defend Sir Salman. the British state provided comprehensive police protection. But in the intervening years, the politics of free speech have changed. The creation of an international mob of censors and bigots – also politically motivated – on Twitter and elsewhere means that the practices of denying freedom of expression and demanding “retaliation” are widespread among those whose only gods are ideological. This was Miss Rowling’s fate. Those who own certain rights to her works are removing her name from their spin-offs, not necessarily because of their beliefs, but because the mob bullies and threatens them into doing so. In universities, dons often live in fear of their students’ opinions, which limits their academic freedom and distorts curricula to focus on race, gender, and sexuality. Students who challenge subsequent assumptions are afraid to speak up in case they are graded or fail. Their teachers often conform to the new orthodoxy because they fear losing their jobs if they don’t. Publishers censor books because certain words have become unspeakable. The fear of “hurt feelings” has become mandatory. This desire to virtue signal, to acquire the same false cloak of self-righteousness, is not limited to the Left: Conservatives like Tom Tugendhat jumped when the late Sir Roger Scruton was falsely labeled a racist for promoting their reputation among those they wanted to please . Harper’s signatories wrote that “we must preserve the possibility of good-faith dissent without dire professional consequences.” As we now know, the ramifications of this frenzy to control free expression go far beyond the professional. They called upon individuals to defend these rights, for otherwise democratic states could not be prepared to do so. Well Sir Salman and others have stepped up. What will Western democracies really do to cut this cancer before it goes global?
