Andrew Doyle is the author of “Free Speech and Why It Matters” and “The New Puritans.” This article was adapted from his Substack.
I have recently felt a growing nostalgia for the days when words remained attached to their traditional definitions. Activists in positions of influence so habitually mangle the English language that even basic communication is often impeded. Words and phrases such as “far right,” “genocide,” “racist” and “hate” have become unmoored from their meanings, losing much of their utility.
We cannot even be secure in our use of the word “terrorist” any longer, given that so many are determined to abuse it. How else to explain the fact that comedian John Cleese, of Monty Python and “Fawlty Towers” fame, has been reported to Prevent, the British government program designed to stop people from becoming terrorists? Are dead parrots, silly walks and disgruntled hoteliers now deemed early warning signs of radicalization?
The complaint to Prevent against Cleese was made by a member of the public, and the details passed to 5Pillars, an Islamist media outlet based in London. In its report, 5Pillars characterized the complaint as alleging that Cleese’s social media jokes and comments “go beyond legitimate criticism of Islam and instead portray Muslims collectively as violent, criminal and morally depraved.” The complaint, quoted by 5Pillars, said Cleese’s rhetoric may contribute to “radicalisation, communal tension, and hate incidents.” (If you haven’t heard of “hate incidents,” they are those noncrimes that the British police seem to spend so much of their time investigating.)
None of this is true, of course. Cleese rightly rejects the term “Islamophobic” and instead calls himself “Islamosceptic.” How could he be otherwise? This is a man who has brilliantly skewered closed systems of thought for many decades. Many readers will remember Python members’ televised debate in 1979 with writer Malcolm Muggeridge and Bishop Mervyn Stockwood, who were furious at what they perceived to be a direct attack on Christianity in “Monty Python’s Life of Brian.”
Just imagine the conniptions if, instead of the priggish, outraged Muggeridge and Stockwood, the offended party were a representative from 5Pillars.
Cleese has responded to the Prevent referral in the best possible way: by mocking it. “One of the proudest moments of my life,” he posted on X. “I would like to thank everyone concerned.” The tyrannical mindset, always humorless, cannot bear to be ridiculed. Few will be surprised that there are those who wish to see Cleese silenced — in August, 5Pillars said “The Islamophobic comedian John Cleese should be de-platformed” — and that they will try to weaponize the law to that end.
But what exactly is 5Pillars? “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion,” a 2024 British government report, described 5Pillars as having “expressed support for an Islamic caliphate, Sharia (Islamic principles and law) penal codes and physical jihad” and “repeatedly abused and intimidated Muslim liberals, counter-extremists, and human rights activists.”
Yet the government, whether under Conservative leadership in recent years or under Labour now, has long been inclined more toward woke orthodoxy. A 2022 report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee lists “cultural nationalism” as one of the ideological strands associated with “extreme right-wing terrorism.” This same classification has been incorporated into the Home Office’s Prevent guidance. Here is the gloss the committee provides for the phrase “cultural nationalism”:
“A belief that ‘Western Culture’ is under threat from mass migration into Europe and from a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups. The ideology tends to focus on the rejection of cultural practices such as the wearing of the burqa, or the perceived rise of the use of sharia law. In the UK this has been closely associated with anti-Islam groups.”
The belief that Western society is under threat from mass migration is not so niche as the government supposes. Indeed, numerous politicians have made broadly the same point, sometimes in the House of Commons: “After years of mass immigration, we now face the enormous task of building an integrated, cohesive society. Allowing more and more immigration would make that impossible.” For a fun quiz, ask a counterterrorism expert whether these words came from a jackbooted far-right zealot or from mild-mannered Conservative and former prime minister Theresa May. For it was she, speaking in 2012 as home secretary.
The reckless debasement of language explains why perfectly reasonable objections to the most egregious aspects of Islamic theocracies, such as those outlined by Cleese in his various social media posts on the subject, are suddenly deemed terroristic. For example, according to 5Pillars, the complainant to Prevent specifically cited one Cleese post that read: “I personally prefer a culture that does not approve of FGM” — female genital mutilation — “child marriage and killing infidels.” Is that really all that controversial?
Some would say it is — and it is their right to say so in a liberal-democratic society. The principle of free speech means that parties on any side of this matter should be able to express their views openly, without the government getting involved. It is almost certainly the case that Prevent will not take seriously the claim that one of Britain’s greatest living comedians is a rabid extremist, but the fact that such complaints are raised at all shows that the old consensus on free speech is no longer secure.
The post John Cleese is not a terrorist appeared first on Washington Post.
