Democracy is on it’s deathbed. By our Political Correspondent.
The impulse to silence dissent is becoming a fixture of our political culture. When voices challenge the established consensus, the instinct is often to slam the door rather than engage with the argument. The recent restriction to the entry of commentators like Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur into the UK serve as a case in point. If we are to maintain a _healthy_ democratic culture, we must resist the urge to police public discourse. Instead, we should welcome the robust, often uncomfortable, debate that such figures provoke. Piker’s appearance at the Oxford Union (please click and watch this 21 minute address) is a case study in why his contribution to the national conversation is not only legitimate but essential.
Much of the friction surrounding Piker concerns his critique of the Israeli state. Critics frequently argue that his rhetoric lapses into antisemitism. Yet, a closer reading of his arguments reveals a vital distinction between anti-Zionism and prejudice against Jewish people. Piker contends that one should judge Israel with the same rigour as one would Saudi Arabia or the United States. He argues, correctly, that conflating the actions of the Israeli state with the entirety of the Jewish faith is itself a dangerous error and in fact in itself at its core, anti-semitic. He asserts that it is intrinsically flawed to suggest that a religious identity is responsible for the geopolitical actions of a government.
Piker also speaks of the weaponisation of antisemitism as a tool to stifle debate. He suggests that supporters of Israeli state policy frequently use accusations of bigotry to shut down discussion. This is not merely a tactic of political deflection- it is a cynical move that undermines the fight against genuine antisemitism. When the term is cheapened in an attempt to silence dissent, actual prejudice is allowed to fester. For a public rightly concerned with the rise of hatred, distinguishing between valid criticism of policy and genuine bigotry is a necessary exercise.
It is also worth noting his position on harmful tropes. During his address, Piker explicitly rejected conspiracy theories involving Jewish control of the media or government, dismissing them as detached from reality. He expressed clear concern that such narratives draw individuals into dangerous, conspiratorial thinking. By explicitly rejecting these tropes, he signals that his focus lies in the analysis of statecraft and international relations, not in identity-based animosity. To exclude him on the premise that he propagates such hatred is to ignore his stated positions and the actual substance of his contribution.
Piker’s geopolitical analysis, while demanding, rests on a critique of state actions. He characterises Israel as an apartheid state and a settler colonial entity, arguing that its policies have resulted in the systematic displacement of Palestinians. He maintains that resistance to this occupation is rooted in a desire to end a colonial situation spanning nearly eight decades, rather than in ancient, irrational hatred. Furthermore, he challenges the view that Western support for Israel reflects a monolithic Jewish opinion. Instead, he points to Israel’s strategic role as a geopolitical asset for Western interests (see link furtherdown in my essay to Owen Jones’ video, in which he speaks about Jewish opinion data). Regardless of whether you agree with this assessment or not, it is a contribution to a matter of significant public interest that merits a hearing.
Ultimately, the objective of a robust society must be to foster an honest conversation about our most urgent international crises. Piker concludes that failing to engage in such discourse only serves to deepen both the divide and the crisis itself. By restricting voices that we find challenging or disagreeable, we do not -cannot- make ourselves safer or more moral. We merely retreat into an echo chamber that leaves us ill-equipped to understand the complexities of the modern world. Allowing Hasan Piker -or right wing, racist voices- to participate in the British public sphere is not an endorsement of their every word. It is, however, an affirmation of our commitment to the principle that ideas must be tested, challenged, and debated in the light of day.
As Owen Jones concludes, (please watch Owen’s video) we are in very dangerous times. As we await the crowning of Farage, we are hurtling into fascist territory facilitated by Tories and Labour. Farage will use laws first created by the National Liberal Coalition of 1936 -and subsequently added to by successive Labour and Tory Governments to ban demonstrations and political opposition outright.
Movements will be crushed. Party political opposition will become meaningless (read the very accessible books by Maria Alyokhina and Nadya Tolokonnikova from Pussy Riot to see how this happened in Russia- the politicisation of religion and the beatification of monarchy under Putin, is very much under way in the UK)
Banning Uygur and Piker is a huge lurch towards this ‘Putinist’ far right dystopia.
