Amber Rudd the former Home Secretary was no platformed today at Oxford University. She was due to give a speech on women being involved in politics but it was pulled at the last minute. Apparently it was due to her involvement in the Windrush scandal when she was Home Secretary, it was the issue she resigned over. I would say she isn’t missed but with the current incumbent being Priti Patel she is not looking like such a bad thing. However, Patel may be an abhorrent human being but perhaps her utter incompetence may work as a blessing in disguise instead. I am probably playing a little bit of identity politics at the moment which is of no benefit and i’m slapping the back of my hand as I type.
No platforming is an interesting approach to dealing with an issue. To prevent somebody having a platform to speak stops that person spreading their message or it prevents someone with a disagreeable past legitimising themselves with an agreeable message. I imagine Amber Rudd’s message about women being involved in politics may have been slanted in favour of some of her ideological heroines but it’s likely the message itself wouldn’t have been overly disagreeable so we must go with the later that she was attempting to legitimise herself.
The contentious side of no platforming though is that it can potentially inflame issues over people being free to speak. I don’t mind Milo Yaniwhateverhisnameis or some other people with messages I find deeply disagreeable being no platformed but I am not always convinced people are unable to make up their minds for themselves. Judging by Brexit, Trump, Salvini, Orban and Boris Johnson, I should probably be slightly less trusting and naive but I am always aware that I may just be wrong. The danger is that you are preventing debate and I love debate. Is she the kind of role model I want leading the debate though?
The issue too is whether you are just playing into the persecuted narrative the Right try to portray by being no platformed. By silencing them they can blame others as big bad wolfs and poor little them but all it does is highlights how they’re just children blaming others and throwing a tantrum. The accusation is that by no platforming, people are just silencing dissent in a hypocritical way and of course there will be examples out there that prove that, as well as many that prove it utter nonsense.
I don’t believe in the idea that by silencing certain people all we do is give them more of a voice. This argument was used for why we shouldn’t have another referendum on Brexit and will be used on why we should let people speak. In truth though we shouldn’t always let people speak but for me that is more down to whether theirs is a message calling for people to suffer or merely an ideological disagreement. Those in Greece right now taking to the streets and attacking anyone different to them do not deserve a platform, they have no legitimate message. As bad as she may have been in power, and even though her actions led to controversies like the Windrush Scandal, there seems to be something different about no platforming Amber Rudd. I may disagree with her, but she’s not so extreme that I’m unwilling to allow her words to fall onto the ears of innocents. However it was specifically the UN Women Oxford UK Society which invited her and then cancelled which means they are well within their rights not to legitimise herself and make her some kind of role model to women. I enjoy hearing contrasting ideas that can lead to the opportunity for rational debate though. It is fun to disagree. We mustn’t become scared of allowing people the opportunity to express things we may disagree with. Balloons pop and that will only ever be messy.
Observations and Misunderstandings 