When someone labels you “far-right”, “transphobic”, “sexist”, or “fascist”—or accuses you of relying on “white privilege” or engaging in “hate speech”—the goal is rarely genuine discourse. It is denigration.
Consider public political debates documented across university campuses and press conferences worldwide. Frequently, dissenters and conservative speakers are met not with counterarguments, but with blanket allegations of hate speech.
It is deeply paradoxical to preach kindness, inclusion, and empathy while routinely using public shaming against anyone who holds traditional or opposing views. The classical liberal assumption—that a political opponent is a reasonable person holding a different, valid point of view—has largely vanished from modern public debate.
Instead, a dogma of self-righteousness prevails: “We are fighting for social justice, gender identity, and minority rights. We are the good guys, so our methods do not matter. If you are not with us, you are against us.”
Many modern activists genuinely believe they are serving a noble cause. In their view, labeling opposing viewpoints as “hate speech” and canceling dissenters is a moral duty. However, this posture often comes at the expense of empirical facts and basic logic.
When fundamental definitions—such as defining what a woman is or why feminist institutions hardly criticize religions where women have less rights—cannot be straightforwardly answered within prevailing radical gender theories, the reliance on moral assertion over objective reality becomes glaringly clear.
Whether through state-backed regulatory attempts, activist harassment, news media boycotts, street rioting, or physical intimidation, substituting reasoned intellectual debate with moral condemnation threatens the foundation of a free society. True inclusion requires entertaining uncomfortable ideas without attempting to destroy the person speaking them.
Selective Free Speech in Ireland: The Case of People Before Profit
In May 2025, Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy defended their refusal to answer questions from Gript journalists because of their disagreement with the outlet’s political and editorial approach. Other members of the parliamentary press corps protested the refusal, bringing a press engagement to an early end.
Although politicians are not legally obliged to answer every journalist’s question, the episode raises legitimate questions about political openness and whether elected representatives should selectively exclude media outlets on ideological grounds.
Yet, while PBP actively works to censor and de-platform independent press outlets like Gript in Ireland, the same party routinely organizes massive street demonstrations—such as anti-Trump protests in Dublin—demanding absolute freedom of speech, assembly, and political expression for themselves.
PBP TD Paul Murphy urged thousands to take to the streets, proclaiming their right to protest foreign leaders. This exposes a clear ideological hypocrisy: freedom of speech and open debate are demanded as fundamental rights when they serve left-wing activist goals, but denied to press outlets and intellectual opponents who offer dissenting views.
Destruction in the Streets: French Riots Under the Pretext of Social Justice
The self-righteous conviction that one represents ultimate moral virtue often provides cover for widespread destruction.
A prominent recent manifestation of this phenomenon can be seen in Paris, Lyon, and across France, where activist groups and far-left organizations have repeatedly organized massive, violent street demonstrations in favor of students.
Framed under the banner of fighting for “social justice”, anti-capitalism, and minority rights, these protests frequently devolve into widespread violence, the burning of public infrastructure, the destruction of local businesses, and direct violence against law enforcement officers.
Activists justify the destruction of public and private property by claiming that systemic oppression validates any form of resistance. When moral righteousness replaces law and democratic discourse, civil destruction is recast as a legitimate weapon—demonstrating how the assumption of moral superiority can rationalize the destruction of the very communities activists claim to protect.
Prominent Intellectuals and Figures Canceled for Their Ideas
- Charlie Kirk — Phoenix, United States. Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, frequently encountered protests and attempts to disrupt his appearances on university campuses. On 10 September 2025, he was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Utah. His killing represents a far more serious escalation than the attempts to silence speakers that had previously accompanied some of his campus events.
- Dr. Kathleen Stock — Brighton, United Kingdom. Stock, a renowned British philosophy professor and author, was subjected to intense student protests, harassment, and calls for dismissal from the University of Sussex after arguing that biological sex is real and legally distinct from gender identity. She was forced to resign due to safety concerns.
- Dr. Roland Fryer Jr. — Cambridge, United States. An award-winning Harvard economist and John Bates Clark Medalist, Roland Fryer’s research challenged conventional assumptions about racial differences in policing. His influential study found substantial racial disparities in non-lethal uses of force, but no racial differences in officer-involved shootings within the datasets examined. The findings attracted controversy, illustrating the difficulties of discussing empirical results on politically sensitive subjects.
- J.K. Rowling — Edinburgh, United Kingdom. The world-renowned author of the Harry Potter series and philanthropist, faced massive online cancellation campaigns, boycott calls, and vilification after defending women’s sex-based rights and criticizing radical gender ideology.
- Dr. Jordan Peterson — Toronto, Canada. A clinical psychologist, author, and Professor Emeritus at University of Toronto, Peterson gained global fame opposing Canadian Bill C-16 regarding legally compelled pronoun use. He experienced relentless media attacks, university protests, and regulatory board attempts to revoke his clinical license.
- Dr. Colin Wright — State College, United States. An evolutionary biologist and former university researcher, he was harassed by academic colleagues after publishing articles asserting that biological sex is binary rather than a fluid spectrum. De-platformed from online payment processors, forcing him to leave traditional academia.
- Abigail Shrier — Los Angeles, United States. A journalist and author of ‘Irreversible Damage’, Shrier was targeted by boycotts and retailer bans from Amazon and Target employees due to her investigative journalism examining the sudden surge in adolescent girls identifying as transgender.
- Dr. Nicholas & Erika Christakis — New Haven, United States. Professors and former House Masters at Yale University, they faced massive student protests accusing them of creating an ‘unsafe environment’ after Erika sent an email suggesting students, rather than administrators, handle controversial Halloween costumes through dialogue.
- Dr. Peter Boghossian — Portland, United States A philosopher and co-author of the ‘Grievance Studies’ hoax, he was targeted with university disciplinary investigations and campus vandalism after publishing absurd fake papers in social science journals to demonstrate political bias in academia, leading to his resignation.
- Maya Forstater — London, United Kingdom. A British tax expert and senior researcher, Forstater had her employment contract non-renewed for tweeting that human beings cannot change their biological sex. Fought her dismissal in court, winning a landmark UK tribunal ruling that gender-critical views are protected.
- Dr. Dorian Abbot — Chicago, United States. Associate Professor of Geophysical Sciences at University of Chicago. Disinvited from delivering a prestigious guest lecture at MIT after advocating for university admissions based on individual academic merit rather than Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) metrics.
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali — Waltham, United States. A human rights activist, author, and former Dutch politician, she faced cancellations across Western universities, including Brandeis University rescinding an honorary degree offer, due to her vocal critiques of radical Islam and advocacy for women’s rights.
- Ann Widdecombe — London, United Kingdom. The killing of former Conservative MP and Reform UK spokesperson Ann Widdecombe in July 2026 illustrates the serious threats that political figures can face. Joshua Kerry has been charged with her murder and with preparing terrorist acts, including an alleged plot targeting Nigel Farage. While the courts must determine the facts and responsibility, the case underscores the importance of opposing political intimidation and violence regardless of ideology.
- Dr. Nathan Cofnas — Cambridge, United Kingdom. A philosophy researcher at the University of Cambridge, he faced intense demands for dismissal and academic de-platforming following his publications asserting genetic contributions to group differences in IQ and socio-economic outcomes. His case sparked debate across British academia regarding whether controversial research into population genetics and cognitive traits falls under academic freedom or constitutes harm.
At its core, treating politics as a battle between absolute good and absolute evil inevitably destroys open discussion. When political movements demand free speech and protest rights for themselves while trying to shut down, de-platform, or censor anyone who disagrees—whether that is independent journalists in Dublin or academics and speakers worldwide—they reveal a glaring double standard.
Resorting to public shaming, character assassination, or destruction in the streets under the banner of social justice or the pretext of hate speech does not build a better society; it just replaces reason with intimidation. A truly free and tolerant society relies on a simple principle: you have to be willing to debate people you disagree with, without trying to ruin or silence them. The best ideas will become clear when both sides show their best arguments.