Nick Timothy, citing the left-wing failure to address the decades-long scandal of Asian grooming gangs, their attempts to silence free speech on university campuses and also the attacks upon Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey for her moral rejection of abortion up to birth for the disabled – even though her views have not affected her voting pattern – highlights how the not-very-liberal Left has resorted to censoring and silencing any views with which they disagree, even while they preach tolerance.
Ignoring the fact that ‘abortion has always been a conscience issue and Parliament, meaning MPs are not whipped to vote in any particular way’, he notes that in attacking her beliefs as ‘“absolutely toxic”’ and suggesting that ‘her policies would be “dictated by the Vatican”’, logically, her critics imply that ‘Catholics should never hold office’; he concludes that ‘liberalism has become … confusing and contradictory’, growing ‘increasingly illiberal, intolerant and – strangely for a supposedly universal theory – morally relativistic. For Left-liberals, the systematic sexual abuse of white, working-class girls by Asian men must be swept under the carpet, the Catholic beliefs of politicians must be suppressed, and the language of students must be monitored and restricted. Sure, it’s liberalism, but not as we once knew it’ (‘Liberalism is collapsing under the weight of its hypocritical intolerance’, Telegraph, January 20, 2020).
Perhaps that is because what we are seeing is the work of cultural Marxism – not in offering economic arguments for the electorate to accept or reject, but in hi-jacking ‘liberal’ cultural campaigns and using them to break down the family – the foundation of the free market system. Old-style liberalism has been weaponised by the far Left, just as Communism is compulsory Christianity – you must love your neighbour in the prescribed way, or be charged with hate.
Labour MP Jess Phillips, criticising Ms Long-Bailey, has insisted that the next Labour leader should be an unequivocal supporter of abortion ‘rights’ – a stipulation which just happens to include her good self. But in putting at risk the right of MPs to a conscience vote on abortion, the campaign for ‘the right to choose’ would allow no choice for MPs or for voters who would like to vote for the Labour Party but who also reject abortion for ethical reasons. They would also introduce ‘buffer zones’ around all abortion clinics, silencing silent prayers and offers of help to vulnerable pregnant women seeking abortion because they have no real choice.
The abortion campaign alleges that the pro-life movement would drive women to backstreet abortion, but they themselves – backed by Labour leadership contenders like Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy – would decriminalise abortion, allowing a free market in abortion pills which would re-introduce the backstreet abortion, but without legal any protections. Effectively, abortion would be legal up to birth for any reason, with no protections for mothers or babies, while abusers would enjoy the protection of the not-law.
The abortion campaign further alleges that pro-lifers are oppressive, right wing, anti-equality and anti-human rights; and yet abortion hurts the most vulnerable of all, whereas the pro-life movement upholds the lives of all – black, white, yellow, brown, red, male, female, immigrant, indigenous, rich, poor – and also the disabled. Their ‘right to choose’ does not extend to the right to choose a good income and social support, because if it did, women would choose the latter, thus they end up fulfilling the aims of population control by exterminating the poor and socially isolated. Abortion advocates insist that without abortion, women can never be equal, in which case little girls and old women would be the most equal of their sex – and infertile women would be celebrating instead of mourning. If abortion makes women equal, then poor women will never have children, because as soon as they do, they will become ‘unequal’ again. Somehow or other the Suffragettes managed to win the right to vote without having the ‘right’ to abortion – indeed, overwhelmingly they opposed contraception and abortion as encouraging the abuse of women.
It seems that the mania for tolerance has led to intolerance, while the obsession with equality and diversity is swiftly forgotten when it comes to abortion rights. Campaigners insist they do not support abortion per se, but only the right to choose it. But the ‘right to choose’ has led to the eradication of choice, lest it impinge on abortion, which they claim not to support. The inescapable conclusion is that equality, diversity, choice, women’s welfare and even their human rights have been subsumed in what now amounts to a religion – abortion, not very pure, but oh, so simple.
It is no coincidence that the Left prefers to ignore organised child sexual abuse while attempting to silence debate in the universities, because students may be exposed to arguments about the ethics of abortion – hence universities banning pro-life student groups – while organised child sexual abuse has been facilitated by the provision of free, confidential abortions to under-age abuse victims. In ignoring crimes against children, born and unborn, while attacking those who would draw attention to the crimes, the new left-liberals are guilty of a double hypocrisy. Any pretensions they may have had to defending the defenceless now lie in tatters; and as champions of ‘tolerance’ they have betrayed themselves as intolerant bullies who can only bully the weak.