free speech matters !

In response to protests about offensive tweets, Cambridge University this week defended Dr Priyamvada Gopal after she posted on Twitter comments like:

“I’ll say it again. White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives.”

Please note that this follows Cambridge University cancelling the employment of Jordan Peterson and Noah Carl after vehement complaints from the adherents of political correctness.

Twitter, however, disagrees with Cambridge University’s defence of Dr Gopal and has withdrawn her tweets – presumably because Twitter views her Tweets as expressing racial hatred.

Dr Gopal is unrepentant, however:

I would also like to make clear I stand by my tweets, now deleted by Twitter, not me.”

She explains:

They were very clearly speaking to a structure and ideology, not about people. My Tweet said whiteness is not special, not a criterion for making lives matter. I stand by that.

Logically then she presumably believes that being brown, black, red or yellow is not special either, nor a criterion for making lives matter.

But did she make that clear ?

Or does she see the faults of the colonial past as intrinsically a White phenomenon; an unacceptable ingredient in the make-up of Whites; an objectionable racial characteristic. That however would offend against the materialist Doctrine that no particular group is guilty of being wrong because Wrong is a product of environment; Wrong is not inherent in the heart of human beings [as maintained by Christian doctrine].

Now, I am a member of the maligned Male Pale and Stale fraternity. However,  I stand by Dr Gopal’s right to express her views, even if they appear offensive. Even if they were clumsily expressed; or even if they were deliberately offensive.

I condemn the outrageous things said about her in response. There is no excuse for reacting in kind, or in the offensive way you believe is being dished out.

However, again I would defend the right of her detractors to express opinions, as objectionable and un-civilised as some patently are.

Why  ?

Because my perspective, my worldview is based in traditional Christian teaching. That worldview tells us to love our enemies, not hate them. Forgive those who offend you; don’t harbour the grudge or the insult.


Christ’s doctrine is manifestly a most civilised worldview, defusing tension while respecting a person’s God given right to be and to express themselves.

By contrast, the present prevailing worldview in our western intelligentsia [which appears to include Dr Gopal] is derived from the Materialist thinking of the Enlightenment. That thinking manifested its dubious psychology from the start. Its objectionable nature was identified by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France when he called it “the spirit of atheistical fanaticism” [paragraph 251 of Burke’s Reflections – see below].

A very good example of this fanatical mindset was then helpfully provided by Mr Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man, written in response to Mr Burke’s Reflections [see the Psychology page on the menu above].

You will have noticed that there is an insistent, intolerant, overbearing mentality associated with what we call “political correctness” and what Burke called “atheistical fanaticism”. Edmund Burke also identified that mentality writing that “the spirit of proselytism attends this spirit of fanaticism” [paragraph 251 again].

This explains why Cambridge University defends a don expressing views considered to be politically correct, but sacks dons who have a different perspective and worldview.

In the atheistical worldview of today’s Materialist and God hating intelligentsia it is perfectly reasonable to be a hypocrite. To enforce the rule for one, but not for another. To treat one worldview as desirable but the other worldview as despicable.

It is perfectly reasonable to smear and demean opponents for the simple reason that opponents who dare to disagree with your MANIFESTLY MORAL CAUSE are contemptible. Thomas Paine persistently, groundlessly smears Burke in his Rights of Man. For Paine, there is no Commandment teaching


False witness is de rigueur in the brave new world being constructed by the Materialists according to the Image of Sinful Man.

Because false witness is not false witness ! It is condemnation of people who justify the unjustifiable. Therefore their views are beneath consideration; they attempt to justify what is manifestly immoral and unacceptable. The immoral and unacceptable leading to social injustice must be eradicated. 

Hatred of anyone disagreeing is therefore quite normal. There are countless examples in our world today. One physical manifestation of this attitude is provided by “Antifa” – the self appointed “anti Fascist movement” which bears a remarkable resemblance to what it says it exists to oppose.

My worldview tolerates Dr Gopal’s views. In fact it accords her the dignity of a person made in God’s image. She is to be treated with respect, even though she may be wrong.

Does her worldview accord the same respect to people with other worldviews ?

For centuries people persecuted for their political or religious beliefs sought the shores of England to escape persecution. That is historical fact. That is not an opinion; it happened.

For example, Huguenots from France sought asylum in England from terrible persecution following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685.

There was no universal suffrage then. Nor when Karl Marx sought safe haven from official censorship and secret police in Europe to live out his life from 1849 in England where he was buried in 1883. Revolutionary Marx researched and wrote Das Kapital in London.

Now please don’t misunderstand. I believe in the Ballot box and universal suffrage; it is the civilised and peaceful alternative to civil war and executing disagreeable governors. My point is this: a political mechanism [the vote] did not give us tolerance and liberty. No, it was the result of a mindset born of a particular national, historical experience and of a particular religious culture. That religious culture emphasised individual responsibility to behave as a civilised member of society.

That culture doesn’t make the State and the Law instruments of a totalitarian political ideology reconstructing Society,  despising dissension and personal responsibility.

Ray Catlin

references to paragraph numbers in Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France are to Ray Catlin’s edition of Burke’s famous statement of Conservatism published by Westbow and available at Amazon

One of various published reports on Dr Gopal’s comments can be found at

Reminder: see the Psychology page on the Menu bar above

By Conservatism Institute

The profile photograph displayed on this site is a portrait of Edmund Burke [1729 - 1797] whose book, Reflections on the Revolution in France, articulates the perspective and principles associated with a conservative view of politics in the English tradition. The photograph is supplied courtesy of

%d bloggers like this: