Did a Tory Vice-Chair mean to oppose democracy, or did he just make a mistake?

Posted on

As the Guardian has noted:

The Conservative party's deputy chair, Lee Anderson, has said that anti-monarchist campaigners should emigrate rather than use their right to free speech to protest against the coronation of Charles III.

This reminds me of two things. One is the statement made to protestors in Jersey who object to that island being used by the financial services industry as a platform for a full blown assault on the right of democratically elected governments to tax. They are told ‘there is a boat in the morning'. The protestor is expected to be on it.

The other is more sinister. The Nazis did, by the time they denied Jews all opportunities to leave Germany, suggest that those who remained should have taken the opportunity to leave when it was still available to them. That they had not, the Nazis said, made the Jew's fate a matter of their own choosing.

I am not sure where Anderson might be on this issue. He might be in a category all of his own making,  not like the two I note. But my point is the same whatever is the case. You cannot claim to be a democrat and suggest your opponents leave your country if they do not like what you are saying. That makes you a straightforward oppressor, and a totalitarian. It most certainly makes you an opponent of democracy, when respect for duality of opinion and the right to oppose are fundamental to that system of government.

So my question is, did Anderson really mean to oppose democracy, freedom and choice as he did? Or was it just a mistake on his part that we are expected to ignore?

Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here: