April 17, 2024 - 7:00am
Brussels authorities’ move to shut down this week’s NatCon gathering risks backfiring in spectacular fashion.
The conference, which was due to feature ex-Ukip leader Nigel Farage, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and former home secretary Suella Braverman among others, had already been forced to change venues twice following activist pressure. On Tuesday morning, police shut down the event at NatCon’s third venue, Claridge, citing the risk of public disorder. The message seems to be that, if you’re a young person looking for rebellion against the powers-that-be, conservatism is your ticket to outrage.
Belgian authorities argued that the conference could not proceed as police would not be able to “protect free speech” at the event in light of a counter-protest due to take place, according to Tony Gilland, chief of staff at MCC Brussels, one of NatCon’s organisers. Apparently freedom of expression must be curtailed so as to… protect freedom of expression. Sadly, this Orwellian double-speak is now par for the course in these matters.
But it would be wrong to understand these censorious moves as a crackdown on radical, dangerous outsiders — an impression that both Leftist protesters and centrist authorities on one hand, and the national conservatives on the receiving end on the other, seem keen to advance.
Reporting in liberal outlets emphasises how NatCon is a gathering of “Right-wing extremism”. Really, it is something of a paper tiger. The evidence cited for radicalism amounts mainly to nasty words, or because the figures in question defend policies such as restrictions on migration — policies that are already part of European officialdom. After all, they don’t call it “Fortress Europe” for nothing.
So there is an element of shadow-play here. Politicians across the continent purvey double-speak on migration: even liberal parties rhetorically defend strict migration controls, all the while allowing the importation of cheap labourers, exposing their attachment to a low-wage economy. In this light, the censorship of NatCon only communicates the idea that certain policies may be implemented but never spoken about. Liberal cosmopolitanism is a mask that must remain firmly attached, however illiberal the reality.
Moreover, Right-populists have largely been absorbed by the EU, incorporated or co-opted by the establishment. They present no threat to European integration or to Nato, for instance, and instead are coming to occupy the centre of politics. The change to the face of Western politics as this process continues will be cultural and cosmetic, not structural or profound.
What is really at stake is that the censorship machine continues to grow. For example, NatCon’s shutdown follows last week’s cancellation of the Palestine Congress in Berlin — and a whole raft of absurd clampdowns on Palestinian advocacy in Germany. Here too, pro-Palestinian activists can claim the mantle of radical outsiders — special victims of censorship — thus justifying their cause. The cachet associated with being the object of censorship might even be in danger of losing value.
But how many pro-Palestine activists will defend Farage et al.’s right to hold a conference? And will that same right to freedom of expression be extended by conservatives to the former?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSome context: In Belgium, local police are under the direct control of municipalities, in this case the municipal district of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode; one of 19 such districts that comprise the Brussels Region.
The mayor of Saint Josse, Emir Kir, made this decision, it was enforced belatedly, meaning the conference went ahead, but many invitees were unable to enter the premises.
The mayor’s decision has been widely criticised by mainstream politicians with greater profiles, notably Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who reiterated Belgium’s commitment to freedom of assembly. The mainstream (state) press has reported widely on this, leaning heavily on the side of free speech.
Overall, this is a shambles for everyone but the populists (Nigel Farage, Eric Zemmour…), who could not have hoped for a better outcome from their conference.
I hope you’re not suggesting that understanding the ‘context’ excuses in any way the blatant suppression of free speech.
Not at all. It was clearly wrong of Kir to try to ban the conference. My simple point is that the author should not extrapolate from this to make some wider political points about the state of censorship. The mainstream condemns Kir’s actions, in pretty unequivocal terms, whereby the main question in the national debate is around the subsidiarity principle in local policing (and how municipalities are or are not bound by the constitution in how they exercise those powers).
My other point is that it was a complete failure – a massive Steisand Effect that made this conference wildly successful and won the populists timely sympathy and column inches.
That said, there is a subtler point to be made around censorship and subsidiarity. The more state power devolves to the individuals, the more it begins to resemble community decision-making, because that jurisdiction’s monopoly on violence is limited in scope and geography (and because the enforcers are our cousins, neighbours, nephews…)
And because censorship is not only an appropriate instrument in community consensus-building, but in fact a necessary part of its limited toolkit (remember communities altogether lack a monopoly on violence), then devolution of police power limits the damage censorship has on an individual’s freedom of expression. In other words, it’s still wrong for the local police to block a conference in St Josse, but it would be more wrong for the federal police to do the same thing.
It’s an interesting point you’re making but I’m not sure if its accurate. You use the word “devolve.” But is the correct word devolve or delegation?
Devolve would imply autonomous authority of local authorities whereas delegate would imply local authorities are but inferior office holders dutifully fulfilling a role from the higher chain of command. It looks more like the latter.
My understanding of policing in Belgium is that it is indeed the latter; local police carry out enforcement autonomously (of course bound by the Constitution, but in this case we see that the only check came from the courts, implying that the local police enforcement of the mayor’s order was already at its highest executive instance.
Federal Police retain jurisdiction everywhere of course, but I’m not sure how things play out in the case of a direct ‘disagreement’.
The more devolved authority is the less accountable it becomes. This wouldn’t have happened in London even if Sadiq Khan had wanted it to because people know who he is and no one like Emir Kir (holocaust denier, expelled by the Socialists for hosting neo-fascists, etc.) could ever get in charge of his own police force.
The “mainstream” Labour Party giggled delightedly, as did the Twitter mob. At the moment this may just be larping by some random nobody mayor in Brussels. But it sets a very bad precedent in the international media.
Beatings will continue until morale improves.
Need to remember this has been going on, in the UK as well, for many, many years. I remember, decades ago, a National Front march in London being banned because the police could not guarantee to protect the marchers from counter-demonstrators!
Anything that publicises the influence of the pernicious black bloc movement and its influence is a good thing.
Anyone who goes to such extremes to prevent unwanted speech is not a centrist. They’re an ideologue.
Centrists are ideologues
Just google him. Emir Kir is not a centrist. He’s so fringe he makes Ken Livingstone look mainstream.
Keep in mind the Center is always shifting. That’s why Neo-Marxists and Postmoderns always talk about “Centering” and “Marginalizing.” The goal is to center their ideas and marginalize others. It’s a renormalization.
The Mayor who ordered the banning of the Conference was a socialist. Socialists are not Centrists. They are wannabe totalitarians.
Was. In 2020 he was excluded from the Parti socialiste in 2020 ( https://www.rtbf.be/article/emir-kir-a-ete-exclu-du-parti-socialiste-10409792 ), apparently in a row about contacts with the Turkish radical right.
Thanks for that information. He does appear to be as much Turkish nationalist as socialist but it doesn’t seem to suggest he is not a wannabe totalitarian as a result of his Turkish origin and views.
Idiotic mistake by Major of Brussels. Haven’t heard a Centrist, or much from the Left either for that matter, in support of this counter-productive decision.
He’s a member of the Socialist Party so the Article headline seems a deliberate attempt to create guilt from association for a broader constituent who would not support him. And we wonder why folks get concerned by press distortions. Come on UnHerd if you want to be ‘nobler than noble’ you have to set an example, or at least better define what you mean in your vague labels. Headlines matter.
Now had any Nat C speakers been advocating incitement to violence then different issue. Whilst some may perceive some views held by some Nat Cs as almost ‘hateful’ the bar for incitement must be a high one and the ‘reasonable’ person would not contend it had been breached.
Always instructive to spend a little time each day reading the Guardian comments for a snapshot of what supporters of the political left really think.
Yesterday they were by and large over the moon celebrating “fascists” having their conference shut down.
Its one of those little ironies that much of the Guardian commentariat lacks the foresight to see that once it becomes acceptable to suppress the freedom of speech of people they disagree with, sooner rather than later the same tool will be used against them and people they do agree with.
The same is true of the NYTimes comments; a ‘snapshot’ of what the left is thinking.
Err so Guardian Centrist or Left 2+4? Or both perhaps? Or does it not matter and you’re happy to lump everyone you may not like into some Blob?
Good and impressed to know you read Guardian though. Much as I read quite a bit of the right wing press and UnHerd of course.
Guardian comments. A rancid cesspit of hatred, snobbery and trustafarian bigotry.
I heard Jonathan Ashworth and Wes Streeting from Labour’s frontbencher celebrating the move by the Belgians.
Nigel Farage, Miriam Cates and Suella Braverman are mainstream conservatives. For Starmer &c. to crow about them being barred from speaking publicly is really something.
I can’t find where they’ve supported the Ban MM. Got a link? I may stand corrected, but whilst some amusement may be conveyed, along with distaste for some of the Nat C views, I doubt many actually think a Ban appropriate. And of course overturned this AM anyway.
Unherd headlines suck. They really, really do. Journalism 101 – never put a question in a headline. I would say 30% of the headlines are questions.
And as we can see this morning – decision overturned by Belgium Cts as contrary to it’s Constitution. Good, but might provide the Nat Cs and some Right wing media with a problem creating a victim-persona.
I’m not sure they did. It sounds like they calmly got on with their meeting elsewhere. Moreover, I suspect if it were the other way around, we would be hearing maudlin wails and much gnashing of teeth over ‘fascists shutting down free speech!’ from what you would call the left-wing media.
Surely this new syndrome can’t continue with the acronym ‘NOBS’ ?
Having lived over 20 years in Brussels, I can safely say that St. Josse-ten-Noode is, along with it’s neighboring community, Schaerbeek, comprised of over 50% immigrants from Turkey and Morocco. The mayoralty is historically Socalist, dating back a century. NatCon knew exactly what it was doing by scheduling a convention there. This is not a criticism of NatCon; I consider it a bold and savvy move on their part. Knowing how the commune of St. Josse would react, they garnered a ton of free publicity and caused the left to, once again, shoot itself in the foot. Good for them.
While I’d love to think that NatCon planned a ‘bold and savvy move’, this seems highly unlikely, since St Josse-ten-Noode was either the second or the third mayoralty they tried. Their initial location was cancelled by Philippe Close, the mayor of Brussels; the second, by Vincent de Wolf, mayor of the commune of Etterbeek.
He gets himself desperately confused in the sixth paragraph. He can’t seem to remember what he’s pretending, let alone what’s really happening. So he says the liberals are pretending to crack down on immigration, even though they’re doing nothing of the sort. But at the same time they’re also really illiberal. So now they’re cracking down on the NatCons. But they’re not really. Because… the NatCons aren’t really conservative?
In reality, NatCon isn’t really about immigration, so much as about preserving national identities through political programmes of “cultural conservatism”.
But it’s useful for the authorities in Brussels to pretend that NatCon is “far Right” to distract from their own political failings. Punching a “Nazi” always gets a cheer from the Left, and if you can’t find an actual National Socialist, in this day and age you can make do with a bloviating neoliberal nitwit like Nigel Farage.
Instead of defending “free speech” maybe we should speak more of “our right to hear what we choose”, as this author did.
The former carries an innuendo of unpleasant, usually bearded, angry people waving their hands around and shouting a lot.
“Our right to hear what we choose” is something anyone can appreciate, especially in our information obsessed era.
We have to learn to use language against the Orwellians, just like they do against us.
People who censor and interfere with free speech are by definition Not Centrist…
What is this obsession that the chaterati have with ‘centrists’?