'Boris shouldn't have to apologise.' This, or a variation of it, has been the statement those on the right who wish to defend Boris Johnson's comparisons of Burqas to postboxes. And I agree. He shouldn't have to apologise, he simply should apologise. By adding the words 'have to' it takes the responsibility away from Johnson, and fuels the 'illiberal PC' narrative. He is a liberal speaking his mind but the illiberal world is forcing him to apologise. It's utter crap but that's the image a couple of additional word ('have to') can invoke.
This brings me onto the related point of Rowan Atkinson's defence of Boris Johnson. Again it boils down ultimately to free speech vs the scourge of illiberal lefties who want to shut down any dissent from the fascism of progressive politics. Supporters of Johnson have taken Atkinson's support and used it as an excuse to share a speech the Blackadder actor made a few years ago on the issue of free speech and censorship (link here). One in which he talks about how many so-called tolerant people wish to 'gag dissent'.
He goes on to state that intolerance isn't addressed by arresting or gagging people, but by these views being aired, argued against, dealt with outside the legal process. This all sounds very reasonable. In fact it is exactly what we are doing. We are arguing against Boris' comments, we are highlighting how they are offensive, who they are offending, why we think he should (not 'have to') apologise. To the best of my knowledge nobody is trying to gag him, to arrest him or to use any legal process to force him to apologise. We are doing precisely what these apparent proponents of free speech are saying we should do. I believe strongly in free speech, and in calling out prejudice and intolerance when it appears. Using free speech as an excuse to distract from islamphobia is disingenuous and helps nobody.
