Opinion
26th June 2026
Examining my principles
Questions of conscience and ethics are complicated. I believe in tolerance. I don’t like “Cancel Culture” or “guilt by association”, so where should I stand over the fact the leader of a group in which I am his deputy has joined a party contrary to all I stand for?
The principles of Diverse Diversity should guide me. Am I true to them if I serve as Number 2 in an organisation whose declared aims I accept but whose leader seems unable to see the conflict between his principles and the party he has joined? He sees the detail — specific policies which align with his values — rather than the overall ethos, which is brutal and dogmatic in tone, hard-line conservatism expresed intolerantly. Equally, though, am I true to these principles if I censure someone and refuse to work with him on the basis I don’t agree with his politics? Am I in danger of showing the same kind of tribalism I condemn?
Perhaps, but at the end of the day I have to remain true to my conscience as well as to those around me. When I accepted the position of Deputy Chair of Christian Democracy UK, I did so on the understanding it would be led by someone who wanted a moderating influence, but that depends on him remaining moderate himself. I do not consider joining Restore Britain a moderate act. Association with an organisation led by an activist in that party does not reflect well on me or any campaign I lead myself. Yet, if I dissociate am I not engaging in my own Cancel Culture? It’s a hard question. I don’t want to let people down, but that goes much wider than my friends and aquaintances. I have to consider my rôle in Diverse Diversity and its reputation as tolerant and more genuinely inclusive than alternatives. Yet again, what is inclusive about separating from others? Am I being censorious?
We live in an age where politics has become very unpleasant; so unpleasant many people avoid it. That is not helpful to Society. It leads to the extremists getting their way which makes things even nastier. Society needs to resist that or it will fail through allowing the extremists to take over. That is not intolerance. It is Common Sense, and Common Sense must guide me, for Diverse Diversity is Common Sense applied to our mixed-up culture, twisted by decades of misguided attempts to right wrongs confused by foreign (mostly American) perspectives which, while not necessarily completely irrelevant, have never applied here in the way they have there. We never had laws defining people by Race (which is an arbitrary concept with no firm biological basis) until the 1960s Race Relations Acts. I would argue we never should have adopted those, but that is with the benefit of hindsight we did not have at the time. They were treating a specific symptom (racial prejudice) rather than the underlying cause (imagining people could be classified into groups and treating them differently according to these presumed groups). That is always wrong, but identifying imagined groups and legislating to protect those groups simply warps Society into thinking the groups are real because the Law identifies them. After that, the “difference” becomes impossible to ignore, and general principles which should be Common Sense get lost behind a veil of definitions and specific rights and privileges.
The name Christian Democracy might be strictly correct from the viewpoint of political scientists, but makes little sense to ordinary people this side of the Channel where we’ve never had it. Here, it confuses more than enlightens and gives the impression of Theocratic Luddites trying to turn the country away from Liberal Democracy. Of course, that’s not true, but its the impression most people who hear it would gain. Finding out its leader is a Restore Britian activist would probably reinforce that impression. Whatever the intention, none of this is sending the right message, and I think that is where the greatest clarity emerges. Quite simply, my continued involvement, whether strictly compatible or not, is unhelpful to my cause, and that must determine my action.
I am sorry to be forced to that conclusion. I would have liked to help a young man still seeking his way in life, but I don’t think I can do it this way.