When “Inclusion” Becomes Conditional and Silencing Disagreement Deepens Division

Recently, I was removed from a webinar on Discriminatory Abuse: Using Stories and Narratives to Explore Professional Responses. My “offence” was asking a question central to the event’s purpose: how do we protect individuals whose values, beliefs, and cultural perspectives differ from prevailing social narratives? And how do we ethically navigate conflicts of worldviews without defaulting to exclusion or silence?

I wasn’t challenging people personally, nor was I aggressive. I was asking from a place of curiosity, responsibility, and kindness to ensure that I navigate situations effectively, and to help protect freedom for all. It was a question that required clarification from the professors leading the event, one that should sit at the heart of any conversation about discrimination, especially when talking about inclusion and professional responsibility. And yet, I was removed without warning or dialogue. I was discriminated against for being able to see multiple views and beliefs have value.

This incident echoes a pattern so many of us are seeing across Britain and beyond:

·Authors and speakers are silenced for expressing experiences or research that challenge mainstream narratives, as I experienced with the Owning Our Ovaries event.

·Individuals face censorship, social media bans, or even arrests for expressing views on topics like gender, faith, or politics.

·People who stand up for Palestinians, or question prevailing geopolitical narratives, are often excluded, vilified rather than engaged with, and in a growing number of cases arrested for terrorism.

These three examples alone share the same principle: disagreement is treated as harm, differences are treated as dangerous, and what’s more, nuance and understanding of the world beyond another’s limits is treated as violence and disloyalty. And yet, those of us who disagree, think differently, and believe in everyone’s right to freedom in all ways possible are removed, silenced and condemned.

Refusing to engage with views that make us uncomfortable, contradict our beliefs, or prove us wrong is immaturity at best and reminds me of observing toddlers in the nursery school a couple of decades ago, when my sons were younger. It is this immaturity, along with the focus on diversity rather than cohesion, that is driving division in our society. Avoiding difficult conversations does not create inclusion. It creates echo chambers, ill-informed resentments, and antiquated tribalistic attitudes.

True inclusion is messy. It is meant to be challenging because it requires us to learn and understand ourselves and others on a deeper level, rather than the surface level many seem to dwell in. It requires us to hold complexity and contradiction without fear of being wrong, requiring us all to reach a level of maturity and respect for others; a place not many seem to have reached… yet.

It can be soul-destroying to be constantly told we’re wrong for the way we think, feel and believe. Many times I’ve felt like giving up, because what is the point of even trying to help make the world a better place for all if when I offer a different worldview, I’m shut down, shut out and avoided.

I’ve said several times now that if I’d known how my travels around the world exploring different cultures, belief systems, and kinship models would have isolated me, it would’ve been easier to stay in my small village with a closed mind and dismissive attitudes of others, but that would’ve killed the woman I was born to be. I’ve also questioned whether I’d have read the vast number of books I have to learn about the world, the human psyche and how to be the very best version of myself. But again, that would deny who I am, and why should I deny who I am for others to be accepted? And because I make others uncomfortable by challenging their thinking?

Inclusion means protecting the right to question, explore, and disagree while respecting the humanity of everyone involved; and if there’s one thing my extensive travels around the world and research into other cultures has taught me, is that the more we learn about others, the more we learn about ourselves, especially our prejudices, and ignorance fuelled by bias teachings and mainstream media narratives. I’m glad to have travelled the world, honoured to have been welcomed into communities where white women haven’t been before, especially on their own. I’m grateful that every country and culture I’ve immersed myself in has challenged everything I knew about the world.

Why?

Because it made me, me. Sitting with ideas so alien to me, ones that confused me and conflicted with the way I saw the world, made me a better person.

If we cannot sit with ideas that unsettle us, especially ideas backed by the lived experience, research, or the cultures of others, then we are not building dialogue, creating cohesion, equity or inclusion; we’re building barriers, deeper prejudices, impenetrable walls and sound-proofing the bubbles we create to protect our ignorance and righteousness.

Those of us who have paid attention to history know that walls never heal communities; it destroys them, making positive, productive discourse impossible.

Silencing Through Proscription and Policing

In 2025, British authorities proscribed the activist network Palestine Action under terrorism legislation, making support for the group, even peaceful expression, an offence. The right to speak up against genocide was under threat, meaning the genocide in Palestine could continue, even against mass global resistance from both the people and numerous governments. Since that ban came into force, thousands of people have been arrested for demonstrating in support of the group and holding peaceful placards. According to data compiled by human rights observers:

·Amnesty International and other sources note that police made 857 arrests at a single peaceful protest in London under terrorism laws, a tactic described as disproportionate by civil liberties groups.

·Across Britain, authorities have detained more than 2,700 people participating in peaceful demonstrations related to the proscription, with hundreds charged under counter‑terror legislation.

·Many of those arrested were simply holding placards reading “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”, a form of peaceful expression protected under international human rights law.

What’s striking is the profile of those affected. In one demonstration where more than 500 were arrested, nearly half were aged 60 or older, including protesters in their 70s and 80s. These were not the angry youth, with their hair dyed blue and green, destroying property or the paid police thugs, aka ‘fringe actors’; they were retirees, veterans, students, clergy, members of the Jewish community, and people whose only “crime” was peaceful expression.

Beyond Protests: Speech Policing and the Arrest of Ricky Gervais

These arrests are not confined to protest spaces. In Britain, numerous statutes, including the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, now criminalise ‘offensive’ and ‘distressing’ online communications. Civil liberties commentators report that police were making around 30 arrests a day for online speech offences, amounting to over 12,000 arrests a year before 2025.

The problem with this is that those who take offence will be offended by almost anything, and depending on someone’s life experiences and upbringing, any one of us can become distressed by the words, ideas and values of others. The fear and silencing of these statutes are paving the way for some very dangerous situations, and the irony is that so many in the West are appalled at the silencing of women living under Taliban rule, but are forcing it upon men and women alike here in Britain.

Many of these cases involve political expression, commentary, satire, or contentious opinion, not violence or direct threats. Comedians and writers such as the talented and controversial Ricky Gervais have not (yet) been arrested, not that he should be, either.

Why should those who read to understand, observe and have access to information be silenced because others choose to take offence to something? Because it is a choice to take offence, and a privilege, one that so many do not realise they have.

Understanding the context of public discourse in academic forums, public events, and civic spaces is essential. We cannot judge what is happening in a university, a conference, or a public event in isolation anymore. We have to see it as part of a wider cultural and legal climate.

When we are removed from a webinar, or a speaker, author or award winner is cancelled, or a panel avoids certain questions or personalities, it is not just about that one moment or that one organiser. Institutions are increasingly risk-averse, pandering to the weakest in society, resulting in personal growth and resilience being denied. This defeats the very purpose of universities, public forums, debates, and civic spaces. They become echo-chambers of control and compliance, dictatorship and persecution of thought.

My being excluded from the aforementioned webinar only makes sense when we see it as part of this larger pattern of silencing, fear, and control, not as a one-off misunderstanding. It is the difference between saying “this was unfortunate” and saying, “this is a symptom of something much bigger.” And herein lies the problem, the institutions that silence and control others for thinking differently, don’t see it as unfortunate or as a symptom of something more sinisterly bigger, they see it as safeguarding, of being sensitive and empathetic, but only to those whom they deem as much weaker and powerless than others. A very patronising and egotistic stance to take if ever there was one.

True inclusion is not about shielding people from ideas that unsettle or contradict them, or protecting only those whose viewpoints align with a prevailing orthodoxy while excluding those who question it. That’s not inclusion, that’s ideological conformity and control. That prevents curiosity, critical thinking, philosophical exploration, and the freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When institutions sidestep uncomfortable questions by silencing participants rather than facilitating robust, respectful exchange, they send a very clear message that only certain viewpoints are welcome. That breeds exactly the division EDI / DEI policies, safeguarding and the various ‘diversity’ think tanks claim to want to overcome.

The problem with working within an institution, such as an academic environment, is that many individuals become institutionalised. Many believe universities to be the place of great minds, and that may have been true decades gone by, but today, students, faculty members and the administration teams live in a bubble of conformity, policed by policies that serve the current trends and political agendas. Many live in fear, consciously or not, of not following the rules by being true to themselves, and others have become the toad in hot water with no way out.

Universities have come under threat many times over the decades from questionable funding from private investors, sexual misconduct between faculty and students, and, more recently, the banning of freedom of speech on campus. There needs to be clarity on policies that distinguish between hate or harassment and lawful, contentious opinion, a commitment to academic and expressive freedom that protects people across the ideological spectrum, and a willingness to hold difficult conversations rather than suppress them. All that seems unlikely due to the lack of robust minds and maturity is ever-present.

When Speech Is Policed but Violence Goes Unaddressed

One of the most striking contradictions in public discourse and law enforcement in Britain today is the disparity between how speech or protest is treated versus how serious violent crime is prosecuted.

As mentioned above, in the year ending September 2025, British authorities recorded a dramatic rise in arrests for terrorism‑related activity. Figures rose from 248 the previous year to 1,886, an increase of about 660 %. Were there terrorists? No, simply individuals who chose to protest against genocide, something one would hope we would all oppose.

Contrast this with criminal justice outcomes in serious violent crime. Official figures show that in 2023/24 there were 2,283 prosecutions for adult rape, and 1,220 convictions, meaning the conviction rate among cases that reached prosecution was around 53 %. For those of us who have experienced sexual violence and rape, these figures are hard to believe, especially as so many of us go unbelieved, blamed or ridiculed by the state services meant to support and protect us.

While these figures may sound like progress, numerous independent analyses of British crime reporting suggest that a large proportion of sexual violence goes unreported and unprosecuted. Freedom of Information reporting cited by the media indicated that in the past five years, hundreds of thousands of rapes were reported, but only a tiny proportion resulted in charges being laid. Civil liberties observers have highlighted that many survivors feel the criminal justice process fails them, leading to thousands of alleged perpetrators never facing legal consequences. Most recent meta-analyses and reporting show the effective prosecution rate in reported rape cases being so low that only a fraction of offenders face formal criminal justice outcomes, while the overall scale of reported incidents remains high.

This creates a perverse public perception gap: horrific violence, such as rape and sexual assault, is frequently not resolved through the criminal justice system in terms of prosecutions and convictions, even as authorities are dedicating increasing resources to policing speech and protest under broad public‑order or terrorism laws. What also creates a perversion in public perception is the racism and deeply prejudiced views and narratives of mainstream media. When listening to the mainstream media in Britain, you would think that we’ve had an increase in rape since ‘the immigrants came flooding’, but truth be told, according to the British Government website and the Office of National Statistics, 85% of rapists in Britain are white, English and known to their victim, NOT those who have arrived in Britain in the last decade seeking safety from persecution and war torn countries (often due to the funding of invasion and war by British taxpayers money). Responsible journalism is becoming a dying art with the inability to think critically, hold meaningful conversation and challenge the mainstream ideologies and government agendas.

This isn’t about dismissing the harm of hateful or violent language; threats, incitement, and harassment are real and should be taken seriously. Both Scots Law and the laws that govern England and Wales define hate crime to include threats and harassment against protected characteristics, and there are established frameworks for reporting, recording, and prosecuting those offences.

But when peaceful protest or dissent results in mass arrests under terrorism laws, while serious violent crime remains ignored, under-investigated, and under-prosecuted, we have to ask a hard question: Is the priority protecting people, or enforcing ideological conformity? I think many of us know the answer to this question, of which a small percentage would admit out loud.

Silencing voices for their beliefs, or pre-emptively detaining peaceful demonstrators, does not make society safer. It makes society more brittle, less capable of wrestling with difficult truths, less resilient to disagreement, and less democratic in its commitment to protect both safety and freedom. Without disagreement and conflicting views, we will never have innovation, and there are no thought leaders, a title so many covet, and yet fail to deliver on.

AI, Echo Chambers, and the Perception of Reality

This problem isn’t limited to protests and academic forums. It extends into the technology we use every day, especially the AI platforms that claim to inform us. Many know that I’m not a fan of writing books or articles with AI, specifically for the reason of bias, fake information and unreliable citations.

Not all AI platforms are created equal. Many large language models and AI-driven recommendation systems draw on data and design choices that reflect and amplify existing biases, rather than challenge them. Research from University College London found that interacting with biased AI systems can increase human bias, creating a feedback loop where both the technology and the user reinforce each other’s pre-existing views.

Even outside deliberate bias, personalised AI and algorithmic curation can produce “filter bubbles” or echo chambers, environments in which users are primarily exposed to content that aligns with their existing beliefs while different perspectives are systematically filtered out.

A recent analysis shows that AI-powered chatbots on news and social platforms can disproportionately draw from a narrow range of sources, reinforcing specific viewpoints over others. For example, one study found a popular AI cited one UK newspaper nearly 60 % of the time while omitting other major outlets entirely, a pattern that raises concerns about narrow sourcing and lack of media plurality.

Your choice of AI platform, therefore, matters. A tool that amplifies a particular set of sources or ‘safe’ conclusions can reinforce an existing intellectual bubble; another might be more balanced in its inputs and outputs. Bias isn’t just about what the AI says, it’s about what the AI doesn’t say and why.

This connects back to the incident in Portsmouth: if an AI model told someone to “avoid” engagement with certain perspectives, not because they are unlawful, but because they are inconvenient or contested, then what we are really building isn’t a conversation space; it’s a curated ideological silo.

Artificial intelligence platforms that many of us turn to for information and discussion are not neutral. A recent analysis found that one popular AI chatbot referenced The Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper, in 58 per cent of its news responses while omitting the BBC entirely. Other tools showed similar patterns of narrow sourcing. Critics warn that this kind of constrained data sourcing undermines media diversity and public trust.

Academic research also shows that AI systems tend to learn and amplify the biases present in their training data. Who builds the training data? Humans do. So what goes into them? Human bias. Users interacting with such systems can become more biased themselves because the technology reinforces their existing perspectives rather than challenging them.

This is not about pointing the finger at one platform or another. It is about recognising that our tools shape our information environment. An AI that nudges us toward only certain sources or conclusions teaches us what to think, not how to think. If people are told by an AI or a dinner companion to “avoid engagement” with uncomfortable perspectives rather than explore them, what we are building is not a conversation space but a narrow intellectual silo.

The Price of Avoiding Discomfort

Across civic society, institutions and digital platforms, there is a growing tendency to equate discomfort with harm. That is a mistake. Disagreement, challenge and respectful contestation are not threats to social cohesion. They are the means by which societies evolve and understand each other.

Excluding voices because they make us uneasy, removing participants from dialogue for asking hard questions, or arresting peaceful protesters for holding a placard does not foster inclusion. It creates resentment, fragmentation and entrenched division.

If we are serious about building a peaceful and harmonious world, we must cultivate a curious culture rather than one of censoriousness. We must welcome challenging discourse, be willing to adapt our beliefs when evidence demands it and protect the rule of law without weaponising it against dissent.

Inclusion without conditions is not easy. It demands maturity, courage and the humility to learn from disagreement. But it is the only path to genuine cohesion in a plural society.