The founder of a prominent Edinburgh events space has vehemently defended his decision to host SNP politician Kate Forbes, branding the subsequent pressure to cancel her appearance as 'utterly idiotic' and a damning indictment of modern 'cancel culture'.
In an exclusive interview, the venue's chief issued a fiery rebuttal to critics, insisting that exposure to a wide range of viewpoints is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. The controversy erupted after the booking was publicised, triggering a wave of complaints from those opposed to Ms. Forbes' past social conservative views.
A Stand Against the 'Mob'
The founder didn't mince his words, placing the blame squarely on a small but vocal minority intent on silencing opinions they disagree with. He described the phenomenon as a 'culture that just wants to cancel things', arguing it promotes a dangerous and simplistic way of thinking where dialogue is shut down instead of engaged with.
'Banning her is just idiotic,' he insisted, criticising the lack of courage often shown in the face of online outrage. His comments highlight the growing tension between the principles of free speech and the desire to avoid hosting figures deemed controversial.
The Kate Forbes Conundrum
Kate Forbes, the former Finance Secretary and recent contender for the SNP leadership, remains a formidable but divisive figure in Scottish politics. Her well-documented personal views on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, rooted in her evangelical Christian faith, have frequently made her a target for criticism and protest.
This incident is not isolated. It reflects a broader, ongoing challenge within public and commercial life: navigating the complex landscape of platforming politicians whose personal beliefs can trigger widespread calls for boycotts and cancellations.
A Defence of Open Discourse
The venue's stance has ignited a fresh debate about the limits of tolerance and the right to free expression. The founder argued that the purpose of a venue is to be a platform for discussion, not to pass moral judgement on every speaker. He warned that succumbing to a 'cancel culture mob' sets a dangerous precedent that could stifle public debate and intellectual diversity.
This robust defence will resonate with many who fear that public discourse is being increasingly narrowed. It poses a critical question: can a society truly tolerate differing, even unpopular, views without resorting to silencing them?
