Over several decades public life has come to be dominated by Secular Liberalism. This “brave new world” filled the void left after Christianity was eroded. When Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, Secular Liberals choked on their Macchiatos with horror. That was the first time in the UK that anyone had challenged their beliefs. For the first time they became aware that there is a large number of people, a majority perhaps, who do not share their views. It was a profound shock, particularly following the election of President Trump. At first, acquiescence with the referendum result seemed unavoidable. But as time passed, they realised that leaving was not a foregone conclusion. Question turned to challenge. Defiance became hostility. Brexit became a totemic issue for Secular Liberals and a proxy war where they would defend their domination. But war is unpredictable. The emphatic re-election of Boris Johnson’s government brought all resistance to an abrupt halt. I now sense that the dominance of Secular Liberalism has passed its zenith. Could it be that regardless of the Brexit end-state, the more important result might be an end to Secular Liberal dominance?

In order to consider this, we must first attempt to define Secular Liberalism. This is difficult because, unlike many creeds or ideologies, it does not have a single founder or philosopher. Nor does it have a unified articulation or text. Indeed, one of the striking things is its lack of logical justification. In order to define it, we will have to list its chief beliefs and accept that a certain amount of generalisation is inevitable.

The belief system has two strands: principles and rights. The first of these is the belief in certain abstract principles. These are seldom properly defined, but they are ideals, which are nevertheless sacred to Secular Liberalism. Chief amongst them are democracy, equality and tolerance. Few would disagree with such principles, but as we shall see, the way they are applied is unsound, to say the least.

The second, and perhaps more important strand, is the rights of the individual. This aspect can be traced back to what I believe was the start of Secular Liberalism under Tony Blair’s promotion of multi-culturalism. At that time, the government made much play of promoting the rights of two particular groups: ethnic minorities and homosexuals. While we all agree with equal rights for all, this was a turning point because it established a principle that minority groups could trump established custom (based on Christian values) or the view of the majority. This opened a Pandora’s Box. Since then, inevitably, public values have been dictated by which ever group is able to shout loudest, with each striving to have their rights recognised. Secular Liberalism has adopted certain groups whose rights it champions. Chief among these are homosexuals and the now bewildering variants thereof, ethnic minorities, women, trans-sexuals and others whom I dare not name.

The problem with rights-based belief is that inevitably the rights of certain groups will clash. In a logical philosophy, the belief would be underpinned by defined principles which could be used to navigate the moral tripwires. But the principles espoused by Secular Liberalism are both too poorly defined and too inconsistently applied to be of much use. Secular Liberalism has dealt with this by establishing a kind of informal hierarchy of groups. Those listed above are examples of such “priority” groups. Of course, this approach is unworkable nonsense. How can you preach tolerance but promote rights of one group over another? How can you claim that all are equal and then allow so called positive discrimination? What happens when “priority” groups clash? The hypocrisy and inconsistency are plain to see. It is very much a case of “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.  The best example is the highly entertaining toilet wars between trans-sexuals and feminists.

Like all creeds, Secular Liberalism regards itself as being the one true faith. But unlike some, it is overtly evangelical, even imperialistic. It regards western liberal democracy as the desirable end state to which all the world should aspire. It does not accept the right of countries to choose otherwise. Those that do are branded as “backward” or “oppressive”. This is cultural imperialism and follows a long historical tradition of dominant cultures trying to enforce their creed on other countries. It is one of the many ironies that at the same time multi-culturalism is espoused.

Secular Liberalism also exhibits a complete intolerance of dissent which has become frighteningly prevalent. From no-platforming to censored research. From Twitter storms to those sacked for expressing their opinions. Any challenge to the orthodoxy is ruthlessly repressed. When reason fails them they resort to the list of stock insults which can be used to shut down a debate: “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, or, the all-purpose “fascist”. What these labels really mean is, “I disagree with what you say so I will put a label on you which means that your views do not count”. The terms have been so over-used that they are becoming almost a badge of honour to those who believe in free speech.

So, we have come to a definition of sorts and examined some of the foibles of Secular Liberalism. But could its dominance really be about to wane? I will confess that I do not really have any hard evidence, but I sense that things are changing in two ways.

First, people are gaining the courage to speak out and fight back. There is a growing group of articulate and respectable people who are prepared to challenge the accepted orthodoxy. People like Douglass Murray, Charles Moore and Lawrence Fox.

Second, the election result has brought the remain campaign to an abrupt end and confounded Secular Liberals with an apt paradox: the people they hate have been endorsed by the democratic system they claim to support. It turns out that the electorate choose Brexit. It turns out that they do not mind Boris Johnson using such profanities as “surrender”, “betrayal” or, worst of all, “humbug”. It turns out that, again, not everyone thinks like them.

Secular Liberals vastly over-reached themselves with the hysteria and chicanery indulged in to prevent Brexit. The electorate saw through it. I suspect that those of us who want genuine tolerance and free speech will now be emboldened to fight back.

So, Secular Liberals now have a clear choice: they must accept that not everyone thinks like them and start showing genuine tolerance. If they do not, they will provoke an ever more furious backlash. If you preach tolerance, then you must apply this to all, not just to the favoured groups. The “safe spaces” and censorship must end. Controversial views must be allowed to be heard. Free speech must return.