In Defence of Professor Allan: Cancelling the Left is a Necessary Reckoning, By Ian Wilson LL.B

On September 26, 2025, Professor James Allan, a legal scholar at Queensland University, penned a searing defence of "cancelling the Left" in The Daily Sceptic, arguing that conservatives must adopt the Left's own cancel culture tactics to survive a lopsided culture war. Sparked by the assassination of free-speech advocate Charlie Kirk and Disney's axing of Jimmy Kimmel for a false MAGA-killer monologue (now re-instated), Allan exposes a two-tier system: The Left purges conservatives like Roseanne Barr with applause, yet cries "authoritarianism" when Kimmel faces consequences for losing 70% of his audience. Drawing on game theory's tit-for-tat strategy, Allan advocates reciprocity, mirroring the Left's rules to level the playing field. This essay defends Allan's stance as not just defensible but essential, a grand idea whose time has come to counter a progressive machine that thrives on silencing dissent while shielding its own.

Allan's argument rests on stark asymmetry. Charlie Kirk, a Turning Point USA founder, embodied free speech, debating all comers on campuses with respect, yet was murdered by a DEI-driven assassin indoctrinated by Leftist ideology. Post-murder, Left-leaning figures, Hollywood stars, academics, and Democrats, celebrated or justified it, many losing jobs. Meanwhile, Kimmel's lie about a "MAGA" killer, ignoring evidence of the shooter's Leftist motives, cost Disney millions as 60+ ABC affiliates dropped his show, bleeding 70% of its audience due to partisan drift. The Left's outrage? Selective. They cheered when Barr's top sitcom was axed for a tweet, or when ESPN conservatives were fired, but Kimmel's ousting sparked "free speech" laments. CIDAC's 2025 findings on UK Christian persecution, silent prayers criminalised, Islamist preachers ignored, mirror this: The Left cancels with impunity, shielded by complicit institutions.

Allan's genius lies in applying game theory's tit-for-tat: Cooperate until betrayed, then retaliate proportionally. Evolution favours reciprocators, not altruists, conservatives playing pure free-speech purists while the Left cancels, lose ground. Kimmel's firing wasn't censorship, First Amendment protects against government, not market consequences, but accountability for tanking Disney's profits. The Left's playbook, amplified by social media mobs and Stonewall's £270M NGO empire, relies on subjective "offence" to ruin conservatives, as seen in Toby Young's UK purge or Britain's arrested preachers. Allan's call: Fight within their rules, not above them.

The Left's two-tier system threatens free societies. Britain's Christian crackdown, pastors frogmarched, pro-lifers assaulted without justice (article on this at the blog today), parallels America's conservative purges. Australia's housing crisis, driven by migration overload, show elite-driven chaos: Divide via identity, control via compliance. Allan's reciprocity counters this, boycotts, affiliate pressure, legal pushes. Disney's Kimmel reinstatement proves the Left's immunity, unless conservatives hit back.

Critics warn Allan risks escalating a cancel spiral, burning discourse to ash. But the spiral's Left-driven, conservatives are already collateral. A 1970s bipartisan ideal is dead when one side wields cancellation as a cudgel. Passivity cedes culture; reciprocity reclaims it. Allan doesn't seek silence, just consequences.

Allan's defence of cancelling the Left is a pragmatic necessity, not vengeance. In a war where the Left's rules protect their own while purging dissent, conservatives must reciprocate to survive. From Kirk's murder to Kimmel's fall, the stakes are clear: Fight fire with fire, or lose the West. Allan's call is a battle cry for balance, time to wield it!

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/26/in-defence-of-cancelling-the-left/