As outlined at freedictionary.com, fallacy is an "incorrect or misleading notion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning"; in other words, a false representation. In Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky accurately asserts, with regards to fear, that: "Artificial fears are created with a dual purpose...partly to get rid of people you don't like but partly to frighten the rest". He continues, "Because if people are frightened, they will accept authority". The two terms are explicitly linked when it comes to governmental practice. Fear of the unknown has haunted western society and, as a result, western society has haunted the unknown. Be it immigration, terrorism, foreign regimes or peaceful protesters, time after time British administrations have used these concepts to drain civilisation of its freedoms and harmony.
The latest false fear being sold to the public is the so-called 'threat' of the humble protester. A not-so-subtle Daily Mail headline read, "St Paul's may have to cancel Remembrance Sunday service because of 'Occupy London' protests". Never mind that the anti-Capitalist movement are demanding a fairer, more righteous society. Never mind that they voice their outrage at the fact that FTSE 100 executive directors received a 49% rise in wages during the last financial year, whilst average worker pay increased by just 1.8% (way below inflation). Never mind that they speak for the vast majority of hard-working Brits who are supposedly just as incensed at the level of inequality within Britain. No, the main issue is that they are stopping St Paul's from conducting its usual timetable.
The truth, of course, is that they are not stopping St Paul's from carrying out its schedule; Remembrance Sunday services ought to go ahead as normal. But the right-wing press - and politicians alike - are using populist scaremongering to help ignite universal hatred towards these "scruffy-haired" "putrid" "hippies". The same tactics were used recently against the Dale Farm travellers. In fact, the Daily Express even linked the two issues, warning that "hardliners" and "thugs" from the Dale Farm protests could "hijack" proceedings outside the Cathedral and turn it into a "bloodier and more violent" scene. As ever, there was little in the way of evidence to support these wild predictions; but why let a little thing like facts get in the way of good old-fashioned scaremongering?
Worryingly, there are endless examples of government fallacy whereby politicians have lied in order to gain support for immoral and repugnant acts. Take Libya for example. Colonel Gaddafi was a monster, a "Mad Dog", a nutcase. He needed to be stopped. This led to a nauseating speech by David Cameron in February in which he stated the need for Gaddafi to "go now". He mentioned his disgust at the way Gaddafi was turning on his own people; daring to shoot at innocent civilians with weapons we had supplied him with (£231m worth to be precise). But never mind, we are not supposed to remember that (nor are we encouraged to question our unconditional support of both Israel and Saudi Arabia); for if it were mentioned, perhaps the British people might start fearing their own government. Instead, Gaddafi was the villain, Gaddafi was the one in the wrong and Britain, as ever, was totally excused of all previous involvement with the regime.
Take the case of terrorism. Since the attacks of 9/11, the UK - along with America - has implemented laws that significantly reduce the human rights of innocent citizens. Immediately following the attacks, proposals to hold suspects for 90-days without charge were being drawn up and Tony Blair was busy alarming the public with statements such as: "We are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism". Hyperventilating 'experts' have incessantly warned of the mortal danger posed by al-Qaeda; not realising the laughable irony that, without a threat, there would be no need for these so-called terrorism experts. Their job - and very existence - relies on the presence of an actual threat. Therefore, is it any real surprise that they employ hyperbolic language when gracing our TV screens? Yet, sickeningly, the notion of fear they create keeps the public compliant.
This has been an ever present in the debate over immigration. False information is spread as if it were going out of fashion. Just over a year ago, the Daily Mail ran with the headline, "Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry". Two things are wrong with this piece. Firstly, so what if it is? How, in any way whatsoever, does that negatively affect your life? Secondly, if only it were true. Under close scrutiny, the findings do not add up. The Daily Mail added all the various spellings of Mohammed - Muhammed, Mohammad etc - together and used the combined figure to argue that the name was the most popular; the reality is that Mohammed actually represents the 16th most popular name. Alex was not linked with Alexander, Aleksander or Alexis. Charles was not added to Charlie, and so on. But that did not matter. The damage had been done.
The Daily Express, in their continued effort to remove Britain from the EU, ran the headline: "75% say: Quit the EU now". Undoubtedly, this is a shocking 'statistic' and would be worthy of genuine concern were it true. However, when delving into the article it is revealed that 75% of people "would vote in a referendum to quit the EU or renegotiate the terms". Quite a different outcome than the one the Express was peddling on its front page. And to think these are merely one-offs, you would be mistaken; the pattern in tragically disturbing. But why do our newspapers deploy such tactics? What is there to be gained? The answer: power and influence. For these are the things the Rupert Murdoch's and Richard Desmond's of this world crave most.
The 'Occupy London' campaigners are the latest in a long line of nonconformists who have gained the scorn of the powerful right-wing mechanism at work in this country. They threaten the status quo and question vested interest. Travellers, immigrants, Muslims, Middle East dictators (though only the ones who refuse to play ball) and many other 'unknowns' regularly find themselves on the wrong end of a right-wing propaganda crusade. There is definitely a fallacy of fear in the air here in Britain, yet what Britain really requires is a fear of fallacy. We must say no to misinformation and question standard narratives. Chomsky was correct when he described how fear is a necessity - an essential tool - in order to maintain a hold over the masses. And whilst the well-behaved British public continue to absorb right-wing media diarrhoea as if it were fact, things will not change and lives will be ruined.