What’s really going on here, though, is a form of conspicuous consumption. If you want to flaunt your piety, it is no longer enough to say, “Gay people should be treated equally before the law.” Most people now agree with that proposition, robbing it of its niche value. To be properly fashionable, you have to find more recherche causes, such as condemning gay people who are insufficiently angry about “transphobia.” In the case of the l’affaire Tatchell, we see the ugly culmination of this competitive virtue-signaling: “You want free speech Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!”

The same tendency has led to an idiotic campaign to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes from my old Oxford College, Oriel. It’s not enough to say, “I disagree with Cecil Rhodes because he was an imperialist.” Almost no one these days shares the political opinions of the Victorian diamond magnate. So you have to say, “Anyone who is happy to leave this statue in place is my moral inferior.”

Such competitive virtue-signaling has led to a moronic campaign to boycott Israeli exports, and to an equally moronic campaign to ban the boycotts with full force of law.

I can see the attraction. Why give to charity when you can demand higher taxes? Why work as a volunteer when you can wear an awareness ribbon? Why work on being a better parent, child or spouse when you can denounce someone else as a bigot? How easy life must be for the permanently offended.