Our deepening double standards

jon

So was banning geert wilders not having the guts to publish the danish cartoons.

John Whyte

I feel that these convictions are setting quite a worrying precedent for these kind of 'offences.' After all, where do we stop prosecuting people? There is an argument, I suppose that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequence. However, as Rod points out, the dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' Islam insidiously erodes our claims to be different to those who would suppress the freedom of speech (and who knows what else) that the UK has so proudly defended throughout its history.

rod liddle

yep, agree absolutely.

KT Everytime

Just when you think we can't sink any lower.

Where did Democracy go?

Austin Barry

Islamist radicals should be free to say whatever they want without fear of prosecution. Freedom of speech is indeed unconditional.

That said, since they seek the downfall of the State and the curtailment of such freedoms, they are our enemies and should be removed with Mossad-syle efficiency and permanence.

wrinkled weasel

"By charging the men we surrendered moral superiority; we compromised our liberality and, dare I say it, decency in order to punish people we do not like."

What utter tosh.

Free Speech is a function of democracy. These people operate outwith democracy, something not even the BNP does. They have accordingly waived their right to enjoy the privileges of democracy, of which one major plank is the right to express your views, peaceably.

Let us be clear: their ultimate aim is to cleanse this country of gays, Jews, Christians and anybody they decide they do not like. They will do this by force. They will kill people. They will marginalise those who do not embrace Islam, in stark contradiction of your wonderfully received liberal opinion.

They represent a group who are happy to blow up innocent people to further their cause.

You, Mr Liddle, are a relativist. You do not genuinely believe in "moral superiority" because in your worldview, all ideas have moral equivalence.

As for "punishing people we do not like", these people are guilty of inciting hatred and encouraging violence. You might as well say the same about parking fines. It is the kind of fatuous dreck we are used to hearing.

Militant Islam, embodied in this group, is a precursor to the kind of society we have not seen since the Third Reich.

Now, bugger off and edit a paper that nobody will read, and spread your poison to the converted.

EyeSee

'Freedom of speech is unconditional'. No it isn't. The reason we are in Afghanistan is to remove an oppressive regime, which does then provide a freedom, but it is the lack of freedom we are addressing and the distinction is important. In the UK and in any society we voluntarily give up 'freedoms' for the greater good and for a peaceful society. Our police have, by our consent been given the ability to take away our liberty in defined circumstances. That directly removes freedom for doing something that society feels is against the general wellbeing. And it is this that these people who make themselves foreigners have offended. Their actions were not to give voice to their point of view, they were being deliberately provocative and seeking to incite. It is still true that if they find that this country being at war in Afghanistan (and generally not being too pleased to be targetted by Islamist terrorism), that our soldiers are somewhat less than professional and that they are generally oppressed and ill-used, then perhaps they should leave the UK. There are plenty enough who used to like Britain and contributed strongly to the economy and national culture, who have emigrated at Mr. Brown's indirect encouraging. I'm sure some benefit dependent malcontents will not be too sorely missed.
(I am aware by the way that policing by consent and representative democracy are no longer functioning institutions in the UK, having been replaced by the Code Napoleon and the EU's pretend parliament).

DeeJay

Interesting, 'independent' viewpoint, Ron.

Where these chaps actually arrested on the day of the offence to prevent further public disorder? I would have thought that it was the raison d'etre of the Public Order Act, ie to maintain public tranquility and prevent a breach of peace. Prosecuting folk some time after the event suggests that it really wasn't that serious at the time. Or,perhaps it was so serious that there were not enough riot cops available to deal with matter there and then.( but I don't think this was the case) A better course of action would have been immediate arrest followed by a seriouly long period of custodial detention so that witnesses could be sought and public anger assuaged. Alternatively,the police presence could have been withdrawn, so that the 'mob' decided their fate.

cuffleyburgers

Wrinkled Weasel - you are on the same moral plane as these protesters, you fail to see the difference between thinking and doing.

Wanting a caliphate is not a crime. Plotting a bombing is. Murdering people is.

Shouting rude words at a ceremony may be a disturbance on the peace and should be treated as such.

However, the worst that can be said is that you have offended somebody and there is no right not to be offended, not in our christian enlightened country, at least there wasn't until the labour fascists were let loose with their focus groups.

WW- you are guilty of muddled thinking.

Mr Liddle is right on the money here.

HairyNoddy

I'm all for free speech, but in my opinion it was a mistake to allow people from such a backward, barbarous and misogynistic culture into the UK in the first place.

To allow these buffoons to spout their garbage just adds insult to injury.

They should be stripped of their citizenship and booted out of the country.

They are an anomoly and an anachronism in a 21st Century capitalist democracy.

I acknowledge that there is an embedded contradiction in what I have just said but at least it's a contradiction which puts OUR values foremost, rather than the contradiction created by allowing these peasants to live by the oppressive and hostile rules of their cult in a society where all individuals are supposed to be equal.

phil

Sorry Rod ."Freedom of speech is unconditional " I wish we could live with that but when all responsibility is gone its not good enough for me .These thoughts were for a bygone age well before suicide bombers and hatemongers strode our streets shouting kill our soldiers and all those that do not" believe" -Anyway surely our laws cover this such as incitement to riot etc . I admire your morality but times are achanging

Derek

wrinkled weasel
1:51pm writes:

"Free Speech is a function of democracy. These people operate out[side]democracy..."

Correct. No civil rights for Genghis Khan!

Stephen Rothbart

The problem with free speech is that it can become a fragile thing when faced by a government that is struggling for votes and a police force so politically correct, yet so politicized by its masters, that it fails to protect, let alone serve its own citizens.

We have seen how some militant Muslims in this country have brutalized the concept, first by holding demonstrations against the Iraq War and pro-Palestinian rants, which only lasy year, saw our 'brave bobbies' running away from these fanatics in disarray.

Legislation does currently exist in this country to ban such behaviour, but it only seems to be enacted when used against easy targets like BNP, or peaceful counter demonstrations, like the pro-Israeli ones that sprung up around Europe after Cast Lead, but in many cases became the focus of police action, even though they were entirely peaceful, while the violent ones went unpunished.

The moderate Muslims themselves must start to take sides against this cancer in their midst, because right now the politicians here and in Europe, are too cowed to act. Too many of them feel they need the growing Muslim vote to stand up to their fellow Muslims. The signal that, to quote a famous line, they are mad and they will not take it any more, would perhaps enable this government and this Police force to actually look after their majority populations, which is either secular, or tolerant of secularism.

Sadly, Islam, whatever its defenders say, is notionally, a way of life, not just a religion and in the minds of some, a recipe for revolution. This is the same for some fundamentalist Jews and even some Christians, but largely they do not go around killing their critics, or blowing up trains and buses, while we have seen that this is not true of adherents to fundamentalist Islam.

The kind of Islam envisaged by those that belong to Islam4UK is not just a religious one, but doctrinaire. If established, it would not be open to democracy or free speech, and therefore it should not expect to be tolerated either. It is hateful, spiteful and its exponents should be automatically prosecuted under the Hate Crime law.

Sadly our judges and politicians and our Police do not have the courage to do this.

But the acid test for Ron Liddle and others like him is this: if a religious movement is, by its own definition, anti-democratic or descrimantory on either race or religious grounds, it forfeits the right to democratic free speech.

Douglas Hayward

For once I have to agree with you, Mr Liddle! Well said.

I find these convictions very disquieting. I suspect they will be overturned, to the great consternation of The Sun, backed of course by Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and friends.

Chris

Before today's ruling free speech already had clear limits. The fear of violent reprisals meant that the UK media was too terrified to print the Danish cartoons. Where were all the liberal British journalists and their unconditional championing of free-speech then? Where is the outrage over Geert Wilders' show-trial later this month? I suppose it's much easier for the liberal British press to take the path of least resistance, brand Wilders a right-wing fascist and to defend Islam4UK's/Luton Islamists right to free speech, all the while knowing damned well you silently censor and curtail your own right to speak and publish freely. Ah, the hypocrisy. Still, who would really want to be the next Theo Van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn or to have an Islamist axeman breaking down the door of their apartment like Kurt Westergaard did just the other day? It’s a tough call. Free speech comes at a high cost and that cost is people’s lives. The lives of those who dare to speak out against radical Islam and the lives of our military who established and preserve our democracy using violence, past and present.
Much as I admire Peter Tatchell and his bravery (he is undoubtably always brave), turning the other cheek on this occasion and championing the so-called free speech of Isamists will be the death of us all, with gays, indeed, at the front of the queue.

Tom Jaffray

Well said Rod Liddle.

Augustus

The 'punishment' of which you speak for these five Muslim individuals was, I understand, £500 each, which they themselves have bragged will simply be paid by the British taxpayer because they are on benefits. You say that freedom of speech is unconditional. But does that mean that we all should have a constitutional right to be as offensive and vulgar to others as we wish? If that were the case where would the offended's rights come in to play? Whose rights supercede the other's? If the free exercise of religion
in such outward displays of profanity are supposed to be interpreted as nothing more than
grievances and vocalized opinions, then the next inevitable step will be protesters using guns to show the world their frustration and
society will have to pick up the pieces.

Tiberius

"Freedom of speech is unconditional".

That's why the Islamofascists need to know that they will not be allowed incrementally to reduce the amount of it on offer, Rod.

Mr Grumpy

Humbug, sir! The simple answer to evrything in this post is that we are fighting a war. We are sending our troops to kill Taliban fighters, and I think you'll find that being dead imposes quite significant restrictions on one's freedom of speech. If we're serious about winning, we make sure our troops don't have to endure abuse from bearded Fifth Columnists on top of everything else. If we're not serious about winning, plainly we can't pull out soon enough. Let's all turn Quaker and throw ourselves on the mercy of the Luton Five (not seven, two of them got off) and their mates. And see how much freedom of expression we have left then.

Oswald Mosley and several hundred lesser fascists were rounded up in 1940. Mosley remained in prison or under house arrest until the end of the war. A fatal blow to our liberties, or simply acceptance of the realities of war?

Psi

Don't you believe in a "Bad Cristianity" (evangelical) and a "Good Cristianity" I agree with your sentement just not your hipocracy.
I'm not suggesting that you have advocated for silencing these people by law but you have atempted to draw arbitary lines in the past as well.

Sungei Patani

It is sheer nonsense to assume that by prosecuting a few Islamic nutters for saying nasty things that we are in any way preventing terrorism, or conversely by allowing them to utter such Moslem drivel that we encourage murder and mayhem.

Free speech is free speech, we all know the quotation on the matter by Voltaire. This was a free country where free speech was sacrosanct. Unfortunately this is no longer the case.

Mr Liddle you are quite right.

David Bouvier

There is a debate to be had about the use of the public order act, especially the discretionary implementation of the "alarm harrass or distress" criteria.

You may member the threat of arrest made to a girl wearing a "Bollocks to Blair" sweatshirt.

But if you accept this law as is - and it is enforced against the rest of us - then it is good to see it being enforced against Muslim extremists, who, for example over the Danish cartoon protests, seemed to get away with more than a counter-demonstrator would.

Equality before the law for Muslims required this prosecution (and several more besides).

That said, I think the law is oppressive - giving as it does excessive discretion to police that can be used to harrass and intimidate. But that is nothing to do with Islam.

Moral Mazer

Mr Grumpy makes an interesting point. If we are at war with the Taliban, then those people who support them in this country are indeed, a potential Fifth Column. Mosley and his fascists were indeed rounded up and imprisoned for the duration in the national interest. What is in the national interest now? And jon's point about the media's decision not to publish the Danish cartoons or to raise a hue and cry over Wilders shows how conditional the chatterati consider freedom of speech (I remember how mealy mouthed they were over Rushdie's fatwah as well). So, are we at war or not, and if so, how do we defend ourselves?

Sunil Prasannan

One of their placards read "Islam will dominate the world - Freedom can go to hell".

So Islam4UK *themselves* do not believe in Freedom.

ed lancey

This is exactly the kind of navel-gazing nonsense that the Social Democrats indulged in with the NDSAP. They just assumed that, even if Hitler won the elections, it would be business as usual. Hitler simply banned them as soon as he had the same.

It didn't work then and it won't work this time.

I'm sick of hearing about this ludicrously wooly concept of the great British tradition of free speech. At any time for the last 400 hundred years (at least up until the 1960's - let's say May 1968 for argument's sake) these scumbags would have beaten to a pulp and strung up.

You've living in a fantasy world.

Peter from Maidstone

Rod, I think there is a great difference between people being able to say and publish what they want, and the situations in which people's view and opinions are published.

I do agree that even these Muslims have a right to say what they want, but they do not have the right to say it anywhere and everywhere - that is part of the civil contract we make living in a society.

I can say to my son - I've got a bomb in my bag - and in our kitchen it might be a joke, but I cannot say it on a plane. And no-one but a ultra-liberal with no regard for the actual consequences would agree that anyone could say that on a plane.

I might well be able to say even here - Rod Liddle is an idiot - but if I go to your street and outside your house I march up and down with a placard saying 'Rod Liddle is a paedophile' then I should rightly find my freedom constrained for the sake of your freedoms.

These Muslims could have protested anywhere, they chose to do it in a place and at a time that touched upon the freedoms of a great many other people. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that they be prosecuted - not for what they said, but for what they said in the time and place they said it.

If I went to a crowded theatre and shouted - Fire - then I could not argue I was exercising free speech when I started a stampede that killed people.

Likewise if I stand in a public place I must be constrained by certain restraints on public discourse - none of which, though you claim it to be so, touch upon freedom of speech.

It is not reasonable to expect to walk naked down Maidstone High Street, or wearing a penis gourd, and not be challenged. There is nothing wrong with exercising the right to wear such clothes, or none, just as Muslims in private should be free to dress as they choose - but in the public space we constrain ourselves - that is what society means. To deliberately deny that any such constraints exist is anti-social in the strongest sense - it is the desire to destroy society.

That is why these men should be prosecuted and properly punished. They deliberately rejected the politeness which is required for discourse in public - it has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. There freedom to express these views elsewhere was not impinged at all.

No-one has the right to say anything at any time in any place. This is a straw man argument. As part of society we must choose when to speak and face the consequences of our speaking.

John Adlington

I couldn't, should I desire to, shout, "Paki Bastards!" at a parade of passing Pakistanis without almost certainly being arrested. I don't see that assailing these troops with shouts of "Baby Killer!" or "Rapist" is any less repugnant. I assume, Rod, that you would support arrest for vile racist insults shouted in public, so why not arrest for the egregious things that were being shouted at the soldiers?

I think things might be a little less clear cut than you would have us believe.

DaveA

Rod, I could not agree more. I could witter on about stone age barbarians who if they want to live under Sharia law etc etc but they have a right to free speech and no matter how offensive should not of been prosecuted.

Where is our high moral ground?

Andrew Johnson

They were disturbing the peace and should have been arrested and removed from the scene. Free speech is not free. Many have died and suffered unspeakable agonies so we could enjoy our free speech.
The turth is, the PC police bottled it. The PC government bottled it, then realised they were in danger of having many thousands of English people on the streets of Wooton Basett demonstrating against Islam. Now that would never do would it?
We need to defend the right of everyone to their opinion, but that opinion has to be expressed in a way that doesn't incite others.

Old Holborn

What they do to free thinking Muslims, one day, they will do to all of us.

I guarantee it.

John Wilkes

Generally I agree with the right to say what you like in public, although we have (since the early middle ages) had the idea of the King or Queens peace. In other words good public order which it was criminal to breach i.e. the old fashioned "breach of the peace". It does denote a strong element of give and take - i.e. let your neighbour be and he will be expected to leave you alone. On a slightly different point, one of the things that has kept the peace in this country is it not being a militaristic country. Whilst the first task of government is to defend us (and so pay for the army and navy etc) we are not run by the government. Parliament is supposed to keep control over the Army and the money by having an annual Finance Act (the Budget) and an annual Army Act. That was because we are not supposed to like standing armies. Should we, therefore, be encouraging the Army to go marching through the streets. They are, of course, doing their best by us but I am rather uncomfortable with the Army marching up and down my streets. Am I alone in this?

Old Holborn

Anjem Choudry seeks to abolish free speech in the UK

Looks like he got what he wanted. Without even breaking into a sweat.

Cheers, Gordon.

Gareth

Islam is a ridiculous religion as well as a vicious one; there is a wealth of material for a Monty Python's life of Brian. There is, however, little prospect of such a film being made - Islam has a stifling effect on free speech. That being so, it becomes necessary to silence the advocates od islamic theocracy and jihad to preserve some "balance".

The Masked Marvel

They should have been charged as ASBOS, plain and simple. That would end the hand-wringing from both sides. Of course, that would eliminate the soap box everyone wants to stand on here.

Dixon

Its multiple choice: Answers 1)Yes,2)no,3)yes,4)No.

1) Yes, they should be allowed to say what they like.Oliver Cromwells "Ill die defending your rith to say it..." yada, yada...

2) No. If you, I or anyone here went out in the street and shouted "You are a rapist" at someone, we would be arrested.

3). Yes. An exception should be made for views expressed at a demo.

4) No, they shouldnt be given a police cordon to enable them to say so with impunity.

The irony is that, whenever we see these Ahabs denouncing our spociety, they are invariably surrounded by a wall of protecting Policemen provided by same society.

I say, let them say or act how they like. But when the EDF show up, give them the same lee-way!

St Bruno

Since when has Great Britain been a democracy? Yes, we have a shame of elections for people who rip us off and make more laws. A succession of governments who do just what they please because there is no opposition of any account. Maybe that is just the nature of our Mother of Parliaments interpretation of the magic word Democracy rigged ballots and all. Now, we are to be told which ethnic minority to vote for by decree from the supreme leader a Scotsman of all people Gordon Brown and his close friends. Wealth, privilege, and Christian Monarchy are the true foundations of the country; they have not changed since Norman times if ever in British history. Defender of the Faith has gone with the wind.
We the great mass of the plebs must do as we are told!

The heritage of Britain is up for grabs to any gang of foreigners. Change our religion to Islam, no way; if they don’t like it, they know what they can do.
Democracy, to my mind, is not parading on the street shouting, jeering and praying on the pavement, displaying banners proclaiming their right to rule the country and impose their religion or cut your head off if you disagree, but engaging in a debate where matters are discussed. Or course this is the BNP I am talking about.

James

Muslim extremists in our country shouting abuse at soldiers who are fighting Muslim extremists abroad in order to keep our country safe.

It's a no brainer they should be punished.

how far would you want to stretch liberalness Rod ?

way beyond the pale I think.

Also the solicitor is incorrect in what she said, that the soldiers are "fighting for freedom", they are fighting to keep Britain safe.

Olaf Rye

Well Rod, all I can say is this is a cracking good post ! The banning of these groups and the suppression of their ridiculous and moronic arguments signals more about how illiberal this government is and how contemptuous it is of free speech and the concept of open discourse than its concern for soldiers and civil order. Only certain ideas are allowed to be discussed, mainly those that derive from left-of-centre groups. It seems the British have happily followed the Stasi management policy.

George J

Maybe it was Islam that Douglas Adams had in mind when he wrote about the planet Krikkit in Life, the Universe and Everything. You may recall that on discovering the existence of the Universe beyond the dust cloud that enveloped their planet, the Krikkiters could not accept it into their world view, and came to the conclusion that "It'll have to go."

You can't argue with that sort of supremacist creed, any more than you can you afford to accommodate it. Arguing the finer points of free speech when dealing with the likes of Choudary is a complete waste of breath.

Arthur Dent, your country needs you.

Ann S

I completely agree. Obviously I don't agree with them but it is right to quote Mill in this context. You could also develop the point further.
'that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'
The idiots in Luton did not harm anyone therefore they should have been allowed to spew their hateful views.
Equally Islam4UK should not have been banned.
If we do not have the courage of our own convictions how can we expect others to respect them?

Alex Creel

Surely the eejits right to free speech was entirely upheld. On the day they were protected by police while shouting their abhorent rubbish then charged and later convicted under the law of the land in which they choose to remain. Quashing their freedo of speech could have been easily achieved - the police could have withdrawn their protection, looked the other way and the crowd could have 'discussed' their views with them. Seeing justice done is the only thing that tempers the reaction of those who might otherwise take the law into their own hands. The moral highground will be a lot of comfort with an active militant islam creating havoc around the UK.

Tron

If the politically correct country of today had to re-fight World War 2. Hitler would win.
Could you imagine Channel 4 News reports? Or Churchill reading out a list of the dead every week? Health and Safety ?

lord falmouth

Peter from Maidstone has hit the nail on the head. Sorry that's a bit violent but he is correct. For freedom to blossom there must be constraints. I may wish to drive on the right but we legislate against that. Peter your examples are excellent. Let us all march up and down Rod's avenue and see if he gets grumpy and tells us to sod off.

Dixon

EDF! Thats an electric company. I of course meant EDL!

Malcolm

Round of applause for Ron please ladies and gentlemen. What a principled and noble point of view to espouse. Of course Ron's motivation for uttering these words so far removed from his character and core beliefs as to make them
laughable coming from him, has nothing to do with principles, and even less to do with nobility. Ron is simply in the grasp of the most basic human emotion: fear. Ron is scared ladies and gentlemen; he knows about the significance of "precedence" in the British legal system.

After all, when ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom - the land of freedom of speech (allegedly) - can be convicted for, and I quote (Judge Mellanby): "...an open expression of opinion on a matter of public interest
which was advanced in words that amounted to being disproportionate and unreasonable" - essentially, their right to offend - those oxymorons who make it their "morally superior" business to offend have every reason to feel troubled.

Judge Mellanby has done us all a huge favour and I think she is the one really deserving of applause here. This ruling of hers means we can start locking up members of the BNP, and those like them who publicly impugn and defame entire races as "human filth" and defacto "sexually violent killers" - 'an open expression of opinion on a matter of public interest which was advanced in words that amounted to being disproportionate and unreasonable' - just like those muslim men chanting "baby killers".

This hateful vitriol is the right to offend that Rod is worried about losing, along with his freedom of course. And so he betrays even his own beliefs and engenders the worst form of double standards ever, even as he denounces double standards, by pretending to care about the freedom of speech of men whose oxygen supply he wishes he had control over, just so he can carry on offending.

But he knows the jig is up. The right to offend has noting to do with the freedom of speech, and Judge Mellanby knows it. Can you hear the fat lady singing Rod: "Bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?" What you've got to ask yourself Rod is, "Is it more important to me to offend people? Or to engage people in edifying discourse
(which of course is limitless and most certainly free and always welcome)? I see your moral puny pony for what it is Rod, hard as you try to pass it off as a high horse...and I'm sure everybody else here sees it too. Your shameless drivel has fooled no one here.

Graeme Thompson

We're at war and these people are the enemy. If we were a sane country they would have been immediately yanked off the street and sent to the nearest internment camp for the duration of the war for their blatant enemy action.

I see how a charge of breaching public order may have been justified under ordinary circumstances, but these means of dealing with the enemy are just a great big funk to avoid what we should be doing.

Carl

The way to deal with the Stupid Seven is to show exactly who they are and what they do and so, how utterly trivial they are: Shouting at the nasty soldiers before running home to mummy.

We should never have charged them with anything apart from being idiots which, as far as I know is not a crime.

Dixon

Malcolm, who is Ron? And BTW, an oxymoron is not a type of moron ( as you seem to suppose ) but a word that refers to something that by its nature cannot exist.

Wilhelm

I note Sami Chakrabatty, the Shitt Stirrer in Chief, I love her to bits, really I do, kept her big trap shut when it came to Nick Giffin appearing on Question Time.

Inkwind

I think it would be a good idea for Muslim Protesters to go to Wootton Basset, then the locals could inform them first hand how they feel.

This potential flashpoint is of course what the Government must avoid.

Like the majority in the UK I do not support the campaign in Afghanistan, and I suspect many in Wootton Basset also see it as a waste of lives and resource, but they like I respect those that misguidedly serve and die in Afghanistan.

As far as the government is concerned it ain’t about free speech or even respect for the fallen its about containment and keeping the peace!

WM Seacole

Rod, do you really care about freedom of speech for these people as much as they care about denying it for us? Are you prepared to die for these rights? Make no mistake, these people are charged with a mission to establish a caliphate in the UK and nothing will stop them - especially death. They laugh at liberals. It's time to fight fire with fire and stop being manipulated by those who see us as a soft target.

FrankFisher

"Where did Democracy go?"

People voted against it.

That's essentially what's happened - because people in the Uk are so ignorant, intentionally so of course - our schooling is designed to produce profound but arrogant ignorance - no one seems to understand what free speech is *for*.

Even "citizenship" classes shy away from it - I wrote some materials (about internet censorship in China, oddly enough), about 12 years ago that were included in the first citizenship classes taught in British schools. Labour figured discussions of free speech issues would only look at issues abroad; how wrong they were. Classrooms were soon filled with kids asking, quite reasonable, "If we have free speech why can't I call him a puff? Why can't I call him a paki? Why can't I say his religion is shit?" I have spoken to teachers who have been *trained* to, at this point, cease the lesson. You don't ask, answer, discuss such points. Such controversies are too complicated, too dangerous, too near the knuckle. They expose this "liberal" society's deep paradoxes and illiberalism (see the very illeberal Liberal Conspiracy for many examples).

Bascially the UK has been utterly screwed by waves of legislation intended to force us all to play nice - to *think* in terms of equality, diversity, all that meaningless trash. it simply isn't compatible with any version of democracy worthy of the name. We have to choose what we want - everyone to be forced to be nice to each other (while secretly hating, and plotting civil war) or real messy, angry, bitter, offensive democracy.

Which do you think Call Me Dave prefers?

We're doomed.

Peter Gompertz

Who would have thought that New Labour would be responsible for the birth of New Fascism. Very Alice in Wonderland.

Brian

The fact that this ever had to come to trial concerns me - the correct action would have been for the police in Luton to arrest the demonstrators on a charge of 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace', remove them from the scene and then caution them.

I see the decision to deal with this in the courts as disturbing - it sets a precedent for further restrictions on the freedom of speech which may affect those of us who do not subscribe to the ridiculous beliefs of these benighted sons and grandsons of illiterate goatherds - however offensive I find their views, I do not want to see similar action taken against the rest of us, and fear that the real agenda of our politicised police and prosecution service is the control of political dissent and the punishment of those who dare to differ.

simon

Labour does not trust their electorate to make up their own minds just as they do not trust us to spend our own money wisely. This is socialism in action and it is a tragedy for our country.

Ian

Mr Grumpy / Moral Mazer make interesting points and I think i'd agree with them if these men had been convicted on the basis that we are at war and otherwise would not have been - but as I understand it they weren't convicted on that basis, and that is why the convictions are worrying. The logic underlying their convictions would apply even if we weren't at war, and that is why they are objectionable.

Phill Marston

"Freedom of speech is unconditional."

Absolutely right. Choudary of Islam4UK says that the returning troops are 'rapists' and 'murders'; Iris Robinson of the DUP calls homosexuals 'more vile than child abusers'. Both opinions are vile but both Choudary and Robinson have the right to voice them. The only working moral compass appears to belong to Peter Tatchell.

Lolly Gagg

Rod Seacole Liddle,

Can you assure or reassure the readers here that you maintain absolute freedom of speech on your blogs?

Do you, for any reason, suppress comments from any contributors on your threads?

Frank S

Some poster yesterday wrote 'free thinking Muslims', without explaining how that is possible. As far as I can see, it is forbidden, would be punishable by death in a Sharia court.

A Krikkit

George J, please retract that harmful and misleading slur on the good and ultimately peaceful race of the Krikkiteurs.

It is unfathomable how or why you should choose to confuse us with the Silastic Armourfiends as everyone knows these are the most aggressive and insane denizens of the Universe. Have you not heard tell of the best way to deal with a Silastic Amourfiend: to lock him in a room by himself as he will beat himself up sooner or later?

The best way to pick a fight with a Silastic Armourfiend is to be born. They don't like it. They get resentful.

So, Earthlings, tell your leader rdlidli [message lost in hyperwarp]

hiro

At then end of the day, it's simply banning something we don't like to hear (and yes, PC rules on the other side of the coin is guilty of the same thing). Governments are so scared that we can't resolve these matters amongst ourselves, so they end up banning key words, or key beliefs, or key arguments that they cannot stomach. Progress along cultural-economic-political lines, say like the civil rights movement in America, rarely suceeded by shutting people up - the progress made amongst the CRM was a huge cultural shift in the way people percieved other people - needed no laws. Good luck with the Indy thing Rod - should shake things up. Important paper to keep running.

GaryO

We feel freedom of speech should be a two way street. The reason we're all getting upset is because they (the bad muslims) are allowed to say what they want about us and our ways of life, but we cannot say a word against their source of inspiration because that'll upset the good muslims and their friends in politics, academy and media!

Ain't PC a bitch!

GaryO

People should also bear in mind that many in our muslim community will exert a similar price from us for this ban and will demand reciprocity when it comes to criticism of islam or its founder – which will ultimately lead to islam getting a free pass that no other religion otherwise gets.

hiro

"DaveA
January 12th, 2010 6:06pm
Rod, I could not agree more. I could witter on about stone age barbarians who if they want to live under Sharia law etc etc but they have a right to free speech and no matter how offensive should not of been prosecuted.

Where is our high moral ground?"

Spot on.

hiro

"Also the solicitor is incorrect in what she said, that the soldiers are "fighting for freedom", they are fighting to keep Britain safe."

And it's having entirely the opposite affect. If you think that if we pulled out of Afgan and Iraq that we suddenley get more bombs and attacks, then you need to have a quiet word with yourself.

PaulM

If any of these men chose to stand up in public and having called our soldiers nurderers and rapists then laid out the evidence and arguments for this assertion then I would be quite happy to accept his right to freedon of speech. However this is not what they chose to do, instead they chose to hurl these vile and unsubstantiated insults at the soldiers in a public place.If I chose to wait for Mr Liddle outside his home and on seeing him launched into a loud harangue in which I called him a baby-strangler and a paedophile, without of course offering any evidence whatsover for my allegations, would he be so keen on protecting my freedom of speech? I doubt it, in fact I have no doubt he would feel threatened, abused and insulted and I would have obviously intended that he feel harassed,alarmed and distressed by the experience. All this of course constitutes an offence under the section 5 of the Public Order Act. Reasoned rgument and justified criticism should be and is protected, gratuitous abuse and insults is not and should not be. It was right and proper to prosecute these men.

Shakassoc

First they came for the Muslims...etc.

Liam Godden

Rod Liddle agrees with Peter Tatchell! Presumably this means you and he would be fine if a group of people yelled that you were a paedophile across a street? "Freedom of Speech" is not about telling lies; if you accuse someone of being a nonce or a rapist you should have PROOF!! I doubt Anjem Choudry has been anywhere near the places the Royal Anglian Regiment have been, so what proof can he have? A pity that the people that should loudest about "Free Speech" and "Democracy" are the ones that want to take it away from a large number of people, be that Islam4UK OR the BNP! YOU, Rod, are as much a part of the problem as Griffin, Choudry, Osama Bin Laden et al.

Augustus

You might say that we expect this kind of behaviour from Muslims who seem to make no effort to move beyond the 7th Century. But in England we expect our elected leaders to condemn it, instead of turning a blind eye to the Islamization of our country. The Prime Minister would have us all believe that, while Islamic clerics preach Jihad all over the world, here in Britain Islam is an honourable religion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, has suggested that Sharia law is inevitable, which would at a stroke put the buffers on the Enlightenment and
lead us back into a new dark age. The Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge, has suggested that Sharia law could play a role in English law as well, so that some bearded cleric can be both judge and jury in some theocratic court.
The whole Islamic circus is becoming an intolerable hate-preaching carbuncle on the face of a traditionally tolerant society. It is vandalism dressed up as religion, and confrontational fascism inflamed
with prejudicial hatred of all that the West represents.

Dixon

The occasional terrorist bombing of a bus or a train is nothing compared to the prospect of this country morphing into a land run by and on behalf of a load of Neanderthals and engineering PHDs who look like extras from a pre-PC version of Sinbad The Sailor.

And thats precisely what IS going to happen, unless British Muslims are encouraged to raise their children differently.

So allow these ludicrous looking nads to get on with their demos. It no doubt makes a lot of Muslims cringe. The more embarrassing they are the better. The more incentive that other tribe of Muslims have to do something about it. Best of all ( most ridiculous ) are the white middle-class converts. Especially ginger ones, with red faces and ginger beards. What an example! Just what the prophet (PBUH) had in mind I'm sure!

All that said, a major factor is the "faith schools" doctrine. And thats Tony's legacy.

The demographic fact is that inside this century, most British citizens will be of Muslim descent. The issue is what kind of Muslims they are going to be. Church of England never go to Mosque and drink like a fish Muslims (my favourite type) or a bunch of extras from Carry On Follow That Camel. What an ironically prophetic movie: the Bernard Breslau character was meant to be a joke, we never imagined such men would one day be stalking our streets...as Ali G would say, for real!

Charles

Derek

Do you know anything about Genghis Khan? A very enlightened man for his time - introducing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, fiat currency, international trade, diplomacy - hastening the spread of writing and printing and many other benefits.

alex taylor

you are right in your thoughts of freedom of speech, but wrong in the non banning of these muslim groups, freedom of speech is one thing but inciting violence is a totally different kettle of fish

Paul B

I was minded to agree with Rod, but after reading Peters from Maidstone's lucid post I have changed my mind. What these people did and their subsequent trial & conviction, was not exercising their right to freedom. Instead , they were attempting to start a fight, a brawl a good old fashioned English punch up. The Police are still obliged to uphold the Queens Peace, which they did.

P

For those that seem to believe that freedom of speech is somehow conditional:
In such a case it is not "freedom of speech" it is "conditional speech", which is very different, open to interpretation based on whatever happens to be the bias of the interpreting party and whatever the currently most hyped fear is.

michael

Freedom to insight racial tensions.
Freedom to pedal sedition.
Freedom to allow our muslim. communities to become ever more spellbound by extremism.
Freedom to act as recruiting sergeants for terror.

what price freedom of speech....
..with 50+ comments your article has been a good seller!

Malcolm

Dixon ol' chap, I see wit is not your strong suit. Don't be a moron. Look up double entendre in the dictionary, then see how many meanings you can glean from my usage of the word oxymoron. I'll give you a hint: there's at least 3.

Of course, in order to understand its usage as a double entendre, you'll need to find out what oxymoron means first, because your derision-worthy definition exposes the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the word means. LOL!

Oh and Ron, Rod, whatever, it's all the same.

cynicalsceptic

Peter from Maidstone gives you the legal definition of ‘free speech’. The Law does not acknowledge philosophical arguments such as the one J.S Mill makes as the law use to recognise that all philosophical positions ends up at reductio ad absurdum. The logic itself becomes absurd.

Freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the constraints people impose upon themselves in order to live in a society that they can influence, not reduce the member of it to slavery and destroy their institutions and values.

Dixon

Malcolm doesnt know what double entendre is either. Must have a dictionary of his own.

Dixon

On the other hand, according to Oxford online dictionary an oxymoron is:
"a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect."

To which my phrasing:
"...a word that refers to something that by its nature cannot exist."
...compares quite favourably. Example: "semi-literate pedant".

Certainly more fitting than Malcolms use of the word in "...those oxymorons who make it their "morally superior" business to offend ..."

I remain to discover what "double entendres" lurk in the cloudy depths of the latter statement.

HairyNoddy

Malcolm still has his lacy undergarments in a twist about one of Mr Liddle's earlier efforts. His half witted trolling is not really worth responding to.

Woodbine Willy

My girlfriend asked for an example of a double entendre, so I gave her one.

Harry Calder

Excellent article. I have had occasion to be critical in the past of some of things Rod has said on his blog, but something such as this reminds me why I keep coming back to read him.

For the record, I hate and despise Islamism more than I can say. But unless anyone openly incites violence, the law has no business prosecuting them for what they have said.

workie ticket

Peter from Maidstone and Paul M (amongst others) have posted much sense on this matter.

I wish I, and others like myself had the support of those who claim to support freedom of speech, or more precisely, a freedom to disseminate and discuss the realities of Islam on the ground freely.

For nearly 20 years I lived in an area of Londinistan that supplies many of the jihad's most active supporters and soldiers and watched extremism advertising and flaunting itself with impunity.

Comments on this to MPs, police, media invariably were and are invariably ignored. I was free to say it and everyone was free to not publish it or, in the case of MPs or police, not act on it.

Having a muslim apostate friend who could understand the regional Urdu accent enabled me to learn that talk of 'vast majorities' of moderates is merely a desperate media and political pretence and gamble that, in my old stamping grounds at least, is utterly without foundation.

Sorry I'm not backing this up with specifics, its a guaranteed way of being freely and unconditionally moderated out.

john steadman

You do not have to be a soft liberal to agree with Rod Liddle here. We have to be allowed to give offence as long as there is no threat of violence. I could not see any real evidence of this here and the term "incitement to violence" can mean anything a determined legal prosecutor wants it to mean.
Of course there is a real problem in that if I went a tenth of the way towards verbally assaulting a bunch of the bretheren 0on the march as they assaulted our troops I would be in court and convicted without a word of sympathy or protest from the vast majority of those in the media who take the same line as our host on this issue.
But that doesn't make him or that wrong.

Can anybody explain how they have been able to get this so-called "hate-crime" legislation through. It is stifling free speech of decent and reasonable people without discernably restraining the genuinely hate-filled lunatics who do have violence in mind.

Linda Smith

Good Islam/Bad Islam; Radical Muslims/Moderate Muslims....For believers in Islam, it has been said, there are only two camps: those who act and those who wait.

dai fromwales

As far as I can see, Peter from Maistone has provided the most relevant comments. But a fine will not stop them - the court's action merely helps their cause and as Rod says it furthers the ease with which freedom of speech can be (and already has been) removed from all of us.

The matter of absolute superiority of 'democracy' worries me. For several decades now - and most especially under Blair - it has been used to justify gross discrimination against minority groups, especially when such groups are suspected of supporting the opposition. Hence the bann on fox hunting, smoking in pubs (which the market was dealing with by restricting it anyway), Tories banning sports shooting with handguns, stopping motorcylists from using pubic highways unless they have meen surfaced by Local Authorities: even much of the current legal assaults on motorists.
Democracy does not guarantee good government. The House of Lords was not 'democratic' but was the finest part of Westminster simply because its members were NOT there to satisfy their own burning ambition to boss us all about.

As many have said before me: those who put themselves forward for public office ought to be banned.

Christianity4Mecca

'The conviction of seven Muslim protestors for shouting nasty things at returning British soldiers was a grave and dangerous assault upon freedom of speech.'

Presumably then Rod, you support the concept of Islam-haters routinely standing outside mosques on any given Friday shouting equally nasty things to it's adherents.

YA

I suspect Rod Liddle was forced to write this nonsense - because he has committed sins earlier in this blog, being too intolerant to Islam.
I think Rod received death threats, or decided to "redeem" in advance to pretend that he's just a chaotic clown, or because his mom ordered to do it - she wants him to stay alive.
Without this, I can't imagine how a man with brains might conflate notions of "free speech" and "Islam", in a positive context.

Daniel Maris

It's a bit borderline. An intention to disturb the peace has to be illegal. If someone went to the doorway of a Mosque and started shouting all the true things you might about the cult leader Mohammed - that would be breach of peace in my view. It isn't an infringement of my liberty that I can't go and shout those things there. But it is an infringement of my liberty if I can't say them here or in a speech elsewhere.

Generally I think ex lager-porno mag consuming Anjem and his mates should be entitled to say what they like about how society should be organised. But to the extent they engage in an organised conspiracy to install Shariah as a replacement for democracy, we should pursue them ruthlessly, using all legal means.

Dixon

Can I broaden this to another example. That girl who was prosecuted for writing poetry glorifying jihad. Now I know the case was complicated by the fact that she worked at a WH Smiths at Heathrow and as regulars know, I am as anti Islamism as anyone, but I was utterly aghast to hear that you can now be arrested and prosecuted for writing poetry that hasnt even been published!

Amanda in America

Baron, if you're there. You asked what this :^) is.

It's no secret symbol. Just a smiley face with a nose. I started doing them on another blog because if you just do a face :), it gets converted into a proper fatuous yellow icon. I hate seeing those damn things grinning at me.

Plus I like to so something different from what everyone is doing :^)

Prester John

My take on this was that these creatures were taken to court due to "public pressure", did not have to recognise the Judge's authority by standing, were given extra time out to pray, had a room set aside for the purpose, and will have their legal costs met by the State because they are all on benefits.

They weren't punished, they were taking the piss - just given a further opportunity to give the finger to the rest of us and make it look like the Government was "doing something".

They left the court smirking and laughing.

The victims here are justice and the British people.

But that's OK.

I do however stand by the right to freedom of speech.

Consequently I have to say that Marcus Brigstocke has an arse like a Rhinoceros. No doubt due to receiving some serious "attention" at his posh Public School.

Malcolm

Dixon, I thought you only struggled with wit but it appears as if you also struggle with comprehension and logic. In your mind, something seemingly self-contradictory is the same as "someting that by its nature cannot exist". By that logic I suppose no human can exist. A failure of logic at this basic level is truly shameful. For your own sake ol' boy, don't have an opinion in public...it's embarassing. How befitting then, your unintended, ironic, Freudian slip of a self-descriptive example: "semi literate pedant". I couldn't have put it better myself mon frere. Although the word (intellectual) peasant (as opposed to pedant) would have been equally descriptive.

I see from your last sentence that you still don't get it. Well, I'm not going to spell it out for you. It's quite obvious that you need to exercise your grey matter, so I'm going to help you in that regard. Now that you've looked up the meaning of oxymoron (and still mis-understood it), I suggest you also look up double entendre (hope you have better luck with comprehending that one). When you're done, re-read my initial post and...aw who am I kidding, pigs can't fly. Good luck trying though. Tata.

Nicholas

What a thoroughly unpleasant post from Malcolm - but a worthy follow-up to his first, somewhat sinister endorsement of political correctness, repression and censorship contrived as an attack against Rod Liddle.

I see we have a few subscribing to Hoon's "no right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" soundbite too. The satirists, lampooners and free spirits of the Age of Reason must be turning in their graves to see how craven and apathetic in the face of tyranny this country has become.

Winston Ckole

Since unfettered freedom of speech is the order of the day Rod, I feel emboldened to say that your comments on this matter probably amount to the biggest load of crap I've read in quite a while. Of course, had the gentlemen in question been peace-loving liberals your argument would have validity. As it is, your well-intentioned tolerance is just what these benefit-enabled jokers are banking on.

Dixon

Malcolm, for a statement to constitute a "double entendre" it has to have a primary meaning to which the secondry constitutes the "double". As they say, the clue is in the phrase "double...entendre". But your statement: "...those oxymorons who make it their "morally superior" business to offend ..." doesnt contain any meanings. It means nothing but is a nonsensical combination of words.

Fergus Pickering

But Rod, we don't have freedom of speech. The race laws prevent it. I tried to say this a couple of days ago but an aside about the hygeine of certain sections of the community obviously got in the way of my freedom of speech. I'll try again.

logdon

If I and a few thousand fellow travellers printed up banners stating,

Behead all Muslims.

Muslims you will pay, the British revenge is on its way.

Invade Egypt and take all their wives as war booty.

Slaughter all Heathens.

And then paraded the streets of central London. How far would I get?

Those sentiments in reverse were shoved in Londoner's faces with not one arrest on the day.

Could I get away with the same thing?

If the answer is yes, fair play. If no we are living in a state of imbalance with Muslims having the trump card.

That is not free speech. It is a one way street of free speech for one sector whilst the other is denied it.

And do not the feelings of the widows and relatives of the dead servicemen count?

Parading empty coffins at such a memorials is as big an insult to their memory as it gets.

Don't those people count?

And then, those brave British publications who share the sentiments of freedom? Not one published the cartoons, intimidated as they were by fear of reprisal.

Wither free speech in that instance?

Great sentiments and in a world free of the corruption of politicians with one eye open their Muslim constituents vote and the other on filling in expense forms, perfect.

As it stands free speech is a chimaera. A hollow gesture which exposes our descent into gesture politics like nothing else.

Dixon

Malcolms at it again, look us here:
"Malcolm
January 14th, 2010 9:18am
Dixon, I thought you only struggled with wit but it appears as if you also struggle with comprehension and logic. In your mind, something seemingly self-contradictory is the same as "someting that by its nature cannot exist". By that logic I suppose no human can exist. A failure of logic at this basic level..."

...er, no, yours is the lack of logic. Because what you just said would only be logical if self-contradiction were a defining characteristic of being a Human. Which it isnt. Silly. Moreover, whilst Humans can choose to contradict themselves ( or each other ) their existence is not in itself a contradiction of being Human ( the other potential interpretation, nonsensical that it is, of your comment ).

Or to put it another way, being Human does not in itself entail being self-contradictory. Unless of course you think yourself the very paradigm of what it is to be Human and continually contradict yourself. Its the old "Greeks always tell lies and I am Greek" paradox. and you've cast yourself as a Greek. Whereas, "a flying pig" is something which by its very nature cannot be.

These are two different categories or types of contradiction. One is elective ( Human beings can choose to contradict themselves, it is not a contradition that they exist ) whereas the other is definitive ( pigs are animals that don't fly, so a pig that can fly by its nature doesnt exist, ie, the phrase "flying pig" is the cotrrect usage of "oxymoron", you pillock ).

Lets see what he trolls onto next:

"I see from your last sentence that you still don't get it. Well, I'm not going to spell it out for you...."

Because you cannot, for your statement "...those oxymorons who make it their "morally superior" business to offend ..." is, I would contend, insusceptible of having any meaning spelled out on its behalf. Well, I invite anyone to offer a speculation as to what it was supposed to mean?

And...
"It's quite obvious that you need to exercise your grey matter, so I'm going to help you in that regard. Now that you've looked up the meaning of oxymoron (and still mis-understood it)..."

Well, judging by your opening gambit, it seems that its you who misunderstood it...

"... I suggest you also look up double entendre (hope you have better luck with comprehending that one). When you're done, re-read my initial post and...aw who am I kidding, pigs can't fly. Good luck trying though. Tata."

What a pillock. I leave others to judge.

Its the charge of "intellectual" or "pseudo-ontellectual" etc that such trolls are inclined to make that most tickles me. As any regular here should have noticed over the months, i am avowedly ANTI-intellectual. Only recently recommending Paul Johnsons book "Intellectuals" as a lively critique of the breed. A type of person that I would say that, judging by these types of exchange, the Malcolms among us are more akin to than anything indicated by my comments.

Edward McLaughlin

I do wish that people would resist the temptation to use the literary term 'oxymoron', when what they are referring to is nothing more than a simple contradiction of terms.

Why would one want to use such an ugly word anyway, unless in an attempt to bestow upon an otherwise feeble passage of text, an erudite air?

Linda Smith

Dixon, you may be "anti-intellectual", but if you want to cite classic "intellectual" quotes, do get it right - it was "Cretans" who were liars, not "Greeks.

Fergus Pickering

Apologies. I can actually spell hygiene, having been educated in a (sort of) Scottish Grammar School a long time ago.

smog

What a load of oxy-bollocks.

You are all borons.

Dixon

"Linda Smith
January 14th, 2010 10:33pm
Dixon, you may be "anti-intellectual", but if you want to cite classic "intellectual" quotes, do get it right - it was "Cretans" who were liars, not "Greeks."

The point about logic is that it doesnt matter aboit the parties but their relationships, it could as easily be Sicilians. Malcolm on the other hand thinks Liddle is called "Rob".

Dixon

"Edward McLaughlin
January 14th, 2010 9:46pm
I do wish that people would resist the temptation to use the literary term 'oxymoron', when what they are referring to is nothing more than a simple contradiction of terms.

Why would one want to use such an ugly word anyway, unless in an attempt to bestow upon an otherwise feeble passage of text, an erudite air?"

absolutely, but he might as well have used it correctly,rather than in the odd way he did: "...those oxymorons who make it their "morally superior" business to offend ..."

Every one of the several hundred words he has posted since being an attempt to rationalise that usage.

As another here observed, he is clearly more interested in wasting time than the topic under discussion, or, in a word , is a "troll". Otherwise he could have simply ignored me when I commented on it originally instead of displaying yards of sophistry in an attempt to make it into something it isnt.

Edward McLaughlin

Dixon

Ah yes, I hadn't noticed.

Never mind, he'll be back to college the noo, where he can improve.

ROBERT TAGGART

ALL NUTTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEIR SAY... NO ONE NEEDS TO LISTEN / REPORT THEM THOUGH ! OH... WILL THIS BE 'REPORTED' ?!

paulg

I thought Cretans were Greeks! They were the last time I was there, but not to worry, we don’t want people quoting Epimenides verbatim, or people might think Liberal intellectuals inhabit this site! Conservatives are the stupid party remember we must wallow in our ignorance of learning, as it’s surely a fool’s pursuit.(Cato the Elder if im not mistaken, but don't quote me).

McFuzz

Free speech like the concept of true freedom are both probably unobtainable ideals.
At present I don't think we have either.
For various reasons ( ranging from EU mebership to the cartel of present day politics)I don't even believe we live in a democracy any more. (If we ever did).
Consequently, In this case I'm not particularly bothered that the concept of free speech has been affronted.
All I can see is a nation that has so absorbed the propaganda of the Liberati that it is slowly sowing the seeds of its own destruction

David Ossitt

Malcolm.

“What you've got to ask yourself Rod is, "Is it more important to me to offend people? Or to engage people in edifying discourse (which of course is limitless and most certainly free and always welcome)? I see your moral puny pony for what it is Rod, hard as you try to pass it off as a high horse...and I'm sure everybody else here sees it too. Your shameless drivel has fooled no one here.”

Malcolm; the only drivel on this thread, is your pseudo intellectual, badly written rant, that ends with the above nasty paragraph.

David Ossitt

Malcolm.

“Oh and Ron, Rod, whatever, it's all the same”

Oh no; it is not, you are being deliberately rude, you are also an obnoxious shit and a big headed bully.

David Ossitt

Malcolm.

“Oh and Ron, Rod, whatever, it's all the same”

Oh no; it is not, you are being deliberately rude, you are also an obnoxious shit and a big headed bully.

Andy Gill

Yeah, freedom of speech and all that, but it's pleasing to see these objectionable pricks convicted. Hopefully they'll now sod off somewhere sandy, warmer, and more barbaric, where they might fit in better.

Damien

I am quite certain that when Margaret Thatcher departs from these shores, a great many ex-miners are going to appear from the woodwork to celebrate her passing (some I have spoken to plan to throw stones at any procession of her coffin that takes place in public).

How would readers feel about their arrest? I guarantee the miners feel justified and within their rights to behave as such. Who is to say they are wrong?

It is easy to condemn these men as extremists who have said nasty things and say that therefore they ought to be convicted. We will each of us encounter people almost every day of our lives who say awful things in order to provoke an angry and/or violent response (which is undoubtedly what these protests were designed to do). It is a measure of character that we do not rise to it.

To my eyes, the approach of these fundamentalists is no different from any other form of extremism (Communism or Fascism), which all share one common mantra: Agitate, Educate, Organise. Let us not inflate what they stand for.

Olly Cromwell

Hi Rod,

I'd like to draw your attention to the following website: http://www.youve-been-cromwelled.org. It's a tool for voters to protest against their MP and the expenses scandal. The site contains a list of all MP's and their email addresses and against each entry is a button which when pressed sends a pre-configured email to the chosen MP whiich includes an excerpt of the speech Cromwell made to Parliament in 1653. So far in 6 days of being online almost 8000 emails have been sent to MP's. These mails seem to have ruffled a few feathers judging by some of the replies we've had back from MP's. We publish these replies on our site and any consequent rebuttals we or voters make.

We hope you find it interesting and have a good chuckle.

Many Thanks

Olly Cromwell

David Ossitt

Damien.

“How would readers feel about their arrest? I guarantee the miners feel justified and within their rights to behave as such. Who is to say they are wrong?”

Juvenile bullshit.

David Ossitt

Damien.

“How would readers feel about their arrest? I guarantee the miners feel justified and within their rights to behave as such. Who is to say they are wrong?”

Juvenile bullshit.

Damien

David - you might think so. I might even be inclined to agree with you. Doesn't make either of us 'right'. I think it probably looks very different from the other side of the situation (I have never worked in a mine, and I suspect neither have you).

My point was really for Rod himself - would you want to see these miners convicted and fined if they interfered with what is likely to be a state funeral?

We are at war. If I had a choice between an extremist who says awful things in such situations and one who immediately resorts to violence rather than protest then I would choose the latter.

Damien

Correction - I would chose the former. The original statement makes me sound mental.

David Ossitt

Damien.

“My point was really for Rod himself - would you want to see these miners convicted and fined if they interfered with what is likely to be a state funeral?”

Touché.

I too would not wish to see any; now quite old retired miners prosecuted for making a point.

However; as an avid, loyal admirer of the 'Great Lady', I would be horrified if any dared to interfere and disrupt at her eventual funeral.

Dixon

Paul g, I used to be a leftie and didnt give a hoot for my ignorance of classical history. As I have migrated to the right ( in a fashion ) my ignorance of classics persists, but now is something I feel to be a great lack. Maybe its my lack of experience of those who study it most but I tend to identify knowledge of classical history with "conservative" rather than "liberal" views.Whether this is cultural ( perhaps due to which school system a person is raised in ) or that having such knowledge fosters the one attitude in preference over the other would be an interesting thing to discover.

Verity

Dixon, "in the defence of free speech" quote didn't come from Cromwell! Good grief, man!

It was a Froggie, Voltaire, who made that memorable statement.

Fergus Pickering

My brother worked in a mine near Edinburgh back in the 1960s. He said he sat on top of a bloody huge machine and the job was a piece of cake and extremely well paid. Having said that, I'd as soon not do it. But I should think fruit-picking is worse, and certainly much worse paid. And being a private in the Army... Thank God for offices and computers and education.

Edward McLaughlin

Damien.

As strong as the feelings are amongst those who took part in the miners' strike, I would be very surprised to find even one of them who would surrender his/her dignity by doing what you describe. They are much better people than that.

Apart from that, your two choices are not the only ones available.

workie 'Enemy Within' ticket

Because Speccy readers generally stand four square behind Mrs Thatcher and her doings in power I'm a little concerned that your reporting of conversations with (ex) miners and their plans for her funeral might be thought an accurate summation of miners' views.

While it is true that the ex-miners, both living and dead in my family (historically its the most common job) loathe her with a passion - as I do also for her allowing herself to be bought off by Brussels and in doing so be played as 'victorious' - there isnt a single ex-miner I know who would act as yours would claim.

We will certainly celebrate (beer and champagne for me) but none of them would act in such an insulting and undignified way by defiling a funeral ceremony.

Are your interlocutors, by chance, ex UDM?. Is your surname perchance Greatrex? I think we should be told.

Damien

Edward - I hope you are correct in your observation. I am quite certain there is a former taxi-driver who disagrees with you. Do not underestimate how far some MWU psychopaths will go to achieve their end.

Nonetheless, even if you are correct, it is a fitting hypothetical scenario and it is one which I suspect readers of a right-wing magazine such as us might be easier able to envisage.

Edward McLaughlin

Damien

'A former taxi driver'? There is no need to go all cryptic; we all remember the concrete from the bridge, incident. A terrible thing, indeed, a serious crime. But nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed urge by people to be so vile as to throw stones at a cortége.

Hypothesising is a useful tool, but here you are clearly just spinning a yarn. In itself not too serious, but, put plainly, you are out of order suggesting that ex-miners are of such a low order that they would do what you have said.

Damien

I have not made any suggestion, I have simply relayed an argument which was put to me by an ex-miner.

Another, of a somewhat more recalcitrant demeanour, is simply planning on enjoying a cigar he's been saving for 20 years at 'the given moment'. Some have simply said they'll throw a street party.

No good having a go at me. I am simply sharing what was said to me. If you don't believe the conversations I am describing ever took place then say that, rather than suggest I'm "out of order", which is a rather meaningless and unmeasurable accusation.

Rowland Nelken

Why are 'Islamism' and 'Islam under separate headings. Unlike CHristianity, which spent its first three centuries on the politicla fringes, despised, and sometimes persecuted by Rome and the Jewish Establishment, Islam was a political setup from its inception in Medina. There it was remote from hostile Arab tribes and well south of the Byzantine border. Islam is intrinsically a poltical movement, so why bother with the distinction? Is it simply another spurious means, pointed out by Rod Liddle, of trying to draw a distinction between nice meighbourly peaceful Islam and nast Muslim terrorists?

Rch de L

As a Lutonian, could I add something about this case, which occurred in my town?
After the defendants asserted ther right to free speech, the police had a helluva time stoppng my townsfolk from giving the offending gentlemen a bloody good hiding.
There is surely a difference between expressing an opinion in print, and deliberately provoking violence - while expectng the evil British state to protect them from such violence, of course, as was the case in Luton.

old sailor

Though many libertarians promote free speech and condemn the prosecution of the Muslim extremists. None it seems choose to condemn the UAE (Unite against Fascism) who with the full support of the mainstream political parties including the Liberals disrupt often with violence any meeting of the BNP. This regardless of the fact that the BNP is in fact a legitimate political organisation. Double standards are rife in today’s Britain

Robert Marchenoir

What's the problem with double standards ? When a war is waged upon you, you'd better have two standards : one for yourself, your people, your country, and it calls for survival at all costs ; the other one is for the enemy, and it calls for him to be defeated.

Anything less leads to death or submission (usually both).

It's high time we recognise we're in the middle of World War Three, and act accordingly.

We were not responsible for this war. It was imposed on us. However, we will be responsible for our demise if we don't fight back for our values and our civilisation.

luap

Let the Conservatives print this in letters ten inches high and paste it onto all the hoardings picturing their leader. They would be doing a great service to the country.