THE FSU WEBINAR: 'FREE SPEECH AFTER THE RIOTS'

OUR FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO HEAR

‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country, it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect.’

Orwell’s words, from his introduction to Animal Farm, are the best rebuttal to those who would limit free speech in the interests of themselves. Oh, they’ll dress it up as public safety or ‘not causing offence’. But they’ll always be unfairly protecting some or other core belief of their own, which they cannot defend through fair discussion.

This was the most powerful message from yesterday’s Free Speech Union’s webinar, ‘Free Speech after the riots’, as clearly articulated by Spiked’s Tom Slater. It’s not enough to just discuss how best to navigate the myriad legal complexities around ‘hate speech’, public order offences and all the other entangling mechanisms. We need to continually and forcefully reassert the free speech basics.

As Slater observed, the recent government assault on free speech comes in the context of already massive restrictions, some dating back to public order laws from 1986! It’s staggering how any in the legal profession involved in these restrictions can dare to talk about ‘Human Rights legislation’ - or even pose as believers in democracy; prominent amongst them being Keir Starmer.

We are now in the grip of a state enforced ideology of ‘Progressivism’, an idea discussed by Toby Young in a recent Spectator article and at the FSU event. To counter that requires a fundamental reassertion of free speech principles, unrelated to subjective and emotional feelings of ‘hate’ or ‘offence’, and removed from the politicised ideas and control of one faction.

Foremost amongst those ideas now is the discredited neo-Fabian doctrine of multiculturalism. Facts on the ground have made it unworkable, hence the need to imprison those ‘common people’ (not meant dismissively) who won’t ignore its horrors.

Short of prison, the new Home Secretary is promising to busy our police in recording ‘Non Crime Hate Incidents’, defined by whoever claims to have suffered one. A better way of describing these would be ‘truthful but hurtful opinions challenging someone’s sensitivities and beliefs’. These should be of no concern or interest to the British police or our government.

A possible example of 'truthful but harmful comment' is to highlight the very clear evidence of a link between rapid immigration and rising violent crime, in certain locations. Studies in Denmark and Sweden are especially stark. In the latter, armed gang crimes have surged and the police in various cities are in no doubt who’s causing this. Why would they be, if they’re constantly arresting those involved?

One Danish study shows an almost 80% chance that recent immigrants of one ethnicity will have a criminal record by the age of 18. The statistics are highly revealing:

The Effects of Immigration in Denmark

The tactic often used in claiming this is ‘untrue’ is to look at overall crime levels (across a large range of offences) and sometimes to show that they have dropped, compared to say the late 19th century. Or, as the BBC did for the grooming scandal, retort that the vast majority of sexual abuse is done by white Brits, therefore it's untrue that there's any association between Pakistani/Bangladeshi males and grooming. Logically, there is no axiomatic ‘therefore’, but it sounds terrifically statistical and scientific.

The cause of mass rapes in Telford, Oxford, Rotherham etc is not in doubt: it was the repeated decisions made by the numerous criminals, who were overwhelmingly Muslim males. It may seem hurtful or ‘racist’ to say it, but this horror counts many thousands of victims and our sensitivities should be for them, not various ‘communities’. Yes, the crimes can be buried in overall aggregates. But to claim there's no linkage (as the BBC's Home Editor Mark Easton does) is both dishonest and dismissive to the victims. One wonders if he’d do this, were the ethnicities of victims and perpetrators reversed:

'More broadly, misinformation has also been spread that wrongly suggests levels of immigration and violent crime are linked, and incorrect claims have been made that foreigners, notably Muslims, present a particular threat to children. Police and politicians are accused of failing to protect those who view themselves as the indigenous population.

Often, unevidenced claims of “two-tier policing” - that senior officers are more lenient towards ethnic minorities when they protest - are also promoted by far-right activists on social media.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx66dkx3wlo

Oddly, Easton has no problem linking the recent riots to 'the far right', without providing any evidence himself. Even more oddly, I've yet to see a single unevidenced claim of two-tier policing. Invariably people give numerous examples: BLM, Roma riots, thugs at Manchester Airport, etc. Just claiming something is 'unevidenced' doesn't make it so. One could almost ask Mr Easton: where is your evidence for this assertion?

As to why grooming is clearly linked to certain groups - that's for the promoters and celebrators of multiculturalism to explain. Ditto for the other crime statistics. No wonder it’s easier to shut-down the debate. But discussion is essential in a free society, as the only way to address the terrifying sectarianism into which we are heading.

Cutting through the legalese, it’s now impossible to say whether this article would fall foul of the legal jungle surrounding free speech. And that’s the purpose of this legislation. One is meant to opt for silent acceptance, concluding: ‘We have a new religion - Progressivism - being promoted and enforced by the state. I’m safe if I stay out of questioning it. Otherwise, anything I do online, say at work or in public is at the mercy of ‘progressives’ who can claim to feel offended or threatened by my words.’

The very concept of hate speech needs to be addressed. Why wasn’t the time-tested concept of prohibiting incitement to violence sufficient? The clear distinction between words and actions needs reaffirming, so that it’s impossible to imprison, persecute or censor British people for thought or speech crime.