Sean Gabb
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London SW1
Dear Mr Cameron,
I am writing on behalf of the Libertarian Alliance to thank you for the defence of freedom of speech that you made on CBS on Sunday the 18th January 2015.
It is disturbing that the Pope appears to have given comfort to those who wish to ban the hostile discussion of their religious opinions. Your statement that “I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone’s religion” is a most welcome corrective. Whatever we may think about the taste shown by its cartoonists, the right of magazines like Charlie Hebdo to publish must be affirmed and protected. The right to freedom of speech should never be limited just because someone is or might be offended.
This being said, is it now the case that Her Majesty’s Government has changed its mind about freedom of speech? Will there be no more prosecutions of people who speak their minds on matters in the public domain? Will you drop all plans for a quasi-State body to censor the media? Will there be a programme of repeal for the censorship laws we already have? I mention for example – there are many other laws of the same kind that are equally objectionable – the relevant sections of the Public Order Act 1986, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Communications Act 2003, the various Race Relations Acts, the criminalisation of “extreme pornography,” the recent guidelines that allow the Authority for Television on Demand (ATVOD) to shut down British suppliers on consensual pornography to adults, and the ban on tobacco advertising.
You will be aware of these attacks by Her Majesty’s Government on freedom of speech, all of them while you have been Prime Minister:
· The arrest and prosecution of Emma West for speaking uncharitably on a South London tram in October 2011;
· The conviction in 2014 of Garron Helm, a national socialist who insulted a Labour MP;
· The police harassment of the Rev Dr Alan Clifford in 2013, for handing out leaflets at a gay pride march in Norwich.
It would fill a letter of many pages if I were to list everyone who has been made, or threatened with being made, a prisoner of conscience since you became Prime Minister. But, almost every day, someone is investigated by the police for making comments on FaceBook and Twitter. I will add that, had they operated in this this country, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo would have been faced criminal prosecution.
I suggest that, if you really do believe in freedom of speech, you should take steps to restore the freedom of speech that we enjoyed without question as recently as the 1960s. Failure to do this will, I regret to say, open you to charges of hypocrisy and cynical opportunism. I am sure you would think this a regrettable outcome to your intervention in this debate.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Sean Gabb
Director
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
Yes indeed Dr Sean Gabb is correct – to claim First Amendment style freedom of speech is the case in the United Kingdom is as absurd as to claim Second Amendment style freedom to keep and bear arms for the United Kingdom.
It is quite true that both these things used to be British principles, but they have not been the practice in this country for many decades (for example the “Gun Control” Act after the First World War, or the 1965 Act attacking freedom of speech in regard to racial matters, which also attacked freedom of association/non association). True things could be worse – for example it is still (just about) legal to attack a religion, but to pretend that freedom of speech is a British practice in 2015 is absurd.
There are not even American style excuses for what has happened in Britain. For example the 1964 Act attacking freedom of association and non association in the United States was defended as a reaction to many decades of “Jim Crow” laws attacking black people – but no such “Jim Crow” laws existed in Britain (not in the laws of England and Wales, or Scots Law or the law in Ulster – contrary to the lies of the “Civil Rights” movement in Northern Ireland), the 1965 Act (and all the legislation since then) in Britain was a “solution” in search of a problem – and added an attack on freedom of as well (declaring that the American Act of 1964 had not gone far enough – that Britain would be more extreme).
Just as London and so on were NOT terribly violent places in the early 20th century (the recent BBC series about the horrors of Birmingham in the 1920s – with, of course, an Ulster Protestant stage baddie, was drivel).
New York City had vastly more murders before the First World War than London did (although firearms were about equally common in both cities – and the two cities were about the same size) – so there was some sort of excuse for the New York City “gun control” law of 1911 (still in force – as people find out to their cost, when they mistakenly assume that all of America is pro freedom), there was no excuse for such things in London – but they were done anyway. And not just in London – the British legislation covered the entire country.
Oh that land of savage violence – Somerset, the population there must be disarmed (otherwise they will eat each other).
And they must not be allowed to speak their minds either – as they will murder non white people if free speech is allowed.
A very fine letter, Dr Gabb. I wonder if you will be graced with a reply?
Doubt it somehow…
Let’s hope the reply is not the breakdoor-goons at 5 am.
Freedom of Speech should be at the forefront of what our democracy should be all about. The only way we can achieve this is by reducing the state by way of:
1 – Getting out of the EU.
2 – Getting rid of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly.
3 – Getting rid of County Councils and transfer local powers to local and community councils with councillors paid only by expenses.
4 – Introduce an MP recall system where citizens can hand over a petition to call for a by-election.
5 – Getting rid of quangos and making MP’s more accountable to the public.
We as people should also have the right to exercise other notable freedoms such as:
Freedom of Thought
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Responsibility
Freedom of Faith
Freedom of Work
Freedom of Association
Freedom from Fear
Freedom to Defend
As a Fusionist, I also believe that fewer yet tougher laws will bring a tough yet a fair and just society whereby we can exercise these freedoms with a clear conscience and an idea to live a life whereby we can take responsibility of our own destinies.
Well said Dr Gabb!
I don’t suppose you will like the reply, if you get one, but this kind of thing most certainly needs to be said.
I doubt David Cameron cares for genuinely free speech.
He was one of the founding signatories of the ironically named ‘Unite Against Fascism’, probably one of the most hostile groups to free speech.
A good letter. It is worth noting though that the 1960s was far from a free speech nirvana. Since the Progressive Era, the State has had considerable censorship powers- which it has used- though they did not until the current Era cover offence on the basis of race, etc. It has for over a century had arbitrary powers in this regard, censoring the stage (for longer, since Walpole), wireless and television by direct control, cinema by indirect control (the BBFC) and the rest of publication such as print by general acts like the Obscene Publications Act- that based, as current legislation is- on the belief that the media should be constrained to that which right thinking persons consider acceptable. As late as 1921, John William Gott was sentenced to nine months hard labour for publishing pamphlets ridiculing Jesus. Here (according to Wiki) is part of the Court Of Appeal judgement-
Note the justification at the end- similar to today- that if you offend somebody religious and they commit a crime as a consequence, it is the fault of the thing that upset them.
Cameron’s government is simply continuing a considerable tradition of State impositions on speech. We were in many respects a more free country until the rise of the Boomer Left. But far from a truly free one.
Just a note to remind you to sort out the penultimate paragraph before posting.
The words will certainly get a one paragraph reply from the Direct Communications Unit. I know you have the tools to do better but I agree; what’s the use in wasting valuable time? Spend it on your family Sean – in the long run you’ll feel better rewarded. Make plans.
Profound truths have been uttered by great men (listing them is too boring) ever since Queen Victoria ruled. At first they were ridiculed, then they were ignored by the same fools who’ve held the whip hand over working men for years to many to count. So many in point of fact, that now, winged pigs will circle St Stephens Tower before the clowns that strut the stage of this dishonourable parliament will recognise a need for drastic change.
Very regrettably, only the loud crack and cruel buzz of a bullet will open their ears now.
Jolly good letter, Sean. Sadly, it is odds on you will get something like this is reply:
Dear Dr Gabb,
The Prime Minister asks me to thank you for your letter. Like you he is absolutely behind the need for free expression and will continue to fight for it as he has done ever since becoming Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely,
A Jobsworth
You beat me to it.
Had a nice letter from my own MP today – he usually responds fully and by return. But, other than to say he writes a lot of sense, I feel it would be wrong to publish his letter.
On the general subject, we should also note that the Feminists have succeeded in taking down Page 3. Dark days ahead, my friends.
Forgot to say; I would not be surprised if the government “had a word” with Murdoch behind closed doors.
Page 3 was a simple way for pretty working-class girls to make enough money to get noticed, so that they could then go on in a few years to marry some of the more successful plasterers and builders in Essex – not too far from London, but far enough to not have to eyeball Polly Toynbee on the tube.
Laws criminalising the objections to upper-muddle-class Femin-Nazi wives breastfeeding on other people’s private property – such as in restaurants – are made by the same buggers that took down page 3.
There is an enormous class aspect to this. Feminism is and always was a haute bourgeois movement, which grew out of a zeal to reform and save the lower orders; but it’s never been kindly in that, and its members generally despise the people they purport to be saving. One central point in this is the difference between bourgeois and populist culture, one aspect being that the first is indirect and euphemistic and the latter is direct and “what it says on the tin”. You see this in the different forms of comedy. You see it even in speech patterns, in which the “middle” class repress emotions and go all around the houses (the extreme is the modern neo-progressive/corporate speech code which is virtually impenetrable to outsiders) whereas lower class speech and actions are direct and emotions clearly expressed. The bourgeois, exposed to this (e.g. a stroppy working class workman speaking his mind) find it genuinely terrifying. They also believe that this directness is evident of inferior moral character.
And this really is the difference between erotica and porn, in the minds of the bourgeoisie. “Porn”- by which they include harmless, “soft” fun like page 3- is direct. It is what it appears to be. It’s “tits are nice, here are some tits” and no deeper than that. The middle class only find tits tolerable if there is some kind of deeper meaning to their exposure and ideally it is done in such a way as to not arouse the sexual emotions at all. If your “erotica” is “making a point”- if you can pretend it is sending a message which is feminist or progressive or morally improving- you might get away with it. If it is what it says on the tin, you won’t.
The tits in the Sun are nothing but tits. They do not represent the unbearable lightness of being or some other artsy-fartsy nonsense. They are there because tits are nice, and for no other reason. They arouse direct emotions- mildly (unless you’re at that aroused by anything however mild stage circa 13 where even a minaret makes you think of tits)- but directly nonetheless. And that’s a major part of the reason that the elite hate them.
Much of the art of the High Renaissance was pornographic in effect and probably intent,
Agreed. And many of the artists were a funny lot.
Couldn’t agree more Ian.
Moving it on a little, also remember that the speed at which speech is delivered is relevant here. I’ve always considered that the lower classes feel they’ll be prevented from saying that which they wish to say unless it is rushed. They’ve become obliged to adapt the way they talk. When things speed up they’ll always perform better when streamlined. Hence the shortened vulgar sentences and improvised words used.
In a speed speaking contest, for instance, the hapless Prince of Wales would feel obliged to pronounce each word deeply and fully. A Yorkshire coal miner not being obliged to carry such a handicap would win the contest hand’s down. His point being made however poorly before he could be silenced. The point being of course, that the slower one speaks the more impressive it sounds to those who also enunciate slowly and too often boringly. Witness court proceedings. Oh my God, now there’s slow and boring for you.
I recall reading many years ago that when Mr Bill Shakespeare was around, both the words and the speech patterns varied less throughout society than they do today; this, even though illiteracy was far greater than it is today. I was a little surprised to read that.
How I would love to hear the way a ‘Royal’ personage spoke back in the day.
Anyway, just a thought but I do find this sort of stuff novel and most interesting.
I think it’s best to regard the present ideology of the West as a religion, with its own way of dealing with blasphemy. The difference between it and the well-known monotheistic religions is that many of its adherents either believe or pretend to believe that they favour freedom of expression, and that the concept of blasphemy and heresy is confined to Popes and jihadis.
I don’t know that the cow-ocracy have succeeded in banishing page 3. It was a leftover from the 70s Poor quality newsprint pictures of tits have long been left in the dust by the Net. It maybe that Murdoch saw a chance to delete something he sees as outdated (and leaving aside the poison of pc what is left of the 70s in a general sense? What of any time would still be in operation 40 years afterward?) and seem to kiss femmi-arse at the same time. Govt having a word with Murdoch?–has Hackgate changed things so much? It used to be Rupe having a word with them. If The Grate Bliar was subservient it seems unlikely that a cowardly little toad like Camorgueron is calling the shots.
Our own chance to have a word with the Nu/BluLab pork will be in May. Vote UKIP and disrupt the fuckers. Economic collapse will be the ultimate catalyst of change but it will be nice to see if Cam-ogoron cries when he is put out of office.
Also:
http://www.timworstall.com/2015/01/22/page-3/