Freedom
of Speech-A Freedom, which cannot be abused - is not worth having.
In the Daily Mail on
Friday the 18th February 2005
A timely article by their
columnist
Andrew Alexander
on the most important issue to be raised
in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People
are deprived of the very means to find the
TRUTH.
Though at times the means
to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what
it all means to speak one’s mind. There is already protection in
British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and
disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then
who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.
* *
We all have a Right
to
Freedom of Speech
Ken Livingstone should not
apologise. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine,
but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.
The possibility that a
government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the
most outrageous things I have ever heard.
What he said to an Evening
Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say. But so what?
Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly
behaviour and never will be. Newspapers can play it rough, too. Both
sides expect to give and take hard knocks.
The real villain of the
piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local
Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001. Under
‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which
says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.
Note the word ‘must’-
not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if
all councillors were to’. No, politeness is mandatory.
Consider also the ludicrous word ‘others’, not voters,
officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean
anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem.
How on earth, you may
wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in? It seems
that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives
concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils,
which was then being established.
The Tory promise was that,
if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards
Board for England (SBE)_
a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting
out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to
the Local Government Ombudsman.
The Opposition made no move
to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not
even a demand for a vote.
This sinister threat of
censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod,
leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar
someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.
The matter of Livingstone’s
words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British
Jews, a disgraceful move. It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to
have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.
Livingstone’s remark about
a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly
been dubbed ‘racist’.
It may have played harshly
on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did
it belittle or attack a race.
The only thing this sort of
exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us. We
are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached
the proportions of a national mania.
No doubt, we shall hear the
commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that
of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where
it is abused. This is nonsensical view.
A Freedom, which cannot be
abused, is not worth having.
The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free
speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up
religious hatred. Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves
the right:
To Irritate
Annoy
Dismay
And Shock
Anyone who Listens.
The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed
to lead to violence, affray or disorder. But that has always been
enshrined in British law anyway.
I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue,
the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by
[that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the
Lion and Albert, and all the rest.
As some readers may
remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John
when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him
sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick
through dipping his pen in the jam’.
The verse concludes:
‘In England today we can do
what we like
So long as we do what
we’re told’
How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one
day be transmuted to:
‘And that is why we can talk as we
like
So long as we talk
as we’re told.’
A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s
remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games. If it
did, it would be one good outcome. The cost, the upset, the
dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too
appalling to contemplate.
But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show
what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.
It might have been a nice
thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been
gratuitously rude. But the issue has gone beyond that now. For him to
retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s
interest.
Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk
* * *
[Fonts altered-bolding
&underlining used-comments in brackets]
[WE applaud the above lone
voice in the wilderness who has touched on the real issue instead as is
usual these days the usual witch-hunt to destroy any outspoken comments
not subject to law in order that all dissent is crushed under a ‘racist
‘ label which will have as a result the erosion of one of the most
precious possessions of our People –a right of Freedom of Speech within
the law for ALL the citizens of our Island.
The Prime Minister himself
when first asked his opinion said that Livingstone should apologise [for
his rudeness] and
move on to more important things.
- Whether he knew at the time He was right in that one instance.
]
* *
*
FEB/2005
*
*
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH
REJECTION
SAY VOTERS
by
Daniel
Martin
Political
Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June
18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should
drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its
rejection in last week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch
bid in the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF
THE TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING STREET-
WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street
website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out
Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht
Treaty the people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was
thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases
knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be
allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so
wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted
out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU)
passports, driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL
OCTOBER 08]
*
* "ASK US
FIRST" (philiplockwood65@yahoo.co.uk
PHILIP LOCKWOOD
Cambridgeshire.
*
METRIC
MARTYRS WIN VICTORY OVER EU
SOFT TALK FROM EU ON EVE OF OUR
BATTLE AGAINST NEW TREATY-THEY
NOW BACK DOWN TO ALLOW IMPERIAL
MEASURES TO REMAIN FOR EVER
[Daily Mail - Tuesday, September 11,2007]
* *
Let the people speak!
www.makeitanissue.org.uk
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION
to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T
HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ
*
67% want powers back from
EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want a
REFERENDUM
*
PETITION
FOR A
REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum
*
July 18-2007
ALSO
JOIN THE 10 DOWNING
STREET PROTEST
Readers can add
their support to the growing clamour for a
REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to
a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/
The Petition
reads as follows:
"We the
undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee
that the British people will be permitted a binding
REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the
EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content)
regardless of nomenclature."
Deadline for the
PETITION is 31st January,2008
Eurofacts 27th
July 2007.
*
'The Spirit of England'
by
Winston Churchill
In London on
St.George's Day -1953
*
VOTE
-2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
THE QUESTION THAT THE
VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE
CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE
FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
SCOTLAND
-ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS
ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
Home
Rule
for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
[All underlined words have a
separate bulletin]
|