One for the anti-Liddle crowd

Why did we prosecute those Muslim protesters from Luton, who called returning British soldiers “murderers”? It may have been a singularly unpleasant thing to do, but shouting nasty things and holding up placards has only recently been seen as something which should be dragged before the courts. Racism is an overused commodity these days — but it strikes me that there is something genuinely racist in the way these groups are treated. Certainly Choudary should be stripped of his state benefits if he is fit for work (which he clearly is); and for sure, if we can prove direct links between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terror acts committed against British interests, then bang them up. But for saying stuff, and believing stuff?

In this battle of ideologies, we are pitted against an enemy swathed in religious and political certitude and we have only the ghost of a notion to sustain us: the notion of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. They don’t believe in that: so why should we give up the ghost?

Banning Islam4UK is not only pointless because it will re-emerge again (perhaps as u.r.infidelcockroaches.com), but worse than that, it transgresses the very essence of what we believe in.

An impeccably liberal defence of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Wonder Sunny Hundal\’s campaign is going?

10 comments on “One for the anti-Liddle crowd

  1. Tim, I know you count your own liberal credentials as impeccable because you lurve flat taxes and all that crap.

    But the last time I looked you were a european parliamentary candidate for a party whose current leader believes that a notorious book-banning fascist is “quite simply, one of the greatest men on the planet”, and whose previous leader is currently proposing legislating on what clothes the state should permit people to wear.

    I’m quite sure that these views don’t match your own.

    All the same, the fact that you uncritically buddy around with – and campaign for the election of – such people, does in my eyes diminish your often trumpeted claims to the liberal high ground.

    Tim adds: Indeed, but sadly no political party is perfect and all have undesirable policies. I was involved with Lord P (no, not in the decision, I was the press bod running around with him that day) over the Wilders visit and quite happy to do so. Free speech is free speech and banning someone from the country because you don’t like what they say ain’t free speech. The actual content of what Wilders has to say I don’t agree with but as Voltaire didn’t say and all that. Over the burka, yes, of course, you’re correct. I disagree vehemently. And have said so internally. What I do about it in the future depends on how far they take it all: what the balance of the, to my mind, good policies is over the bad. Exactly the same as any other group endeavour.

  2. Fair enough – I realise you’re in a tricky position.

    “banning someone from the country because you don’t like what they say ain’t free speech”

    Absolutely. On the other hand, I don’t think that non-Voltaire quote goes “I disapprove of what you say, but I will provide you with a platform from which to say it, and hail you as one of the greatest men on the planet for doing so”.

  3. Geert wilders is a book banning fascist??? I thought that his view was if we ban Mein Kempf we should ban the Koran.

  4. If we’re on a “free speech” kick, you could have mentioned above that Broad deRound is a notorious censor of comments on his blog.

  5. “On the other hand, I don’t think that non-Voltaire quote goes “I disapprove of what you say, but I will provide you with a platform from which to say it, and hail you as one of the greatest men on the planet for doing so”.”

    Hmm, true. But then, I don’t think he said “I disapprove of what you say, and you better not dream of doing it here, as the people are dumb and easily riled sheep. Oh and as for defending your right, do you mind if I don’t? I depend on these people’s votes, you see…” either…

  6. “Geert wilders is a book banning fascist??? I thought that his view was if we ban Mein Kempf we should ban the Koran.”

    You’ll have to forgive Teabag, he’s a creature of the left, and so unable to distinguish between those two positions.

  7. “We are pitted against an enemy swathed in political certitude”
    So agin Nulabor as well as any Jihadists.

  8. Oddly enough both Larry and JuliaM are correct. Wilders thinks that if we ban Mein Kemph then we should ban the Koran.

    It’s the fact that he thinks both need banning that makes him a book banning fascist.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.