When freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of speech

Evil neo-Nazis who launched a “whites only” food bank in Scotland have been banned for being terrorists.

The Record revealed in September that National Action thugs, who claim “Hitler was Right”, were operating homeless reach-outs and foodbanks.

So we’ve forgotten pecunia non olet then, have we?

The charity tactic was based on one used by Greek neo-Nazi group the Golden Dawn, who won nationwide support based on their social outreach programmes.

And do-gooding is a bad idea now? Feeding the hungry is?

Now, NA have been banned by Home Secretary Amber Rudd after she branded them yesterday as a “racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic organisation”.

That means anyone associated with the group can be arrested and charged with terror offences.

Rudd said: “The safety and security of our families, communities and country comes first. So today I’m taking action to proscribe the neo-Nazi group National Action.

Whut? Actions can be illegal, righteously so, as can incitement to actions. But thoughts? Err, really?

“National Action stir up hatred, glorify violence and promote a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it.”

And you can fuck off honeybuns. Because we don’t rule the country by what you find acceptable.

Sure, they’re vile fascists and neo-Nazis. And because Britain is a free country they’re allowed to believe absolutely anything that manages to fit into the entire group’s two collective brain cells. It’s what freedom and liberty actually mean.

If they beat someone up then arrest and jail them for beating someone up. If they incite violence then jail the idiots for inciting violence. But they’re allowed to believe what the fuck they want. And not be proscribed just because some middle aged bint who once had the misfortune to marry AA Gill is affronted by what they do believe.

As with all the Wolfie Smith would bes, who insist that it is the bourgeoise that must be eliminated instead of the Jews.

65 thoughts on “When freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of speech”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Sorry but you can be charged as a terrorist for giving food to the homeless? Well f**k me sideways with a haddock.

    Who said that the thin edge of the wedge argument was a fallacy?

    How long before this applies to the Tories?

  2. Was it the “whites Only” bit that so angered Amber?

    Hmmm…..I wonder if there are any charities who only cater for groups such as particular ethnic minorities or religions.

    Or, say, charities that only cater for women? Run by women who think all men are the embodiment on earth of Satan?

  3. One of the side-effects of all this hysteria is that now, whenever anyone is accused of being a Nazi, my default conclusion is that they’re probably not. I certainly don’t take anyone’s word for it anymore.

    The thing that pisses me off the most about all this is the historical ignorance. People genuinely believe that the Nazis were able to rise in Germany because no-one did anything like this to stop them spreading their ideology. The truth is the precise opposite: the Weimar Republic instituted hate-speech laws and legal restrictions on the Nazis, which enabled the Nazis to portray themselves as oppressed victims of the tyrannical state, which got them loads of support.

    And, again, the problem with the Nazis wasn’t that they refused to give free food to Jews. And no, refusing to give free food to someone is not the same as exterminating them.

    Part of me wonders whether May — who may be authoritarian but is also intelligent — appointed Rudd to make her own record as Home Secretary look bright by comparison.

  4. “…who once had the misfortune to marry AA Gill…”

    I imagine AA Gill’s misfortune in marrying her was somewhat greater than hers in marrying him.

  5. The Inimitable Steve

    “National Action stir up hatred, glorify violence and promote a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it.”

    So sick of these grandstanding cunts.

    BTW, wasn’t Rudd the dopey cow who definitely did stand to allow all those smirking bearded “child” rapefugees swarm in from Calais? Wonder what their ideology is like.

    But she’ll courageously ban some internet nazis nobody’s ever heard of. So brave.

  6. “Wonder what their ideology is like.”

    I think we can safely say they aren’t likely to use transgender pronouns, Steve.

  7. According to the BBC, this is “the first time a group engaged in extreme right-wing activities has been proscribed” and “There are currently 70 international organisations that are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 – the majority of which are Islamist groups. A further 14 organisations in Northern Ireland were proscribed under previous legislation.” I searched, but I couldn’t find the bit in their article where they explain the myriad ways in which neither Islamist groups nor the IRA are at all far-right.

  8. It might help if all those creeps who claim to know so much about Economics could arrange a system which makes sure everybody is fed for the prodigious effort that the people make: then you wouldn’t have fascists (no other word suffices) drumming up support with food aid.

  9. The Inimitable Steve

    It might help if all those creeps who claim to know so much about Economics could arrange a system which makes sure everybody is fed

    Like the system we have now? Thanks, Beaker.

  10. Pecunia non olet? What a pity Vespasian stopped where he did and did not bring the wonders of direct rule to the furthest north. Had he taught the Picts the essential principles of Roman rule they might have been able to kick the Scots back to eastern England where they came from.

  11. DBC Dribbling Idiot, perhaps if you got up off your arse and volunteered instead of bemoaning the fact you have got nowt and are still waiting for the State to give you a handout, perhaps a few more less fortunates might get fed today.

  12. @DBC Reed

    Dunno, but seems that hunger in the modern west is a residual thing and nobody dies of it.

    In the 20thC we tried a different system as an experiment in the USSR and the whole thing went tits up.

  13. It might help if all those creeps who claim to know so much about Economics could arrange a system which makes sure everybody is fed for the prodigious effort that the people make.

    What about those who sit on their arse all day watching TV and living off the State? Do we starve them?

  14. As Tim says, these huggers are vile neo-fascists.

    Anjem Choudary is a vile Islamo-fascist; what exactly did he DO though that was enough to land hin in jail? And shouldn’t a group of arseholes who express support for a nutter who murders an MP also be on jail?

  15. Aren’t they ‘insurgents’ or ‘militants’? I thought the word ‘terrorist’ had been banned by media organisations for being judgemental.

  16. And you can fuck off honeybuns. Because we don’t rule the country by what you find acceptable.

    Sadly Tim, that country *is* run by what those in power find acceptable. And has been for along time. It scares the hell out of me because where you guys are today is often where the US is 10-20 years down the road. The UK is a soft police state.

    Its a place where a man can be arrested for teaching a dog to do the Nazi Salute, where ASBO’s are a real thing, where a man can be ordered to notify the police 24 hours before he has sex. No free speech at all anymore. I think you have more surveillance cameras than you have people – possibly more than New Zealand has *sheep*.

    Its possible that nothing short of another bloody revolution can set it back – but who today has both the power and an interest in preserving it that they’d be willing to fight to be left alone?

  17. @Ironman
    “Anjem Choudary is a vile Islamo-fascist; what exactly did he DO though that was enough to land hin in jail? ”
    As he was claming JSA and not looking for work he should have had that stopped years ago – not sure prison is really relevant.

  18. “It might help if all those creeps who claim to know so much about Economics could arrange a system which makes sure everybody is fed”

    That would be the system that appears to have more problems with obesity than malnutrition then? How much obesity was there in the USSR Comrade?

  19. anon

    Yes, agreed.

    So as to make myself clear, there is a point where the free expression of support becomes recruitment to a terrorist organisation or incitement to commit violent acts. I am pretty sure Anjem Choudary and the leading arseholes of National Action have crossed that line. And if Natonal Action is an organisation that exists wholly or partly to cross that line then yes, ban it, imprison it’s leaders and Anjem Choudary with them (they’re all the same aren’t they).

    But just being horrible isn’t enough.

  20. Well, he did say “creeps who claim to know so much about Economics”, so that could only mean Lefties.

    Yes, DBC Reed, it might help, but those creeps won’t.

    Don’t worry though, Righties have figured it out already.

  21. I get the impression that the Home Office wallahs desperately want to find and proscribe white racialist terrorists in “the interests of good community relations” – ie so that they can assure the RoPers that their community is not under undue suspicion and surveillance.

  22. SQ2:“One of the side-effects of all this hysteria is that now, whenever anyone is accused of being a Nazi, my default conclusion is that they’re probably not. I certainly don’t take anyone’s word for it anymore.”

    THIS! Squared.

  23. Theo is correct. “See? See? We’re treating everyone equally! And Islam IS NOT THE PROBLEM.”
     
     
    Ironman,

    > there is a point where the free expression of support becomes recruitment to a terrorist organisation or incitement to commit violent acts.

    Yes. I also believe that Thatcher was right (in principle) about banning the speech of Sinn Fein. The whole point of a democracy is that we all give up violence as a means to achieve political ends — and the advantages it brings — in return for speech and persuasion — and the advantages they bring. It’s supposed to be a trade-off. So choose one. Grabbing the advantages of both screws the whole system up, and should not be allowed. That, I think, addresses that whole “tolerating the intolerant” dilemma. Not that it should be a dilemma, but some people are stupid.

    That clearly applies to the likes of Anjem Choudary. It seems to apply to what National Action aspire to, but I don’t think they’ve actually got there yet, have they? If they had, it would be all over these reports. Thomas Mair is arguable, in that apparently he was deranged, and as such could be inspired by any old shit. Have National Action advocated the assassination of MPs? Again, if they have, why isn’t it all over these reports?

  24. S2

    Very good point on the historical ignorance. Prompted me to have a quick read of Wiikipedia about Hitler’s rise to power.

    I imagine the oft-repeated lie that these groups are “far-right” when they are almost always left-wing doesn’t help either. These folks are usually disgruntled Labourites, so what the bloody hell Lefties expect us to do about their fringe cast-offs is mystery to me.

  25. To be fair, the term “Far Right” was coined by (Soviet) International Socialists as a slur against National Socialists. If they’d had more imagination, they’d’ve called them “paedos” or something, but of course the worst insult the Socialists could conceive of, then as now, was “right-wing”. Then Churchill decided the term was useful because otherwise he’d have to persuade the British people that it made sense to ally with the Far Left against the evil Far Left. And then of course the Far Right themselves have embraced the term and apparently do think of themselves as right-wing.

    So the modern Left aren’t lying when they use the term. They’re just using the term that’s been used for nearly a century to describe the people it was invented for. It’s just an utterly shite term.

    And anyone who starts using it to describe Nigel Farage or even — as the Washington Post did — Boris Johnson can go and fuck themselves.

  26. “These folks are usually disgruntled Labourites, so what the bloody hell Lefties expect us to do about their fringe cast-offs is mystery to me.”

    Apostates are always denounced the loudest.

  27. TIS

    “Bring back Michael Howard.”

    The only rational explanation, as others have pointed out before – assuming that there’s nothing in the water – is that the security services always “own” whoever takes on the role? They’ll have more than enough on them to achieve that.

    I was always curious as to whether David Davis did what he did (resign as Shadow Home Secretary on some principle) to avoid being put in to that position?

    In his case, and based on his previous record, it would have been very difficult for him credibly to suddenly morph into some deranged fascist nutter, on becoming Home Secretary, as the rest of them manage to do (Labour or Conservative).

  28. ‘And because Britain is a free country they’re allowed to believe absolutely anything that manages to fit into the entire group’s two collective brain cells. It’s what freedom and liberty actually mean’

    The problem here Tim, as you are well aware is that we have a generation (Or at least two generations) who have not been taught about freedom or liberty in the sense you mean here. Freedom is Freedom from want and freedom from oppression, or crucially perceived oppression. The key task is to become a member of an ‘oppressed group’ which will enable priority to be given in housing, education and the receipt of other largesse, from both the private and public sector.

    Freedom of opinion/speech is not a value many people of the generation below me (Millennials) value in the slightest, and in an ironic twist, the most strident opponents of it we see in the pages of the Independent and Guardian are those most likely to be the first beheaded once the Islamic caliphate begins its invasion……

  29. I can’t make an accurate assessment of the situation using just the information provided.

    The first question that came to mind was, Is this the Scottish equivalent of taking over an unheated Idaho federal building at the onset of winter?

    If so then why make a mountain out of a molehill?

  30. Squander Two,

    I think this stuff is more about virtue signalling.

    What does banning this organisation mean? Can these people meet but call themselves “Sparkly Pink Unicorns” now? And if they do it again and get proscribed then what? Do they get proscribed again and another act of parliament and another name change?

    As far as I can tell, NOT giving things to people you don’t like for whatever reason isn’t a crime. Or we’d have a lot of men complaining that some bloke in a bar only seems to buy drinks for women and not men and that’s sexist.

    They’re clearly utter cunts, but even with handing out cards of Mengele which is shockingly awful, I can’t find a reason I want them imprisoned.

    I don’t even think there’s the remotest chance of a Nazi uprising. It’s not like they can come knocking on your door trumpeting all the great achievements of the Nazis in Germany (millions dead, cities destroyed, mass rape by Russians and terrible economic and social policy). A Goebbels today would avoid the names or iconography of the Nazis. They’d wear rainbow sweaters and have long hair and talk a load of green, earth-mother stuff just to put everyone off the scent that they’re actually fascists.

  31. Cynic,

    “I imagine the oft-repeated lie that these groups are “far-right” when they are almost always left-wing doesn’t help either. These folks are usually disgruntled Labourites, so what the bloody hell Lefties expect us to do about their fringe cast-offs is mystery to me.”

    Goebbels is on record as saying he’d prefer Bolshevism to Capitalism. Oswald Mosley was a former Labour MP. Mussolini was a communist. The strongest areas of support for the BNP is Labour areas.

    The key difference between fascists and communists is nationalism. The rest, you can’t even put a fag paper between them.

  32. > The key difference between fascists and communists is nationalism.

    All goes back to the Great War. International Socialists believe that the real difference between people is class and that it transcends nationality; so the working classes of, say, France and Germany will have more in common with each other than with their respective upper classes and so unite against them. Then a load of young International Socialists got chucked into the trenches with their fellow man and experienced first-hand absolutely astonishing levels of solidarity based on nothing more than shared nationality — even between men of different classes. Hitler and Mussolini came out of the trenches and convinced that the international bit of International Socialism was wrong and that Socialism could be better advanced by harnessing the awesome social power of nationalism that they had witnessed.

    If only they could have noticed the good side of nationalism in peacetime, things might have gone a bit differently.

    This is why a do-good assassin with a time machine should go kill Gavrilo Princip, not Hitler.

  33. BiW

    I’d go a bit further: we also have “Mother Russia”, the “Motherland (Rodina)”, the “Great Patriotic War”.

    So even the nationalism is in there too.

    I’m not sure one could slip a fag paper at all.

  34. BiW,
    > Can these people meet but call themselves “Sparkly Pink Unicorns” now?

    No, the link I provided earlier explains that:

    The use of an alternative name which has not been formally recognised in an order does not prevent the police and Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against an individual for proscription offences. For a successful prosecution, it is necessary to demonstrate that (1) the organisation in question, whatever name it professes to be operating under, is for all practical purposes the same as the proscribed organisation listed in Schedule 2; and (2) that the person in question has committed one of the proscription offences in relation to that organisation.

    In theory there’s a loophole by having no name at all (like The Artist Formerly Known As Prince); but I can’t imagine any judge would rule in your favour.

  35. @S2

    Another good history lesson.

    I agree that the average numpty using the term “far-right” doesn’t understand what they are saying. Hence journalists saying it a lot, even when they work for a right-leaning paper such as the Mail or Express (I nearly typed Telegraph, but who know what they are these days!)

    But it is untrue to call most of these groups right-wing. When it is done so as a slur against the likes of us, as it frequently is, it is a lie. Deflection then guilt by association.

    Similarly your example of the ridiculousness of referring to BoJo or Nige as far-right in that context.

    (arguably, as he’s somewhere on the libertarian scale, as am I, it might be fair to call Nige far-right if only it was used correctly)

    It’s a lie that has stuck, a very effective piece of propaganda. It deserves to be thrown back in the Left’s face every time it rears its ugly head. As something of a shitlord. I take up that challenge!

  36. “who won nationwide support based on their social outreach programmes.”

    I read that and thought “Hamas, anyone?”

  37. > arguably, as he’s somewhere on the libertarian scale, as am I, it might be fair to call Nige far-right if only it was used correctly

    No, it still wouldn’t. It would be fair to call him “very right-wing” or even (arguably) “the extreme right”, but the term “Far Right” was specifically and explicitly coined to describe Fascists and Nazis. It may have been coined by lying bastards, but that’s still what the term meant at the time and has always been understood to mean since. It is not merely the adjective “right” preceded by the adverb “far”; the phrase as a whole has a meaning.

    > It deserves to be thrown back in the Left’s face every time it rears its ugly head.

    Well, yes, but the lefties who coined the phrase are all dead now and most of those using it now are simply mistaken. I find calmly explaining the phrase’s origin as a piece of historical trivia to be more effective than shouting at them.

    > we also have “Mother Russia”, the “Motherland (Rodina)”, the “Great Patriotic War”. So even the nationalism is in there too.

    Well, of course, because the National Socialists were right about that bit: you want people to pull together for a great cause, nationality works way better than class as a unifying motivator. The International Socialists ended up being conveniently internationalist when taking over other nation’s territories, but fiercely nationalist at home. How long would the USSR have lasted with nothing but class as a unifying force?

  38. “I find calmly explaining the phrase’s origin as a piece of historical trivia to be more effective than shouting at them.”

    Good point. I’ll try that.

    (while pointing out that the word Socialist in National Socialist should still be taken literally)

  39. “I’d go a bit further: we also have “Mother Russia”, the “Motherland (Rodina)”, the “Great Patriotic War”.

    Well, yes, but all that started at about 10.45 on June 22nd 1941. Completely cynical manipulation of the population by the Communists.

  40. “May — who may be authoritarian but is also intelligent”: is she? Intelligent I mean. I have wondered. If you mean “brighter than Tony Blair” that’s setting the bar rather low.

  41. @ dearieme
    “bright enough to choose a better university than Cambridge” is a fairly low bar but 99.8% of UK teenagers don’t achieve it.
    You may, as an academic,feel intellectually superior to usnon-academics but the median Oxonian who chose not to pursue an academic career is of higher intellectual stastus than themedian non-Oxonian who chose to pursue an academic career. Theresa May gained entrance to oxford when many colleges were still single-sex so it was more difficult for women to win places. Anyone who dismisses her intelligence invites derision.
    [FYI (i) I opted out of an academic career because I should be hopeless at teaching, not because I am stupid (ii) I acknowledge that most of the professors whom I knew at Oxford (either as dons or undergraduates) are more inelligent than I but (iii) a majority of the non-Oxonian professors I have met since are less intelligent]

  42. Whether Choudary should be in prison or not is irrelevant. If traitors had not been in power since the late 30s, he would not be present in Britain, hence not a problem.

  43. @Squander Two: The new Russian ‘communist’ party is more patriotic than ever. Zyuganov seems like a good guy- all the politically connected oligarchs hated him (and helped Yeltsin steal the 1996 election), and he’s better on immigration than any West European leader.

  44. Last year they threatened to burn down Liverpool and cause riots. Earlier this year a member was jailed for attempted murder – he walked into a Tesco with a hammer and a machete, saw someone with brown skin and started to attack him. Might have been around then when the authorities started to take them and their advocacy of violence, gassing Jews and eradicating non-whites seriously.

  45. @ BiND
    No
    OTOH, there are very many people who are not neo-Nazis, a few of whom do not subscribe to the Grauniad (just a few billion). Failing to subscribe to the Grauniad is not invariably the same as being an evil neo-Nazi.

  46. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “As Tim says, these huggers are vile neo-fascists”

    Indeed. And so are you. But not Fascist in a nice way. You do not get to pretend you are one of the good guys here Rusty. You have consistently shown you share the same vindictive, authoritarian, petty bullying they do.

    You are not one of us, you are one of them.

  47. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Earlier this year a member was jailed for attempted murder – he walked into a Tesco with a hammer and a machete, saw someone with brown skin and started to attack him.”

    Alternatively, Care in the Community is not working out. Care in the Community cases are inevitably attracted to Care in the Community Parties. That doesn’t mean the parties caused those people to be “cared” for in the Community.

  48. So Much For Subtlety

    Squander Two – “One of the side-effects of all this hysteria is that now, whenever anyone is accused of being a Nazi, my default conclusion is that they’re probably not.”

    Yeah. Don’t you hate it when one of those Lefties hear someone say something that upsets them but they can’t quite put their finger on why? It is just a little niggling feeling that there is something not quite right about it?

    So they call them an antisemite or something like that.

  49. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “National Action is antisemitic and proud of it, apparently. It’s hard to miss. If you know anything about them, of course.”

    Sure. But that is irrelevant to anything I said. No one is denying it is. What I said is that it is proof that Care in the Community does not work.

  50. ukliberty: “National Action is antisemitic and proud of it, apparently. It’s hard to miss.”

    Oooh, I dunno. I bet Shameless Charkrabarti would miss it if you offered her ennoblement.

  51. SMFS,

    If anyone mentions Jews, you start talking about how a suspiciously high number of them have been involved in things you don’t like. It’s pretty clear that you don’t think it’s a racial thing. So, oo, thanks for that. It’s also clear and obvious that you’re not a Nazi, and I’ve never called you one. But do you spout antisemitic bollocks? Yes, consistently. You don’t like being a duck, stop quacking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *