In the classic movie comedy, A Fish Called Wanda, John Cleese lamented, “do you have any idea what it’s like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing.”
Now 86, Cleese has a more pressing concern about being English: whether his exercise of free speech will make him a criminal in his own country.
In a recent interview, Cleese observed that the government’s new speech standards would classify many citizens, including himself, as presumptive criminals for criticizing certain policies.
He observed that: ”As I am an Islamosceptic, I’m now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist…”
The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has continued its headlong plunge into the criminalization of speech. The guidelines include a section on cultural nationalism, stating that such views are now the subject of government crackdowns. To even argue that Western culture is under threat from mass migration or a lack of integration by certain groups is being treated as a dangerous ideology.
Cleese responded by saying, “I’m clearly a terrorist, so I’m afraid they are going to have to arrest me.”
The tragedy is that this is no wicked Monty Python joke. Cleese has every reason to be concerned.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, the United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech in the name of social cohesion and order.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.
A man was convicted of sending a tweet while drunk, referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.”
A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room.
Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:
“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law.
It covers the possession of material deemed hateful.
The law is a free speech nightmare.
The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.”
The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. Two years ago, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Now the UK’s most famous writers and comedians believe that they can be arrested under the country’s draconian speech laws from JK Rowling to John Cleese.
That leaves free speech much like Cleese’s famous parrot.
The British government and its supporters can claim evidence of life or just “resting,” but it is in fact "bleedin’ demised…passed on! … no more! … ceased to be! … expired and gone to meet it's maker!”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.