The fundamental principle of democracy is that change is effected peacefully by a vote at the ballot box, thereby removing the need for violent kicks to a sensitive area. Ineffectual or negligent governments can be removed and replaced by those more willing to enact the will of the populace. Unfortunately for Brits, the ballot box is now a one-way street: guaranteeing ‘Labour lite’ or ‘Labour full strength,’ whichever way you vote in this two-party, one-party state. That only leaves recourse to freedom of speech, should one wish to object.
Once the bedrock of democratic societies, free speech appears increasingly out of favour in Britain however, with a majority favouring restriction of what can and cannot be said. The great and the good are certainly on board with censorship (e.g. Sadiq Khan, Humza Yousaf, Sir Mark Rowley, etc.), but the genuinely worrying trend is that younger voters—and particularly Labour voters—are as firmly as 2:1 against:
The problem is that those calling for restrictions on free speech are arguably the worst judges. Studies have repeatedly shown that while conservatives expect and tolerate their opinions being disagreed with, liberals do not, and are almost three times as likely to cancel friendships with those who question their views. The dogmatism of the Left is hardly headline-worthy, but it does highlight the paradoxical nature of free speech: it only becomes necessary for precisely those opinions we find abhorrent. In other words, as a species, we need to be protected from our own, censorious nature—something the Left would do well to understand.
“I’m all for free speech, but…” they cry, oblivious to the irony—a point brilliantly conveyed by Rowan Atkinson in his famous defence of free speech (which is understandably currently making the rounds on social media):
Britain is in dire need of access to freedom of speech right now, because, despite assurances from the prime minister that “Two-tier policing worries are a non-issue,” you could so easily be deceived. Whether it’s the two-tier response to white, rather than multicultural, rioting by the police; whether it’s the politicians who kneel for the former and condemn the latter; or the fact that racism against white people is so socially acceptable that the police refuse to investigate it—the crucial point is the same: those who object to their relegation to second-class status have only two outlets for their anger—speech and violence. Exercising one’s freedom of expression ought to be the preferable choice for all concerned.
As if two-tier justice were not bad enough, in terms of freedom of speech, Britain is actually third-tier in the global index of free expression. Due to the “chilling effect of government policies, policing and intimidation of journalists in the legal system,” the UK is considered only ‘partially open’ on every key metric, and finds itself out-performed by almost every other Western European state.
The ‘chilling effect’ of censorship was something Keir Starmer used to understand only too well. As Director of Public Prosecutions a decade ago, Starmer was clearly against the police spending too much time browsing social media:
I think that if there are too many investigations and too many cases coming to court then that can have a chilling effect for free speech. This is about trying to get the balance right, making sure time and resources are spent on cases that really do need to go to court, and not spent on cases which people might think really would be better dealt with by a swift apology and removal of the offending tweet.
He’s also more than sympathetic to public protest when it suits him:
The scenes in Clapham this evening are deeply disturbing. Women came together to mourn Sarah Everard – they should have been able to do so peacefully.
I share their anger and upset at how this has been handled. This was not the way to police this protest.
Since becoming prime minister, Starmer has visibly morphed from defender to despot in a remarkably short space of time. After only a month in office, his heavy-handed response to the Southport riots makes him a far more authoritarian leader than Thatcher’s fiercest critics could accuse her of being.
The Starmer regime is now routinely arresting and imprisoning members of the public on what would normally constitute trumped-up charges: ‘inaccurate tweets,’ ‘stirring up hatred,’ and ‘encouraging unrest’—‘crimes’ of which Starmer has been guilty of himself of late.
Digging into the details reveals a government more totalitarian than democratic in nature.
Wayne O’Rourke was charged with publishing online material alleged to contain ‘anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric’.
John O’Malley was sentenced to two years and eight months, merely for being in attendance during the riots.
Possibly worst of all was the 18-month sentence handed out to 61-year-old David Spring, who committed the crime of pointing his finger at police and chanting ‘Who the f*** is Allah?’
Neither is it only adults falling foul of the new lawfare. A 13-year-old girl has been convicted of violent disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers, after she pled guilty to punching and kicking the hotel entrance on 31 July. Younger still, a 12-year-old boy has also been convicted for a similar offence.
Whether you find this sudden ability of the police and the judiciary to implement instant justice draconian or fully warranted, there’s no denying the flipside to it. First of all, there’s the utter inability of the same authorities to operate without fear or favour when the accused do not meet the preferred ‘white male’ demographic. The Manchester Airport incident of July 23, where three officers were assaulted and one female officer had her nose broken, has yet to result in any charges. This statement has just been released by Greater Manchester Police—you’ll notice the gleeful tone is conspicuous by its absence:
The second point is that the ‘good guys’ are almost invariably let off. Jess Phillips, currently Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office, tweeted to suggest that gangs of balaclava-clad, machete-wielding thugs were justified because of ‘misinformation’:
These people came to this location because it has been spread that racists were coming to attack them. This misinformation was spread entirely to create this content. Don't spread it MR Tice! https://t.co/l03oTp7fdB
Phillips has subsequently admitted she “almost certainly could have phrased it better.” Not exactly an apology.
Similarly, Hope Not Hate’s Nick Lowles posted false information about a Muslim woman being attacked with acid in Middlesbrough. Again, an apology more than seemed to suffice, and Lowles was subject to no investigation for his ‘inaccurate tweet.’
Labour minister Wes Streeting has also been highlighted as someone whose previous tweets could be construed as having ‘stirred up violence’; again, there is no hint of even an investigation.
Third, the UK is a soft touch when it comes to serious, violent crime—with many career criminals spared jail to ease prison overcrowding, and even murderers released after just six months.
The beauty of free speech (with the obvious caveats to genuine incitement), is that it takes away the ability and the necessity of government to pick and choose what kind of speech it approves of. Phillips, Streeting, and even the ghastly Lowles should not of course be jailed, but neither should many of those who have been found guilty of the wrong kind of political opinions.
I have never been so concerned for the future of Britain as I am with Keir Starmer at the helm, and here’s why:
Starmer’s government is going to use these riots as the perfect pretext under which to impose further incursions on free speech. Along with the insanity of criminalising ‘Islamophobia,’ this will mean social media will be obliged to censor ‘legal but harmful’ content—in short, the government’s two-tier rule of law will be installed by fiat.
Starmer is a weak man; and like all weak men with power, he will find a reason to exert it. Throughout this period of unrest, Starmer has uttered not one word of contrition, calm, or temperance—although, mysteriously, he found those virtues when it came to tensions between Iran and Israel.
All of which leaves the British people with absolutely nowhere to go. Unlike for the migrant hordes, there is no additional homeland the British can return to. What is to become of the millions of terrified parents whose children are no longer safe, and who are not even allowed to voice their concerns—concerns our masters keep telling us are illegitimate? Do they go to jail in protest, or do their best to ride out the storm for an interminable five years of Labour?
Frank Haviland is the editor of The New Conservative, a regular columnist for various UK publications, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to personalize the content and advertisements that you see on our website. AcceptDeclinePrivacy policy
The Chilling Effect
The fundamental principle of democracy is that change is effected peacefully by a vote at the ballot box, thereby removing the need for violent kicks to a sensitive area. Ineffectual or negligent governments can be removed and replaced by those more willing to enact the will of the populace. Unfortunately for Brits, the ballot box is now a one-way street: guaranteeing ‘Labour lite’ or ‘Labour full strength,’ whichever way you vote in this two-party, one-party state. That only leaves recourse to freedom of speech, should one wish to object.
Once the bedrock of democratic societies, free speech appears increasingly out of favour in Britain however, with a majority favouring restriction of what can and cannot be said. The great and the good are certainly on board with censorship (e.g. Sadiq Khan, Humza Yousaf, Sir Mark Rowley, etc.), but the genuinely worrying trend is that younger voters—and particularly Labour voters—are as firmly as 2:1 against:
The problem is that those calling for restrictions on free speech are arguably the worst judges. Studies have repeatedly shown that while conservatives expect and tolerate their opinions being disagreed with, liberals do not, and are almost three times as likely to cancel friendships with those who question their views. The dogmatism of the Left is hardly headline-worthy, but it does highlight the paradoxical nature of free speech: it only becomes necessary for precisely those opinions we find abhorrent. In other words, as a species, we need to be protected from our own, censorious nature—something the Left would do well to understand.
“I’m all for free speech, but…” they cry, oblivious to the irony—a point brilliantly conveyed by Rowan Atkinson in his famous defence of free speech (which is understandably currently making the rounds on social media):
Britain is in dire need of access to freedom of speech right now, because, despite assurances from the prime minister that “Two-tier policing worries are a non-issue,” you could so easily be deceived. Whether it’s the two-tier response to white, rather than multicultural, rioting by the police; whether it’s the politicians who kneel for the former and condemn the latter; or the fact that racism against white people is so socially acceptable that the police refuse to investigate it—the crucial point is the same: those who object to their relegation to second-class status have only two outlets for their anger—speech and violence. Exercising one’s freedom of expression ought to be the preferable choice for all concerned.
As if two-tier justice were not bad enough, in terms of freedom of speech, Britain is actually third-tier in the global index of free expression. Due to the “chilling effect of government policies, policing and intimidation of journalists in the legal system,” the UK is considered only ‘partially open’ on every key metric, and finds itself out-performed by almost every other Western European state.
The ‘chilling effect’ of censorship was something Keir Starmer used to understand only too well. As Director of Public Prosecutions a decade ago, Starmer was clearly against the police spending too much time browsing social media:
He’s also more than sympathetic to public protest when it suits him:
Since becoming prime minister, Starmer has visibly morphed from defender to despot in a remarkably short space of time. After only a month in office, his heavy-handed response to the Southport riots makes him a far more authoritarian leader than Thatcher’s fiercest critics could accuse her of being.
The Starmer regime is now routinely arresting and imprisoning members of the public on what would normally constitute trumped-up charges: ‘inaccurate tweets,’ ‘stirring up hatred,’ and ‘encouraging unrest’—‘crimes’ of which Starmer has been guilty of himself of late.
Digging into the details reveals a government more totalitarian than democratic in nature.
Wayne O’Rourke was charged with publishing online material alleged to contain ‘anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric’.
John O’Malley was sentenced to two years and eight months, merely for being in attendance during the riots.
Possibly worst of all was the 18-month sentence handed out to 61-year-old David Spring, who committed the crime of pointing his finger at police and chanting ‘Who the f*** is Allah?’
Neither is it only adults falling foul of the new lawfare. A 13-year-old girl has been convicted of violent disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers, after she pled guilty to punching and kicking the hotel entrance on 31 July. Younger still, a 12-year-old boy has also been convicted for a similar offence.
Whether you find this sudden ability of the police and the judiciary to implement instant justice draconian or fully warranted, there’s no denying the flipside to it. First of all, there’s the utter inability of the same authorities to operate without fear or favour when the accused do not meet the preferred ‘white male’ demographic. The Manchester Airport incident of July 23, where three officers were assaulted and one female officer had her nose broken, has yet to result in any charges. This statement has just been released by Greater Manchester Police—you’ll notice the gleeful tone is conspicuous by its absence:
The second point is that the ‘good guys’ are almost invariably let off. Jess Phillips, currently Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office, tweeted to suggest that gangs of balaclava-clad, machete-wielding thugs were justified because of ‘misinformation’:
Phillips has subsequently admitted she “almost certainly could have phrased it better.” Not exactly an apology.
Similarly, Hope Not Hate’s Nick Lowles posted false information about a Muslim woman being attacked with acid in Middlesbrough. Again, an apology more than seemed to suffice, and Lowles was subject to no investigation for his ‘inaccurate tweet.’
Labour minister Wes Streeting has also been highlighted as someone whose previous tweets could be construed as having ‘stirred up violence’; again, there is no hint of even an investigation.
Third, the UK is a soft touch when it comes to serious, violent crime—with many career criminals spared jail to ease prison overcrowding, and even murderers released after just six months.
The beauty of free speech (with the obvious caveats to genuine incitement), is that it takes away the ability and the necessity of government to pick and choose what kind of speech it approves of. Phillips, Streeting, and even the ghastly Lowles should not of course be jailed, but neither should many of those who have been found guilty of the wrong kind of political opinions.
I have never been so concerned for the future of Britain as I am with Keir Starmer at the helm, and here’s why:
READ NEXT
Christian Heritage: Worthy of Celebration
No Whites, Please.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou: Portrait of an Eternal Centrist