It isn’t just me who sees our culture and freedom of speech under threat. There was an interesting article in yesterday’s Times, quoting a speech by Lord Neuberger, President of the UK Supreme Court.
Liberal censorship is preventing traditional attitudes to issues such as sexuality being heard in the national debate and permits only “inoffensive” opinions, Britain’s most senior judge has warned.
…
This new “censoriousness” was similar to the “moral reaction” of previous, often illiberal, generations which prevented alternative views being aired.
…
He cautioned, though, that efforts to improve diversity carried the risk of shutting out more traditional views that were just as valid. “A tendency appears to be growing in some quarters which is antithetical to diversity in a rather indirect and insidious way,” Lord Neuberger said.
…
Possibly as a counter-reaction to the permissive society, a combination of political correctness and moral reaction appears to be developing”.
…
“As has been said on more than one occasion, freedom only to speak inoffensively is a freedom not worth having. The more that arguments and views are shut out as unacceptable, the less diverse we risk becoming in terms of outlook.
“And the less diverse we become in terms of outlook, the more we risk not valuing diversity and the more we therefore risk losing diversity in practice”.
This is precisely why society needs people like me — mavericks, controversialists and thinkers who will, and do, put forward divergent views. Our role is to be the grit in the oyster; to make people think; to keep us from descending into politically correct group think. And I make no apology for doing this.
Category Archives: freedom of speech
Just to remind our lords and masters of their responsibilities …
The Pornography of David Cameron
So David Cameron is intent on restricting internet access to anything which he deems might in someone’s eyes be pornographic.
This is so prattish and dangerous it makes me angry on just so many levels.
Just who does DC think he is to tell other people what to think, say and look at? How dare he impose his (apparent) morality on anyone else? Imposing one’s morality on someone else is frankly … well … immoral!
This is government censorship. Given that freedom of speech and belief is enshrined in international law, that probably means the UK would be in violation of international law.
A freedom which exists only when it is in accord with your views, is no freedom at all.
These two images are perfectly legal, and must remain perfectly legal. If you don’t want to see them, don’t look. If you don’t want your kids to see them, take responsibility yourself for looking out for what your kids view.
The proposals are impractical and pretty much unenforceable. Any law which is unenforceable is (a) bad law and (b) a waste of time. It is impractical because of the complexity of the internet and the fact that everyone is not dependent on just one service provider but many.
What is even more worrying is that there is absolutely no evidence to back up the necessity for this. On the lack of evidence see, for example, here, here, here and here.
It’s about time that we let people make up their own minds and take responsibility for their own actions — ie. develop their own sense of morals and responsibility. We’re becoming a nation of the molly-coddled; people who have to have everything done for them; who are unable to think for themselves or cope for themselves; people who cannot cope with adversity. People cannot be protected by outside agencies from all dangers and risks — that way lies a mixture of amorality (because people won’t have to think) and a police state. In the words of Thomas S Monson (Pathways To Perfection):
When we treat people merely as they are, they will remain as they are. When we treat them as if they were what they should be, they will become what they should be.
Goethe says the same:
If we take people only as they are, then we make them worse; if we treat them as if they were what they should be, then we bring them to where they can be brought.
Or looking at it another way, in the words of the great Spanish ‘cellist Pablo Casals:
Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage.
If we want people to be responsible, then we have to treat them as if they are responsible.
Finally, as I’ve said many times before (for example here and especially here) sexuality and nudity need to be normalised, not marginalised and criminalised. Only by doing so are we likely to drastically improve the nation’s overall health and well-being.
It is time to be a leader, not a cow-herd with an electric cattle-prod!
[PS. No of course rape, violence and child abuse are not acceptable; no-one is saying they are! But blanket censorship is not going to get rid of them; it will just drive them further underground and into the hands of the criminal fraternity.]
World Press Freedom Day
Friday 3 May is World Press Freedom Day, which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.
Originally proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 it has been organised annually on 3 May by UNESCO.
World Press Freedom Day serves as an occasion to inform citizens of violations of press freedom: in dozens of countries around the world publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered. It is a date to encourage and develop initiatives in favour of press freedom and to assess the state of press freedom worldwide. It also serves as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom.
There’s more on the UNESCO website at www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-press-freedom-day/.
On Tolerance, Diversity and Free Speech
The Heresy Corner yesterday was having a rant about “diversity” and tolerance. And quite rightly. In the pursuit of “diversity” we have thrown away the principle of free speech and tolerance.
Diversity of appearance, diversity defined as a number of officially-defined, externally-validated “characteristics” is to be tolerated, celebrated and legally enforced. Diversity of thought and opinion, on the other hand, attracts suspicion and censure, sometimes official, often moral, always self-righteous. Intolerance of dissent has become the hallmark of a “diverse” society.
What this amounts to is that if I’m a black, Estonian, homosexual, paraplegic I have to be provided with wheelchair access to every building, allowed a civil marriage and who knows what other “privileges”. If I were to express an opinion that gay paraplegics should be castrated and have their state-funded wheelchairs and crutches taken away I would be banged up in HM Wormwood Scrubs hotel. Well maybe not quite that extreme, but most venues would refuse to give me a platform from which to speak.
That flies in the face of not just diversity and tolerance but free speech. It’s as has been said many times before:
I may disagree with, even abhor, your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to publicly express that opinion.
That is free speech and tolerance. And by listening to all opinions (yes, including those we dislike) is how progress is made. As the writer at the Heresy Corner remarks:
Censors invariably begin their remarks with the pat phrase “I believe in free speech, but…”. If you believe in “free speech, but”, you don’t believe in free speech.
It’s the same as saying you don’t agree with discrimination but you’re happy to go along with positive discrimination or (say) female only short-lists for appointments. If the latter then you don’t believe in non-discrimination.
Read the whole Heresy Corner article; it’s important.
Whither Obscenity?
In the general fallout from the Michael Peacock Obscenity Trial (if you missed the whole unedifying spectacle see, inter alia, the Guardian) the Hersey Corner highlights some important questions about obscenity and the law.
The questions raised by the trial are important, not so much in terms of jurisprudence, but in terms of developing society’s, as well as our personal, views of obscenity and indeed morality.
As usual I’m going to try to condense the arguments for you. Also as usual others express the ideas better, more succinctly and with greater knowledge than I can. So in this case here are some key extracts in the words of the Heresy Corner, with a minimum of comment.
The material in question depicted acts that are legal to perform, which did not fall within the definition of “extreme pornography” contained in the more recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2009 but which nevertheless came within the CPS prosecuting guidelines for obscene publication […]
[T]he majority […] has welcomed the verdict, seeing it as another nail in the coffin of a paternalistic, judgemental and outdated piece of legislation, as a victory for free sexual expression, as a sign that the law may be at last coming to grips with a more liberal society […] [T]he guidelines used by the police, the CPS and the British Board of Film Classification are based on the current “best guess” of what would be judged obscene by a British jury […]
The OPA’s [Obscene Publications Act 1959] true significance doesn’t lie in the small number of prosecutions that are brought under it, but rather in that it sets the standard by which the police and the BBFC judge the shifting boundary of what is or is not to be considered “obscene”. It is unusual […] legislation in that it bans nothing outright but instead employs a notoriously subjective test, that of “tending to deprave and corrupt” anyone likely to see the material in question. Therein lies the law’s uncertainty — and, for many, its inappropriate moralism. On the other hand, the very subjectivity of the test does make allowances for changes in society. It gives it flexibility.
[T]he CJIA […] makes no allowances for taste […] And unlike the OPA it targets the possessor — even an inadvertent downloader — rather than the producer or the distributor. Though apparently narrower in remit, in respect of those activities it proscribes […] it is harsher and more regressive.
What of the concept of “obscenity” itself? Many would consider it outdated and illiberal by definition […] [N]ow that the OPA has had the life almost squeezed out of it — between more liberal social attitudes on the one hand and the new extreme porn laws on the other — it’s worth asking […] whether something of value is being lost.
The crux of obscenity law is that it bans the depiction of acts which, in themselves, are not illegal; it declares to be depraved and corrupting activities which it nevertheless acknowledges that consulting adults might indulge in, and still remain decent members of society […] Yet is this not also a way of saying that the needs of society and the needs of individuals might not always coincide, and that there might be a space between what must be privately allowed and what may be publicly depicted? Not everything that is socially unacceptable ought to be illegal, after all: that way lies totalitarianism. But by the same token, the fact that something is legal does not [necessarily — K] render it socially acceptable [nor necessarily suitable for depiction — K].
[T]he Obscene Publications Act sought to strike a balance between private and public rights. It recognised that citizens might lawfully get up to things that the majority of their fellows might consider depraved and corrupted while asserting that the majority also had the right to have their sensibilities protected. Most importantly, by leaving the final decision to a randomly-selected jury of ordinary citizens, it granted custodianship of the standards of decency to the people […] rather than their being decided unilaterally by politicians and police. These are principles worth clinging on to […]
So in short, let’s not kill the idea of a test of obscenity by jury. Consenting persons have a right to indulge, in private, in pass-times which others may find distasteful or worse. The majority, while upholding that right to indulge privately, may feel that such acts shouldn’t be promulgated publicly. Surely only a jury can make such a decision, reflecting the prevailing morality of the time. Which in turn leaves each of us to make our own decisions as to where the various lines (public and private) should be drawn.
And it is only by each of us developing our own ideas, whether in accord with or contrary to society’s view, that society’s opinions and morality can change. After all society’s collective view is but the consensus (average) of our collected personal opinions.
Isn’t that what democracy and free speech is all about: leaving us, the people, in control of our destiny?
Nanny State's Fatal Addiction
A few days ago the Heresy Corner blog wrote a piece exposing the worrying tendency of officialdom and do-gooders to slam down hard on things they don’t like (eg. smoking, alcohol) but with completely the wrong timing and emphasis. The writer shows that they did it with smoking and now they’re doing it with alcohol, and suggests that it is little more then self-defeating persecution. Consider the following extracts …
Alcohol consumption in the UK in fact peaked in 2004 and has been declining ever since. It’s now 11% lower than it was. There was an especially large fall in 2009. The UK ranks also below the European average in terms of consumption, an under-reported fact that may have something to do with Britain’s having the second-highest level of alcohol duty in the EU. The fall in consumption has been most dramatic among young people (the same is true of smoking) as a combination of draconian ID-checks (these days, you’re lucky to be sold a bottle of wine no questions asked if you’re under 40), rising prices and a media obsession with teenage drunkenness has made the traditional slow transition to the adult world of social drinking far more difficult to accomplish. This, of course, may help to explain why, when they finally are allowed to drink, so many young people seem unable to handle it.
As the harm reduces, so the zeal of the harm-reducers increases, as they focus all their energy and determination on ever-smaller numbers of the recalcitrant. At the same time, new targets come into their sights.
Two media organisations in particular enjoy scaring their audience with exaggerated levels of gloom. The Daily Mail and the BBC […] It’s not just alcohol and tobacco that regularly get this level of alarmist coverage. It’s also… illegal drugs, obesity, sex-trafficking, climate change, internet porn and the “sexualisation of childhood”.
Nanny statism, of course, is what happens when the government takes the regulation of morality away from bishops and gives it to doctors, social workers and professional experts.
I would actually say that this is what happens when you take the regulation of morality away from the people themselves. What happened to the personal responsibility that this government is supposedly such a believer in?
What is just as worrying, as is pointed out by Tim Worstall at Forbes is that the numbers upon which this alcohol policy are being built are themselves a complete fiction. As Worstall points out …
[W]hat drives political action is not the truth but what people believe to be the truth. So, if you can whip up a scare story about the ill effects […] then, as long as people believe you, you should be able to get some action taken […]
“Some 1,173,386 people in England were admitted to casualty for injuries or illnesses caused by drinking in 2010/11, compared with just 510,780 in 2002/3 […] The figures for last year represent an 11 per cent increase on the previous 12 months, when alcohol-related admissions stood at 1,056,962”
[…] there are two things odd about these numbers […] The first is that no one at all is measuring how many hospital admissions are as a result of alcohol. That’s just not what is done:
“It’s largely a function of methodology. Alcohol-related admissions are calculated in such a way that if you are unlucky enough, say, to be involved in a fire and admitted to hospital for the treatment of your burns, it will count as 0.38 of an alcohol-related admission — unless you happen to be under 15, when it won’t count at all.
“If you drown, it counts as 0.34 of an alcohol-related admission […] Getting chilled to the bone (accidental excessive cold) counts for 0.25 of an admission, intentional self-harm to 0.20 per cent of an admission.
“These fractions apply whether or not there was any evidence you had been drinking before these disasters befell you.”
So […] [w]e’re not in fact being told anything at all about the number of alcohol related hospital admissions. We’re being told about the numbers which are assumed to be alcohol related. And I think we can all see what the problem is here, can’t we? […]
Now, does all of this mean that there has been no rise in alcohol related diseases? I’ve no idea actually, but the point is that nor do you and nor do the people releasing these figures to us. The methods they’re using to compile the numbers, the things they’re not telling us about those numbers, mean that they lying to us with those numbers.
So basically the whole thing is a complete and utter lie from start to finish, and the numbers could be adjusted in the background to prove anything anyone wants. And politicians wonder why no-one believes nor trusts them. Would you?
So wither next? You’d better believe that these state-registered nanny do-gooders have their sights on all the “problem areas” mentioned above. Drugs have been a target for a long time; the heavy-handed mobsters must arrive soon. They’ve started on obesity already. And as for anything to do with sex, well we must ban that because, well, it’s just not nice is it?
Next we know they’ll be wanting to grant us licences to shag. Oh wait a minute. We have those already, it’s called marriage. It’s probably as well no-one takes blind bit of notice of that any more.
So be alert … your country needs lerts! Gawdelpus!
Whatever Happened to Freedon of Speech?
So …
A certain Jeremy Clarkson has said that he thinks all striking public sector workers should be shot.
And judging from some of the comments being broadcast said public sector workers appear to be of the opinion that Clarkson should be shot. (Though GOK why they take Clarkson seriously; the man’s a bigger buffoon than the Mayor of London.)
Clarkson has subsequently apologised, although I don’t see he needed to because whichever side you agree with — and even if you don’t care one way or the other — both sides are allowed to have, and to voice, their opinions. It’s called freedom of speech and according to international law is an inalienable right.
The words “storm”, “teacup” and “childish” come to mind.
Can we just return to trying to get the asylum back on an even keel?
Quote : Discrimination
It’s just as racist to vote for someone on the basis of his ethnic heritage as it is to vote against him.
Weekly Links
Here’s this week’s selection of interesting articles you may have missed. And what a selection it is!
Turning the lights off won’t save oil, says Melissa C Lott in the Scientific American blog. Maybe not, but it will save coal and gas, reduce emissions and stop wasting our (increasingly expensive) electricity.
“Put that fly down! You don’t know where it’s been.” But Rob Dunn does. Again in the Scientific American blog.
The Divided Brain is an 11 minute video in which Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist describes the real differences between the left and right halves of the human brain. It’s not simply “emotion on the right, reason on the left” but something far more complex and interesting. Love the cartoons!
Max Davidson in the Daily Telegraph defends old-fashioned words against the influx of new text-speak.
And here’s yet another from the Sci Am blog … Ingrid Wickelgren goes looking for the secrets to a happy marriage. And finds some unexpected answers.
The right to keep your pubes. A feminist perspective on shaving for childbirth. I dunno what’s so feminist about it; seems like a basic right to me.
And lastly, if I hadn’t read this here, I wouldn’t believe it. Londoners are being told to stop shagging for a bit, ‘cos the Mayor doesn’t want girlies dropping bairns in the streets during the sacred cow Olympics. Maybe Boris needs to make sure we keep the lights on!
