The British Crackdown on Free Speech Continues

So yesterday I talked about the suppression of speech in Britain and it turns out that the story has expanded and some details have been added.  Let me quote from the Daily Mail,  with analysis interspersed.  It’s not quite a “fisking,” because I always understood that term as being hostile to the author of the piece, but it is almost a point-by-point commentary similar to one:

The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anger across the UK, including the attacking of mosques, racial abuse and comments made on social media.

Well, of course actual physical attacks on mosques are not protected speech by any reasonable understanding of it—I mean besides Mona Eltahawy’s idiot theories—but I didn’t feel confident that we are talking about physical attacks.  There is a disturbing tendency among some on the left these days to pretend that criticism is an “attack” thus blurring the line between action and mere words.  So I was curious to check it out.

Eleven people have been arrested around Britain for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Twitter following the brutal killing in Woolwich on Wednesday.

The incident has also prompted a huge increase in anti-Muslim incidents, according to the organisation Faith Matters, which works to reduce extremism.

Besides the revelation that now eleven have been arrested (and remember, in my last post, some were being warned without arrest), I checked out the Faith Matters website.  They provide a map of Mosque attacks, and a quick sampling of a few makes it clear that this is essentially vandalism.  Although really, is it even worth fretting that someone left bacon at one?  Next we will get reports of someone TP-ing their trees.  I’m not even sure leaving bacon counts as trespass or littering.  (For instance, church property is generally open to the public.  And often littering laws include exceptions for biodegradable items, such as food.)  But presuming the veracity of these accounts at least they involve conduct and not merely speech.

And of course Faith Matters seems to be one of those annoying organizations that believes that hate speech and hate crime is only committed by anyone but self-described Muslims.  For instance, in their statement on the killing of Mr. Rigby, the sole focus of the discussion is anti-Muslim feelings:

We are disturbed to see a huge rise in hate incidents reported against Muslims since Wednesday’s killing of a soldier in south London.

The terrible events in Woolwich this week can in no way justify reprisal attacks or threats to British Muslims, a huge number of which have spoken out against the atrocious murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

We have received 162 calls since Wednesday, up from a daily average of four to six. Eight mosques have been attacked to date.

The fact is that the murder of Rigby, besides being terrorist incident, is also rightfully described as a hate crime, as is most instances of Islamofascist terrorism.  Of course the safety of innocent Muslims are a rightful concern (and since they are a private organization, hate speech directed at innocent Muslims is a rightful concern of that organization), but how about sparing a little concern for the innocent Christians, Jews, Buddhists and so on who are regularly murdered by Islamofascists?  As I said long ago, this is truly The Hate They Are Not Talking About.  An organization that facially presents itself as being against all “extremism” should have something to say about this fairly extreme situation besides "I hope innocent Muslims are not harmed:"

Indeed in this situation, their silence is tacit assent.  They are, practically speaking, saying that there is nothing wrong with that kind of hate.  I will write to them and see if they would like to amend their comments.

Moving on, and back to the Mail article:

It comes as 22-year-old man appeared before magistrates in Lincoln today charged with posting a 'grossly offensive' anti-Muslim message on Facebook following the Woolwich murder.

Benjamin Flatters, of Swineshead, Lincs, faces a charge under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act following a message he posted on Facebook on 22 May which is alleged to be offensive to Muslims.

So as I noted, up until now we were not even sure if the messages being punished were anti- or pro-Islam or what.  So this guy apparently said something bad about Muslims or Islam, or Muslims.

No details of the message were given at the hearing but another man was warned about his conduct on social media.

Besides the reality that the police are trying to scare others that they are not choosing to charge, I do appreciate that the author of this article is at least curious about what he actually said.  But in all bluntness, coverage of this is not even close to complete without a full quote about what he said, with at most censorship of actual curse words.  He was also refused bail, which seemed galling until you read this part:

The court was told he faces further matters including four charges of inciting under-age girls to engage in sexual activity by sending sexual messages by Facebook as well as two drugs charges.

So it sounds like during the investigation they discovered he was up to other mischief, and indeed that might justify denying bail to him.

There is also this discussion about other incidents:

Two men will also appear at Thames Magistrates Court today charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour over an incident in an east London fast food restaurant on Thursday.

Labourer Toni Latcal, 32, and plasterer Eugen-Aurelian Eugen-Beredei, 34, both from London, were arrested following the incident at 9.15pm on Thursday.

Latcal was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour and causing criminal damage, while Eugen-Beredei was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour.

Unlike the stuff we have been hearing so far which were largely “hate speech” incidents, this is a possible hate crime.  I still have my misgivings about whether the British make sure the threat is sufficiently genuine, but if they were genuinely threatening that is a crime even in the United States.  And if it was motivated by religious or racial hatred, it is a hate crime that could indeed be punished in the United States.

But there is a suggestion in the article that they might actually be punishing islamofascist hate, too in this line:

Mohammed Mazar, of Balmoral Drive, Woking, has been charged with improper use of public electronic communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

A police spokesman said Mazar has been freed on police bail to appear at South West Surrey Magistrates' Court on June 11.

So we don’t know what he said.  And we don’t know anything about his worldview.  But how can I say this?  On one hand, it is dumb to assume you know what religion a man is by his name (doubly so if you go by first names only).  Ali Akbar has a “Muslim sounding” name but I know at least one man by that name who is a Christian.  So we can’t assume Mr. Mazar is a Muslim and we certainly can’t assume he said anything Islamofascist.  For all we know he might be a Christian convert from Islam who now hates his former faith.  But it also makes it clear that we can’t just assume that the police is not punishing Islamofascist comments.  Indeed, for all we know, maybe Toni Latcal is in fact an Islamofascist, too.  We just don’t know and we shouldn’t assume.

I would say we should wait until the facts come out, but will they ever come out?  This goes again to the dangers of not sharing information in news stories.  Every time information is held back—although in the British media’s defense, in this case this might be that they can’t even share it if they knew it without risking prosecution—it allows for falsehoods and bad speculation to fill in the gaps in a way that can create harm.  Because we don’t know what speech is being censored—we are ironically not even being able to speak about the censorship and debate it in an informed fashion—rumors are spreading that this is being done exclusively to “anti-Islamic” speech.  Which ironically might be fueling even more anger toward innocent Muslims.

The best way to diffuse this situation isn’t to suppress the expressions of outrage, but to let them happen and counter them as necessary.  First there is a cathartic benefit of getting even really ugly hate off your chest.  A person free to scream “kill all Muslims,” who does say something like that, might ironically feel so good after saying that he is less likely to harm a single innocent.  On the other hand, if a person feels like they are not even free to express their feelings, it only encourages a sense of grievance that festers in silence.  Indeed, this fresh grievance is a just one; he has a God-given right to say these things even if what he is saying is wrong.

And further banning the expression of a thought won’t ban the thought.  So it will fester, in the dark, unchallenged and unaddressed, creating deeper anger and resentment.  Again, better to let it be said and deal with it, than try to suppress the feeling.

Responding to the attack on Rigby, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the following:

“We have suffered these attacks before. We have always beat them back. We have done that through a combination of vigilance, of security, of security information, good policing.

“But above all, the way we have beaten them back is showing an absolutely indomitable British spirit that we will not be cowed, we will never buckle under these attacks. The terrorists will never win because they can never beat the values we hold dear, the belief in freedom, in democracy, in free speech, in our British values, Western values. They are never going to defeat those. That is how we will stand up to these people, whoever they are, however many there are of them, and that is how we will win.”

In a recent piece, Mark Steyn made the point that freedom of speech is in fact being defeated daily in England (and elsewhere) by private violence.  But why is it necessary to use private violence to suppress speech, when the government is plainly willing to do it for you?  The reality is that Britain doesn’t believe in freedom of speech and the only question that remains is what kind of speech should be suppressed.

And if you don’t believe me that Britain doesn't have true freedom of speech, go back to that article in the Mail and scroll down to the bottom where the comments section would normally be.  It says simply this:

Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.

In other words, due to fear of the law, they can’t even allow comments on an article about censorship.  Orwell would probably be grimly amused.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.