Free speech is not a gradient

Either a country allows free speech or it does not. There is no in-between. There are no qualifiers. ‘I believe in free speech but…’ No. Stop there. You do not believe in free speech. You believe in approved speech. It is not the same thing.

Free speech means that, sometimes, people will say things you find unpleasant but there’s a way out of that. Don’t listen. Just because someone has free speech does not mean they have the right to force you to listen.

You do not have to agree. You have free speech too, you can tell the speaker exactly what you think of their opinions. And criticise their fashion sense and general hygiene at the same time.

Does this mean that we’d be bickering all the time? Well, you can if you want to. Or you can just not listen. Just walk away. Ignore the idiot. You can still filter through your own preferences by listening to the speech you agree with and ignoring the ones you don’t. You can still have that echo chamber if you want it.

Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean anyone has to listen, or agree, or publish or disseminate your speech. If you want to write a book filled with antismoker bile and Puritan crap, fine. Under real free speech you are free to do so (actually it would be approved by the current Puritan regime anyway). You do not have the right to demand Leg Iron Books publish it, nor to demand this blog even mentions it.

A couple of years back, there was a troll who insisted I was denying his ‘free speech’ because I blocked him. He was, and probably still is, incapable of understanding that being blocked here does not affect his free speech at all. He can speak all he wants, but I’m not giving him a platform. Similarly on Twitter, blocking/muting someone does not stop them speaking. It just means you’re not listening any more.

Actually, blocking on Twitter works the other way. The person you block can’t see your tweets any more. You have basically muted yourself on their timeline. It’s your own voice that is silenced by blocking. I wonder if all those Righteous Ones who mass-block pre-emptively will ever work that out?

Recently we have seen three people banned from the UK for holding right wing views. They have no history of violence, they just say things some people find uncomfortable. So our government have removed them from the country because our government are idiots. These people are not silenced – far from it. I had not even heard of them and their views before they were banned. I bet there are many people who could say the same but now the internet is abuzz with the news of this Orwellian idiocy perpetrated by, of all things, an allegedly Tory government.

Then we have all this stuff about Jezza Corbyn and his antisemitic Facebook groups. Should he be silenced for saying the things he said? No. If you have free speech it has to work both ways. If I now say ‘I believe in free speech but that kind of talk is hate speech and must be silenced’ then I would be as bad as the screaming harpies of the ‘progressive’ lunatic fringe.

I don’t say Jezza, or anyone else should be silenced. However, if there is any downside to free speech, it is this: what you say can have consequences.

If you go around saying the UK is rubbish, the IRA are the good guys, Muslim terrorists should be celebrated, all white people must die, etc, then you are basically making clear that you are totally unfit to be put in charge of anything.

This doesn’t seem to work though, does it? MPs who state that ‘white people are a problem’ are not even called out on it by their parties. MPs who support anti-Jew groups are excused. There really don’t seem to be any consequences of ‘free speech’.

That’s because we don’t have free speech in the UK. We have approved speech. And approved speakers, who can say things with impunity that the rest of us would be arrested for saying.

We certainly have non-approved speech.

Incidentally, what we have here is another of those ‘charities’ that depend on a constant client base. It is not in their interests to declare any child isn’t transgender. You take your son to them and you will bring home a daughter, and vice versa. These ‘charities’ are very dangerous groups of people and the scope of their activities now goes way beyond the ostracism of smokers and the nagging of fat people.

Note from the article that the police take their policy advice from a charity with a vested interest in keeping themselves in a job. It is no surprise that they use the police to silence dissent and criminalise wrongthink. And why not? Everyone else does.

There are those who have long referred to the UK police as ‘gestapo’ or ‘thought police’. I used to laugh that off as exaggeration. I’m not laughing now. The police do not work for the public now. That is undeniable. They are enforcers for vested interests.

If you are a champion of free speech in the UK you are not fighting to keep it. We used to have it, we don’t have it now. You are fighting to regain it.

It won’t be easy, and you can fully expect to be arrested for it. Wrongthink is a very high priority in the police now. A far higher priority than burglary, shoplifting or the mass rape of children.

You can stick to approved speech and blend in with the herd or you can stand up and say ‘I’m not going to take this any more’. If you stand up, be prepared to be knocked down and then stand up again. Otherwise, resign yourself to the cattle life.

There are many who see this but who stay silent, afraid to break ranks. Their resentment is building and this constant needling over petty things is going to make that resentment explode at some point. It can take a very long time to push the British, especially the English, to go beyond a mere disapproving look here and there. But when they do, they’ve built up such an internal rage that there will be no slow transition. No warning signs. They’ll simply explode.

It can be avoided. All it takes is for the authorities to stop acting like total dicks.

The trouble is, I don’t think they can.

13 thoughts on “Free speech is not a gradient

  1. Sellner is the head (iirc) of generation identitaire, the guys that crowdfunded a ship to monitor the madness that was going on in the Mediterranean. Tommy Robinson read his speech on speakers corner. (check it out on YT, his latest interviews aren’t bad either btw) Southern has been rocking the boat lately in regards to the white genocide in South Africa. Don’t know much about Pettibone, other than that she’s connected to the two, and apparently Sellners girlfriend. Also, no mention of count Dankula being found guilty of a joke, iirc he’s in your neck of the woods?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As usual, what we have here is a “charity” that seems to be wholly funded by the Government, the Lottery and ‘Children In Need’ (all the usual suspects funding these manipulative individuals).

    From The Times in October (before the paywall sets in): The latest accounts for Mermaids UK, published last week, reveal it has been granted £35,000 by the Department for Education (DfE) and a total of £138,000 by the national lottery’s Awards for All fund and the BBC’s Children in Need appeal.

    Their latest accounts (2016-17) show a total income of £128,000, which doesn’t match, but it suggests that this ‘charity’ is simply a wing of the government-media mafia.

    Last Autumn, a mother who forced her seven year-old son to live as a girl was banned from further contact with ‘Mermaids UK’.

    In a High Court case, reported last year, Mr Justice Hayden removed the child – known only as ‘J’ – from his mother after finding she had caused him ‘significant emotional harm’ and ‘pressed [him] into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother’s needs and little, if anything, to do with his own’.

    And isn’t the fake charity circus all about satisfying the needs of the control freaks who run them, rather than giving honest, unbiased counselling to those they purport to care about?

    Anyway, the boy was sent to live with his dad and now reportedly has, ‘asserted his own masculine gender’ by living life as a boy.

    No wonder these people want to ban free speech, because here is documented evidence of the damage they can do. I’m pretty amazed that the court made this ruling.

    The poor soul probably still has school visits from Stonewall to look forward to, as they extol the [ahem] virtues of chutney ferreting.

    Sad times.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There is no free speech in the UK anymore – only approved speech. The deportation of Sellner, Pettibone and Southern proved that, and as if the ram the point home – Count Duckula being found guilty.

    The Police are not here to server us, the public, they are there to protect the State.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. That woman is very dangerous. Your post reminded me of the castrato, so did a rapid refresher – and it makes for sober reading.

    The person that’s castrated does not develop normally and their life expectancy is reduced.

    Little wonder it was made illegal in the late 1800’s.

    One thing I do know is kids who have been abused invariably harbour a loathing for those responsible. Sometimes they get seriously physical, sometimes they pursue legal action.

    Certainly Jack, aka Jackie deserves both and the blundering twat’s who finance this travesty.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I shall let Rudyard Kipling speak my hopes ….

    It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late
    With long arrears to make good,
    When the English began to hate.

    They were not easily moved,
    They were icy-willing to wait
    Till every count should be proved,
    Ere the English began to hate.

    Their voices were even and low,
    Their eyes were level and straight.
    There was neither sign nor show,
    When the English began to hate.

    It was not preached to the crowd,
    It was not taught by the State.
    No man spoke it aloud,
    When the English began to hate.

    It was not suddenly bred,
    It will not swiftly abate,
    Through the chill years ahead,
    When Time shall count from the date
    That the English began to hate.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “…a “test case” in a new “human rights” fight they were undertaking.”

    Anyone would think they weren’t hampered at all by all those ‘savage cuts’ they keep whinging about on social media…

    Liked by 1 person

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.