Freedom of speech

Wednesday

Nick Cohen

The Right’s attitude to radical Islam is as bad as the Left’s

Whenever a heresy-hunting left-winger fixes me with an accusatory glare and demands to know how can I talk to ‘someone like that’ (the ‘someone’ in question being a right-wing object of righteous denunciation) I reply, ‘I’m a journalist and will talk to anyone – even you.’ Still, I like to have a choice. I did not have one when I was sitting on a platform discussing Silent Conquest – a film about the ‘Muslim’ destruction of free speech in Europe and North America. I was uneasy about what I had seen, and became more irritable when the organisers announced a surprise guest, Tommy Robinson, formerly of the English Defence League.

Tuesday

Peter Tatchell

No shame in protesting against pro-Putin conductor, Valery Gergiev

For a moment I thought someone had spiked my tea with LSD. With escalating levels of disbelief, I read Melanie McDonagh’s bizarre account of last Thursday’s protest at the Barbican against the pro-Putin Russian conductor Valery Gergiev. Then, as her article became ever-more divorced from reality, I wondered if perhaps she had been the victim of an acid prankster. Melanie is usually a fine writer. What prompted her to scribble such tosh? She lambasts the ‘barracking’ and ‘bullying’ of Gergiev, describing him as a ‘Russian composer’. Actually, he’s a conductor and he was nowhere in sight that evening. We were on the pavement outside, not in the ‘concert hall’. It was

Thursday

Ed West

My idea for a new date in the calendar – Hate Speech Day

I know we’re inundated with ‘raising awareness’ days these days when we’re supposed to wear a bracelet or grow facial hair, but I’ve got a great idea for a new one – Hate Speech Day. It occurred to me while reading this Atlantic piece about gay rights by Jonathan Rauch in which the author came out with a brilliant sentence explaining how liberal societies should work. ‘The best society for minorities is not the society that protects minorities from speech but the one that protects speech from minorities (and from majorities, too).’ Exactement! The best route towards maximum freedom, peace and happiness is through open debate, and that requires that

Monday

Nick Cohen

British journalists lock each other up and throw away the key

In the past few days, my colleagues on the Guardian have been publishing stories of national and international significance – indeed, if truth be told, they have been publishing them for most of the autumn. The international scoop was that America’s National Security Agency tapped Angela Merkel’s mobile phone (along with the phones of many more world leaders). As the shock of the revelation has sunk in, most observers have grasped that the shrug-of-the-shoulder explanation that ‘spies spy’, doesn’t really work in this instance. Spies in democratic countries are meant to be under democratic control. Elected politicians have few problems authorising surveillance on their country’s enemies. But when it comes

Friday

Douglas Murray

Veiled differences

Last night I took part in an interesting debate for Channel 4 News. It was on the wearing of the niqab – or full face veil – in the UK. I think it was my first speaking appearance at the East London Mosque – and certainly the first time I have addressed an audience almost entirely consisting of women whose faces I could not see. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was, like me, arguing against the wearing of the full-face veil and she made some excellent points. I stayed around afterwards talking to some of the niqabis, and polite and pleasant though most of them were I suppose it reinforced one of the

Tuesday

Ed West

The Leveson Test – separating the ‘Decent Left’ from ‘the Idiots’

If the Leveson Inquiry does nothing else, then it has at least provided a useful guide to the British Left for those of us on the saliva-speckled wastelands of British conservatism. Political tribes are complex but occasionally one issue will neatly divide a movement into easily identifiable clans, of which press regulation is one. And on one side you have one part of the British Left, the liberal tradition that values the liberty of all as a starting principle, and on the other the radical tradition that sees press freedom as a way for the rich to monopolise power. We might call them ‘The Decent Left’ and ‘The Idiots’; and

Friday

Fraser Nelson

The Spectator’s two-letter response to politicians’ plans for licensing the press

What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand? Our politicians have proudly unveiled their new plan to license the press, as if this was is in their power to do so. In fact, the press in Britain has been free from political interference for generations. The British government simply does not have the power to regulate the press, so it’s not clear why ministers have wasted their time acting as if this is their problem to solve. The mechanics of the new charter released today are not the issue. What the politicians propose is a near-duplication of the regulation which the press has already  to set up: the £1 million fines, the

David Blackburn

Revised Royal Charter channels Charles I’s Royal Prerogative

Here is the revised Royal Charter on press regulation agreed by the three parties. It replaces the draft published in March this year. It begins: NOW KNOW YE that We by Our Prerogative Royal and of Our especial grace It seems that Parliament would bring down 300 years of free expression using a principle that parliamentarians like Pym, Hampden, Haselrige, Holles, Strode and the rest fought a civil war to eradicate. And in case you didn’t know: they won that war. Thank Heavens we English like irony! One can only hope that Her Majesty refuses to sign this document.

Monday

Douglas Murray

The LSE and the notorious t-shirt of hate

The London School of Economics (LSE) has been in the news recently thanks to a certain ex-lecturer who was a Marxist. But while Marxism retains some grip at faculty level in the LSE, it is — like many other universities — another variety of extremism that increasingly dictates events at student level. At last week’s LSE Freshers’ Fair — as Student Rights document here — the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society were threatened with physical removal after being discovered to have t-shirts deemed to be — wait for it — ‘offensive’. Told to cover themselves up or face removal, the atheists were informed that their t-shirts might even be considered ‘harassment’.

Friday

Rod Liddle

Alastair Campbell, moral arbiter? Pull the other one.

Has there been a more emetic sight than Alastair Campbell touring the radio and TV studios lecturing the world on moral probity? I can’t think of one, offhand. The BBC, an institution he once tried to destroy, if you recall, is more than happy to shove him on air whensoever he feels like it. I assume that this is because, like Campbell, they are intent on turning the Daily Mail-Miliband farrago into a post-Leveson issue about the nature of journalism. As some of us said at the time of Leveson, the metro-liberal left does not really give a toss about intrusion into the lives of drug-addled slebs. It wishes instead

Tuesday

Rod Liddle

Josh Williamson is arrested for preaching the Christian gospel in public

Freedom of speech is alive and well in Scotland, then. Pastor Josh Williamson took the Christian gospel to the streets of Perth last week, before he was arrested by the old bill for a ‘breach of the peace’. Asked why he was being arrested, Plod No 1 said because you’re too loud, pointing to the electrical device the clergyman was carrying. That’s an MP3 recorder, he replied, it’s not an amplifier. Then Plod No 2 claimed it was the content of his sermon, although he could not put his finger on what it was exactly. Hauled down the nick, refused the right of a lawyer, Williamson was eventually released with

Tuesday

Alex Massie

The lobbying bill is a pernicious attack on freedom. All good men (and women) should oppose it.

Sometimes, you know, I come close to despair. These are the times when you think the Reverend I.M Jolly was right. About everything. I mean, you could read Benedict Brogan’s column in today’s Telegraph and think that with friends like these the free press – to say nothing of the freedoms of the ordinary citizen – have no need for enemies. To begin with, the headline is not encouraging. Shining a light on the shadowy figures who shape our politics. It’s just a little too close to the sort of thing you might find in a BNP newsletter. But perhaps, you may think, as is so often the case the headline is a

Monday

Nick Cohen

David Miranda’s arrest proves how sinister the state has become

Always remember mornings like these, the next time police officers and politicians demand more powers to protect us from terrorism. They always sound so reasonable and so concerned for our welfare when they do. For who wants to be blown apart? But the state said its new powers to intercept communications would be used against terrorists. They ended up using them against fly tippers. Now the police are using the Terrorism Act against the partner of a journalist who is publishing stories the British and American governments would rather keep quiet. The detention of David Miranda at Heathrow is a clarifying moment that reveals how far Britain has changed for the

Monday

Ed West

Why do people write abuse on the internet? Because they can

I was away last week, filled with joy and love following the birth of our child, but just occasionally I’d check the multi-character psychodrama that is Twitter to stop myself getting too soppy. I sort of agree with Caitlin Moran’s stance in principle; if people are behaving appallingly on Twitter, Twitter should kick them out. If I ran a pub and people were driving away women with foul language, I needn’t call the police, but I’d have every right to bar them. What is problematic is that the organisers of Trolliday do not see this as a question of manners, but of misogyny – hate crime, in other words. Considering

Thursday

Hugo Rifkind

Sorry, but internet trolling will be with us forever

This is not to be a column about Twitter. Can’t abide columns about Twitter. I’ve written a few, I know, but this is not to be another one. I promise. Time was, though, it was actually quite hard to find out what people thought, if they weren’t you. I mean, you could go out and ask them, but the process always ended with you being in a supermarket car park, and them being mental and not knowing what the Working Time Directive even was anyway. Twitter is a pipe of views coming straight to your screen. So explicitly not writing about it can feel like going out into the world

Monday

Nick Cohen

Can we trust the state to censor porn?

The most sweeping censorship is always the most objectionable. In principle, however, there is nothing wrong with David Cameron’s sweeping proposal that the customers of internet service providers must prove that they are 18 or over before they can watch online pornography. The rule for liberal democracies is (or ought to be) that consenting adults are free to watch, read and listen to what they want. It stops child pornography – because by definition children are not consenting adults – and it could stop children accessing pornographic sites. Children are no more able to give informed consent to watching pornography than they are to appearing in it – if ‘appear’

Friday

Ed West

Cant phrase of the moment: community cohesion

Ever since the Woolwich murder I’ve noticed an upsurge in the use of what is now my least favourite cant phrase – ‘community cohesion’. Political cant proliferates when theory fails to match reality, and today we have a diverse and vibrant array of words and phrases that mean two contradictory things at once, and also nothing. It’s important to talk about community cohesion because diversity is our strength, and also our weakness, and should be celebrated, and policed. Community cohesion also has a darker Singaporean edge. In Singapore, the world’s first truly multicultural modern state, speeches and broadcasts can be arbitrarily shut down if community leaders believe them to be

Douglas Murray

Keith Vaz and Salman Rushdie

As an addendum to yesterday’s post I thought I might remind readers of something about Keith Vaz. The chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee has of course just applauded the banning of two American authors from Britain because of their criticism of Islam. So I turn to Joseph Anton – the illuminating fatwa-memoir released last year by Salman Rushdie. It contains a remarkable anecdote of the moment immediately after the news arrives of Ayatollah Khomeini’s order of murder. Rushdie (incidentally writing of himself in the third person) describes walking into his literary agent’s office in London. His agent gives him an astonished look. ‘He was on the phone with

Saturday

Nick Cohen

In defence of paranoid hysteria

Compare a democracy to a dictatorship and world-weary chuckles follow. The last thing a citizen can do in true tyrannies is call them tyrannies. He or she has to pretend that the glorious socialist motherland or virtuous Islamic republic is not only as free as democracies but has a level of freedom that those who rely on universal suffrage and human rights cannot attain. If you are free to call your country a tyranny, then it is almost certainly is not. In the United States, the politically sophisticated are enjoying themselves immensely as they tear into leftish claims that America is now George Orwell’s all-seeing totalitarian state. To their way

Thursday

Nick Cohen

How social media helps authoritarians

Have you heard? Do you know? Are you, as they say, ‘in the loop’? When the Mail on Sunday said a ‘sensational affair’ between ‘high profile figures’ close to Cameron had ‘rocked’ No. 10, did you have the faintest idea what it was talking about? I did, but then I’m a journalist. Friends in the lobby filled me in on a story which had been doing the rounds for months. I even know which law stopped the Mail on Sunday  following the basics of journalism and giving its readers the ‘whos’, ‘whats’, ‘whens’, ‘whys’ and ‘hows’. (Although with most affairs the ‘whys’ are self-evident. It is the ‘whos’ and, for