Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 7
'educated' about our way of life, our shared values and the
individual liberty underpinning our belief system which, on
regrettable occasions, we must fight to protect.
We live in a free and democratic society founded upon the
principles of tolerance, fairness, liberty and freedom.
Providing you don't commit the crimes of inciting violence,
religious or racial hatred; as long as you don't defame,
slander or libel others, no expression of ideas is forbidden.
Anything and everything can be openly discussed and
intellectual inquiry has no limits.
Of course we need to be responsible and refrain from
deliberately inflicting harm upon our fellow citizens. It is
right that we make every effort to avoid distressing others
wherever possible. However, offending someone isn't always
avoidable when we exercise our free speech.
Most of us believe it isn't a crime to cause offence. However,
as we will discuss shortly, the state's apparent need to
censor free speech has indeed made 'causing offence' a
crime. Yet we still incorrectly assume freedom of expression
remains a cornerstone of our 'democratic way of life.'
While actively taking steps to curtail our freedoms, the state
is simultaneously trying to maintain the illusion that they
still exist.
We are encouraged to take pride in our non-existent freedom
to challenge authority. Freedom of speech and expression
are fundamental to our right to protest. A right which must
be protected. If it isn't, we don't live in a functioning
democracy. Therefore, we stand against the censorship of
ideas and will defend people's right to freedom of speech
because, without it, what do we have to protect?
Right?
I mean, it's an over simplification but when people like the
current British Prime Minister Theresa May talk about our
'shared values,' I think we can agree this is broadly what she
is alluding too.
However, the right to freedom of speech is no longer
53
A Dangerous Ideology
extended to all. Conspiracy theories are now considered a
form of 'right wing' extremism that shouldn't be tolerated.
Legislators the world over are doing everything they can to
silence anyone who openly discusses them.
In the UK, Section 4A of the Public Order Act was updated
by The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to define
so called 'hate speech.'[21] This outlaws causing anyone
‘alarm’ or ‘distress.’ Both of which are entirely subjective and
based upon nothing other than the opinion of the alleged
victim. It states:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to
cause a person harassment, alarm or distress,
he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words
or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible
representation which is threatening, abusive or
insulting,
… ..thereby causing that or another person
harassment, alarm or distress.
This is a significant threat to the principle of free speech and
freedom of expression. Anyone can claim an offence has been
committed because of their ‘feelings’ about anything they
see, hear or read.
I’m no legal expert, so thankfully you don’t have to take my
word for it. The UK government states:[22]
In the UK we use this definition of hate crime in
general:
Hate crimes and incidents are taken to mean
any crime or incident where the perpetrator’s
hostility or prejudice against an identifiable
group of people is a factor in determining who is
victimised.
The UK Government’s overall policy is that it is
up to the victim to determine whether a crime
54
A Dangerous Ideology
against them was motivated by any particular
characteristics.
This definition doesn't only relate to physical attacks. Hate
speech is also a 'hate crime.' This means you cannot say
what you think in the UK because, if someone is alarmed or
distressed by your words, which they feel are hostile, you
could be arrested and potentially imprisoned for speaking
your mind. You don't even need to direct your vitriol towards
the person 'offended.'
Anyone who is offended by your 'hate speech' can claim to
have been harmed by it. Perhaps they overhear your private
conversation in a cafe. Offended by your opinion, they can
report the crime. Modern technology allows them to easily
provide the 'evidence' as well. Case closed. Off you go to the
cells.
This system was really popular with the Stasi, the feared
secret police in the former communist tyranny of East
Germany. Combined with anti-extremism legislation and
anti-terror laws, it is clear that the mechanisms are in place
to lock people up for expressing the wrong opinion.
Thoughtcrime[23] has effectively been established in the UK
and many other western democracies. Self-censorship is now
a necessity and it is clear that many people literally don’t
know what they are ‘allowed’ to say or think. This appears to
be destabilising society and pushing people towards the
political extremes. Such policies always do. It seems a
deliberate policy decision.
Hate speech legislation is antithetical to the notion of a free
and open democracy. It is the kind of law we commonly
associate with dictatorships. We must ask why these laws
exist, as there appears to be absolutely no need for them
whatsoever.
The United Nations General Assembly signed the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[24]
(ICCPR) in 1976. Article 20 defined as illegal any action
related to discrimination based upon race, religion, or
nationality which ‘ incites’ anyone to commit a crime. Every
Western democracy, and most other countries around the
55
A Dangerous Ideology
world, have either formed ‘ incitement’ laws, or already had
similar in-place prior to the ICCPR declaration.
In the UK, it has long been against the law to encourage
anyone to commit a crime, either verbally or in writing.
Calling for all English people to be 'wiped out' or Russians to
be 'destroyed' is illegal and has been for a long time.
Therefore, regardless of so called ‘hate speech’ legislation, if
some unhinged psychopath calls upon his fellow nutters to
‘kill the Jews,’ he has committed the crime of incitement.
In fact, ‘incitement’ in the UK (until the Serious Crime Act
2007) was a common law offence. The Incitement to
Disaffection Act 1934 and Incitement to Mutiny Act 1797 are
both examples of UK statutes based upon this common law
principle. Freedom of speech in Parliament, and their duty to
protect individual rights, were first enshrined in British law
in the 1689 Bill of Rights.[25] The negat
ive right (the
obligation of the state not to infringe your rights) to
individual freedom of speech, is another common law
principle.
Given that ‘incitement’ carries far stiffer penalties and longer
custodial sentences than ‘hate speech,’ it is amazing that
people today seem so keen to call for the application of law
which is far less punitive than the alternatives which predate
it.
This may be because they have been widely misled by the
MSM into believing there is no law to stop people inciting
criminal acts, such as assault, online. However, if they
checked their facts they would soon find out this is not, and
never has been, the case. When you add in libel, anti-
terrorism, sedition and defamation laws etc. our online
protections are pretty strong.
Posing the question, why the mainstream media (MSM) are
frantically trying to convince everyone they are not?
Moreover, why aren’t governments pointing out this fallacy
for what it is?
The MSM promoted, alarmist clamour, for stronger ‘hate
speech’ legislation, is not compelled by any legal ambiguity.
There is something else driving this agenda forward.
56
A Dangerous Ideology
Something which governments appear to be eager to
promote.
The case that conspiracy theory represents a form of
'extremism,' potentially turning people towards terrorism,
has not been made. Yet governments, courts and the MSM
are proceeding on the false assumption that it has.
Regardless of whether or not you find any merit in their
arguments, conspiracy theorists are certainly not calling for
violence or seeking to encourage anyone else to commit a
crime. They are simply being censored for asking questions.
Conspiracy theorists are the first 'non-violent' group, who
don't incite any unlawful acts, to have their freedom of
speech effectively limited by the nexus of legislation, media
and social media regulation. Can you be confident they will
be the last?
You may think this doesn't affect you. You don't hold any
anti-establishment views and so have no reason for concern.
Yet you have no way of knowing what impact future policy
decisions will have on your life. Perhaps you will want your
voice to be heard one day. Only to discover your right to
express your opinion no longer exists.
As the philosopher Ronald Dworkin wrote:
“Liberties protected only when the state
finds it convenient or costless are not
liberties at all.”
There are very good reasons to be highly sceptical about
government claims that they are the sole custodians of the
truth. We should think long and hard before we blindly
acquiesce to laws limiting our freedom of speech or ability to
question authority.
The philosopher John Stuart Mill[26] effectively defined why
free speech matters, most notably in his work ‘ On Liberty.’
Mills considered that free speech was essential to push all
arguments to their logical limit. This is vital for us, as a
species, because the dialectic principle (human beings
discussing opposing opinions to reach reasoned conclusions)
is one of humankind’s most powerful tools for developing
57
A Dangerous Ideology
new ideas. Without the ability to freely share what we think,
because certain topics are ‘ off limits,’ our intellectual
evolution will be stifled. Mills stated we should have:
“… .absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,
practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological.”
Mills added, suppression of freedom of speech would mean
“a sort of intellectual pacification” that would ultimately erode
“… the entire moral courage of the human mind.” Today many
rightly refer to this process as ‘dumbing down.’
Most people haven't noticed. They are too preoccupied with
the latest twists and turns in 'get me out of strictly icy
celebrity X voice,' or overly burdened with concern about
Raheem's ankle strain. This is all well and good, as far as
our censors are concerned. As all Roman emperors knew,
bread and circuses are essential to distract the people and
stop them figuring out how much of their money you've
stolen.
Mills did not suggest that freedom of speech meant freedom
to say anything you like, regardless of the consequences. The
notion of incitement, in common law, is consistent with Mills
‘ harm principle.’ Mills defined this as the only reasonable
limit upon ‘free speech.’ He stated:
“… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
When Mills referred to ‘harm’ he did not mean causing
‘offence’ or ‘emotional distress.’ He was referring to real,
physical harm and felt context was vital in determining the
nature of that harm.
He used the example of an activist printing and distributing
a written allegation that corn dealers starve the poor by
setting unreasonable prices. The corn dealers may be
offended, upset or distressed by the allegation. His business
may even suffer as a result. But he is not immediately or
directly harmed by it.
However, if that same activist started making those same
allegations and inciting an angry mob, who were gathered in
58
A Dangerous Ideology
front of the corn dealers house, pitchforks in hand, he would
be endangering the life of the corn dealer. Mills drew a
distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ harm.
There is no reason at all that we cannot (or should not) apply
this principle to online ‘freedom of speech.’ If someone
expresses an opinion, which others dislike, providing they do
not directly incite unlawful acts, then we have no right not to
be offended. It is essential we understand this principle.
In the case of conspiracy theory, claiming that elements
within establishment may have been complicit in the 9/11
and 7/7 attacks does nothing to encourage any violence or
crime. You may be offended by the suggestion, but that
doesn't make it invalid, nor legitimise its suppression.
Urging attacks upon bankers, to stop them doing it again, is
an example of ‘legitimate’ harm. There is a difference, and
that’s why we’ve had incitement laws for such a long time.
It may be a bitter ‘opportunity cost’ to swallow, but the
alternative is a society based upon ‘hate speech’ legislation,
press regulation and censorship by state decree. Such a
society will be unable to explore the full limit of logical
debate. Something to be avoided as far as possible. As Mills
wrote:[27]
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one
person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no
more
justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”
If we continue to usurp the common law principle of
incitement in favour of draconian ‘hate speech’ statutes, we
will destroy ‘free speech’ and freedom of expression. This will
bring an end to intellectual rigour and stultify the
development of ideas. The impact upon press freedoms alone
would inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
We must resist and protest attempts by government to
capitalise on the 'fake news' meme by using it as claimed
justification for increasing press regulation and Internet
censorship.
Former Director of BBC news, James Harding, is certainly
59
A Dangerous Ideology
not the first to point out that one of the most pernicious
forms of 'fake news' is propaganda. Propaganda frequently
emanates from the state, not the independent or alternative
media. Something Harding highlighted:
“For all the discussion of fake news, there is
much more pervasive problem of state news,
which is the problem of governments and
politicians encroaching on the media.”
Providing we don't contravene Mill's harm principle, why
shouldn't we be able to freely exchange ideas without
interference from the state? How can simply asking
questions ever be considered an extremist act?
************************
60
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 4
Set Yourself Free
The problem most of us have, in even beginning to
examine the evidence surrounding 9/11 and 7/7, is that we
rule out one possible explanation from the outset. We always
look at these events with a predetermined narrative in mind.
Namely, that terrorists were solely responsible.
Within the MSM there has been a considerable amount of
debate about how and why 'the terrorists' carried out the
attacks. Further discussion has centred upon the
ramifications of the response. The question has been asked if
the war on terror makes us safer or if it actually causes the
hostility which drives further terrorist attacks against
Western targets. So called 'blow back.'
The media has seemingly held the intelligence community to
account on this. As it should. It appears, to most of us, to
have done its job. Conspiracy theorists say it has done