‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’
This quote, attributed to English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall, is a particular favourite of Britain’s self-styled free speech advocates. The freedom to speak one’s mind, unmolested by the state, is for them, non-negotiable, or so they say.
Yet it transpires that what they’re really campaigning for is limited freedom of speech within the confines determined by their internalised political correctness. Two cases in recent weeks have demonstrated this fact. Firstly, there’s the internationally publicised case of Usurla Haverbeck, an 89-year-old German woman who has just began a two-year prison sentence for ‘minimising the scale of the holocaust’. Continental “de-Nazification” legislation is the most prominent and precedent-setting restriction on freedom of speech in the post-war era, which has been the source of numerous trials and imprisonments. Erstwhile Front National leader Jean-Marie le Pen has fallen foul of the French edition of these laws on multiple occasions, and English historian David Irving was imprisoned for two years in Austria simply for giving a speech on the topic. For 70 years, so-called free speech advocates have been silent on this issue. Today, they remain so.
Then we have the case of English singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, whose witty polemics of the same theme have landed her in court facing imprisonment under the ominously named Communications Act (2003), specifically for violating the section that deals with ‘malicious communications’ deemed ‘grossly offensive’. Given that Holocaust revisionism is not yet a crime in the United Kingdom, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) initially declined to take the case any further stating that there was no case to answer. But after significant pressure from the influential lobby group Campaign Against Antisemitism, the CPS overturned their decision and took up the case. Alison is now facing an unlimited fine and/or a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment. Of course, the British free speech brigade is also tellingly silent on this issue, despite the fact that this is the very legislation they claim to be campaigning against.
This, of course, raises an interesting question, which we’ve already answered: do they really care about freedom of speech? No, they most certainly do not. They’ve merely internalised the politically correct dogma of the establishment and, rather than seeking to abolish it, are simply proposing that the limits on ‘acceptable speech’ are broadened slightly so that they may make edgy comments about Muslims on Twitter without incurring any serious legal ramifications. A judge in the Chabloz case has today signalled that a ‘precedent’ will be set in this case – for those of you unfamiliar with the English legal system, we do not have a codified constitution therefore much of our law is derived from precedents, also known as the whims of the adjudicating person(s). This means yet another layer of restriction is soon to be added too the array of anti-free speech legislation currently in force, perhaps even outlawing academic debate about the Holocaust. One would assume that a genuine free speech advocate would be outraged by this, for in the words of Evelyn Beatrice, they may well hate what Alison has to say, but they should defend her right to say it.
To be perfectly fair on this issue, it must be said that advocates of free speech have defended Holocaust revisionists’ rights in the past. The most notable example is that of Christopher Hitchins, who defended David Irving’s position as an authority on the Third Reich despite his convictions under continental speech dictates. Yet those currently demanding free speech, who so often invoke the late Mr Hitchins as the standard-bearer of Islamic critique, are silent. This is possibly a product of the personalities we currently have demanding this pseudo-free speech. To understand this discrepancy, one only has to take a look at last weekend’s “Day for Freedom”, an event held in the centre of London to protest against the infringements on certain individuals’ rights to freedom of speech. All the usual suspects were there; Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopolous, Lauren Southern (via video link) and their respective entourages. There was, however, some telling signs. Firstly, this was a distinctly LGBT-friendly event. Drag-queens, transsexuals and lesbians all got their opportunity to speak – of course, to sound off about Islam threatening their deviant lifestyles. Then there was the curious case of a leftist, anti-free speech Muslim being invited to take the stage (lol), apparently thanks to Tommy Robinson’s bisexual (?) camerawoman – this was evidently an example of right-wing virtue signalling, to demonstrate they’re living up to that famous quote of offering their arch-rivals a platform. All in all, the event demonstrated precisely the point made above, that these charlatans aren’t really interested in freedom of speech, just expanding the boundaries of political correctness a few inches to accommodate their opposition to Islam from a sexual deviancy perspective.
This status is confirmed by their silence on both the Haverbeck and Chabloz cases. What hypocrisy it is to claim to be for freedom of speech on the one hand, whilst remaining entirely silent on this issue. The oldest freedom of speech laws in the modern-liberal era of Europe are being vigorously enforced, but these allegedly right-wing free speech advocates aren’t interested, presumably because it falls short of their politically correct qualification for acceptable free speech. Either that, or they presuppose that free speech is only alright when it’s used to promote causes they agree with. How very liberal of them.
To expect this to change anytime soon would be foolishly ambitious. Chabloz will most certainly be made an example of and yet another layer of restriction will be added to Britain’s already draconian speech laws. We simply cannot count on the free speech brigade to fight these battles. They’re only concerned about their own narrow-minded interpretations of the cause, all the while signalling how very liberal they are to satisfy the demands of their internalised political correctness. What this proves is that the fight for free speech is a false God. Nobody seriously cares about it, they just want to be able to say what they want to say and to hell with anybody else. That’s alright, but we must recognise this and redouble our efforts to ensure that it’s our voice and our vision for the future that’s claims the final victory.