The left has been guilty of attacking free speech, says the left

Leigh Phillips on Ricochet writes a powerful, if avowedly leftwing defence of free speech and goes on the attack at what he calls the "anglophone left" for calling Charlie Hebdo "racist", clearly showing that those who repeat this call don't understand French, which of course is a form of what some on the left might call "neo-cultural imperialism":

The last few days have been a humiliation for the anglophone left, showcasing to the world how poor our ability to translate is these days, as so many people have posted cartoons on social media that they found trawling Google Images as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s “obvious racism,” only to be told by French speakers how, when translated and put into context, these cartoons actually are explicitly anti-racist or mocking of racists and fascists.

Now I would argue vehemently that the left has a strong history of sympathising with those who support censorship, including soft peddling many regimes that would imprison or murder those who expressed political dissent.  Given its strong support for state solutions to most problems or support for so-called "direct action" (a euphemism for vandalism, trespass, intimidation and threats of violence), it is consistent to support wanting to close down debate,  but Phillips seems to get it:

There is a worrying trend on the left to dismiss freedom of expression as part of the colonialist project, to repudiate free speech as a meaningless elite piety. In recent years, the liberal-left, particularly in the anglophone world, has taken to demanding the censorship of “offensive” or “triggering” speech, and student unions, theatres, universities, schools, municipalities, art galleries and other public venues have increasingly shut down a wide range of speech acts. Even many traditional civil liberties groups appear to be cowed. Demonstrators go beyond protesting those they oppose, and now try to actively prevent them from speaking, as in the case of efforts to disinvite Bill Maher from UC Berkeley last year — ironically during the 50th anniversary of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement protests. In 2014 in the United States, campus protesters prevented commencement addresses by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, attorney general Eric Holder, and IMF head Christine Lagarde. According to campus free speech group FIRE, 39 protests have led to the cancellation of protested events on campuses since 2009. All this is contrary to traditional leftist defence of freedom of speech and must be strongly opposed. The politics of the speaker should make no difference here.

 We counter bad arguments with good ones. The minute that we begin embracing censorship, it will be our own ideas that sooner rather than later will be deleted by the censors. And the irony is that while these calls to censorship frequently come from the “social justice left,” it is precisely as a result of the liberal foundation of freedom of expression that the women’s movement, the civil rights struggle and gay liberation have achieved all that they have.

The difficult Phillips has is the intellectual tradition he is aligned to has a firm belief in the control of language to control people and behaviour.  It has used the words "racist" "sexist" and now "Islamophobic" as a catch-cry for "shut up, your opinion is worthless, go away and be grateful we can't lock you up".  Those who criticise this get thrown the same word, because the "liberal" left thinks it has a monopoly on morality.

In actual fact it has embraced a form of collective group-think that those who lived under China's Cultural Revolution or the totalitarian Soviet satellite states in eastern Europe would recognise instantly.  It is why the term "politically correct" has been coined, albeit it too has been overused by some on the right to conceal their own bigotry.

Critics are labelled and consigned to the dustbin with that label, and there is a refusal to engage, and the most recent usage of the "check your privilege" claim is a way of focusing not on the content of speech, but on the background of the person speaking.   This, of course, is exactly what umpteen totalitarian regimes have done and still do.

I fear that the likelihood of the left in the English speaking world accepting free speech for those that reject many of its arguments, is not great.  The desire to restrict, regulate and control many aspects of people's lives, of businesses and to spend their money, runs through so much of what is advocated.  If you are going to continue to ban "hate speech", then you are going to continue to place free speech vulnerable to wider demands as to what is "hate".  After all, how many on the left would ban "hate speech" based on professions? i.e. banning vilification of say, bankers.

Where's all the Islamophobia?

Bear with me as I use the etymologically absurd word "Islamophobia" in the way that it has been misused by the mainstream media.  That is, to have it mean "hatred of Muslims" rather than what its etymology should mean as fear of Islam or those practicing Islam.  It's a nonsense word, but it has common usage so I'm running with it for now.  Literally, Islamophobia, as a fear, is rational for many....

-----------

Just like with 9/11, 7/7 and every other terrorist attack in the West, the narrative that the so-called "liberal" left presents is familiar.  It goes like this:

1.  The use of violence is never justified and we empathise with the victims and their families, this should never happen again; but..

2.  We have to realise that US foreign policy and/or poverty and disenfranchisement and/or the plight of the Palestinians and/or anything else other than the declared motives of the terrorists, can incite these sorts of reactions.  If only we change those policies, we can stop this happening; and

3.  We must first and foremost guard against mass Islamophobia.  This isn't the fault of Muslims or anything to do with Islam, it's a perversion of Islam.

So after showing faux concern for terrorism, and blaming anyone but the perpetrators for it, the key concern is that there will be mass violence or threats against Muslims.

Tim Black at Spiked points out that after past events, there is barely any such response, and most of what is recorded involves abuse online, which while vile and inexcusable, is not anything like the pogrom of attacks Jews now fear in France.  

Quite simply, the numbers of people who blame other people for the actions of the terrorists are very few.  Most people reject the immoral notion of collective guilt, or in any way diluting or transferring blame for crimes from the perpetrators to those who had nothing to do with it.   In France, of course, there may be more reason for concern, given the popularity of the fascist Front Nationale, although it has tried to distance itself from those who would undertake such attacks.

Brendan O'Neill in the National Review discovers the same, 

After the Boston Marathon bombings there were loads of media panic about the“ignorance and prejudice [that arise] in the aftermath of a terrorist attack” and concern that Muslims in America would get it in the neck. But Muslims have not been assaulted en masse by stupid Americans in recent years, including in the wake of 9/11. According to federal crime stats, in 2009 there were 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes; in 2010, there were 160. In a country of 330 million people, this is exceptionally low. After the Lindt café siege in Sydney at the end of last year, there was once again heated fear on the pages of the broadsheets about dumb Aussies going crazy and attacking brown people. Nothing happened. No mob emerged. Muslims were not attacked.

Those warning against so-called Islamophobia may be well motivated.  Who can argue against calls for there to be no attacks against innocent Muslims or their property?  However, there is something more to all of this.  It's the application of the Orwellian post-modernist doctrine of structural identity politics, a theory that makes all politics and relations about power, and classifies everyone into pre-defined groups that either have power or don't.  

A thank you from Al Qaeda

As-salaam'alaykum people of the United Kingdom

You have seen what has happened to the blasphemous ones in France as they have faced the appropriate penalty for insulting the Prophet, peace be upon him.   As you progressively realise the truth and inevitability of adopting sharia law you will not be shocked.   You will accept that so-called "free speech" comes with responsibilities, and that includes not to insult the Prophet, peace be upon him, to denigrate the truth of Islam or to be offensive to our faith.

We accept that you infidels can live in peace under sharia law, as long as you worship in private and embrace our laws in public.  Brother Anjem Choudary made this clear on American imperialist zionist television.

However, we are heartened by the response of your newspapers and media, all of which have had the wisdom to refuse to publish images of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in recognition of sharia law.  

This demonstrates how much closer to Islam British media are compared to the vile publications in France, Belgium, Denmark and Germany.  Some of them are paying the price for their foolishness.

You have learned that it is more important to not offend us, than to demonstrate some silly, repulsive, blasphemous belief in freedom that is not subject to the laws of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

British media have learned that Islam literally means submission, so you are learning and we have hope for you yet.   You may express disgust and objection to our ways of dispensing justice, but because you refuse to infringe the laws we are enforcing shows your respect for us.

That respect is noted.

Of course there is much more to be done.   

The Jews, whose forces occupy Muslim land and people, and have long had ways that historically were recognised by Christians to be offensive, cannot be tolerated whilst they occupy Palestine and challenge our faith.  They need to speak up about the crimes of Zionism or they too will be targets.   Those born Jews would be better following the example of the leader of the Labour Party, who as a Jew supported laws against insulting religions.  We have great hope that he will try again as Prime Minister, to enshrine the laws we will otherwise enforce if necessary.

Your women continue to dress as prostitutes on an every day basis.   This continues to offend us, and it is no surprise that a few of our brothers have been treating a few young women who present like that, on that basis.  We expect some action to be taken against their pornographic appearance.

There is much else that needs to change, but our priority is that you do not interfere with our efforts to help your society become pure and do not insult our Prophet, peace be upon him, or his teachings.

Your Government continues to battle our brothers in Iraq and threaten those in Syria.  Although we have some differences with them, we reject your interference in our territories.  It is futile,  and dangerous for members of your armed forces, as are efforts to support the infidels in Nigeria who are denying our brothers victory there.   We are a religion of peace, and peace will come from your submission to our truth, our values and the beauty of our faith and justice of our laws.

More and more of your people are understanding this.  Even your future monarch appears to understand this.

You also have taken to accepting that those who resist us are branded Islamophobes, and so are treated with derision for being racist.  Although our people come from many races, we are not bothered by the bluntness of this response, as it suits us.  Fellow Muslims who fear infidels are more likely to realise truth and justice come from supporting us.   It encourages us when Members of your Parliament, newspaper columnists and other commentators are more concerned about reprisals against Muslims, than about the Zionists or those who blaspheme against the Prophet, peace be upon him.

So thank you for not requiring us to take the actions we have taken in France.  It bodes well for us to have a media in the United Kingdom that is progressively compliant with Shariah Law.

Keep your women safe and obedient, do not offend us and do not try to change our people to your ways, and you too will be safe.  

Peace be upon you

Al Qaeda


Note:  This piece of parody is to reflect the contemptuous cowardice of the British press and broadcast media in not publishing or displaying any images from Charlie Hebdo that depict Mohammed, or indeed any drawings of Mohammed at all.

Islamic blasphemy law need not be enforced in the UK, for the media have simply rolled over and followed it.

Read Spiked on "What if Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain"?

The BBC has already surrendered to the Islamists UPDATED

UPDATE: The BBC appear to have changed the policy outlined below

As Douglas Murray eloquently stated yesterday on the BBC Daily Politics show (hosted by the man who is now the BBC's eminent balanced journalist - Andrew Neil), what the Islamist terrorists (forget the mainstream media euphemism "militants") wanted to enforce with Charlie Hebdo was effectively Islamist blasphemy law.

They were offended by Charlie Hebdo's repeated publication of caricatures of Mohammed, and other parodies of Muslims (not paying attention for a moment to the parodies of Jews, Christians or numerous political and public figures of France and across the world).

Images of Mohammed in a magazine would get you, at best, arrested and imprisoned in almost any predominantly Muslim state.  There are quite a few non-Muslim states that also have blasphemy laws, including New Zealand.

In Afghanistan, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the punishment can be death, and in Iran people have been acquitted for informally enforcing blasphemy provisions by murdering those they "proved" had blasphemed. 

Of course, the Islamic State and the Taliban openly support the death penalty for blasphemy, and if we go back far enough in history, blasphemy was punished by death in the UK, against Christianity, until 1676.

The Islamists want to return us to the dark ages.  They are not murdering out of a random desire for hatred, nor are they avenging Western involvement in wars in Iraq (which France did not participate in) and Afghanistan (which France had almost no involvement in), they are seeking to impose sharia law.

They achieve their aims by these sorts of events, and the previous attacks on the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten.

It creates a climate of fear, fear that if you do offend those who want sharia law, they will enforce it.

So what happens is that they get what they want.  

That is exactly what the BBC has done (and many other media outlets).

I pick on the BBC for some obvious reasons:

1.  It is state owned.  As such, it is meant to represent the UK, as a whole and embody the ill-defined values of the country.  

2. It projects itself as a bastion of objectivity and balance.  Although plenty will accuse of it bias (and it has an inherently statist bias, rarely taking the view that government should do less), it still has some credibility internationally, particularly with the BBC World Service, in not being afraid to take on those who would censor opinions and information that offend them or disadvantage them.

3. It is the dominant broadcaster in the UK, with the biggest audience across over eight TV channels and dozens of radio stations.

4. It enforces, with criminal punishment, payment by all British households with a TV, payment by force.  We are all forced to pay for the BBC.

The BBC's editorial policy states in its guidance on "stills, photographs and images" that "The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form".  

What is that if not appeasement?  It isn't that representation should not be undertaken if it is intended to be gratuitous.  It is absolutely blanket prohibition on even showing an image that is the source of the offence for the terrorists.

It is as if the BBC simply has agreed with the Islamists, and is, internally, enforcing its own form of self-censorship applying the sharia law that the Islamists are seeking to impose.

So have the terrorists won, if the UK's dominant, state owned broadcaster, enforces the censorship they want?

UPDATE AS THIS HAS BEEN WRITTEN - THIS HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED

Maybe, just maybe, the tide may be turning.

ISIS has "progressive potential"

not only that it is a "valid and an authentic expression of their emancipatory, anti-imperialist aspirations.”

Did this come from another group of Islamist men seeking to cheer on their murderous comrades in their proud courageous rampage through villages of non-believers, as they behead men, women and children?

No, it came from the British left, an organisation called Left Unity which has the backing of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, both well known as firebrands who have sympathised with authoritarians of many colours.  Guido Fawkes has this coverage of the event.

Yes - now just think about the contradictions.

When ISIS governs it would mean:

- Strict orthodox Islamist theocracy, where other faiths and atheism would not only be banned, but their practice would be punishable by death;

- All freedom of speech that was critical of the caliphate or Islam, or deemed to be blasphemous under ISIS's strict reading of the Koran, would be forbidden, and harshly punished;

- Women would be in no positions of authority, and be expected to be submissive breeding stock.  Intended to produce children, raise them and be completely submissive to their fathers, then husbands;

- Much if not most books, magazines, music, films, television, audio programmes, paintings, photographs and other media known in most cultures would be prohibited and destroyed;

- And of course, being gay/lesbian/bisexual etc would be totally forbidden, and any expression of such behaviour would be punishable by death.

By what stretch of the imagination of any, so-called, liberal leftwing campaigner, is this emancipatory, without the sort of Orwellian contortions that are used in Pyongyang to talk of its regime being free and democratic?

Forgotten Posts from 2009 : Brown and Darling show what's wrong with democracy

Labour was been in power in the UK for 12 years. For most of that time, the UK economy has grown steadily, to the envy of some its poorer performing continental neighbours. During that time the public sector proportion of GDP has gone from 38.8% to 42%. Almost without exception every year there has been a budget deficit. As Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequently Prime Minister, health spending has gone up by 66% as a percentage of GDP, doubling in real terms, yet the outcomes are barely an improvement. The economy of some parts of the UK, such as Scotland, is more dependent on the state sector than Hungary was in the latter days of communism.

So the last act, having ridden on a wave of asset price inflation, encouraging massive credit bubbles and then seeing them pop, has been to spend - spend - spend.  To ignore the collapse in tax revenue and the budget deficits since 2001, and to leave a legacy of overspending that the next government will have to face, and then be criticised for being "cruel" because inevitably it will cut spending on welfare, local government and other areas of social spending.

People vote time and time again for governments that spend money borrowed from future voters, and then when confronted with the true costs of those decisions, they will bite back.  What chance the next Conservative government will be a one term government because Labour's client welfare recipients and public servants will bite back.

Why Scotland should vote "No" on independence

Scotland matters to me.  My family came from there, hell I'm named after the place.  I have never lived there, but it is part of my heritage.  I feel warm towards it, I enjoy visiting Scotland and I grew up surrounded by Scottish accents, by elements of Scottish culture and language, and so I have an emotional attachment to the land from whence both my parents were born and raised.

From them and much of my family, I gained a keen belief in the ethic of working for a living, of reaping the rewards of that work, and in not seeking to cheat or live like a host off of the back of others who had achieved.  Call it Protestant work ethic, call it old fashioned self esteem and values, but the impression I got was a cultural background of deep respect for those who put in the effort to better themselves and their family, indeed the stories of my grandparents are of those who strived, against some family members who sneered.

So next Thursday when all Scottish residents 16+ (not people of Scottish descent elsewhere) get to vote on whether Scotland  becomes independent, has become interesting, not least because recent polling showed the strong lead for the "No" side has narrowed to being neck-and-neck.

For a libertarian who believes in a smaller state living in England, there are two compelling arguments for Scotland to say "Yes".  

Scottish voters overwhelming back statist politicians and political parties.  Take away the Scottish MPs from the House of Commons and the Conservatives would have clearly won the 2010 election.  

Scotland's economy is, despite the rhetoric from nationalists, dependent on English taxpayers to sustain a higher level of state spending than the rest of the UK, on average.  For whilst a geographic proportion of tax revenue from Scotland has meant that in some years Scotland contributes a higher proportion of UK tax revenue than it receives in spending from tax revenue, it is still not enough to balance the books.   Scotland overspends by over £12 billion per annum, so remove Scotland and the net impact is positive for UK public spending, but it doesn't mean the public finances in Scotland would be buoyant. 

I wrote in 2007 about the childishness behind calls for independence, and it still stands.

So while there is probably a bigger chance the rest of the UK would have a smaller state without Scotland, I'm asking Scotland to vote No - because that is in Scotland's interests.

I don't want to see my ancestral homeland become a new Venezuela, but moreover I don't want the UK to become smaller, weaker and less important in Europe and the world, and that is exactly what will happen.

An independent Scotland will be a minnow and far from "independent".  

It wont be independent because the intention is not to establish its own fiat currency (which would deservedly be treated with contempt), but to be in a currency union with the rump UK.  Yet all major UK political parties say they would not agree to this, and it is difficult to see how that could be in the interests of the rest of the UK, without imposing strict fiscal rules on Scotland that would limit or eliminate budget deficits for the new country and getting Bank of England approval for any sovereign borrowing by Scotland.  Getting your budget approved in London, and getting London approval for borrowing is not "independence".

If the UK government rejects a formal currency union, the Scottish National Party (SNP) says Scotland will use the Pound Sterling anyway.  That is true, but it would be limited to borrowing only the amounts it could raise at commercial rates.  That would be good for Scotland, but only if it meant shrinking the state, rather than raising taxes.   However, the socialist paradise being sold to Scottish folk can't happen.  For if taxes are raised significantly then the better off will simply leave, it isn't far to move to the UK.  Spending cuts would hit health, education, welfare and pensions, and would be a complete betrayal of what has been offered.

There is no golden egg of independence.

As a small state, Scotland wont be important or influential, or part of an influential state (which it is now).  It wants to join the EU, where its MEPs will be 2% of the European Parliament.  Yet the EU's law will bind much of Scotland's economic policies.  Scotland will have as much influence over those as Slovakia does.

The SNP says it can join the EU but not the Euro, but Euro membership is a condition of EU membership, and has been since the Euro was created.  The UK and Denmark have explicit treaty exclusions to this obligation, and only Sweden remains as the other EU Member State that has not joined the Euro and was an EU Member State at the time the Euro was created.

So Scotland joining the EU and not being required to be on the path to the Euro, would be unprecedented.  Consider also that Scotland will want exclusion from the Schengen agreement that eliminates border control between EU member states, because the rest of the UK excludes itself from it (and if Scotland did join Schengen, the UK would put up border control with Scotland).

The SNP says Scotland will join NATO, but it wants to eject the British nuclear deterrent from the Clyde naval base because it opposes nuclear weapons on Scottish soil.  It wants to be part of a nuclear weapons based military alliance, but its great contribution to that is to weaken it.  How is that credible for NATO members to support?  How can you oppose nuclear weapons, but support them protecting you, as long as you don't have to have any on your territory?

In short, Scottish independence is actually false.  What the "Yes" campaign seeks is independence, whilst using another country's currency and letting that other country veto your public borrowing and budgets.  It is independence, but joining a customs union that will write part of your laws.

However, it is more than that.  Scotland will be financially poorer, but also poorer in terms of influence in the world, and the UK itself will be poorer for that.   The UK has been a successful union, bringing together four nations (notwithstanding conflict and bigotry that plagued one of them), and growing a land of rule of law, relative freedom, prosperity and which had one of its proudest moments holding back the greatest fascist evil the world has ever seen.

I don't want Scotland to leave that, I don't want it to be poorer, I don't want it to drift off to become some northern hemispheric Venezuela, pursuing insane socialist policies on the back of declining oil revenues - because it will bankrupt itself.

Scots may be angry and upset at the recession.  Who isn't?  They may despise politicians for their gutlessness, for their failures, for their lies.  Who doesn't?  However, that is who is exactly keen for them to vote "Yes".

An independent Scotland makes politicians in Holyrood more powerful, makes Alex Salmond a bigger cheese than he is, it feeds their egos and they are willing to lie and deceive to get there.

Most of all, a vote for an independent Scotland is irreversible.

It isn't like a general election which gives a chance to boot out the bastards and reverse what has happened.

Independence is for life.

Virtually every country that has voted for independence in recent years did so largely with a massive mandate in favour, and few regrets or doubts expressed about the wisdom of independence.  These independence movements were almost always due to war or obvious history of ethnic rivalry or previous dictatorship (e.g. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia).

Scotland's independence campaign has none of this.

I'm going to write in the next day or so about this, it's an optimistic campaign, but it is trying to sell independence on complete fiction and fear, more than that optimism.  It deserves to be consigned to history.

Rotherham Council more concerned about causing offence than stopping rape

What was the first response of child protection officers and Police in Rotherham, UK, when facing evidence of organised gangs of Asian men raping, brutalising and otherwise abusing young girls of various background?

"Better be careful, we might be accused of being racist".

That's one of the damning findings of an inquiry published today which found that 1400 children were sexually exploited in the borough between 1997 and 2013, a third of whom were known by child protection officers.

It is a wanton failure by the state to do its job as

"Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers.
At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE (Child Sexual Exploitation), regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime"

but what is particularly galling is how the embrace of the doctrine of Identity Politics and fear of being found to be politically incorrect closed down enquiries.

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire
period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how
best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem,
which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the
ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction
from their managers not to do so.

In other words, they couldn't cope with the perpetrators being from an ethnic group they had deemed to be "vulnerable", "disadvantaged" or "subject to racism", so they themselves were racist in dismissing or minimise the crimes that included:

There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

By applying collectivist Identity Politics thought to crime, they ignored reality.  Individuals had together, with a toxic cultural attitude to young girls particularly of non-Asian backgrounds, raped and brutalised victims with impunity.  Effectively protected by those too scared to call them out on it or act decisively, because they didn't want to be accused of being "racist".

It's the consequence of embracing post-modernist structuralism.  The philosophy that there is no such thing as objective reality, only power structures that need to be broken down, and which public policy and politics should reflect. 

The result is that real victims were neglected and not protected, real violent sex offenders were treated with hand-wringing anxiety and appeasement, because what mattered most was that nobody should be offended (except of course the victims who were treated as inconvenient or at worst, culpable).

Rotherham Council has been run by the Labour Party since it was created in 1974.

I've written more about it here, on my UK blog.

UK porn laws ban some comics

The death of Sir John Mortimer, barrister and writer, best known for writing the Rumpole of the Bailey radio play and subsequent television series, brought memories about his great fight for freedom of speech. His battles were many, the album "Never Mind the Bollocks" wouldn't have the word "bollocks" if he hadn't defended Virgin Records in court against accusations of obscenity. Mortimer famously engaged in a debate with well known moral evangelist Mary Whitehouse, and John Howard (then future leader of the Conservative Party) on free speech, citing how basically those who call for censorship think those who censor wont be harmed, but they are protecting the mass of the population, who are considered imbeciles.

However, the UK doesn't learn. As two pieces of legislation have taken it further.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act has make it illegal to possess "extreme pornography". What is that then? It is extreme images which were produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

Que Horreur! Sexual arousal? How dare THAT happen - not in BRITAIN.

Does Nigel Farage love Vladimir Putin?

No.

However, it looks that way, and in politics that's almost all that matters.

He's made a blunder, in his venal hatred of the EU he's made it the scapegoat and the driving force for the revolution in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, he is wrong and hopefully he wont make the mistake again, as I write on my UK blog.

Islamist censorship is appeased in Britain

So in the past week or so in the UK:

- The Liberal Democrats are debating whether to suspend a Muslim Parliamentary candidate who tweeted a Jesus and Mo cartoon image saying he was not offended by it (and, according to his opponents, using "colourful" language to describe his Islamists opponents).

- Channel 4 and the BBC, both state-owned broadcasters, have refused to broadcast images of the said cartoon, in reporting the story (specifically showing the image with the depiction of Jesus, but concealing the depiction of Mohammed).  The reason given by the BBC was that it would be "gratuitously offensive" to some viewers, yet it was central to understanding what the fuss was about.

This is it...

More on this story here on my UK blog.

Meanwhile, George Galloway, fresh from spreading pro-north Korean propaganda on Russian propaganda channel, RT, is campaigning vehemently against the Liberal Democrat candidate.   There aren't words to describe the creature.

Even a few on the "liberal" left, which has shamefully appeased Islamist views for so long, is finally starting to wake up.

Free speech is under attack, and it is in the heart of the left liberal establishment that the challenge is happening, and they are shaking, shivering and fearful.

For there is no right to be protected from offence in a free society, and the fundamental problem is that the "liberal" left have pushed for laws to essentially do this.  To prohibit views that are offensive to many (and indeed to many libertarians and conservatives too), to seek to socially-engineer views, rather than confront them with debate, boycotts and voluntary action, but to use the state to shut them down.

The problem for them is that in creating this artificial construct, they have deemed it impossible for people of protected "oppressed" groups to be capable of committing the offences they created.  It is why it is politically impossible for many on the left to accept that people of non-European extraction can be racist, or that women can be sexist, or that the religious bigotry of non-Christians (or non-Jews) is a concern.  This doctrine is fed "protected oppressed group" identity students relentlessly, and is seen most recently in the "white privilege", "male privilege" slapdown, designed to shut down debate with a pejorative that implies you are not entitled to participate, because of your background.

Quite simply, until those of the "liberal" left eject this post-modernist collectivist identity politics fantasy, they cannot credibly take Islamists on.

So if those who proclaim opposition to racism, sexism, oppression of homosexuals and promotion of secularism cannot take on an ideology that is racist, sexist, oppresses homosexuality, oppresses any deviation from its religion, then their philosophical foundations are found wanting.

Thatcher week and then some

It's been huge in the UK.  Paeans on one side, hatred on the other.  So much to read, but today's bits are

- City AM editor Alastair Heath on how the left are wrong that Thatcher's policies led to the banking crisis and as an acolyte of Hayek, she would have disapproved of the protection from moral hazard presented by the pre-crisis regulatory and monetary policy environment (and the post-crisis bailouts).

- People are organising "Thatcher death parties" which, of course, she would say is their fundamental right.  Reminding us all that to even discuss such a thing for a dead leader in the former Soviet bloc would be to risk   the secret police having one, for you, without so much laughter.  She might have wondered if they think their children and grandchildren would be proud of them, and who else they would hold such a party for, but finally that it says more of them than of her.  Highlighted is one Romany Blythe, a drama teacher who is organising a death party saying "people danced when Hitler died" and who proudly flies the red flag.

Think the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust might invite this vapid empty head to meet some people who can tell her what Hitler was like.  She's prove beyond doubt that Thatcher's biggest mistake was not to privatise education.

- The Adam Smith Institute take on current popular UK leftwing pinup Owen Jones on "something called facts", which as a child of communist parents Jones finds get in the way of a good bashing of capitalism.

Meanwhile...

Here is the intellectual depth of most of the hatred of Thatcher

Meanwhile, George Galloway, sympathiser of Saddam Hussein, supporter of "accepting" the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who said the Syrian people are "lucky" to have Bashar Assad as their leader (and who calls out Western intervention wherever he finds it, but is curiously silent about Russia's intervention in Syria, has done one better.

He now sympathises with North Korea with its "innocent and pristine" culture.... of locking up children as political prisoners for the sins of their family.   Of course he still trots out the North Korean line that the USA started the Korean War, a piece of propaganda disproved by the opening of the Soviet archives and even more recently by a few Chinese academic pronouncements.

- Christine Lagarde and the IMF warn against what monetary policy retard Russel Norman is proposing.  Money printing is creating a timebomb (City AM) warning it will be hard to reverse these policies when it is needed without there being a profound market reaction (i.e. bursting bubble)

British politics changed this week - principles are being discussed

Having lived only in the UK and New Zealand, I've witnessed only a few passings of political leaders.  In the UK,  I barely missed Ted Heath and James Callaghan's passing.  In NZ, I recall the passing of Rob Muldoon and David Lange, oh and Bill Rowling (truly a footnote I barely recall).

None have been more than a fraction of the influence that Margaret Thatcher has had on the world, and because she was driven first and foremost by principle and a commitment visceral belief in freedom and resistance to communism.

The more there is of her, the more it is abundantly clear that she turned the tide of history for the UK, and that the left, with its faux compassion and peculiar attachment to central planning, only wishes it could do the same in reverse.

The media coverage of her has been wall to wall, and there is no lack of writing for and against her, but what really counts is the level of discussion.  Conservative Home is perhaps the best place to find links to much of that coverage, positive and negative.

Perhaps the most poignant point made of her yesterday was in the House of Lords. Lord Tebbit, who left Parliament in 1987 for family reasons, regretted his retirement from politics saying "I left her, I fear, at the mercy of her friends. That I do regret".   Men, and they all were, who will themselves be footnotes in history, floored a giant.  Yes, because she made one big mistake, but none would get her to change that through principle, but for popularity.  She wasn't going to have that.

Time after time, backbench Conservative MPs have paid testimony to her out of principle. Those who opposed her have shown themselves up for what they are.  Socialists who think they know how to spend other people's money, whose compassion is only shown by their belief in spending other people's money, and whose decade after decade of caricature have been shown up for being false.

Portrayal of Thatcher as a warmongerer, for taking on the invasion of the Falklands by a fascist military dictatorship is simply churlish.  To say she supported apartheid has been thoroughly shouted down, because she considered those fighting it to be no angels either.  The claims that what she did "caused the ills of today" are treated as laughable, 23 years later.  Memories of rubbish piling up in the streets, blackouts and strikes shutting down the economy, and limits on foreign currency purchases, cause some of the young to notice how far we have come.  Few want to go back to a phone monopoly that took weeks to supply a new phone.

Finally, the caricature of her as a predatory heartless hater of the poor is shown to be just that - the creation of leftwing spin that could not confront her willingness to cut the blood supply of dying industries, that was draining the life from the living.  She didn't cut the welfare state, she didn't privatise the NHS and nobody could accuse her of withdrawing state support for the poor.  She was a conservative, not a libertarian.  She believed the welfare state existed to cover people when they had bad fortune, to give them what they needed before they found or created a new opportunity.  The left simply wanted all of these people to be forever dependent on the state, and the unions that destroyed businesses by demanding pay rises of 20-30% every year.

"Divisive" Thatcher won three elections in a row, with landslides, whereas the 1970s were plagued with governments of tiny majorities and a short run coalition.  Indeed the late 1970s were plagued with militant union strikes under the Labour Party, as the unions thought Callaghan to be too moderate, as what they wanted was Soviet style socialism (don't believe me? Google "Arthur Scargill and Lenin").  

There were 605,000 miners in 1960, 289,000 in 1970, 235,200 by 1979 and 62,000 in 1990.  Far more lost their jobs under Harold Wilson than under Thatcher.  Manufacturing production rose 7.5% between 1979 and 1990, smashing the lie that she destroyed industrial production.  What did happen was that the services sector took off, shrinking manufacturing as a proportion of GDP.  

What shines above it all were her principles, and these are like a shining light in today's politics of spin, compromise and polls... they are worth remembering.

Ed Miliband is an economic and moral vacuum

The UK Leader of the Opposition is empty.  His One Nation rhetoric is the antithesis of what he offers, which is a vision of "them" (the rich, which curiously excludes himself) and "us" (people on welfare, people working for government).

The man who offers envy, class hatred, regulation of private enterprise and more state housing to an economy lumbered by public debt that he denies is the fault of his very party when it was in power.

The man who uses terms of utter lies, like "bedroom tax" (there isn't one) and "tax cut for millionaires" (there isn't one, there isn't a tax on wealth), and fuels disdain and anger against entrepreneurs, private enterprise and success, by pandering to beneficiaries and state employees.

Read more here.

I bought the Sun today

I don't usually, but this is almost a work of art.  A damning indictment on a government that has failed to do enough for the economy, and is seeking to regulate the press.   Commentary and sarcasm that is all too clear.

UK budget - not one for growth

I wanted this being big tax cuts, funded by a serious capping on the welfare state, cutting of wasteful state spending and bureaucracies, supported by some privatisation.

We got this.

Small tax cuts on companies and on beer, a worthwhile increase in the income tax free threshold to £10k.  Small tax increases on other alcoholic drinks, owning a car, catching a flight and elimination of some tax credits and a mini Fanny Mae type mortgage guarantee scheme, and subsidised loans for home buyers.  There were some new exemptions on climate change obligations for some sectors, which is promising.

Overall, nothing much to see at all.  Public debt growing to close to 100%, budget deficit at levels higher than any OECD country and economic growth forecast to only be 0.6%.

No, the Conservatives wont be winning in 2015 at this rate, and no Labour offers nothing more than a bit more borrowing and a bit more money thrown at public housing and railway projects.  

Launching my UK blog

Yes, I have had enough of maintaining a dual existence in one place.  I have decided to put all of my writings on UK politics in one place, largely because that is where much of my focus now is.

Of course I am still following New Zealand politics and will write on them, and more widely here.  I will also still post short links to the UK posts here, but will not be clogging this up with UK focused material that NZ and other readers are uninterested in.  I simply couldn't go from writing about north Korea, then the NHS to whether Auckland should have an underground railway and think I had a consistency of target audience there!

So please go visit.  My latest post is on the cross-party agreement on press regulation in the UK, and the excellent editorial by City AM Editor Allister Heath, who is the UK's best and only libertarian newspaper editor.   Even if you are not interested in business and financial news, reading his editorial every day is a warm reminder that belief in capitalism, free markets and freedom more broadly, is not just held by a few.

Heath made some core points worth summarising here:

- Consensus in politics is a disaster. "Conformity stinks, it leads to freedoms being curtailed, pockets being picked and a conspiracy against the public interest";

- "There is no way that Britain's new framework would ever be possible in the US";

- The criminal behaviour of journalists was and is criminal, there is no need any new laws;

- "The many are paying for the sins of the few";

- "we have fallen out of love with freedom";

- "Freedom, ultimately is indivisible; the only reason why regulation of the media didn't happen any sooner was because newspapers were too influential.  Now that their power is waning, they are fair game, like everything and everybody else".

It's not "your" Banksy

Who owns graffiti?

Let's say you own a building.  Yes, I know that for some this concept of property rights is rather alien, but humour me for a moment.  It's your building.  You have a wall on the property line up against the footpath or another public space.

If someone spray painted it you'd think that you had every right to do what you wish with your wall, as long as you don't put others at risk.  You could leave it, remove it/paint over it, or even remove the wall right?

Banksy Wood Green

No.  You see this is exactly what has happened in Wood Green, London.  

The anonymous artist 'Banksy' had painted this image of a child working in sweatshop conditions making bunting.  The owner of the building, a pair of property developers, cut out the wall to sell it at an art auction in the United States, sparking outrage.   Locals were outraged considering that the art was "theirs", because it could be seen publicly.

The sale was halted as even the FBI allegedly asked Scotland Yard to "investigate" according to the Evening Standard, but Scotland Yard has refused to investigate as it is not a criminal matter.

The locals who thought a wall, that they didn't own, was theirs, managed to gee up a few local politicians, ever keen to hop on a bandwagon and treat property rights as ephemeral.  Alan Strickland, a Labour councillor (big surprise) for Haringey has said he wants it returned.  Local MP, Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat - another party with little respect for private property rights) has also called for it to be returned asking "will we get it back"?  Who is this "we"?  

Why do politicians think that just because a (relatively small) group of loud people demand other people's property that this is "ok"?  Do they really think that the future of graffiti on a private wall should be put to public acclaim?  Does it mean anyone can paint your external wall and if he gets a gang of locals and a couple of leftwing politicians on side, that you can't paint over it?

One of the owners points out the irony:

I cannot believe it’s over graffiti on a wall that has caused this. We had a case with one of our buildings where we had graffiti and the council told us they would fine us over £1000 if we didn’t remove it.“The council have done nothing to protect it. They’ve not helped us in any way. They’ve just caused us more problems and more problems"

So on your own property, the council fines you if it doesn't like it, but then harasses if it does?

It ought to be simple.

If Banksy (or anyone) chooses to paint on a wall of a building that he doesn't own (or without the permission of the owner), then he takes the risk that it is removed, obliterated or left as is.  Bear in mind that using someone else's property temporarily is the crime of conversion, and that the painting may be seen as vandalism.  Art it may be to some observers, but it isn't their property.  You don't have the right to tell other people what they may do with their property.

The owners were quite within the rights to ignore the baying crowd and remove the wall.  The baying crowd that didn't offer to buy it, that didn't do anything to protect the wall, that are only too willing to demand something that isn't theirs becomes theirs.   Cheered on by politicians that belong to parties that would tax the property owners every year to pay for the bloated states they support.

Not one of them offering to buy the wall themselves with their own money, they just want to regulate and interfere.

What of Banksy?  Well if he wants his art to be protected then he might approach the property owners before he paints on their walls.   Yes that "isn't the point" and is part of the anarchy that the anti-establishment loves, but property rights are important.  Because when you can't control what you own, then you don't own it.   So if he wants to be "pure", then accept that sometimes the property owners wont like it, sometimes they will accept it and sometimes they will say "thank you, that's our wall".

Five big issues - five government responses - five libertarian answers

The UK has had high profile news items all week, so I thought I'd quickly summarise the issue, what the government said and what it should have done...

The issues being:

Gay Marriage

EU Budget

NHS deaths

Horsemeat

Paying for long term care of the elderly

NHS kills thousands due to neglect - no one held accountable

The United Kingdom's state religion - the Anglican Church NHS

A foreigner visiting or moving to the UK discovers soon after arrival that, unlike any other country, there is a remarkable pride and enthusiasm over its state owned, operated and (pretty much) fully taxpayer funded health service.  The initials NHS are more than just a state institution or a public service, but hold a near sacred status in the UK public zeitgeist about healthcare.  You saw it in the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony, directed by the leftwing Danny Boyle, who decided to celebrate the NHS as something distinctly British to be proud of.

It seems, given that universal health care is pretty much universal in the developed world  (even the US has only had a small minority excluded from health care), a trifle odd.  Setting aside the issues of the United States, there are no fundamental issues of access to health care elsewhere in the developed world, even though it is difficult to find other countries that adopt the NHS model - whereby the users never pay for anything (except nominal prescription, dental and optical services fees for some), where there is little choice of provider (your choice is dependent on where you live and you cannot travel to select a different primary health provider) and funding flows from a centrally planned and directed system to mostly state owned providers.

It declares that:

Since its launch in 1948, the NHS has grown to become the world’s largest publicly funded health service. It is also one of the most efficient, most egalitarian and most comprehensive.

If it does say so itself!

A core mantra is "the NHS remains free at the point of use for anyone who is resident in the UK".  Setting aside the rather loose approach it takes to charging non-residents or

It's proud of its size, which it shouldn't be, as it speaks volumes about what is fundamentally wrong with it:

The NHS employs more than 1.7m people. Of those, just under half are clinically qualified...Only the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the Wal-Mart supermarket chain and the Indian Railways directly employ more people