Freedom of Speech

If you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend spending some time (it’s quite long) watching Tommy Robinson’s speech at the Oxford Union.

Although I’d already seen most of the clips he used to illustrate his talk, they’re still powerful. The Stacey Dooley one stands the test of time. (I wrote about that documentary “My Hometown Fanatics”  on B-BBC. (Feb 28th 2012) ) Of course the clip that Tommy cherry picked was the bit where Luton’s most objectionable Islamists were out in force, ignoring Stacey Dooley’s annoying attempts at even-handedness, as well as a comedic  - perhaps unintentional - moment when the camera lingered on a huge slice of cake, untouched, that had been set before a young lady peering at it through two holes in her black full-faced burka. How on earth is she going to eat that? Viewers were not to find out.  

Other clips he used to illustrate his talk included statements from people intimidated and victimised by Muslims, a punch in the face through a car window from an enraged Muslim in a nightie, and the film about Tommy and cousin Kevin's ‘charity march’, which shows atrociously ham-fisted policing that resulted in the aggressors being protected and the victims arrested. 

The entire speech was constrained by ‘prison licence’ restrictions, which decree that Tommy Robinson must not mention certain things on pain of being rearrested and returned to custody.

 True to form, the usual suspects objected to the very idea that Robinson should be given a platform to declaim his fascist views. (!)

From the Gates of Vienna site

As reported here last month, Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, was sent back to prison for 28 days. The ostensible reason for renewing his incarceration was that he had reported via Twitter that there had been death threats against his family. Considering that his original prison sentence had been for “mortgage fraud”, jugging him again on the Twitter pretext to demonstrates the political nature of his prosecution and imprisonment.
Mr. Robinson believes that he was returned to prison to keep him for participating in a debate at the Oxford Union on October 24, at which he had been invited to speak. Now that he is out, he is preparing to take part in this month’s Oxford Union debate, despite the fact that he might be sent back to prison for doing so.We just received this brief report from a source close to Tommy Robinson:Tommy Robinson was released from prison (again) on Friday 14th November, and appeared in court on Monday 17th November.After he was released, we re-arranged Tommy’s debate at the Oxford Union for the 26th November. Tommy was visited by the Probation Services and informed that if he attends this debate, he is not allowed to talk about Islam, Mohammed, or the Koran. If he does he will be recalled to prison.Tommy is still determined to go and explain why he cannot debate certain subjects, and express his concerns that his freedom of speech is being silenced with the threat of prison when NONE of the above topics relate to his ‘mortgage fraud’. Tommy feels that this is the way they are going to handle things now to try and silence him.Please help us make as many people as possible aware of the games that the government are playing in an attempt to keep him from speaking out.

The double standards of a crazy mixed-up judicial and governmental system that bans people from entering the UK who they fear might incite racial hatred or social unrest by speaking against radical Islam, yet protects or ignores the likes of Anjem Choudary, apparently a state-funded individual,   who calls for Sharia law and instigates civil disobedience in the name of  disdain for the UK and the infidels who live there.

Tommy Robinson, sporting an extreme Kim Jong-un haircut, spoke instead about ‘the original reason for initiating the EDL’. The fact that this necessitated mentioning Islam has probably not gone unnoticed, so we’ll have to see if he stays out of prison.

There has been a great deal of discussion about freedom of speech recently. People are up in arms about North Korea’s sour reaction to the film industry’s comical portrayal of their dear leader and the subsequent 'hackmailing' activities. Silencing Tommy could be seen as a step towards the thin end of a similar wedge. Even the squeamish Sarah AB seems to be wondering about  that.

Even though he stumbles over the occasional word, Tommy is undeniably eloquent. He definitely got the better of Jeremy Paxman on at least a couple of occasions.

The discussion on the Harry’s Place thread, mainly around Sarah AB’s agonising over whether or not Tommy Robinson is against radical Islam (a good thing) or Islam per se. (bad) Since no-one agrees on what is or isn’t the real Islam, this is a slippery concept, which cannot definitively be grasped.

Tommy has certainly been at pains to explain that he’s not against all Muslims in the best ‘some of my best friends are etc.’ tradition, but some commenters remain unconvinced, and others are against Islam in all its guises, if for no other reason than its inherent antisemitism. Which is quite a different matter from saying one hates all Muslims.

But you’re not allowed to say stuff like that these days. 

Unfortunately they haven’t yet released the Q and A session that followed the speech, but I understand that they intend to do so eventually. 

Tommy was clear, throughout the speech, that he was trying to persuade the audience to put themselves in the shoes of a  native Lutonite, and I think it was quite obvious that he doubted any of that particular audience would find that at all easy. The questions they asked might have shed more light on that., and it’s a pity that he felt he needed to spend so much time explaining - justifying- the EDL, because the nitty gritty is not so much the justification of the EDL or Quilliam, but the disturbing effect that mass Muslim immigration and the establishment's pandering to it is having on Britain. I hope the Oxford students aren’t too PC to recognise this.

Snubbing Thugs and Banning Bloggers

Even though what I am about to say is only indirectly related to the BBC, the presupposition is that the BBC is largely responsible for the politically correct constraints that stunt our thinking. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

Melanie Phillips has written about Theresa May’s ill-advised decision to ban Geller and Spencer. It seems the government has caved in to pressure from the likes of  Tony Lloyd and Nick Lowles, two of the most disreputable individuals ever to have influenced a Home Secretary.

'making your world secure'

Melanie Phillips explains what a bad move this is, and I agree with her, but with one reservation. She says:

“I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.”

Many people think Geller is generally out of order and a loose cannon, and perhaps a slightly fewer number think Spencer goes too far, and in the process of denouncing him deliberately spin and re-interpret selected quotes of his, to strengthen their case and justify Theresa May’s ban. That is another matter. 

Excluding the hard left who have adopted a bizarre political alliance with Islam and think banning Geller and Spencer the right thing to do even though they don’t encourage banning violent Jihadis, people who think the ban is ridiculous and who denounce radical Islam (or criticise Islam itself) yet religiously distance themselves from the EDL because of ‘thuggishness’, reveal their own ignorance of a particular type of “white working class”. This is where I take issue. Melanie says Geller and Spencer’s “endorsement” of the EDL wields a serious blow to both writers’ credibility, which has: 

“split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.”

It could be argued that her outright dismissal of Tommy Robinson and the EDL also “splits the defence against Islamic extremism etc etc.”

Despite the similarity between his arguments and their own, people who refuse to entertain the validity of Tommy Robinson’s position because he hasn’t succeeded in reining in his followers seem hypocritical. Particularly when that view comes from those of the left whose entire political views revolve around establishing equality for the working class. 

They expect, nay demand, that poorly educated, relatively inarticulate so-called yobbos whose 'lifestyle choices' are blighted by inferior schooling and lack of opportunities -  the very deprivations the political left specifically decry - behave like middle class liberals, forming an orderly queue and singing Kumbya. It’s as though they’re blaming them for what, in the next breath, they say is unfair. Condemned for being what they are, merely because of 'social immobility', lack of opportunity, bog standard education, etcetera. 

In fact they’re highlighting their own insularity. Some members of the EDL do have tattoos and shaved heads. They can be crude, rude and boisterous. Some of them have been to prison. But that doesn’t alter the fact that they don’t like the change that has befallen towns like Luton and feel, understandably that the character of their hometown has been stolen from under their noses. They don’t see why they should tolerate the unfamiliarity, uncertainty and insecurity they foresee as the UK’s future, or be arrested for making a stand by cheekily walking through was has apparently been demarcated a “Muslim area” -  “In our own country!”    

The EDL are guilty of actively demonstrating as an expression of their frustration, unlike their passive detractors or counterparts like me who can only moan and blog. 

They have taken the initiative and are doing something, therefore they deserve to be listened to rather than denounced by those who likewise bemoan the government’s capitulation, who argue nicely and politely against all institutional kowtowing to Islam, who also  see the change that has befallen towns like Luton and cities like London and fear the unfamiliarity, uncertainty and insecurity that awaits us, but who nevertheless determinedly and yobbo-phobically distance themselves from the EDL.

There are also yobbo-phobes amongst politicians and the BBC/Guardian axis who, for the sake of social cohesion, insist that most Muslims are moderate and harmless. 

For the sake of social cohesion they might also assert that violence, sexual grooming, misogyny and homophobia are a distortion of Islam, they might tolerate antisemitism because they believe it is understandable, they might  overlook intolerance, rudeness and exploitative sexual practices from Muslims lest they offend any of them. This group objects only to what it calls “radical” Islam, and it insists that its opposition to the EDL is based on the inaccurate and disingenuous declaration that they “hate all Muslims”.

So the EDL and Tommy R are rejected and vilified as racists by people from all sides; defenders of free speech, opponents of the Islamization of the UK, deniers of the Islamization of the UK, people who support violence if it’s needed to defend, for example, Israel and people who oppose violence especially if it’s needed to defend Israel.   

Certainly there are truly racist and xenophobic elements everywhere, but not necessarily exclusively confined to the the ranks of the EDL.