Now that David Cameron and the Conservative Party achieved a convincing victory in the UK elections, they have set about clamping down on any speech that the government thinks is ‘extremist’, despite their recent loud claims to champion free speech.
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
Cameron goes on to say. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.”
He then curiously adds, ““Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”
So according to Cameron, it is no longer good enough to obey the law, even as he praises the rule of law and freedom of speech, something that sounds positively Orwellian.
Glenn Greenwald says that “I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German” and adds that Cameron’s move is part of a new and disturbing larger pattern among of restricting free speech in western democracies in the name of fighting ‘extremism’.
Movies and novels about dystopian worlds are all the rage these days. Apparently the people didn’t notice we already live in one.
Has anybody asked the Tories whether ANYTHING in Charlie Hebdo would pass their review?
ooo,this will be fun. Maybe Cameron wants a no confidence vote!?
First this harks back to the banning of broadcasting Sinn Fein/IRA “propaganda” in the 80’s, which was easily and ridiculously circumvented by dubbing over the real voices in an interview with an actor speaking the words. It led to some comedy gold as the likes of Gerry Adams raved and banged a table, while a disembodied Irish accent deadpanned the words.
It made it look like the Tories couldn’t organise a ban in a banning factory 🙂
Then there’s the problem of the slim majority , some of whom will be ultra libertarian lovers of freeze peach, while a few will be sitting on slim majorities comprising Muslim voters who are fed up of being the bad guys.
I cant see this ending well for the Tories 😀
Define “extremist speech”.
Dollars to doughnuts says Cameron means it in the same way as the US (environmentalists are terrorists) and the RCMP in Canada (people who oppose oil pipeline development are terrorists).
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jan/21/fracking-activism-protest-terrorist-oil-corporate-spies
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/article23019252/
“Extremist speech” has always been a code word for speech that is unwelcome. It used to be a point of pride for the British to be able to speak freely in public, the symbolism of Hyde Park Corner seems to be a thing of the past.
If they wish to crackdown on “extremism” in Airship One Cameron’s speech would be a good place to start.
I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what this means. Part of it is coded most likely. If I’m reading it correctly, the part that confuses is this:
“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”
This is not intended as further clarification of a point. They’ve already said the bill is about fighting extremism. The part above reads more like it’s attempting to provide an antithesis for things that do fall afoul of this sort of obviously abusive nonsense. You’re supposed to not look at it quite that closely so when you hear something is banned using that law you think it obviously isn’t free speech, has nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law or freedom of worship.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
I’ll believe that when I see the law turned against the white extremists who want to strip everyone else of their rights. When UKIP and AVfM get shafted en masse, I’ll at least respect the lawmakers for being honest about their intentions. (I still won’t support it though…)