Nun's The Word

I'm afraid to say that I've had another of my "Oh, for God's sake" moments with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Students of this blog will already be aware that I really hate the ASA. They have a habit of poking their not inconsiderable noses into places they should be leaving well alone.

The latest Exhibit: this utterly harmless picture, supporting an advertising campaign for ice cream, from the Italian firm Antonio Federici.

Just for the sake of clarity: you are viewing an image of a heavily-pregnant nun, in a church, eating ice cream. The truly tremendous strap-line is: "immaculately conceived". Now I see what marketing gurus get paid for.

The ASA's reason for goose-stepping in on this is that the adverts "mock Roman Catholic beliefs". "So bloody what ?" you may well ask. So might the wider public, it seems. When the images appeared in The Lady and Grazia magazines earlier this year, the poor ASA's switchboard operators were simply inundated - swept aside - by a total of....ten complaints.

Now, let's be fair just for a moment. If an advert had been brought out which was seen as mocking Islam, and the ASA banned that (which they would, without hesitation) we'd all be saying "I bet they wouldn't ban an ad which mocked Christianity". So at least they're wielding their weapons of free-speech destruction in an even-handed way. But it is completely wrong that no one should be able to take the Mickey out of religion in such a mild-mannered form.

It says a lot about the status afforded to religion by the Establishment in this country that it can enjoy such luxurious protection from any form of mockery or even serious challenge. In becoming ever-more draconian about this, our rulers are demonstrating an increasingly serious disconnection from wider society, which itself is growing ever-more sceptical about the messages handed down to us in the name of religious belief.

Fascinatingly, Antonio Federici have said that they intend to produce new posters along a similar theme, in defiance of the ban, and put them up around Westminster Cathedral to coincide with the Pope's visit. Good on 'em. We need people who are prepared to challenge the power exerted by State-sponsored censorship organisations like the ASA. I'm backing them all the way and I wish them well. I may even seek out their ice cream, just to see if it's as wonderful as they claim.

And I really quite fancy that nun...

The Biter Is Bitten

There is a vaguely satisfying feeling to be had when the State breaks its own inane rules and consequently bans something that it has, itself, produced; but the news that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has once again been throwing its weight around is not a cause for universal celebration.

I’ve blogged about these people before. Let me put this mildly. I really am not very keen on them. They are, in short, an unelected, unaccountable QUANGO with too much power for anybody’s good.

Synopsis: The Association of Chief Police Officers has commissioned a radio advert encouraging people to snoop on their next-door neighbours and report pretty much anything and everything to the Police lest it be a sign that they’re engaged in terrorism. Does the slightly withdrawn person at the end of your road keep their curtains drawn and generally pay for things in cash ? If so, you need to report it sharpish, because it might mean he’s a terrorist. No, really, it might.

Horrendous advert, you might say. A colossal waste of public money, you might say. Encourages people to spy on their fellow-citizens and potentially provokes a petty, tell-tale society, you might say. Could lead to thousands of innocent people falling under suspicion just because they forgot to say “Good morning” to someone, you might say. Will probably just get used as a lever by the Police for more funding as they have to open scores of new contact centres to deal with all the calls from assorted busy-bodies who’ve got nothing better to do than to report some poor unfortunate soul to the authorities for forgetting their Chip & PIN number, you might say. A shocking indictment on how we law-abiding citizens are seen today by those to whom we pay huge sums supposedly to keep us safe, you might say. Probably counter productive in any case, you might say. And you’d be right, on each and every count. But that is no reason for banning the ad.

So, why has it been banned ? Well, it’s because when it was broadcast on TalkSport, it generated a grand total of: (cue the dramatic drum roll that normally precedes the revelation of a really big number) 18 complaints. From people who had been offended, of course. And so the much-loved ASA stepped heroically in and saved the country from risk of further offence.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that just as individuals and companies should have the right to speak their mind, so should the State. And if the State wants to annoy (or even, heaven help us, offend) a load of right-thinking people whilst trying to disseminate a ridiculous and purile message, that’s up to them. Obviously they should get completely slammed by the Audit Commission for spending our money in that way and whichever sick, uniformed, jack-booted Nazi who dreamed the idea up in the first place should get sacked, but banning free speech is a serious measure and whatever the ASA thinks about likely offence should have nothing to do with it.

So, yes, it’s a stupid advert. Yes, it’s good in one way that we don’t have to listen to it, if nothing else because it demonstrates the utter contempt with which the Police view us as individuals; for that reason alone it never deserved to see the light of day. And yes, it’s amusing that one tentacle of the State has been stopped in its tracks courtesy of the massive extension of power granted to another tentacle by successive governments. But that is no reason to extol the banning of this advert by the ASA. Common decency and plain common sense decree that this ad should never have been made. The fact that it’ll wind a few people up does not.

Underneath it all, this story sends (actually re-enforces, because it’s happened so many times before) the message that nobody can broadcast any advert considered even vaguely controversial any more just in case some dipstick somewhere comes over all offended by it. And that is fundamentally wrong.

The Right To Hurl Mindless Abuse

Here is a sign of how far political correctness and the abandonment of free speech has taken us.

As a southerner, it took me while to get the hang of rugby league when I moved to Yorkshire. At first I thought it was some kind of formation mugging. I did get to like it though, and I particularly grew to enjoy the banter of the supporters; coarse and ribald it might have been from time-to-time, but it was generally good-natured and less tribal than what you'd hear on the football terraces. It was, it seemed, a bastion of uninhibited and unpoliced joshing.

Not any more. Castleford have been fined £40,000 because a small group of their supporters threw "homophobic chants" at an openly gay opponent. £40,000's quite a lot of money in rugby; the game is not awash with millions as football is. Thus this will hurt Castleford. But it's not the fine itself that fills me with the most anger or fear. It's the fact that the club is somehow supposed to prevent it. According to Castleford:

"The DVD confirms that this was three faint, short bursts of chanting each of five seconds duration, over a period of four minutes. Two of the chants were drowned out by PA announcements and the third stopped very shortly after commencing as there was no support for it."

OK, so this means that club is supposed to have so many stewards stationed round its ground that it can identify, pretty much immediately, any short chant, song or shout that may offend our lords and masters. Finding where a chant comes from is not easy in a crowd. Preventing a repeat might be even harder, requiring stewarding of sufficent numbers to deal with the supposed perbetrators.

What we've therefore come to is an expectation that private companies such as rugby clubs are expected to do the State's dirty work for it by rooting out behaviour that it (the State) objects to but that few others give a monkey's about. The expense involved, not to mention the restrictions placed on the rights of the fans to vent their frustrations, speaks volumes for the extent to which the State now rules over ever aspect of our lives. You can't go to a rugby game and call someone a poof ?

It really is time the people hit back.

At Last !

I haven't been inspired during the election campaign. I care about the outcome, mainly because the idea of another five years of Gordon Brown fills me with nothing short of despair. But no one has grabbed me and instilled enthusiasm in me.

If there was a Libertarian Party candidate in my area, I'd vote for them. I do think they're a bit wacky, and I haven't quite reconciled myself to the abolition of gun control or even the decriminisalisation of all drugs. But I believe the country needs a wholesale reversal of the assualt on liberty that 13 years of scoailism has inflicted upon us. And until now, I haven't seen anyone else who really "gets it". Until now, perhaps ?

But this story did get hold of me. Any party which launches an attack on the "Big Brother State" will do for me. I simply love the idea of a "Great Repeal Bill", in which the worst excesses of ZaNu Labour's nanny, intrusive, "thou shalt not", DNA-retaining, free-speech hating, ever-spying Stasi are rolled back in one go. No ID cards, no HIPs, more limited power of entry of the State into your house. What a truly fantastic thing. If it happens.

Cameron has, at times, touched on civil liberties and just suggested, from time-to-time, that he hates what Labour have done in government and is genuinley concerned by the extenstions in State power at the expense of the individual. But never, as far as I'm aware, has he articulated something as concrete as a single Act of Parliament as a means of starting the fightback.

The best thing about this is that it really should survive a hung parliament. The Liberals, if they are as good as their word (yeah, OK, point taken) really should back it to the hilt. It ought to be the easiest single bill for Cameron to push through. And that being the case, Dave shouldn't stop at HIPs and ID cards. He should carry on, and deal too with imprisonment without trial, restrictions on free speech, the outrageous smoking bans, the rise of the Food Police, the need to carry out CRB checks on all and sundry, child curfews, the increased likelihood of arrest if you take a photograph in the street, the right to run round town in one's underpants, the exponential rise in the number of CCTV cameras, attacks on peple trying to practice Christianity, right through to the practice of teachers to impound our children's Mars Bars.

That should be enough for him to be going on with.

No Token Gesture

This story caught my eye yesterday: footballer investigated by the police because he allegedly made a gesture to the crowd. And it left me thinking: have the police (and presumably, potentially the courts, the Probations Service and God knows who else) really not got better things to do ?

Since when, in any case, was it illegal to give someone a V-sign (or equivilent) ? Have we really reached the state in this country when you can't even make a gesture without landing yourself in trouble with the authorities ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning what the guy's alleged to have done and if his club or the FA want to discipline him that's fine by me. Need to make sure our players (many of whom need taking down a few pegs anyway) set the right example to kids etc.. But the police ? Seriously ?

Perhaps the time has come to re-write the entire statute book. Instead of listing everything that's illegal, just write down the things we're still allowed to do without the State interfering. Shouldn't take long.

Nice People Don't Ban Adverts

There are many different types of censorship operating in this country. I've only just come to realise how many different tools are at the disposal of our rulers, and how many they use on a day-to-day basis.

For starters there’s the very obvious type of censorship, increasingly regularly used by the Government; quite simple, straightforward and in your face - the “Say-that-and-we’ll-lock-up”-type thing. Examples of this are specific laws against inciting mass murder and so on. This is Censorship By Decree.

Towards the other end of the scale there is censorship on the basis of social acceptability – the “Everyone-will-look-very-shocked-and-uncomfortable-and-say-‘Oooo-you-can’t-say-that’” form. Irish jokes probably fall into this category (although maybe you could be thrown into prison for telling one these days, who knows ?) This category of censorship usually originates from government or from the Establishment more generally, because they set the tone, but they don't actually impose it on us formally. Instead they seek – usually over a period of time - to create an atmosphere in which certain opinions are deemed "unacceptable". This, in which the Government try to get us to do their dirty work for them - is altogether a more subtle form of censorship than the type that ends up in criminal convictions; I’d call this Censorship By Indoctrination.

Somewhere on the middle is something I’m going to call Censorship by Quango; it’s an ever-expanding method to silence people who, in the eyes or our rulers, are off-message, and to my mind it’s the most insidious form of censorship of the lot. It's harder to pin on the Government, and may peopel don't even realise it happens. A pressure group (the Guardian calls it a "charity" but frankly that's bollocks) called Release has just fallen victim to it.

Release put an advert on London buses, bearing the slogan "Nice People Take Drugs". The aim was to point out over a third of adults in England have used illicit drugs, and to generate some debate about the fact that the law is not working. Release believes that there has to be some liberalisation of drugs laws if drug usage is going to be managed. A completely legimimate point of view...or so you might think.

Well, you've guessed it, Release has been told that the adverts have to be taken down. The bus company has taken fright, because they fear controversy and a rap over the knuckles from the authorities. They suspect, and I bet they're right, that if the ads were not taken down, they would be banned anyway. In short they have saved the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) a job.

The bus company are even blaming themselves for the ads' appearance in the first place: "We should have run it past the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)". CAP, for those who are unaware of its existence, is administered by the ASA. In other words, these ads were taken down before they were banned...by a quango.

We now live in an era where unelected quangos such as the Advertising Standards Authority have a phenomenal degree of power over the way companies and organisations communicate with people. I've complained before about their banning of an advert featuring women dressed as schoolgirls and another one plugging a film about shooting people. Make no mistake, these guys are powerful. Without many people realising it, bodies like the CAP and the ASA are vetting what we are allowed to see. When it comes to free speech, they are the Government's secret police force.

So, to all intents and purposes, overnight, and courtesy of an unelected, unaccountable group of government-funded administrators, it's illegal to state the bleeding obvious, namely that not all drug users are thugs and hooligans. Except I'm going to say it anyway. If this blog disappears in a few days' time, you'll know why:

NICE PEOPLE TAKE DRUGS

It's been nice knowing you.

Jacqui Smith's Hate List

Any idea who this man is ?

He’s Michael Savage, an American talk-show presenter, or “shock-jock”, as they call them over there. Since October he’s been banned from entering the UK. Why ? Is he a terrorist ? A baby-killer ? A rapist, perhaps ? Well no, actually, not as far as we know. He’s been banned because he has strong views, and he expresses them.

He’s previously described the Quran as a "book of hate", and has said of children with autism that in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

Just thought I’d let you know what he thinks, seeing as he can’t tell you himself.

So this is what Britain has now come to.

For four long years to 1945 Britain and America fought alongside each other in defence of freedom against the principles held by ruthless dictatorships intent on silencing millions. For decades since then, our two countries have time-and-again stood side-by-side when it comes to defending basic human rights. Let us, very briefly, compare our two nations’ approach to freedom in 2009.

Michael Savage is unquestionably controversial, and revels in so being. He routinely articulates views to which a minority would subscribe and which many would find distastful. In freedom-loving America, he is allowed to broadcast daily on national radio, to an audience of millions. In New Labour’s Britain, he is banned. What could possible better illustrate the effects of 12 years of socialism on the basic right of the individual to express a point of view ?

If Labour get re-elected then it really, really will not be long before Savage’s views and hundreds more are banned entirely in the UK, irrespective of whether or not the people who want to express them actually live here.

Savage has now described Jacqui Smith as a “lunatic” and says he’s going to sue her for defamation. Good on him. On both counts.

For her part, Smith loftily - and somewhat darkly - proclaims: "I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here”. Quite. The values we appear to have are these: if we disagree with what you say then you ain’t saying it here.

Our much-loved home Secretary yesterday issued a list of 16 people who are banned from entering the UK on the basis of the views they hold and express. Another six names are being kept secret “in the public interest”, whatever that means.

For a reason I don’t even begin to understand, Smith’s list doesn’t even include Geert Wilders MEP, whom she had detained at Heathrow earlier in the year. It makes you wonder how many other people she’s banned and isn’t telling us about.

For the sake of clarity, here is the complete list of people whom Smith is prepared to admit to having banned. Feel free to Google them to find out what they believe in…do it while you can.

Radio talk show host Michael Savage
American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr
Phelps' daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper
Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal
Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky
Ex Klu Klux Klan grand wizared Stephen Donald Black
Neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe
Russian gang leader Artur Ryno
Russian gang leader Pavel Skachevsky
Preacher Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim
Preacher Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal
Preacher Safwat Hijazi
Preacher Amir Siddique
Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa
Murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar
Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed

I Don't Say This Very Often...

...but hats off to The Sun for giving controversial radio presenter Jon Gaunt a high-profile role.

Gaunt (he's the one on the left, by the way) was sacked by Talk Sport last November for labelling one of those obnoxious anti-smoking tyrants a "Nazi". He offered an apology pretty much on-the-spot, but the little Hitler he had a pop at wouldn't let it go, and Gaunt was dismissed.

TalkSport were roundly criticised at the time by those of us who care about free speech because we saw them as being utterly gutless, bowing as they were to the diktats of political correctness.

So good to see that the Sun has done something vaguely courageous and given him a job fronting their new online audio service.

Gaunt's first job is a tough assignment; to get David Cameron to say something exciting. I wish him the very best of luck.

Hat-tip: Iain Dale.

Jason McCartney Responds

Last week I penned (keyboarded ?) an open letter to my local prospective Conservative Party candidate about the destruction of our liberties by ZaNu Labour.

I look to the Conservatives for a coherent, planned and co-ordinated set of measures to restore habeas corpus and the right to trial by jury, protect free speech, prevent us being watched at every turn and basically ensure we are treated as if we lived in something other than a Communist dictatorship. I find it deeply depressing that no such vision appears to exist within Camp Dave, but I thought I'd write to the bloke who could be my next MP to see what he thinks.

Earlier this week I had a reply. What follows is a slightly abridged version of what he wrote. Initially I was going to leave the first paragraph out but then decided to include it because it was a nice touch and showed that he'd taken the trouble to visit the blog.

Gosh, where do I start. Firstly thanks for getting in touch but I do have to ask, politely of course, where have you been the past few years? Maybe following AFC Wimbledon's glorious charge up the non league pyramid - the Blue Square Premier beckons. Your boys have been getting some great crowds. I remember the old Dons winning 4-0 in an FA Cup tie at Huddersfield in the late 1990s, I think Efan Ekoku scored a couple. I guess we may well be united in hoping Huddersfield Town take all 3 points at the MK Dons tomorrow night?

Back to the last couple of years. I'll make an early party political point but one which I'm very proud of. It's been the Conservatives under successive Shadow Home Secretaries (Davis, Grieve and now Grayling) who have stood up for liberty and freedom for law abiding citizens.

We fought tooth and nail against Gordon Brown's draconian extension of 42 days detention which was more about trying to make the opposition appear to be soft on terrorism rather than tackling it effectively.

We've been opposing the most intrusive and potentially costly ID card system in the world. You and I will end up being fined for losing our cards or leaving them at home whilst the organised criminals and terrorists forge and steal false identities. Would you trust this government with your AFC Wimbledon membership number let alone your DNA or biometric data?

We welcome CCTV in strategically placed crime hot spots but not to the extent that there's now a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens in the UK. I studied Orwell's 1984 for O level back in 1984 and Big Brother is well and truly watching now and not the Channel 4 variety.

We have been opposing proposals for council paid snoopers to spy on our lifestyles, the rubbish in our wheelie bins and which school catchment area we're in. We have been gobsmacked by a governing party that lays out the red carpet for the premier of China allowing foreign security thugs to stifle lawful protest on our streets.

We have spoken up for freedom of speech whilst Labour strongmen throw out pensioners who dare to voice concerns at their party conference whilst the likes of Abu Hamza are left to incite violence and hatred.

Much of this occupies precious police time at a time when some crime, not all before Jacqui gets on the phone from her main home wherever that may be, is going up. Year on year in January, robberies involving knives or sharp instruments increased by 18%, domestic burglaries rose 4% and police-recorded drug offences increased by 9%. That's before we even talk about the 70 young people murdered violently on our streets last year.

Many surveys recently show that the number one issue for law abiding folk is the recession and it's consequences but our ability to prosper and enjoy what I hope will be a Conservative led recovery will only be viable if we have our individual freedoms.

I hope that answers some of your questions,

King regards,
Jason

So, what did I think ? Well firstly and most crucially we've since agreed that the 4-0 Wimbledon win simply didn't happen - he must be confusing us with somebody else.

I'm not sure it would be fair to describe it entirely as a typical politician's response; I think it's a little too human for that. But, and it's a big "but", there is a great deal of what I believe really hacks off the public about politicians in here; namely an attempt to rip the opposition apart and very little about what his own party would do. This is in part symptomatic of the politicians' tendency to think that the quickest route to a vote is a negative one but also, it seems to me, a sign of a wider malaise in the Conservative Party when it comes to fighting for our freedom.

It's easy to fight when you're in Opposition; you just stand up and say "We don't agree". It's when you're in government, when you've got to put what you believe in to practice, when BBC News interviews every State-employed, Nanny-loving do-gooder it can lay its hands on, and when you've actually got something to lose, that the real passion and drive is needed. That's when you're tested to the limit. Many fail at that point, and I worry that Dave will fail there too.

I challenged Jason McCartney to say what the Conservatives would do - how they would find and stay on the long and demanding road back to freedom ? But his reply lacks that vision. Reasonable, you might say, for someone who has never even been an MP ? Perhaps, but if the Conservatives cared anything like as much as we need them to care about restoring our liberties, I'd have expected them to furnish their candidates with some sort of plan, a roadmap, which they could use to reassure us. Something, anything, that says how they're planning to reverse these years of socialism.

He seems like a nice guy. I'm sure he'd try and help me out with a constituency problem. He may make a very good MP. But is he, and is his party, capable of delivering on what we need most; the greatest sustained period of personal liberation this country has ever seen ?

Sadly, I doubt it.

Freedom Of Speech Is A Two-Way Street

I've been interested today to see some of the reaction to the protests at the army homecoming parade in Luton. It strikes me that there's a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

The general feeling seems to be one of outrage. The local MP claims to be "a bit stunned" (why can't these people talk proper English ?) "that the police agreed to this kind of demonstration, with pre-prepared banners calling the Army ’baby-killers’ and the like". John Hutton (Defence Secretary) weighed in with "I can only condemn the tiny minority who used this opportunity to make, whatever their personal views, utterly ridiculous and insulting comments". Even Liam Fox (Hutton's shadow) described it as "offensive, appalling and disgraceful". Tim Montgomerie says the Police should not have allowed it to happen. Meanwhile The Sun (bless 'em) wants you to give them a call if you know any of the demonstrators. Nice.



Hang on a minute. We're told that the Army fights for freedom. We're told that they stand for British values of justice, and that we should be proud of them. They have, apparently, helped to bring democracy to Iraq, and kicked out a tyrant, an opponent of freedom.

Well look, people; freedom cuts both ways. Fine, have the army homecoming and let people who think they're heroes proclaim them as such. But if the army puts themselves in the shop window like that they can hardly complain (and nor can the politicians who seek to capitalise on the public support and sympathy they evoke) if approval is not universal. That's what freedom is about.

You might well ask about the rights of other groups, routinely suppressed, to hold counter-demonstrations when Muslims march or when the Anti-Nazi League are on parade. And in doing so you'd doubtless pose some valid questions. We all know that some groups are given far greater right of protest than others. But that's not the point at issue here. Should yesterday's counter-demonstration have been banned ? No.

"Offensive, appalling and disgraceful" ? Perhaps - to some. But no more so than the army parade was to others. Please, let's not fall into the trap of saying something should be banned just because we might find it offensive.

An Open Letter To A Conservative Candidate

The following is the text of a letter I have sent to Jason McCartney, propsective Conservative candidate for the Colne Valley, where the Womble currently resides. I strongly suspect it's a waste of time because I think the Conservative Party is finished as a fighting-for-freedom force, but I enjoyed writing it and you never know.

I fully confess to having nicked the idea following correspondence with the excellent Dick Puddlecote.

Dear Jason

I wonder if you can help me. I am trying to work out where (if anywhere) to place my support at the next General Election. As a resident of Netherton, I am a Colne Valley constituent.

Let me set out my stall. One matter, and one only, transcends all others in my opinion. It is not the economy. It is not the National Health Service, education or, for that matter, this government’s ludicrous obsession with poking its nose into the affairs of other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the issue that describes our very existence; that of individual freedom.

The past eleven years have seen the most systematic and extensive advance of the power of the State this country has ever seen. We have witnessed the extension of imprisonment without trial - the government would love to have extended the allowable period to 42 days, and was only thwarted by the House of Lords; the fundamental right of trial by jury has been taken away in some cases, and such right will doubtless be further corroded should this government remain in office; we are faced with a government seemingly hell bent on implementing identity cards for every citizen and desperately fighting to retain the DNA details of entirely innocent people; restrictions on freedom of expression (witness the nurse suspended from her job for offering to pray for a patient and people being denied entry to the UK on the grounds of their beliefs) are being imposed at every opportunity; an Opposition spokesman arrested for speaking the truth; a stated desire to be able to track every mobile phone call, every email, every internet enquiry; dark threats to curb the increasingly troublesome blogosphere; growing restrictions on the right of individuals to take photographs in public places.

Since 1997 the balance between State and individual has changed fundamentally. We are being watched as never before: there are four million CCTV cameras in this country - one couple even suffered the indignity of having one installed in their own bedroom; ten people who walked up Whitehall in face masks were stopped by the Police; innocent children in rough areas are rounded up by the Police and sent home, or into the possession of Social Services. Meanwhile we are also being micro-managed as never before: quite apart from the seemingly relentless march of Health and Safety nonsense which threatens to denude us all of almost any personal responsibility whatsoever, State interference extends its tentacles almost daily, from Food Police in Herefordshire to councils who ban couples fostering children because the husband smacked a child once, the State is consistently imposing its nit-picking, draconian, authoritarian values on a nation that was once, but is no longer free.

At the local level the power of the Police is affecting innocent people in frightening ways. Only this week we read a story of a Huddersfield man whose garage was broken into – and inadequately repaired – by the Police, who, entirely in error, suspected him of growing cannabis, a conclusion they had reached because they had been monitoring the distribution of heat within his property from a Police helicopter. No apology was forthcoming, and he was forced to journey to the Police Station himself in order to do so much as to enforce a process of compensation to pay for the repair.

I consider myself, by nature, to be sympathetic to the Conservative cause. I am a staunch free-marketeer. I am a patriot (all be it one who believes that England should assert her sovereignty and free herself from the manacles of both the United Kingdom and the EU), I despise socialism and all it stands for. But now, of all times, I look to the Conservatives and I search for an appetite to dismantle the Statist structures that Blair and Brown have installed since 1997; and I do not see it.

To even begin reversing the juggernaut of the expansion of State power will take a super-human effort. Vested interests are everywhere. All manner of government departments benefit from the increasing power and influence of the State. The Police, local councils and Social Services groups can all boast increased staffing and budgets as a result of New Labour’s assault on freedom. The Health and Safety Executive, most solicitors and education services have recession-beating reasons to take on more staff. Anyone who tries to roll back the frontiers of the State has a colossal battle on their hands. It cannot be done in a day, a year or even a decade. But it can be started, by any government which has the will to do it and the belief that it must be done.

When, in the mid-seventies, Margaret Thatcher took control of the Conservative Party, she saw an economy in ruins through decades of increasing State intervention. For years before gaining office, she surrounded herself with those whom she trusted, plotting and planning what had to be done. Together they researched, debated and prepared Britain’s march from economic tyranny; perhaps the greatest Escape Committee in peacetime history. Now we look once more to the Conservatives to fight for our freedom. The question I find myself asking is: have they got what it takes ?

David Davies raised the standard in the wake of the government’s attempts to impose 42 days interment without trial upon the British people; few Conservatives rallied to his cause. I remain highly sceptical that the libertarian elements within his party have sufficient numbers, influence or stomach to win the gargantuan battle that lies ahead; but I would vote for someone who was, at least willing to try, not least of all because there is so little on offer by way of alternative.

So, on which side of the debate do you fall ? Do you share my concern that our basic freedoms are threatened as never before ? And, if you do, do you have the passion to fight for them with every ounce of energy ? Or, do you believe that there is, in fact little or nothing to worry about, or that the State is right in its endless advance ?

Yours sincerely,


xxxxx xxxxx

I'll post the reply on here (assuming I get one and he gives me permission to do so),

Up Your Game, Shami

I think I used to fancy Shami Chakrabarti at one point. But I'm going off her now.

For those who don't know, she is Director of Liberty, the pressure group which is supposed to protect civil liberties and promote human rights. As its leader, Chakrabarti should be leading the charge against this government's attempts to dismantle our rights to free speech.

Chakrabarti was interviewed on Radio 4's PM programme this evening, apropos of the Home Secretary's decisions to ban first Geert Wilders (Dutch MP) and then Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper (anti-gay campaigners) from entry into the UK.

As I highlighted on this blog yesterday these cases speak volumes for the government's attitude towards our freedom. They are suppressing the message that these people want to bring to the UK because they do not want to hear it, and they don't think we should hear it either. It stinks. Personally I don't care if the government wants to put its fingers in its ears and shouting "Na-na-na-not-listening", but they have no business covering our ears too.

I was expecting Chakrabarti to stand up for the rights of people to express opinion, and for ours to hear it. But she stopped short.

On the plus side she talked about the "high principle" that "free speech is the lifeblood of the free world". But then she went onto to talk about the "practical realities" of public order problems that might arise if someone came here and said "hateful things". Police resourcing has to be considered. In other words, the mob can rule. She then went onto to talk about the counter-productive result of this kind of ban, in that through being banned they can gain more publicity than they'd have got if they'd been allowed in.

What a cop out. You're either in favour of free speech or you're not. Free speech is not a tactical nicety to be granted to someone just because they'll cause you more trouble if they're denied it. The danger of "elevating crackpots to martyrdom status" as she put it is no consideration.

You were right the first time, Shami. Free speech is a high principle, and one the government should protect. Whatever the cost.

God Almighty. If we can't even rely on groups like Liberty to defend our rights to freedom of expression. we are well and truly stuffed.

The Brown Curtain

When I was a kid there was a thing called the Iron Curtain. It divided Europe in two, and it stood for dictatorship, suppression and the denial of basic freedoms.

Now a modern equivalent is coming into being. It too stands for suppression and for the elimination of the liberty we once assumed was ours by right but which, perhaps, we took too much for granted. It will stand for dictatorship too if the people responsible for its creation think they can get away with it.

A curtain denies people the ability to see through it. It hides things. People on the outside cannot see in and those on the inside cannot see what is happening on the outside.

The people who established the Iron Curtain were determined to silence those with whose views they did not agree. They did this in two ways. For those inside the curtain, the authorities imposed draconian laws; they controlled newspapers and TV, they banned demonstration of opposition and they instilled fear in those who felt like speaking out. To silence those on the outside, it was simple; they just didn't let them in.

As a young man I recall viewing Eastern Europe from afar (and, for one week never forgotten, from the inside) with disdain. I hated the enforced silence of opinion. I despised the authorities for their imposition of ruthless border controls. We would hear stories that so-and-so had been denied entry or detained, or that another radio station had been jammed. For the inhabitants of East Germany, the Soviet Union and all the rest, the receipt of freely-expressed opinion was, in the eyes of their rulers, a luxury they could not afford.

And so, from the isolated Eastern Europeans of the 20th century, we come to the increasingly-suppressed Britons of the 21st. It is, truly, as if another curtain were descending, this time surrounding the island that once stood, bravely but horribly alone, as the free world's one remaining opponent of German Fascism. I shall call it the Brown Curtain, after the man who seeks to wrap his country in a cloak of silent suppression.

The silence, you see, is being imposed upon us. We on the inside are being denied the access to free opinion expressed on outside. Last week it was Geert Wilders, a democratically elected European MP turned away from Britain's borders. Officially he posed a "threat to security". Translation: his visit would offend Muslims, and therefore could not be permitted.

And now, one week on, it's happened again. This time it's two anti-gay campaigners who have been banned. Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper belong to the Westboro Baptist Church in the US. They were planning to visit the UK to protest against a performance of a youth play called The Laramie Project, which recounts the death of a gay university student who was killed in Wyoming in 1998.

You have to say that these two are pretty much off the "freedom radar" themselves. They have been known to picket the funerals of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan because they think their deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerance of gays. Just as Wilders does, these people are fighting for illiberalism and suppression. But as with Wilders, that isn't the point.

It is characteristic of a liberal democracy that it allows the expression of views that run counter to the principles it is supposed to uphold. The foundations of freedom are strong enough that words alone cannot shift them.

Not so in Britain. Here the government does not like such views, so it bans those who wish to express them. The UK Border Agency is quoted as saying of our would-be visitors from America: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities". "Unacceptable behaviour". "Inciting hatred". These are the words not of those who seek to protect our liberty. It is the language of dictatorship.

The Brown Curtain encircles us. Next, it will smother us. Unless we stop it.

Another Lion-Feeding Frenzy

Another day, another story about State-sponsored Christian-bashing.

I saw this one in the Daily Mail when I was at the gym and I didn't believe it. Partly because it was in the Daily Mail, and partly because I just didn't want to believe that my country has come to this. When I got home I did a Google and I saw that it's quite widely covered, so now I'm thinking it must be true. After all, the BBC has it, and if even they've got an anti-Christian story then there must be something in it.

So, the facts as they appear to be:
....a five-year old girl tells her classmate that if you don't believe in God then you're going to Hell;
....the girl is admonished by a teacher and is told that it's "not OK to say that, but it is OK to discuss what you believe with others" (what on earth is a five-year-old supposed to make of that ?);
....having first comforted her highly upset daughter, the mother, who works at the school, sends a private email to a group of friends describing what had happened and asking for her friends' prayers;
....she is then hauled before the headteacher, to be told that she was to be placed under investigation in suspicion of professional misconduct because she had been "making allegations about the school and staff".

........................""You can't write an email like that, love"

Hells' bells, where to start ?

Well, let's try the child. She's five. She's reciting the stuff her mum and dad have told her. Things are black-and-white at that age anyway; kids call it as they see it, and good on 'em. Apparently the child she was talking to was didn't like it, and it was her mother who complained.

It's probably a good job I'm not a headteacher. Because if any parent came into my office complaining that their offspring had been upset by another child telling them they might go to Hell, they'd get pretty short shrift from me. Something along the lines of:

"Your child will hear far worse than that before they've finished school. I will not wrap kids up in cotton wool and isolate them from hearing completely legitimate theological views. I will not deny them access to free debate, and I will not admonish a five-year-old pupil for expressing a religious opinion. If you don't like it, you can bloody well take your spoilt little brat somewhere else. Now stop wasting my time, I've got hundreds of kids to teach how to read, write and add up in the face of relentless opposition from the government and the education establishment".

I can well remember giving my best friend at primary school the hump by telling him that God didn't exist. The resulting bottom-lip display and cold shoulder treatment lasted around two hours. After that we were mates again. Kids are far more resillient than many give them credit for. They give and receive different points of view all the time. Or at least, they should do. By putting them in the naughty corner for expressing opinion we deny them the ability to learn how to debate and we extend the ever-expanding notion that they have an inalienable right not to be offended.

Secondly, the mother. So, one of her so-called friends leaked her private email and grassed her up to the headteacher. Some bloody friend. But for the headteacher to call her into the office and put her on some sort of charge is nothing short of outrageous. Where's this going to end ? If I have a bad day at work and a row with the boss I might go home and tell Mrs Womble On Tour all about it. Am I to assume that if details of that private conversation get back to my workplace then my boss can discipline me ? Or can that only happen if I'm a Christian and I ask for someone's prayers ? Either way, I should be allowed to express a point of view in a private email without my boss poking his nose in.

Just for completeness, we'll briefly apply the Test of Islam. If a Muslim child says, for instance, that he would sooner befriend a fellow-Muslim than a non-beleiver, as encouraged by the Koran, would that child be similarly admonished ? No need to answer that.

What happens to Jennie Cain remains to be seen. But let me tell you this. This comes hot on the heels of Geert Wilders being kicked out of our country, the Caroline Pertrie case and a host of others in which free expression, religious or otherwise, is being treated as a crime by the State. One day something's going to snap. We are a quiet, tolerant nation. We have let our government walk all over us for a long time, first diminshing and more latterly destroying our freedoms. But it will not go on forever. At some point, there will be a backlash. Something, or some cause, will trigger a point of no return. I don't know when it will happen, but it will. One day that State will take on one free-speaker too many. And then there will be hell to pay.

I just hope I'm still around to see it.

Thought Police

So Geert Wilders has been denied entry into the UK. A man democratically elected as a member of parliament in a EU nation has been turfed out of our supposedly free country. His crime ? God knows, you tell me. His intention ? To attend a screening of his film in the House of Lords in front of an invited audience of around 30 people.

The authorities' "explanation" is that Mr Wilders posed a "threat to security"; a comment which could have been lifted straight from any country east of the Berlin Wall 30 years ago. It's pitiful, and ............ You can't come in here, mate... ....deeply worrying.

Such is this government's fear of free debate on racial and religious issues now that they want to ban anyone the Islamisc community might not care for. And such is the government's power after ten years of socialism, they can do it.

Apparently the Dutch government are none too pleased. Maxime Verhagen, their Foreign Affairs Minister, phoned David Miliband to protest. Fat lot of good that'll do him. He clearly doesn't understand that protest and debate aren't permitted here.

You might think it poetic justice that someone who has called for the Koran to be banned is himself prevented from speaking, and in some ways it is. But it's not natural justice. Natural justice occurs when people are given the right to say what they think and let others come to their own conclusions.

The name of Wilders' film is Fitna. There are a few different versions of it on Youtube, so I'm not sure which is the real one. But this certainly looks like something ZaNu Labour would love to ban.

Diversity Nonsense

I had one of those “swear at the radio” moments this morning. And it was over a religion-related story, which isn’t usually something that can get my hackles raised. As an atheist, I don’t normally get excited about such things.

But when I heard about the nurse who had been suspended for offering to pray for a patient I was furious. Yes, mate, you heard right, a nurse in North Somerset was suspended from her post (without pay, according to one account I’ve since read) for offering to pray for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie says she often offers to pray for her patients. I imagine many of them are grateful and a few take her up on the offer. One woman apparently took offence and complained. The next thing Mrs. Petrie knew she was being hauled before the hospital trust being accused of, get this, “failing to demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity”. Actually you could accuse the trust of exactly the same thing.

The story has a happy ending, it seems. The reason it was covered on the news today was that Mrs Petrie has been reinstated, although I can’t find anything online to substantiate that.

A couple of things occur to me here. Firstly, would a Muslim nurse have been suspended under the same circumstances ? Answer: don’t be silly. Secondly, on the wider question of people “thrusting their religion” onto others, which is what this seems to come down to: it’s a question of extent, clearly. If a nurse waves the Bible in the face of the same patient day after day and says things like “If you believed in God you wouldn’t be in here” then that would be unacceptable. This, though, appears to have been a three-line conversation: “Would you like me to pray for you ?”, “No thanks”, “OK”. Not exactly the Crusades, is it ?

I’m afraid this is another example of a gross over-reaction to someone expressing a point of view and of how “causing offence” is rapidly becoming seen as the gravest crime known to man.

And to the hopelessly miserable patient who complained I have this to say (assuming God hasn’t dispatched her already, which, if I'd were Him, I'd have been sorely tempted to do): the nurse was showing she cared and was trying to help; get over it.

Covering Up Accusations Of A Cover-Up

There was an incident in the Commons on Wednesday which was either an example of the arcane workings of the House, or an indication of the Speaker's desire to protect a fellow socialist Scot, and I'm not certain which one it was.

During PMQs Graham Stuart (Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness) started a question thus:

"Last week, the Prime Minister tried to cover up the expenses of Ministers. This week..."

And that's as far as he got, before Honorary Members were recorded as saying "Oh !" and the Speaker ordered him to withdraw the remark:

"Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. It is not a proper thing to say. Try to rephrase the question in another way."

Stuart did withdraw the remark and went on to ask his question without even mentioning expenses. The fact that he did so suggests that he knew he'd get pulled up by the Speaker and had simply used the remark for effect.

It did strike me though, as an odd little sideshow. I knew it was unparliamentary to accuse someone of lying. But a cover up ? That's entirely different. You can seek to cover something up without lying about it. What's more, that's exactly what Brown tried to do with MPs' expenses - he tried to hide them, and only agreed not to hide them once it was shown to be too difficult for him.

I cannot for the life of me see why accusing the Prime Minister of trying to cover something up should be deemed as being "not a proper thing to say". Surely an MP should be not barred from saying something that is so obviously and demonstrably true ?

Hansard extract here, for those who want it.

Pratts' Road To The Loony Bin

A few weeks ago I brought news of how the DVLA was banning car registration numbers that might be deemed offensive: examples (just in case anyone from the DVLA is reading this and fancies having me arrested) included H057AGE and B004ZY.

Well, they're not alone in their crusade against the free usage of utterly harmless language. From the very same gutter of needless suppression I bring you: Lewes District Council.

Doubtless relieved that the terrifying prospect of Revolution Through Subversive Number Plates has been headed off by their mates down in Swansea, these numb skulls have decided to wage war on street names. So OUT go names like Hoare Road, Typple Avenue and Coalpit Lane....lest they offend, be subject to "deliberate misinterpretation" or are seen as unflattering. No, really, it's true.

And just so that it's clear what's banned and what (if anything) isn't, Council officials have drawn up a 25-page policy document on the subject. Just remember, folks, these people get paid to to this sort of thing....by us.

Note - From now on, whenever I see this kind of thing, I'm going to record which political party is in charge, so so that I can keep tabs on who's doing it to us. Lewes District Council - Liberal Democrats.

Banned - Kids Singing Carols

Via Nanny Knows Best comes news of the outrage that is the Corringham Winter Festival.

I suppose we should have suspected something when it was labelled a "Winter Festival" - that's usually the sign of something that's been hijacked by politically-motivated morons intent on preventing the indigenous population from expressing themselves.

Sure enough, the organisers prevented a group of primary school children from singing Christmas carols, on the basis that they would not have "dovetailed" into the theme of the festival. Which, roughly translated, means they would have relayed a vaguely Christian message and carried the risk of offending others.

Which is tosh, of course. Speaking as a stauch athiest, I can confidently say that no one gives a monkey's about a few kids singing traditional hymns at Christmas; no one's offended by the idea of Christianity popping its head up from time-to-time. It is a representation of this country's traditional values and we should tell anyone who doesn't like it that they're always welcome to go somewhere else.

A Conservative councillor Danny Nicklen is reported as saying "This is nothing more than political correctness gone mad." But it is. It's a great deal more than that. It is part of the systematic denuding of this country's heritage and core values by a political elite obsessed with destroying our very identity.

According to local press reports some of the carols banned included Once in Royal David's City, Silent Night and Gabriel's Message.

OK, so you couldn't hear them at the Corringham Winter Festival. But you can listen to them here.

Was This Slogan A Little Too Close To The Truth ?

When the Womble On Tour Revolution starts to take hold, one of the first to the wall will be the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The latest activity of this particular branch of the government's Thought Police is to rebuke a Hollywood studio for putting up posters at Stockwell tube station advertising the film "Righteous Kill".

The posters bore the slogan "There's nothing wrong with a little shooting, as long as the right people get shot."

The problem for the hand-wringing ASA was that the posters appeared during the De Menezes inquest. The ASA said that given their location the posters "had the potential to cause serious offence". Well, quite; what doesn't, these days ?

I've blogged about the ASA before. I didn't like them then, and I don't like them now. They're a bunch of righteous prigs.

Perhaps something else that narked them in this case was that actually they were beaten into second place in the Great Banning Race by London Transport, who demanded that the posters be taken down. All the ASA could do was to issue an admonishment, which isn't half as much fun as a ban.

So, to sum up. The State's henchmen make a complete balls of identifying a terror suspect and end up killing an innocent man on a London tube station. The State (via the coroner) decides that that's absolutely fine and can't possibly be considered unlawful. But a movie poster on the same station is banned (and therefore deemed illegal) by the State because it makes a reference to people being shot.

Hello ? I mean, seriously...Hello ?