I often kind of give up on the USA for its general crappiness since the 1990s or so. Then I read about this stuff, remember the First Amendment, and conclude that America is worth fighting for.
Then of course you have the small personal matter of my own Autism Spectrum Disorder which made it difficult to interact with people without annoying, scaring, or offending them somehow, until several decades of trial and error finally got me where I could at least fake doing it properly at around age 40. Having to worry about getting arrested for autistic awkwardness as noted in the ultimate sentence of the penultimate paragraph above while spending 40 years struggling to get interactions right would have been just super duper.
Yeah, the First Amendment is awesome. A total historical anomaly that I am extremely lucky to enjoy, and which I suspect will be heavily watered down by a progressive Supreme Court at some point after 2030.
Great article, Ed. UK is certainly not a free country anymore. I think there are very dark days ahead: it seems our current culture will only allow of two possibilities; increasing tyranny or violent revolution against tyranny (potentially resulting in a similar but opposite tyranny). Moderate reform does not seem to be anywhere on the horizon, either politically or socially. We are completely F-ed. (Not a reason to give up, just a frank assessment of the current situation).
Restacked, with comment in support. I called it there a “distressing read”. One can feel through the ground the vibrations of Orwell spinning in his grave.
I know it's a bit self-indulgent to re-post (part of) a comment I made in response to another of your articles, about a year ago. But I think it's relevant to the question of how we've reached this pass:
When I was a boy in the 1990s, most people, left or right, were more or less uncomplicatedly in favour of free speech. Now free speech is increasingly contested, especially among the young, who seem increasingly to think that merely hurtful speech should be censored. Lots of people have spilt much ink as to how this change has come about.
I trace it to the way our societies reacted to the Islamist problem in the early years after September 11th. It became clear that Muslim extremists might react violently to mere speech that insulted their religion. For the sake of a quiet life, most people capitulated, veiling their cowardice in awkward mutterings about "respect". At the time, this seemed like a small change - in a sense it wasn't even a conscious one, since it was the sum total of many individual choices about what to say and not to say.
The consequences have been twofold. Firstly, many older people, uneasily aware that they had taken the coward's way out, tried to convince themselves otherwise by talking themselves round to the idea that, after all, mere speech could be genuinely harmful. Thus a pragmatic, limited exception to free speech norms, made to avoid violence, was gradually generalised into a more widespread structure of taboos, seeking to repress any speech that could be construed as offensive to any minority group.
As for younger people, an undergraduate now was actually born after September 11th. He / she (or dare I say, "they"), has spent his / her / their entire life in a society in which there has been a fairly widespread tacit or explicit acceptance that offensive speech should be restricted or forbidden. Is it any wonder that people raised in such conditions should think them normal?
More broadly, post-9/11 generations are raised to see a society with no sense of privacy as the norm. To a large degree, this is due to the rise of social media and the smartphone. But I still remember as a child in the 2000s (Canada) all of the fears in so many corners that post-9/11 curtailments to privacy and civil liberties might bring about a new totalitarian government.
Now twenty-year olds have no memory of the Twentieth Century, let alone the fight against totalitarianism.
Section 127 is a terrible piece of legislation and Parliament has had 20 years to address it. But bad legislation has a habit of remaining law for long periods, which is where, in the past, judicial interpretation tended to be helpful, with judges narrowing the effect of poorly thought out legislation by reading it in a way consistent with living in a broadly free country. Also, the police and prosecutors would tend to be similarly informed when it came to deciding how to respond.
As Ed says this has changed fundamentally and it is within the past decade or so as the woke (as good a term as any) religion has been injected into all aspects of the State, aided enormously by the EA2010. And of course (being socialism) this has not happened by changing culture or minds but by direct and forceful insertion via various administrative initiatives e.g. the bluntly illegal "Equal Treatment Bench Book" by activist judges who are deeply committed to enforcing the new religion by all means necessary. And the story goes like this: the majority of non committed judges, being self interested or understandably cowardly, play along with things that are not just new fangled but also fabricated nonsense; and this leads to all sorts of horrors, not least women being compelled in court to refer to their rapist as she.
An analysis of the states behaviour now shows that its chief fear is a mass outbreak of ethnic violence. To prevent this, any ‘speech’ which may be seen to encourage this must be harshly repressed, especially anything which raises the ethnic consciousness of the native population. The government is terrified that people will begin to realise what they themselves know - that mass migration is destroying this country. They long decided that free speech is worth sacrificing to protect the lie they hope will keep the show on the road ‘diversity in our strength.’
That’s bleak Ed. I shudder to think what will happen here in Ireland once the hate speech legislation is in place. Perhaps you could send me a file in a cake?
Ed, you've written about imperial policing in diverse societies. Well, this may be one aspect of it. The main point is to prevent rioting and large-scale violence, right? So, if someone's tweet might offend a group that's prone to rioting etc., then it makes sense to throw the tweeting offender in jail or at least threaten the person with jail. Especially if no-one will riot on that person's behalf.
I would be curious to see that. My in laws, were policemen in Lima from the 1970s -1990s. I don't know about comparing people who worked for South American juntas, to the Met. I think your going a touch to far
A year or two ago I considered applying for a quasi-judicial position and downloaded the application pack. I got as far as the Equality and Diversity requirements and gave up. I could see exactly what they wanted and it probably wasn't me. I can't say what I really think in some work situations as that would be unacceptable so I self-censor. That's the chilling reality of modern life.
Just say the words: 'I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.'
I think not! It is a funny thing that we are heading back to the kinds of exclusion and censorship practised in this country a few hundred years ago. Very similar to the post-Reformation iconoclasm where even monuments are torn down because they are evidence of wrong think. We even practise burning at the stake in a metaphorical sense. Plus ca change....
Oh come on, it's not all doom and gloom. As soon as Britain becomes an Islamic country, all the tranny/gender stuff will come to an end and that right quick. So, every cloud....
I must ask, what would The Atlantic say about this if it were happening in Hungary, only the other way around? Would Applebaum right an article calling on the U.N. to sanction Orban? Would the Guardian ask the British government to take action?
Well, looking through their news section it seems their legal victories have all been against employers, not the police, so I guess the answer is no, they haven't, and the only thing to do about it is try and get politicians elected who will repeal anti-free-speech laws.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that there's nothing we can do, other than wait for millions more to come round to our way of thinking and a critical mass is reached. That will probably only happen when enough people, or their friends, relatives or acquaintences, have found themselves on the wrong end of the thought police.
You know how some Russian police officers were appalled once the nature of the Soviet regime they had served became clear to them? I wonder what our progressive police officers will one day say.
a) Looking back I'm ashamed at having been a part of it. I don't know what I was thinking.
Oh well we had a good run. You say "Aside from the Glasgow man convicted of tweeting about Captain Tom, the vast majority of these cases seem to involve people who have offended progressive norm." But Captain Tom isn't one of ours, he's one of theirs, that's why he was in the new year fireworks when he died. He represents some sort of pathetic tamed old white guy from the past, nothing more than an NHS patient literally on his last legs.
Have to admit that right from the start I thought there was something fishy about the Capt Tom thing, in part because it represented 'everything I dislike about modern Britain'.
The fireworks in London at NY increasingly appear to me as a naked show of power, right down to the disregard for the carbon emissions which the cabal are supposed to care about
Great article, if depressing. The prominent cases described are enough to force most people into sullen obedience. Even when decisions are challenged in the courts, there are massive risks, costs and hassle - who wants to spend two or three years fighting a case you may or may not win while unable to work?
Bravo! The same illiberalism is rampant in the United States. Queers, both homosexuals and especially trans queers, can parade around in drag spouting illiberal nonsense but 'normal' people, a 94%+ majority, can't speak up without experiencing violent rage from them, backed up by the police and the courts.
I'd rather not see the word queer used though, which is either used as a slur or by tedious leftist activists spouting shite - neither of which are good.
Yeah well again I don’t like the word ‘deviancy’ either! I have lots of gay subscribers and they don’t need to have to see such language. This forum is a benevolent dictatorship (with me as the dictator) so I will delete comments that use such language.
I often kind of give up on the USA for its general crappiness since the 1990s or so. Then I read about this stuff, remember the First Amendment, and conclude that America is worth fighting for.
Then of course you have the small personal matter of my own Autism Spectrum Disorder which made it difficult to interact with people without annoying, scaring, or offending them somehow, until several decades of trial and error finally got me where I could at least fake doing it properly at around age 40. Having to worry about getting arrested for autistic awkwardness as noted in the ultimate sentence of the penultimate paragraph above while spending 40 years struggling to get interactions right would have been just super duper.
Yeah, the First Amendment is awesome. A total historical anomaly that I am extremely lucky to enjoy, and which I suspect will be heavily watered down by a progressive Supreme Court at some point after 2030.
Great article, Ed. UK is certainly not a free country anymore. I think there are very dark days ahead: it seems our current culture will only allow of two possibilities; increasing tyranny or violent revolution against tyranny (potentially resulting in a similar but opposite tyranny). Moderate reform does not seem to be anywhere on the horizon, either politically or socially. We are completely F-ed. (Not a reason to give up, just a frank assessment of the current situation).
The third possibility is more hopeful - the Money runs out.
Resulting in far fewer dud cops persecuting people whose opinions they (or their paymasters) disagree with.
Except the few cops left will chase you and me and Ed West for saying the wrong thing and ignore the armed gangs cruising the streets.
Restacked, with comment in support. I called it there a “distressing read”. One can feel through the ground the vibrations of Orwell spinning in his grave.
thank you!
Really powerful stuff. Methinks a case for the FSU ...
thanks
I know it's a bit self-indulgent to re-post (part of) a comment I made in response to another of your articles, about a year ago. But I think it's relevant to the question of how we've reached this pass:
When I was a boy in the 1990s, most people, left or right, were more or less uncomplicatedly in favour of free speech. Now free speech is increasingly contested, especially among the young, who seem increasingly to think that merely hurtful speech should be censored. Lots of people have spilt much ink as to how this change has come about.
I trace it to the way our societies reacted to the Islamist problem in the early years after September 11th. It became clear that Muslim extremists might react violently to mere speech that insulted their religion. For the sake of a quiet life, most people capitulated, veiling their cowardice in awkward mutterings about "respect". At the time, this seemed like a small change - in a sense it wasn't even a conscious one, since it was the sum total of many individual choices about what to say and not to say.
The consequences have been twofold. Firstly, many older people, uneasily aware that they had taken the coward's way out, tried to convince themselves otherwise by talking themselves round to the idea that, after all, mere speech could be genuinely harmful. Thus a pragmatic, limited exception to free speech norms, made to avoid violence, was gradually generalised into a more widespread structure of taboos, seeking to repress any speech that could be construed as offensive to any minority group.
As for younger people, an undergraduate now was actually born after September 11th. He / she (or dare I say, "they"), has spent his / her / their entire life in a society in which there has been a fairly widespread tacit or explicit acceptance that offensive speech should be restricted or forbidden. Is it any wonder that people raised in such conditions should think them normal?
More broadly, post-9/11 generations are raised to see a society with no sense of privacy as the norm. To a large degree, this is due to the rise of social media and the smartphone. But I still remember as a child in the 2000s (Canada) all of the fears in so many corners that post-9/11 curtailments to privacy and civil liberties might bring about a new totalitarian government.
Now twenty-year olds have no memory of the Twentieth Century, let alone the fight against totalitarianism.
Section 127 is a terrible piece of legislation and Parliament has had 20 years to address it. But bad legislation has a habit of remaining law for long periods, which is where, in the past, judicial interpretation tended to be helpful, with judges narrowing the effect of poorly thought out legislation by reading it in a way consistent with living in a broadly free country. Also, the police and prosecutors would tend to be similarly informed when it came to deciding how to respond.
As Ed says this has changed fundamentally and it is within the past decade or so as the woke (as good a term as any) religion has been injected into all aspects of the State, aided enormously by the EA2010. And of course (being socialism) this has not happened by changing culture or minds but by direct and forceful insertion via various administrative initiatives e.g. the bluntly illegal "Equal Treatment Bench Book" by activist judges who are deeply committed to enforcing the new religion by all means necessary. And the story goes like this: the majority of non committed judges, being self interested or understandably cowardly, play along with things that are not just new fangled but also fabricated nonsense; and this leads to all sorts of horrors, not least women being compelled in court to refer to their rapist as she.
Don't worry, this will all stop when we get a Conservative government in!
The cavalry are coming once it is determined precisely how many genders are duly contained in each regiment.
An analysis of the states behaviour now shows that its chief fear is a mass outbreak of ethnic violence. To prevent this, any ‘speech’ which may be seen to encourage this must be harshly repressed, especially anything which raises the ethnic consciousness of the native population. The government is terrified that people will begin to realise what they themselves know - that mass migration is destroying this country. They long decided that free speech is worth sacrificing to protect the lie they hope will keep the show on the road ‘diversity in our strength.’
That’s bleak Ed. I shudder to think what will happen here in Ireland once the hate speech legislation is in place. Perhaps you could send me a file in a cake?
sure is!
Ed, you've written about imperial policing in diverse societies. Well, this may be one aspect of it. The main point is to prevent rioting and large-scale violence, right? So, if someone's tweet might offend a group that's prone to rioting etc., then it makes sense to throw the tweeting offender in jail or at least threaten the person with jail. Especially if no-one will riot on that person's behalf.
it's definitely a big part of it. I have a piece in the pipeline about the Met Police as a neo-colonial force.
I would be curious to see that. My in laws, were policemen in Lima from the 1970s -1990s. I don't know about comparing people who worked for South American juntas, to the Met. I think your going a touch to far
more like something like Singapore, where community policing is a necessity (unfortunately not with Singapore's crime levels)
I think we will end up with something like social credit.
A year or two ago I considered applying for a quasi-judicial position and downloaded the application pack. I got as far as the Equality and Diversity requirements and gave up. I could see exactly what they wanted and it probably wasn't me. I can't say what I really think in some work situations as that would be unacceptable so I self-censor. That's the chilling reality of modern life.
Just say the words: 'I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.'
I think not! It is a funny thing that we are heading back to the kinds of exclusion and censorship practised in this country a few hundred years ago. Very similar to the post-Reformation iconoclasm where even monuments are torn down because they are evidence of wrong think. We even practise burning at the stake in a metaphorical sense. Plus ca change....
Oh come on, it's not all doom and gloom. As soon as Britain becomes an Islamic country, all the tranny/gender stuff will come to an end and that right quick. So, every cloud....
I must ask, what would The Atlantic say about this if it were happening in Hungary, only the other way around? Would Applebaum right an article calling on the U.N. to sanction Orban? Would the Guardian ask the British government to take action?
I think there would be outrage.
All very true. Now what do we do about it?
Well, people can join the Free Speech Union: https://freespeechunion.org/
That's true. Has it had any success against the kind of incidents Ed wrote about?
Well, looking through their news section it seems their legal victories have all been against employers, not the police, so I guess the answer is no, they haven't, and the only thing to do about it is try and get politicians elected who will repeal anti-free-speech laws.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that there's nothing we can do, other than wait for millions more to come round to our way of thinking and a critical mass is reached. That will probably only happen when enough people, or their friends, relatives or acquaintences, have found themselves on the wrong end of the thought police.
You know how some Russian police officers were appalled once the nature of the Soviet regime they had served became clear to them? I wonder what our progressive police officers will one day say.
a) Looking back I'm ashamed at having been a part of it. I don't know what I was thinking.
b) I was just following orders.
c) Right or wrong, I needed the job.
d) At the time it all seemed so normal.
Oh well we had a good run. You say "Aside from the Glasgow man convicted of tweeting about Captain Tom, the vast majority of these cases seem to involve people who have offended progressive norm." But Captain Tom isn't one of ours, he's one of theirs, that's why he was in the new year fireworks when he died. He represents some sort of pathetic tamed old white guy from the past, nothing more than an NHS patient literally on his last legs.
Have to admit that right from the start I thought there was something fishy about the Capt Tom thing, in part because it represented 'everything I dislike about modern Britain'.
The fireworks in London at NY increasingly appear to me as a naked show of power, right down to the disregard for the carbon emissions which the cabal are supposed to care about
Great article, if depressing. The prominent cases described are enough to force most people into sullen obedience. Even when decisions are challenged in the courts, there are massive risks, costs and hassle - who wants to spend two or three years fighting a case you may or may not win while unable to work?
Yes, a great piece and also depressing. I suspect we need to drink much more sherry . . .
Bravo! The same illiberalism is rampant in the United States. Queers, both homosexuals and especially trans queers, can parade around in drag spouting illiberal nonsense but 'normal' people, a 94%+ majority, can't speak up without experiencing violent rage from them, backed up by the police and the courts.
thank you
I'd rather not see the word queer used though, which is either used as a slur or by tedious leftist activists spouting shite - neither of which are good.
so if you'd edit that I'd appreciate it.
What do you the the Q in LBTQ+ stands for? Are they the only ones permitted to use queer? It is a perfectly good word, expressive of their deviancy.
Yeah well again I don’t like the word ‘deviancy’ either! I have lots of gay subscribers and they don’t need to have to see such language. This forum is a benevolent dictatorship (with me as the dictator) so I will delete comments that use such language.