Roger’s Rules

February 11th, 2008 8:04 am

Why do the Brits hate free speech?

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

What is it about the Brits and free speech? Why do they hate it so? They didn’t used to. But nowadays their libel laws muzzle domestic criticism of radical Islam and have even sought to muzzle American authors making such criticisms. The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that Britain needs new laws to prevent “thoughtless and cruel” speech. Really? What about people, like His Grace, who advocate (or at least acquiesce in) the institution of Sharia law in Britain? Who would like to take the measure of that species of thoughtlessness, not to mention the resulting cruelty should what the Archbishop described as “unavoidable” come to pass?

And then there is the story about prohibiting British Olympic athletes from criticizing China when they go to Beijing for the Games. “British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China’s appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.” Yes, that’s right, if you are British and you want to swim or pole-vault or throw a discus in Beijing you have to leave your political conscience at the door. Belgium–that great moment to independence and freedom–has banned its athletes from expressing any political opinion about China while at the Olympic Games as has China’s future colony, New Zealand. As the Mail notes, other countries, including the United States, Canada, Finland, and Australia “have pledged that their athletes would be free to speak about any issue concerning China.”

The Chinese haven’t gone quite as far as Hitler, who inveigled the Brits into insisting that British athletes at the 1938 Olympic Games in Berlin line up and welcome their hosts with the Nazi salute.

**The British team salutes, Berlin 1938**

But they applauded Britain’s initial decision to muzzle its athletes. According to The Daily Mail, which reported the story, this latest effort to stifle free speech “immediately provoked a storm of protest.” Indeed, according to the London Telegraph “British Olympic officials were forced into a climbdown” on the issue:

Following protests, the association’s chief executive, Simon Clegg, claimed there had been no intention to “restrict athletes’ freedom of speech” and said the wording of the contracts would be changed.

Well, that’s nice. But the habit of pre-emptive capitulation is hard to break. Britain once was a cradle of liberty. In recent years, giving itself over increasingly to the dictates of political correctness, Britain has been more the grave than the cradle of liberty. It is a woeful spectacle, not least because freedom gained is relatively easy to maintain. Once lost, it requires the dedication of Hercules to regain.

Read bullet | (8) Comments bullet

8 Comments

Tom Grey:

The usual brits love free speech, it’s the PC elites that hate it.

Especially if it’s true and contradicts the current fad in the pretentious elite circles.

Feb 11, 2008 - 10:47 am David Thomson:

Great Britain’s decline may have started with the era of Mahatma Gandhi. Only a guilt tripped white person could take seriously such a weird human being. Gandhi was goofier than a fruit cake. Things seemed to have rapidly deteriorated after that. Leftist British intellectuals neverendingly told the indigenous citizenry that it was guilty of racism and imperialistic policies. Their listeners eventually started to believe that they were truly the scum of the Earth—and had no right to ever take to task the evil deeds of dark skin people.

Feb 11, 2008 - 11:08 am Paul:

The worth of that multicultural insouciance of the Archbishop’s can best be judged by the following thought experiment: Imagine that a senior Imam, somewhere in an officially Muslim country (at least as England is an officially Christian one), were to announce to the press his serious, public proposal that, for any Christians or Jews (ha!) living in that country, Christian or Jewish law can supersede and replace that country’s laws, incuding, as relevant, sharia. Imagine what would happen to him.

I sense that the Brits are too far gone in their own multicultural self-righteousnes to laugh at this man as he should be laughed at. The tragedy is that his is not a truly unusual within his church, nowadays.

Feb 11, 2008 - 11:13 am John Frary:

From Sir Winston Churchill to Sir Casper Milquetoast just in my lifetime; makes me feel ancient.

Feb 12, 2008 - 2:21 am Dennis:

Farewell, Britain! You served Western, Christian culture well for centuries. We’ll miss you.

Feb 12, 2008 - 7:27 am Frank Slattery:

The problem with The Brits is not only that they hate free speech but now they are also trying to proscribe how people can speak: refusal to call “Islamic terrorism” by it’s correct name etc. Gordon Browne and his government are all British and none of them seem to have read Orwell. If they did they would know where this road leads

Feb 13, 2008 - 2:45 am Dennis:

The news from Britain only gets worse. Check out this story posted by J. Botum today at First Things:

The Anglican bishop of Hereford has been fined £47,345 and ordered to undergo “equal opportunities training” for failing to hire an active homosexual who applied for a position working with young people in the diocese.
Perhaps, following the advice of his archbishop, he should have asked for his case to be tried according to sharia law. The contradiction between the two sides of multiculturalism—the “Let the Muslims be Muslims” side and “Force everyone to accept gays” side—can’t get much clearer than it’s managing in England, can it?

Feb 13, 2008 - 10:59 am Maggie's Farm:

Friday Links

Photo: Artist’s image of the new Gerald Ford Class.George Mason has a new first year course, and it looks like good fun.Should a Catholic university host a Clinton campaign event? BainbridgeA reporter writes a ranting screed against amateur journalismDoes

Feb 15, 2008 - 4:21 am