Free speech? You're avin a larf!

After the wave of outrage over Paris comes the outrage over the attack on ‘free speech’. So we now have a new wave of hypocrisy. Everyone is fulminating against an horrendous attack on free speech. Our masters are loudest whilst simultaneously proposing more draconian ‘snooping laws. They have been telling us for years that being rude, abusive, insulting or just plain nasty about other peoples’  colour, religion, sexual orientation or what-have-you is unacceptable – and passing ‘hate speech’ legislation to make sure we get the message. The response of the French Government has been to arrest an obscure comedian.

 

Now it’s quite OK. Or not.

 

When did ‘free speech’ ever happen? The truth is we haven’t got it and have never had it fully.

 

‘Free speech’ is what our masters allow us, and what they, not us, define as ‘free’.

 

Until the libertarian sixties changed almost everything, we had precious little.  

 

The Lord Chamberlain’s Office censored the theatre (although hardly anyone knew who the Lord Chancellor was). Publications were covered by a whole range of censorship legislation, including the Obscene Publications Act intended to protect us against anything that might tend ‘to corrupt and deprave’ (that is, anyone except the censors  who were immune to such).

 

Films were censored by the British Board of Film Control, whose ‘X’ certificate was eagerly sought by the film industry because it signified that it might be a bit more naughty than the average Ealing Comedy.

 

But it didn’t end with the BBFC. Local Authority Watch Committees could still ban films approved by the Board if they thought it might offend the sensibilities of the local residents.

 

The Chairman of the Southend Borough Council Watch Committee got an unsought headline in the Sunday Times over ‘Deep Throat', starring Marlon Brando, in which there was an allusion to oral sex. ‘We will not swallow oral sex in Southend’, he thundered, thus assuring his small footnote in a ‘Did I really say that?’ dictionary of quotations.

 

Now we have the non-Governmental extra-legal censors.

 

TV is at the forefront. Almost all of their output is repeats. They go back years to some of the most toe-curling programmes ever made. How do you fancy ‘On the Buses Christmas Special’? In July.

 

But you will never see the brilliant ‘Ain’t ‘alf ‘ot. Mum’. Why? Because we can’t possibly offend the sensibilities of the ‘gay’ community by re-running a series in which one of the leading characters is an outrageous and hilariously funny homo and the Sergeant Major’s favourite bellow is ‘You is a bunch of poofters; what is you?’

 

Or ‘Love thy neighbour’ although it was a parody of racial attitudes.

 

Bernard Manning would never have got a booking, and we would have been denied Jim Davison’s hilarious Jamaican, Chalky - (Traffic cop: ‘Chalky, you are driving drunk’. Chalky; ‘Tank God man; me tink me steering ad gaan!’).

 

Today’s ‘comics’ exist solely on foul language, which is perfectly acceptable to the TV . It is too dangerous to venture an actual ‘joke’.

 

And we must not forget our very own censor moderators. A short time ago I posted blog about the silly furore of Madonna appearing topless, and reproduced the picture that was published world-wide. The blog was taken down very quickly. I have a photograph of a young Debby Harry topless. Would that be taken down? After all, I downloaded it from the DT itself

 

But of course in the past the Government has been at the forefront, wearing its ‘ anti-racism’ cloak. It is now replaced with one against immigration and another on Muslim terrorism. You have to hand it to these guys. They can shed  their principles and their political clothing faster than a strip-tease artiste can shed her g-string.

 

It is they who have driven censorship of just about everything ever since the Blair/Brown reign of terror, all of which remain untouched by a supposedly libertarian Tory party.  In the last few years we have seen a sustained attack on free speech by politicians, the PC fraternity, and a whole range of  outfits like the BBC

 

You can be done under hate speech laws because the person at the receiving end says it is, not because any reasonable person (or jury) would share that view. How’s that for perversion of the rules of evidence?

 

And then there was the episode involving the egregious Alibhai-Brown, Guardianista and BBC  poster girl. She wrote a piece supporting the stoning of women. A small-time politician tweeted that maybe we should stone her instead. He was taken into custody.

 

An old age pensioner, on being told to remove the garden gnomes from hsi council house garden by some jobsworth, replied ‘ Can’t I even do my f*****g garden the way I want?’ and was promptly given an £80 ticket.

 

An effect of the censorship on porn (which today we would laugh at as being ridiculously ‘soft’ porn) was huge corruption in the Met. The Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, said that a good police force was that employed  fewer crooks than it arrested. He demolished the ’dirty squad’, the 'Obscenity Unit', not being able to find a single honest cop within it.

 

But there is a line not to be crossed. ‘Freedom’ and ‘Licence’ are two quite different things. ‘Charlie’ was licence.

 

Of course there must be limits. The English law of defamation (one of the most draconian anywhere) defines it as ‘tending to bring a person into hatred ridicule or contempt’. Uniquely, the burden of proof is upon the defendant. And this protection is only available to the wealthy; it is ineligible for legal aid.

 

The Pope has just spoken out about the wickedness of abusing or vilificating a person because of religious belief. Freedom does not mean licence. What is acceptable should be governed by tolerance, good manners, and good taste. ‘ Charlie’ was totally reprehensible if for no other reason than that it was excruciatingly unfunny. It was deliberately, gratuitously and purposely offensive without any redeeming feature.

 

Of course, that in no way mitigates the appalling consequences. Repetition can only be  prevented through ruthless extermination of people who are of the ilk of those who committed this atrocity.

 

The big lesson to be learned is that when Governments try to regulate human behaviour, the results will always be disastrous and sometimes tragic.