LIBERTY AND THE SMELLY CAUSES.

A Boys Own Adventure? 

 "Recently, as a result of events in Iraq, some have called for powers to seize people’s passports at the border and to leave people stranded if they’ve been foolish enough to go on some ridiculous Boy’s Own adventure." Shami Chakrabarti, Director of the Human Rights Organisation, Liberty.

I want to start with, what Martin Amis called, a thought experiment. I want you to imagine an organisation established in the US and Canada, let us call it Aryan State. It’s an outfit that has already kidnapped a number of Imams, human rights workers and journalists. Several of these prisoners have been beheaded in the most savage way imaginable, video made of the event which was then posted on social media. Further decapitations are threatened unless the security services back off.
The groups programme, the establishment of a state for Aryans only, no Muslims, Jews or people of colour, has attracted the attention of white supremacists across the world. From Europe alone extremists in significant numbers are finding their way to the Canadian US border region. Groups of English skinheads, excited by social media chatter and by the prospect of taking part in a pogrom against non-whites are making their way to the newly established AS. How might the Director of Liberty describe these young men? Would she say that they were engaged in a “ridiculous Boy’s Own adventure.” I leave the question hanging.


Shami Chakrabarti
Now Ms Chakrabarti has raised the profile of Liberty considerably. Telegenic, media savvy, highly articulate and persuasive she has often pushed back against the growing demand of governments of all persuasions for ever greater surveillance powers and legislation to curb civil liberties.
But am I the only one to detect a problem in the somewhat selective causes that Liberty adopts. Where for example was Liberty when a Christian Couple were prosecuted after arguing theology with a Muslim Woman, or when a man is jailed for burning a poppy or alternatively a copy of the Quran? What about all the prosecuting of those who tweet unpleasant things, are they not worthy of Liberty’s support? The suspicion is that Liberty have concluded they are not. In short does Liberty have an aversion to the smelly causes?

As Shami says “People do care about their own. It’s other people’s that are a bit more challenging.”

Yes, that is true, but only half the story, it’s when the nasty and unpleasant people have their liberties denied that one’s resolve to defend liberty and free speech is truly tested. It’s the EDL or UKIP member, the unpleasant tweeter or xenophobic bigot whose freedoms we must also defend. Once we agree that free speech is not for nasty people we leave the door open for those who might conclude that our own opinions are not that palatable.
Now I may have been unfair to Ms Chakrabarti and Liberty, I have not spent hours sifting through evidence to prove my thesis, this post is primarily impressionistic. If anyone wishes to dispute the picture I have given and provide evidence of when Liberty has rushed to defend the liberties of someone on the far right, I will be happy to do a follow up pointing to the case[s].
I ended my last post with the words of Rosa Luxemburg, and it seems appropriate to do so again.

“Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.”

  

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

LONDON BELONGS TO ME PART ONE