The Daily Sceptic features this article by Daniel Lü: “Why Using Parliament to Police MPs’ Opinions is More Dangerous Than the Opinions Themselves”. It starts,
Let us be clear at the outset about what this article is not. It is not a defence of Zarah Sultana’s views. Her statement that “Zionism is one of the greatest threats to humanity” is analytically indefensible. Zionism is a broad political movement encompassing positions ranging from liberal democratic to nationalist. Declaring it one of humanity’s greatest threats is not an argument, it is a slogan, and a lazy one. Her follow-up post, “they love killing kids”, is cruder still. It reduces a complex military conflict to a tribal smear, and it does so in a political climate already corroded by bad-faith rhetoric.
None of that, however, is the point. The point that tends to get lost whenever someone unpopular says something unpleasant is that the mechanism now being used against Sultana is more dangerous than the posts themselves. A complaint has been submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, reported by the Telegraph on March 14th, alleging that the posts constitute “a modern iteration of the medieval blood libel” and breach the MPs’ code of conduct. If that complaint proceeds to a full investigation, the long-held principle that elected representatives cannot be called to account before a parliamentary watchdog for their political opinions will be broken.
and ends with this:
I freely admit that Sultana is not a natural free speech advocate. She has supported deplatforming voices she disagrees with and co-leads a party in explicit opposition to liberal freedoms. She would likely not extend the same defence to her political opponents. None of that matters. The principle does not depend on the virtue of its beneficiary. If we only defend the free speech of people we agree with, we do not actually believe in free speech. The liberal tradition holds that the state’s coercive mechanisms should not be used to adjudicate between competing political opinions, however much those opinions horrify us.
The right response to Sultana’s posts is scrutiny, challenge and the kind of forensic public argument that exposes weak thinking for what it is. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a proper role in British democracy: investigating corruption, expenses abuse, conflicts of interest and harassment. Deciding which political opinions about live foreign policy conflicts are permissible for elected representatives to hold is not that role. The Commissioner’s own rules say as much.
I urge you to read the part in between. It is a strong re-statement of basic principles. And defend Zarah Sultana’s right to speak freely as an MP, vicious and stupid though she is.
The lady should be allowed to say anything she likes. Including, for example, “Death to Paul Marks”. If we do not support Freedom of Speech for our enemies (those of the Red-Green alliance) then we can not, honestly, claim it for ourselves.
Members of Parliament, in the chamber, are the last people in the United Kingdom who have Freedom of Speech – if even they are open to “police investigations” then Britain has become an open tyranny.
None of the above means we have to listen to the lies of the lady, or anyone else – they should have freedom to say what they like, and we must have the freedom to walk away – to not waste time listening to or reading their ravings.
For example, only yesterday I left a Facebook group “Conservative and Unionist Debate” because it was filled with lies – my leaving in no way violated their Freedom of Speech, they can write whatever they wish – I just claim my right, my liberty, not to read it.
We should defend Zarah Sultana’s right to speak freely. Agreed. But Free Speech does not guarantee that there will be no consequences if that speech exceeds legal limits, such as libel or incitement of immediate violence.
Members of Parliament exist within a space where special rules apply. A complaint has been submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and presumably will follow due process.
Clicking on the link produces “page not found” – but the Daily Skeptic is on X, so I will look for it there.
Discovered Joys – “Free Speech does not guarantee that there will be no consequences” – that is an argument that the left use to put people in prison for peacefully expressing their opinions.
Libel is a civil – NOT a criminal matter, and does not apply in the chamber of the House of Commons.
I hope (very much hope) that, on reflection, you will withdraw your comment (just as I have corrected comments of my own in the past).
I trust you do not support myself (and other Samizdata people who live in Britain) being sent to prison – because we have violated “legal limits”.
Remember “the law” in Britain no longer means the principles of Common Law (natural justice) – “the law” means arbitrary edicts expressed in “Acts of Parliament” (which Sir John Holt – Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710 would have considered obviously void, but we we live in the world of Sir William Blackstone – whom the American Founding Fathers rightly detested) and, indeed, not even them – as regulations issued by officials (under vague “Enabling Acts”) also have “the force of law” – much to the horror of the late Lord Chief Justice Hewart (see his “The New Despotism” 1929). For example, “hate” of Muslims will soon be “unlawful” in this land – under a definition that Parliament has not passed, not that it would matter (from the point of view of natural law – natural justice) if Parliament (which is mostly, although not totally, made up of TRASH) had passed it.
A position that says “you must face legal consequences if your words exceed legal limits” is, therefore, just another way of saying – tyranny, servitude.
It reminds me of the various “liberties” granted in European and international “declarations” and “conventions” – which say “subject to law” (or some other “take back language”) – which destroys the liberties they pretend to uphold.
The term the officials (and Islamic activists) have come up with is “Anti Muslim Hostility”.
And if Parliament passed this it would not make the term any less absurd.
To call such vicious ravings “law” (because officials or Parliament have approved them) means the words “law” “legal” (and so on) either have no moral value at all – or are actively evil.
Jurisprudence, the principles of natural justice, matters – it is the basis of law (real law), but this is no longer taught.
Thomas Hobbes was not a friend of the principles of the Common Law – on the contrary, in his “A Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law” – he was the “philosopher” – i.e. the ENEMY of the principles of law.
Somehow enemies of the principles of law (such as the supporter of tyranny Thomas Hobbes and the supporter of the absolute power, tyranny, of the “Law Giver” Rousseau) are now presented as authorities on what “law” is.
Very well – if Mr Thomas Hobbes (and the others) is correct in his definitions of what such words as “law” and “justice” mean (i.e. that they are the whims of the ruler or rulers) – then these things are evil, and must be destroyed.
“The right response to Sultana’s posts is scrutiny, challenge and the kind of forensic public argument that exposes weak thinking for what it is.”
Is that true? I would like it to be true but that doesn’t mean it is. Someone once pointed out that it is rare for a political movement however daft to fail. Joining the EU, leaving the EU, maternity leave, smoking bans etc.
On the other hand, I can think of no end of ideas that have died on the battlefield. Nazism, absolute monarchy… er well, obviously there is an end. Maybe Shia Islam is about to join that list.
And then there are ideas that died or went comatose due to failure in the real world. Communism, British state ownership, brutalist architecture would fall into that category.
Maybe the true value of free speech is that it allows a society to acknowledge that it has made a mistake.
Paul Marks, Thank you for pointing out the link took was not working. I have re-found the article and added the link back in. It should work now.
Patrick Crozier, you write, “On the other hand, I can think of no end of ideas that have died on the battlefield. Nazism, absolute monarchy… er well, obviously there is an end. Maybe Shia Islam is about to join that list.” I doubt the last point very much. Shia Islam has been going since the seventh century and has lost many battles before. The version of it practised and promulgated by the Islamic Republic of Iran might be about to take a severe beating (I hope so), but I doubt that even that modern outgrowth of Shia Islam will go extinct. Religions sometimes die quietly, as European paganism did as religion of the masses, but they are as often revived by persecution as destroyed by it. The idea of the martyr is very strong in Shia Islam.
True, the suppression of Christianity in the Tokugawa Shogunate was mostly successful in ending Christianity in Japan, at least until modern times, but the religion continued to be practised in secret for the next 250 years.
This is a bracingly principled defence of free speech. Sultana’s views are horrible, and I hope she loses her seat, but the idea that she should be punished as if she had fiddled her expenses is absurd.
She is a rabble-rousing moron, but then that is no barrier to elected office.
@Paul Marks
You missed or did not allow for “if that speech exceeds legal limits, such as libel or incitement of immediate violence.” in my original comments.
Paul Marks: “A position that says “you must face legal consequences if your words exceed legal limits” is, therefore, just another way of saying – tyranny, servitude.”
So, if your Sultana announces to the world that I am a child molester and lover of goats, then my use of state systems of justice to stop and punish her indicates tyranny and servitude?
I think you’re being over-inclusive in your rules. What that state system of justice protects is her life from private justice.
@Johnathan Pearce
She is a rabble-rousing moron, but then that is no barrier to elected office.
I don’t really understand this whole “my ears are burning make her stop saying that.” Wouldn’t we rather hear what she has to say and judge her accordingly. If she is foolish enough to say this stupid, vile shit in public, we are way better off because we know she is vile and stupid and can treat her accordingly. Make her say her stupid shit in private and we might never know and God knows what they are going to do in those dark corners.
Free speech is a great mechanism for the worst people in society to tell us who they really are.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a proper role in British democracy: investigating corruption, expenses abuse, conflicts of interest and harassment
No it doesn’t. This is Blob Central stuff.
The police are supposed to investigate corruption, so long as we’re talking about actual criminal corruption as opposed to some Newspeak version. Likewise “expenses abuse” if criminal (but best to get rid of expenses altogether.) Conflicts of interest are a matter for the electorate, as advised by the reptiles of the press. And harassment, see corruption above.
If an MP is reasonably suspected of a crime, that’s for the police. If an MP disrupts the Commons Chamber then that’s a matter for The Speaker (though even The Speaker should be limited to removing thge MP from the Chammber – not the voting lobbies.) Otherwise this is all a matter for the electorate and/or if they wish – the MP’s party, who may wish not to afford the MP the continuation of the benefit of their brand.
I will concede that the natural agents for “policing” bad behavior by MPs have their own serious problems – ie the corruption of the police and the postal vote, but that is not a good reason for having a Parliamentary Commisioner for Standards.
Agree, but with a small Devil’s Advocate hesitation.
We limit speech in many ways. As one example, we stop people from saying things like “you should walk over there and kill John right now.” True threats, we call them.
If Sultana is simply saying a slightly more subtle version of this – “Jewry is what is stopping us from a happy world, they must be ended!” – who draws that bright line? Who says that this isn’t a True Threat?
Sufficient Jews across history have been executed following equally subtle pronouncements to cause me to wonder if we draw that line to far to one side. After all, once we draw that line, we are past principles of completely free speech – we’ve simply said it’s free so long as we don’t hate it TOO badly.
And I hate what she’s saying TOO badly.
Or should we stop enforcing the True Threats doctrine, so that we can be absolutists in our free speech protections?
Sultana?
Dried fruit?
@bobby b
Or should we stop enforcing the True Threats doctrine, so that we can be absolutists in our free speech protections?
Yes, I think we should be.
There are a number of cases where speech is mixed with other things where speech might enhance the severity of the other thing. Conspiracy, for example, requires an actual overt act, not just talking about it. But if someone tells me to go over and kill that Jew they aren’t making me do it, I still have to do it. There are a number of extremely difficult cases here for example “go kill that Jew or I’ll kill your daughter”. But difficult cases sure make bad law.
But, as to your point, if you give an inch they’ll take a mile.
BTW, you are a lawyer who is no doubt interested in AI. Something struck me about this today. The difference between regular programming and AI is that one is planned out by a human and the other is driven by data. For example, consider full self driving: when the car is approaching a traffic light about to turn right, as a programmer I have to determine “is the light red? Is there a car in front? Is the road slippery from ice, is there a no turn on red sign? Is there traffic turning into the lane? Are there pedestrians? Is there a sign saying “no turn on red”, or does it say “no turn on red 9-5 M-F”, and if so what is the time and what day is it? And on and on — a million conditions that I not only need to plan for but need to predict ahead of time. This is an algorithmic approach.
The AI approach is quite different. A simplistic way to think of it is that cameras capture billions of driven miles by good drivers. And so they have hundred billion examples of different situations and what the driver did about them and the outcome. So now when the car approaches the light instead it says “which of the one hundred billion situations I have recorded in my memory is this most similar to? And then it does what that driver did then. Of course that isn’t quite how it is implemented, those one hundred billion situations are distilled into a data structure called a neural net and the “find the most similar situation” is an algorithm called inference. But it captures at a high level the essence of how the AI algorithm works.
So what does that have to do with the law? Well it struck me how similar this is to the distinction between civil and common law. In civil and statute law everything is set out in as much detail as possible, first degree murder requires these elements, second degree these elements, and the punishments for them are driven from these tables of rules with adjustments for aggravation and mitigation. As a programmer, to me, it looks like an algorithm. But in common law they have gazillions of cases where a judge made a decision, and these cases form a pattern that future courts use to make their decisions. Stare decisis is basically AI inference.
Not at all on topic, but it is something fun I was thinking about today. Someone here accused me of being obsessed by AI. I guess them might be right 😉
@Bruce
Sultana? Dried fruit?
For all you Brits.
There is an interesting parallel here. The reason the state wants to ban certain speech is the fear that many people would agree with it. So “Death to the Jews.” Would be banned because many Muslims would agree, and hostility to Islam would be banned because many non Muslims would think hostility to Islam is entirely justified. The state understands perfectly well that it is sitting on a powderkeg.
Discovered Joys – I repeat my previous comment. For example, “libel” is not a criminal matter – it is a civil matter, and, anyway, it does not apply in the chamber of the House of Commons. And what she said was not libel or encouraging violence – it was just FALSE (like saying 1+1=36) and insulting.
Roue le Jour – Muslims going around in a Jewish area shouting that they were going to kill Jews and rape their daughters were not punished. Remember Britain has a “two tier” justice-and-legal system. Speech laws will be used on people the state does not like – not on people the state likes (or is a afraid of), that would be against “Diversity and Inclusion” – against the “Enrichment” of this country and other Western nations.
There are comments, by other people, that defend this action of censorship against this women.
The total failure to understand that we can not defend Freedom of Speech for ourselves if we deny it to our enemies, is awful.
As is putting words in the mouth of the lady that she did not say.
Yes this woman is an enemy – but if people here (of all places) do not understand that we must defend the Freedom of Speech of our enemies, and most certainly NOT trust the state and its edicts and policies, then it is hard not to despair.
Natalie – thank you for getting the link running.
As for a “police investigation” of someone for stating their, false and offensive, opinions – that is unacceptable.
And the equivocation, on the this matter, of some (some) people here, is not good.
Those of you (if any) who remember what opinion i expressed about such cases, will know what position i am taking in such a case:
* Given the asymmetry of power between the Yookay Parliament and Zarah Sultana, the former ought to very careful and moderate in censuring the latter;
* However, this is none of my concern. Zarah Sultana would not lift a finger to defend my freedom of speech, so i won’t lift a finger to defend hers.
Fraser’s comment about the analogy between “”algorithms”” (i think Fraser means: look-up tables) and statute law, AND between AI and common law, finds me in broad agreement.
However…
What is interesting to discuss is what finds me in disagreement.
–First: statute law does have the advantage that people can more easily find out where they stand. A secondary advantage is that, as a consequence, your lawyer is likely to cost you less money.
–Second, and much more important for me, Fraser’s comment highlights what i have previously lamented about his conception of AI; specifically, that what Fraser calls “AI” does not deserve to be called Artificial Intelligence.
Take the example he gave:
A simplistic way to think of it is that cameras capture billions of driven miles by good drivers. And so they have hundred billion examples of different situations and what the driver did about them and the outcome. So now when the car approaches the light instead it says “which of the one hundred billion situations I have recorded in my memory is this most similar to? And then it does what that driver did then.
But what if “what the driver did then” led to a collision with multiple fatalities?
A REALLY intelligent system would reason about the consequences of alternative courses of action, instead of doing a dumb interpolation of previous actions in the most similar circumstances.
@Snorri Godhi
–Second, and much more important for me, Fraser’s comment highlights what i have previously lamented about his conception of AI; specifically, that what Fraser calls “AI” does not deserve to be called Artificial Intelligence.
I mean you want to argue endlessly about the meaning of words? Whether something is intelligent, conscious, has free will or not entirely depends on what you mean by these words. You assuming that we have a common understanding of these words means that we will never agree. It is why this type of philosophy is, for the most part, a total bust. Nobody has an agreed upon set of definitions, so any arguments based on these definitions is doomed to be a circular spiral of doom, frustration and misunderstanding. Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes of discussion forums in the internet is intimately familiar with this reality.
But what if “what the driver did then” led to a collision with multiple fatalities?
I specifically said “…what the driver did about them and the outcome”, for precisely this reason.
A REALLY intelligent system would reason about the consequences of alternative courses of action, instead of doing a dumb interpolation of previous actions in the most similar circumstances.
You’d think that wouldn’t you? But fifty years of AI research disagree with you entirely. Perhaps the foundational principle of modern AI is the so called “Bitter Lesson“, named after a paper by a bunch of AI researchers at Google. In summary what it says is that intelligence (or at least utility since we can’t agree what “intelligence” means) is not dependent on clever algorithms or great new insights into how to do reasoning. On the contrary it is almost entirely dependent on three things: how much compute do you have, how much electricity do you have to run the compute, and how much data do you have to train the model. That’s it. Everything else is in the category of a rounding error.
I mean if you want to argue a million back and forths on this I guess you can, but the whole community of AI who know vastly more about it than you or me, have this specific perspective.
Fraser:
I’ll try to keep it short, just explaining why i do not find your reply cogent.
1. Knowing the outcome is useless to an AI (algorithm) unless it also knows the DESIRED outcome.
2. In any case, that paragraph of yours continues & ends with
So one would be justified in thinking that similarity is the only relevant parameter.
— As for the “bitter lesson”: thanks for pointing out the paper to me, but i am afraid that it does not say what you think it says.
It does not say that algorithms do not matter; that is, it does not say that
To claim otherwise, is to claim that Geoff Hinton et al wasted their time and taxpayers’ money in developing deep learning.
It would also imply that Rich Sutton himself wasted his time in researching reinforcement learning.
(Just to pull rank on you: I have actually met Rich Sutton, and Andrew Barto for good measure; and had lunch with Geoff Hinton a couple of times.)
— Basically our disagreement is about this: you reduce AI to associative learning, and i don’t. We are both skeptical about expert systems; but you refuse to admit that there are other ways, other than expert systems and associative learning. (And reinforcement learning is one of these other ways.)
Yeah the philosophy behind this is great.
The reality is that the Left say whatever hateful things they want and everyone lets them. When the Right, or anyone else tries to do the same then they are shut down with cries of hate speech. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. It’s a war of ideas, and if only one side is ever heard then you’ve already lost.
tim – yes, I am reminded of those Conservative Party Members of Parliament who supported a “crack down on Hate Speech on social media” because they thought it meant no more abuse, and death threats, against them and their families.
They were so incredibly stupid – as if the modern system would care about such things. The “Hate Speech crackdown” would be used against DEFENDERS of these Members of Parliament – and, eventually, against them themselves.