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.