↓
 
Home » As the sun sets on British and Canadian liberty

As the sun sets on British and Canadian liberty

The New Neo Posted on by

Another piece of bad news from Britain:

You can be jailed for social media posts that fall into some nebulously-defined “hate speech” category, and to make things even more ridiculous, at least one British cop, this one being Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, is arguably threatening to extradite people who make unacceptable social media posts — from Britain or even from “farther afield.”

It helps a bit to have a constitution that codifies the right to freedom of speech, as ours does. The Brits don’t have that.

But where there’s a will to subvert free speech, there’s a way, even with a First Amendment. However, note that the language of the First Amendment only discusses what Congress is barred from doing. Social media is not only the mechanism for the Brits to arrest people whose speech they consider hateful, but huge social media companies themselves can and do censor speech even without the government arresting anyone. This is certainly already true in the US, and has been for many years.

This past Thursday we also had this news from Canada. That link is to an essay written by Jordan Peterson, who was ordered to undergo re-education or lose his psychology license:

Canadians once again have a very hard choice in front of them. The Supreme Court has essentially decided (or, more accurately, failed to take responsibility and therefore decided by default) that the much-vaunted Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be completely ignored by the regulatory bodies that license professionals in Canada. There are two conclusions that must be drawn in the aftermath of this decision. The first is that the Charter itself is not worth the paper it is written on. If comparatively low-level bureaucrats can suspend its most important provisions, more or less at will, it is a document with no real force whatsoever. I suspected as much when it was implemented back in the 1980s, and it is certainly the case that my worst suspicions have been justified.

Worse, however, is the clear consequence for professionals and those they serve in Canada. My fellow citizens: it is now a legal requirement in your sad state for the lawyers, engineers, teachers, physicians, psychologists and social workers who serve you — often in your hours of most desperate need — to lie to you, in order to ensure they are not transgressing against the ideological assumptions of those who fly the flag of the radical left.

Chilling.

Comments

As the sun sets on British and Canadian liberty — 66 Comments

  1. I remember when the bulk of physicians left. I knew some of them. I had attended a conference on laparoscopy in Saskatoon for several years. The next year I enquired about the conference and learned all the presenters had emigrated.

  2. I saw a documentary some time ago about the history of London as a giant lawless metropolis, and covering the formation of the Metropolitan Police. “The Met” was chartered with stopping any current ongoing crime and mayhem that was happening when they encountered it. Astonishingly, when they encountered someone who was injured or dead after the crime had been committed and any suspects gone, they were not allowed to investigate the circumstances leading up to the crime.

    I guess there was so much concern about government authorities digging to citizen’s past actions that this was not allowed. Hard to imagine.

  3. Not only no written constitution but soon no house of lords, not that they’ve fulfilled nobles oblige too well these last few decades.

  4. The mistake the protesters in the UK are making is that they aren’t outside the homes of the politicians and police officials applying these unjust anti-free speech laws. Until they do that, the officials will continue to operate like tyrants.

  7. Ministry of silly walks have gotten serious. As befits a department of airship one

  10. I’d like to say the US government would tell the UK to pound sand, because we don’t arrest people for Facebook comments.

    Then I remember the poor guy who made the video that supposedly triggered the attack on the Libyan embassy. They arrested him and locked him up incommunicado until after the election.

  11. Well he was in witness protection had testified against a money launderer dont know if hes still alive

  12. there is a certain consonance between huxley and other turn of the century authors like wells who favored a technocratic post christian world view, of course like nietzche’s view of a Post God world, it doesn’t go well, of course the dominance of a stronger more severe faith, with it’s imperatives, then you have a whole new Grand Inquisitor, cue Dosteoyevsky, this new world was Dan Simmons suggested in his fictional tribute to Bat Yeor’s Eurabia told as prophecy,

  13. Yesterday Kami the anointed one announced she was not for dividing us but for “the collective”. Can anyone be so brain dead they don’t understand the context of that word? At least she didn’t say “ein Volk”.

  14. It helps a bit to have a constitution that codifies the right to freedom of speech, as ours does. The Brits don’t have that.

    –neo

    I’m sure neo knows, but the Brits don’t even have a constitution and they are strangely proud of it.

    Instead they have a patchwork of parliamentary laws, common law precedents, vague conventions, treaties and royal prerogatives.

    This gives the government mobility to evolve quickly, but it sure looks like a recipe for ever-increasing governmental control.

    Which is what we see playing out.

    The Founders blessed us with a Constitution. If we can keep it.

  15. @huxley:This gives the government mobility to evolve over time, but it sure looks like a recipe for ever-increasing governmental control.

    Blackstone recognized it in the 18th century:

    The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds…. It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call its power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo. So that it is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom, that such members be delegated to this important trust, as are most eminent for their probity, their fortitude, and their knowledge; for it was a known apothegm of the great lord treasurer Burleigh, “that England could never be ruined but by a parliament:” and, as sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom, if by any means a misgovernment should any way fall upon it, the subjects of this kingdom are left without all manner of remedy. To the same purpose the president Montesquieu, though I trust too hastily, presages; that as Rome, Sparta, and Carthage have lost their liberty and perished, so the constitution of England will in time lose it’s liberty, will perish: it will perish, whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive.

  17. I have very little sympathy for people who have repeatedly voted for this stuff.

    Sure the Left has worked overtime to dumb down voters… but at a certain point you are responsible for who you become.

    A self-indulgent, post-Judeo-Christian populace deserves exactly what they voted for.

  18. @huxley:Great quote.

    He’s well worth reading. Before we get too smug about our written constitution, we’re talking in another thread about people redefining words to mean what they want. The Left never gives up on this. The written Constitution is just paper, it cannot defend itself. It requires a government composed of men and women of good will to abide by it and enforce it in good faith, and we in the US in 2024 no more have this than the UK in 2024.

  19. well that was franklin, said at the end of the festivities ‘a republic if you can keep it’
    you look at the Athenian republic and it lasted a little over 200 years maybe Rome had a similar arc,

  20. The hope for the British, and for the Canadians, is to elect different Parliaments, which could reverse these oppressive edicts quickly. For the UK, Brits can work for the Labour government’s rapid descent from popularity. But they did vote for this.

  21. of course they chose poorly in the last election, the bizarre districting system didn’t help things, maybe Canada will do better, with Poievre, the ones who chomps on apples, there is a similar dynamic in Spain suggested by the EU elections, but we know how that turned out in France, actually that was left up in the air

  22. The Venezuelans fell for happy talk, voted for it until their vote was not worth the paper they marked it on. They just found out that it won’t be as easy to vote their way out.

  23. Constitutions just get in the way of doing what should be done. This is what leftist believe.

  25. Sorry for three straight posts, but to be clear, constitutions don’t necessarily mean shit. I believe North Korea has one.

  27. alvaro vargas llosa jr and carlos alberto montaner, wrote the perfect latin american idiot, trying to restore the classical liberal tag, this was in the era before chavez subverted the milieu,

  28. Yes the sun is setting on British liberty, but it has risen many times!

    Sennacherib:

    Thank you.

    I do get tired of the conservative plaint that things get worse and worse, then it’s North Korea and Game Over.

    No, it ain’t. Not even if Kamala wins in November.
    ___________________________________

    I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul.

    –William Faulkner, “Nobel Prize acceptance speech” (1949)

  29. I remember Nancy Pelosi referring to election fraud protesters as, ” Enemies of the State “.

  31. Now you can see why Elon Musk is so focused on/wants us to move out in to space, plant a colony on Mars, explore and perhaps settle other places in the Solar system and, then, head for the stars–it’s not only a way to make it harder for some catastrophe to wipe out a human race which is currently stuck on one vulnerable planet, it’s also an attempt to get away from corrupt Earth governments, and to try to start over.

  32. We ( US) had a deserved revolution with the Brits, but over the centuries they’ve done the heavy lifting for freedom and they’ve seen times of true despair, but they’re here!

  33. Once it’s accepted that those in power at a given time have the right to define what constitutes acceptable and/or hate speech, then no one should be surprised when a new regime assumes power that they too will define acceptable speech as they see fit.
    The definition of approved speech will become a political football, motivated by those in political power to maintain their power.
    This is the danger in allowing restrictions on political / social free speech (as opposed to yelling fire in a theater).

    Once the cat is out of the bag, it may be impossible to have it undone.
    What goes around, comes around.

    Of course, the left knows this, and they are betting that once they are ensconced in power, they will stay there for a real long time. And they have good reason to believe this.
    Given their propensity for cheating in elections, promoting voting by illegals, and vigorously opposing voter ID laws, as well as the ingrained voting habits of a significant percentage of registered voters, leftist democrats should be optimistic things will go their way.
    If I was a leftist, I would be optimistic.
    We all may think that Tim Walz is a total leftist wacko, as is Kamala “Cackling” Harris, but guess what folks??…..the people of MN voted for this guy !!!
    And the folks in CA. have voted in TWICE, Gavin Newsom.
    Leftists have every right to be optimistic.

    There is a concerted movement here in the USA to place restrictions on free speech, so we should not get to uppity about what we see in the UK or Canada.

    Imagine that leftist radicals like Kamala (I.e., really Obama) have an 8 year stint as president going forward, providing them the opportunity to appoint members of the SCOTUS.
    If you want to risk getting real sick to your stomach, just watch on YouTube congressional committees hearings in which nominees chosen by Biden/Obama to sit on the federal judicial bench testify. Their world view is beyond insanity. These are the type of leftist radicals that Kamala/Obama will seek to place on the Supreme Court.
    They will find a way to limit free speech, regardless of what the Constitution mandates. Just as the SCOTUS in the past, has invented new laws or at least new ways to interpret the Constitution, they can do likewise with the first amendment to the US Constitution.

  36. Justin Trudeau and Keir Starmer are two awful human beings with strong Stalinist tendencies.

  37. Harris and Walz both also have strong Marxist backgrounds, despite Harris’s attempts to deny all her past policy positions.

  38. Neither Harris nor Walz have Marxist backgrounds. Jamie Raskin does, not these clots. It’s a reasonable inference that neither Harris nor Walz has any opinions which are not derivative. Your problem is not Marxism, but the ideology of the professional guilds which provide the software for Democratic politicians. Start with the teachers’ colleges, whose creature is Walz.

  39. They are not hardcore Marxists, but they have marinated all their lives in leftist swamps from which they take their principles, such as they are.

  40. actually her father as with the rest of her immediate family, the drift to the left is rather undeniable, the Socialist Party did birth the American Communists after all,
    a similar dynamic in Western Europe like the Sumar in Spain Melenchon’s in France the Democracy party (no joke) in Italy, the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s was largely on the far edge of Social Democracy, and it seems the have returned to the mean after Tony Blair, the Tories have not notably served as a backstop in this vein, the Gaullists neither,

  41. I believe the election results have already been determined. Of course, they are going to put in Harris, which is why she doesn’t have to have a platform, or ideas, hardly any contact with the press, etc. Those who have taken over the D party are already very sure of themselves.

  42. Here is another example of the conduct of our glorious Secret Service–they really don’t give a shit.*

    According to the linked article, there was a beauty salon, which had a bathroom, across the street from where a July 27 Harris rally was taking place in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

    An admitted SS agent never contacted the salon’s owner for permission to use their bathroom during the event, but, instead, taped over the salon’s security camera, (the alarm system was apparently notifying of a break in during all this time), then, did a little B & E and picked the lock–the lead SS agent knew about this bathroom location because he was reportedly directing people at the two hour rally to use the salon’s bathroom–they left the bath room a mess, people swiped all the mints which were on a countertop and, after the rally, the door to the salon–now in a shambles–was then left open until the owner arrived, an hour and a half later, and–to add insult to injury–they never removed the tape over the security camera, which had caught the image of the SS agent taping over it.

    The Secret Service later apologized, and offered to pay for all sorts of damages to make the salon owner whole but, what the hell!

    * See https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/08/11/why-the-secret-service-had-to-apologize-to-a-local-salon-owner-n2643238

  44. but it’s very much a clockwork orange state, that film is very disturbing to watch, the only difference is the hue of the droogs, we saw a similar dynamic in nashville what was that a year and a half ago,

    I don’t know if Burgess elaborated as much what chaos would rain in a Sovietized Britain as much as Kubrick spelled out, I am being tactful in not pointing out the offending acts,

    what does a land stripped of the Bible of local traditions of Propriety, end up devolving into,

  45. They’re all operating according to the WEF/WTF Playbook.
    (“Biden” too, of course—but “he” has to be a bit more careful because of the Second Amendment).

    BTW, anyone check recently how many apes are still clambering on Gibraltar?

  46. Hello. Looked briefly in a couple of times. First thread I’ve actually scrolled through and I see Blackstone cited on parliamentary sovereignty.

    This might interest some of you. Albert Venn Dicey, and perhaps his most famous passage from, ‘Introduction to The Study of The Law of The Constitution.”

    Had just copied it as a reminder to a perplexed Brit as he watched his “fundamental” rights evaporate.

    I added the somewhat arbitrary paragraphing.

    Be well …

    “In England we have laws which may be called fundamental’ or constitutional because they deal with important principles (as, for example, the descent of the Crown or the terms of union with Scotland) lying at the basis of our institutions, but with us there is no such thing as a supreme law, or law which tests the validity of other laws.

    There are indeed important statutes, such as the Treaty of Union with Scotland, with which it would be political madness to tamper gratuitously ; there are utterly unimportant statutes, such, for example, as the Dentists Act, 1878, which may be repealed or modified at the pleasure or caprice of Parliament; but neither the Act of Union with Scotland nor the Dentists Act, 1878, has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law.

    Each embodies the will of the sovereign legislative power; each can be legally altered or repealed by Parliament; neither tests the validity of the other.

    Should the Dentists Act, 1878, unfortunately contravene the terms of the Act of Union, the Act of Union would be pro tanto repealed, but no judge would dream of maintaining that the Dentists Act, 1878, was thereby rendered invalid or unconstitutional.

    The one fundamental dogma of English constitutional law is the absolute legislative sovereignty or despotism of the King in Parliament. But this dogma is incompatible with the existence of a fundamental compact, the provisons of which control every authority existing under the constitution.

  47. the dentists act, that seems not that drastic, then again considering English dental hygeine,

  48. What is rather “interesting” is how quickly Starmer cast off the mask (of “reasonable”, “rational” Leftist Leader)…even if this should have been expected by anyone paying the slightest attention to anything the Left has been doing across the board over the past while….

    It’s as, as, as though he doesn’t expect to remain in power for very long (though of course he does—for a VERY LONG TIME, in fact).

    File under: Transformation isn’t just a River in America…

  49. It’s one thing for the Big Shots to try to shut down speech they find inconvenient. But you know ordinary folks who will nod accordingly.

  51. Re: Clockwork Orange

    I was fascinated by the book and film. A complicated business.

    Few Americans know that Kubrick withdrew the film in the UK because it was used by the defense in a case where a 16 year-old murdered an old man and the Kubrick family was picketed and threatened. “Clockwork Orange” was unavailable in the UK until after Kubrick died in 1999.

    For Anthony Burgess, the author, the book was about free will, not social decay and rampant gang violence. The horror for Burgess was Alex’s forced conversion from violence by the Ludovico Technique, rather than by his own free will. The final chapter of the book shows Alex losing interest in his violent ways and considering growing up and raising a family.

    Much to Burgess’s dismay that chapter was omitted from the US version of the book and Kubrick’s film. Burgess felt the meaning of his book had been misunderstood and subverted. It was supposed to be about free will vs state control.

    I found Burgess’s lack of concern for the victims of violence shocking.

    Burgess was an odd person. He also considered “Clockwork” a minor work and rather resented the attention it got over his more highbrow books, for me quite tedious.

  52. Richard+Aubrey,

    We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. Kinda a long those lines.

  54. RE: My post about the Secret Service at 1:02 above.

    Well, here is an article saying that the Secret Service is trying to hint that “another dude did it.”*

    My questions is, if the Secret Service didn’t do it, why did the earlier news report not only say that the Secret Service had… “apologized to the salon owner, Ms.Powers,” abut also …”confirmed that the woman who taped over the Ring camera at about 8:12 a.m. July 27 was with the agency. She also said the agency offered to pay to have the salon cleaned and pay for any damages, and also pay for the business’ private alarm bill “because it was going off for so long.”

    * See https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-hints-wasnt-behind-salon-break-in-during-kamala-harris-campaign-event

  55. Much to Burgess’s dismay that chapter was omitted from the US version of the book and Kubrick’s film. Burgess felt the meaning of his book had been misunderstood and subverted. It was supposed to be about free will vs state control.

    I only saw the movie and the US version of the book, but that meaning still came through very clearly.

    I found Burgess’s lack of concern for the victims of violence shocking.

    If you mean in Clockwork Orange, I thought that was purposeful, to make the point that as horrible as their crimes were, taking away someone’s free will is in its own category of horrible. A valid point, though in this case Alex and his pals deserved the death penalty, which certainly takes away their free will, so Burgess’s ploy might have backfired, at least with some of his audience.

    Dead Man Walking backfired similarly for me. It used the same ploy of wanting us to react against the death penalty even for a brutal murderer. But I came away thinking the guy got what he deserved, and in fact it was only by having to face death that he sort of atoned for his crime.

  56. @huxley:I found Burgess’s lack of concern for the victims of violence shocking.

    I’m pretty sure he had concern for victims of the sort of violence described in A Clockwork Orange. His wife, Lynne Burgess, was assaulted in London by a gang of American soldiers in WWII, after all.

  57. Is the sun setting on American Liberty, too? Free speech in the US faces its greatest threat to the Republic since John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts were defeated by Free Speech defender Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800.

    So argues Jonathan Turley in his new book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in The Age of Rage.”

    What makes today’s threat so powerful and irresistible is the union of mass media and corporations, the Federal government, the Democrat Party, professionals and campus professors against dissenting speech. We have never seen this before.

    The election of 1800 was decided by the People. Today, again, the People stand with the exercise of free speech.

    The US has weathered the storms before, but there is no guarantee that we will this time.

    Joe Biden is the worst President on this issue in history. A Federal Judge has called their censorship system Orwellian, yet it continues unimpeded.

    Turley argues that this election must be decided on free speech Liberty grounds.

    Turley appeared on Mark Levin’s Sunday night show in two segments to argue for hi indictment of these dire times we face.

    Fox News has only posted one online
    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360280048112

    I expect to post a complete interview LINK later on the Unthreaded thread.

  58. Jimmy, Niketas Choniates:

    I’m sure Burgess had concern for violence when his wife suffered an attack.

    I am saying that in his book, “Clockwork Orange,” and his later discussions, he showed no such concern that I could detect. Victims were just part of the scenery to make Burgess’s point about free will vs. state control.

    In the last chapter of “Clockwork” Alex is losing his taste for violence and maybe he will finish growing up and raise a family. Free will. Yay!

    However, Burgess shows no concern for Alex’s victims, including at least one cold-blooded, brutal murder. Does all that go away because the state used the Ludovico treatment on Alex?

  59. @huxley:Burgess shows no concern for Alex’s victims

    Probably best to let Burgess himself speak to it.

    Unfortunately there is so much original sin in us all that we find evil rather attractive. To devastate is easier and more spectacular than to create. We like to have the pants scared off us by visions of cosmic destruction. To sit down in a dull room and compose the Missa Solemnis or The Anatomy of Melancholy does not make headlines or news flashes. Unfortunately my little squib of a book was found attractive to many because it was as odorous as a crateful of bad eggs with the miasma of original sin.

    It seems priggish or pollyannaish to deny that my intention in writing the work was to titillate the nastier propensities of my readers. My own healthy inheritance of original sin comes out in the book and I enjoy raping and ripping by proxy. It is the novelist’s innate cowardice that makes him depute to imaginary personalities the sins that he is too cautious to commit for himself. But the book does also have a moral lesson, and it is the weary traditional one of the fundamental importance of moral choice. It is because this lesson sticks out like a sore thumb that I tend to disparage A Clockwork Orange as a work too didactic to be artistic. It is not the novelist’s job to preach; it is his duty to show.

  60. Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives

  61. And Burgess dances around the point in his usual fancy language, insults those with legitimate concerns, then bugs out with his version of clown nose on, clown nose off.

    No one is saying that Burgess “enjoys raping and ripping by proxy.”

    That quote sums up much that I find infuriating with AB.

  62. Note that Burgess admits that he “tends to disparage A Clockwork Orange.”

    It is a consistent complaint with him, that a short book he more or less dashed off, stands as his most famous and most studied work. While his intricate high-lit tomes are being forgotten.

    Rightly so IMO.

    It is a crackin’ good read. Leaving off the last chapter, in which Burgess justifies his Big Moral proposition, was the right thing to do.

  63. @huxley:While his intricate high-lit tomes are being forgotten.

    Rightly so IMO.

    I really liked Earthly Powers and I thought it was better than Clockwork Orange. But as Abraham Lincoln or Socrates or somebody once said, the world don’t move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you, might not be right for some.

  64. Walz is the gift that keeps on giving.

    The Democrats are now trying to “clean things up,” by saying that Walz may have “misspoken,” here and there, about his military service i.e. it was inadvertent , it was a simple mistake.

    Well, how about this.

    When he was a member of Congress, Walz had “Challenge coins” struck as a souvenir to give to people, celebrating both his military and his Congressional service to Minnesota, and to our country, and on this coin he has the image of his rank insignia, the stripes from his military service, and those stripes are those of a “Command Sergeant Major,”

    Walz was actually discharged with the rank of Sergeant Major, because he failed to complete the requirements to keep his temporary rank of Command Sergeant Major.*

    Then, there is a speech by him, dissected in the article below, in which Walz gives the impression that he was serving in the National Guard (not later, when he was actually at Bagram Air Base in his capacity as a member of Congress) when he was at Bagram in Afghanistan.**

    * See https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/08/11/stolen-valor-walz-strikes-again-n2177992

    ** See https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/08/11/new-in-2021-911-speech-tim-walz-references-being-on-the-tarmac-at-bagram-n2178004

  65. I read the very short introduction to British politics. A refrain in the book was that the lack of a written constitution and state governments made British government more centralized and parties and Parliament more powerful than American parties and the US Congress are. That’s still true, but it seems dated now. The bureaucracy and the donor class now seem to have more power than elected governments. The Tories may be a bit of a drag on the bureaucracy and Labour may prod bureaucrats forward in the direction that they already want to go. Of course, the voters do have a say in keeping Labour radicals from gaining power and in turning out parties which have been in power too long — and of course there was Brexit — but it’s like the old song lyric: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

  66. then again the UK was not forced into a crisis where it had to come up with a Constitution, back in the Thatcher era, where the intelligentsia like Rushdie was in a tizzy, they came up with Charter 88, because she was the terror, it was just to standardize the EU claptrap, then when it came to the Glorious era of Tony Blair, well you know what happened then,

    the mindset of the modern intelligentsia is seen in series like Roadkill, which was an adaptation of a David Hare play about an unscrupulous Tory, played by Hugh Laurie, a modern version of House of Cards, he had some success with the Worricker series with Bill Nighy some years ago,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑