UK: Labour leader promises to criminalize “Islamophobia”

April 26, 2015

“Big Brother as a young man”

Great Britain is holding a general election on May 7th, and it’s clear that Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader, is getting desperate. In an interview with the Muslim News web site, Her Majesty’s would-be first minister promised to outlaw Islamophobia:

“We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” he said, adding: “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Now, lest you think “attacks” just means physical assault, bear in mind the UK has a growing problem with the tolerance of free speech. Given these and other examples, it’s clear that what Mr. Miliband has in mind includes the punishment of free speech, which is the expression of a person’s thinking. In other words, Ed Miliband would make “incorrect thinking” a crime — thoughtcrime.

George Orwell, call your office.

I’ll be frank, Eddie, this is pretty damned disgusting. For a major party leader in the land that gave the world the concepts of individual liberty and natural rights –including free speech– to advocate the creation of a crime based on the holding of abhorrent thoughts is, well, almost unspeakably sad. Shall Great Britain, patriarch of the Anglosphere and the font of our liberties, cast off its heritage and become tyrannical out of fear of hurtful words? Do you, Ed Miliband, seriously propose policing people’s thoughts just to pander for votes among the Muslim community?

If Labour had any sense, they’d toss you to the curb for even making the suggestion.

PS: It’s not as if we don’t have a growing problem here, too, with Leftists and their allies assaulting free speech on our college campuses. And the “hate crime” in general is a troublesome concept, criminalizing a person for his or her thoughts, if they can be known with any certainty, and not just their actions. It also creates privileged classes of victims: declare hatred of red hair a crime, and suddenly assaulting a redheaded person is a worse offense than assaulting a blonde person in the exact same manner. That’s not treating all citizens as equal, as the law should.

Advertisements

UK election news

April 19, 2010

Britain has called a general election for a new Parliament, to be held on May 6th. Looking at today’s Telegraph, I came across what appears to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s main argument for giving Labour a new majority: “the Tories will screw things up worse than we have.

Gordon Brown says Conservative election victory would threaten economy

The Prime Minister told a London news conference David Cameron’s ”big society means big cuts in public services.

”It’s a risk for our mainstream public services that Britain cannot afford to take.”

Mr Brown was attempting to shift the election spotlight away from Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg’s recent poll successes and back on the substantive issues like the economy.

He said Labour was in the ”futures business” with bold and ambitious plans for the country, while the Tories were in the ”risk business”.

Given Labour’s track record of fiscal screw ups and their pursuit of “Green” policies that will leave Britain in the dark, it looks like the only real risk is leaving them in power.

Then again, the Conservatives under Cameron don’t seem all that different from Labour, these days. They’re certainly not Thatcherites.

What’s truly surprised me is the strength of Britain’s main third-party, the Liberal Democrats. Formed from a merger of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democrats, I don’t believe it’s ever been the official Opposition(1), the number two party in Parliament, let alone formed a government. But the polls show they’re currently in second place and perhaps have momentum. Could they wind up forming the government? Part of a coalition with Labour? The party is a strong believer in individual liberty in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, but their commitment to social liberalism with its inherent high taxes and extensive welfare state seem at odds with this.

And again I ask, given Labour’s track record, the Conservatives’ promise to not change too much, and the Lib-Dems’ official support of an expensive welfare state, is there really all that much daylight between the three? And, if there isn’t, will the dissatisfied vote for the fascist BNP in significant numbers?

(1)The article refers to the old Liberal-Social Democrat alliance polling ahead of Labour in the 1983 general election, in which the Conservatives won a crushing majority, but Britain’s “first past the post” system gave Labour the second-highest number of seats.