<<< back to Articles Index
From stake to spin doctor
Freedom of speech in Britain
by Michael Newland
We in Britain like to speak of our proud tradition of freedom of speech,
which continues to be eroded by the cult of political correctness.
In reality, a degree of freedom of speech which has been the envy of
people in other countries is something of comparatively recent origin -
and short-lived as the grip of terror in the form of political correctness
has intensified. Over the centuries there have been considerable ups and
downs in the battle for freedom of expression, and we are now in one of
the more depressing phases - but there is some light at the end of the
tunnel in the form of European human rights law, and the growth of the
Internet.
One can distinguish three quite distinct phases in the state's attempts
to prevent people speaking their minds. Historically, the sheer effort
put into suppressing freedom of speech is astonishing, but also an indicator
of the power of ideas.
The first phase, beginning a century after the Norman Conquest, concerned
preventing dissent from the dogmas of the official church. Burnings at
the stake began in 1210, and the draconian Statute of Heretics lasted until
the reign of Charles II. A early safety valve was allowed to a degree in
the curious manifestation of the travelling entertainers known as Fools,
whose humorous attacks on orthodoxy were grudgingly permitted. By Tudor
times, the Fools had been neutered by becoming state employees. The same
sort of process is at work today in the form of highly-paid newspaper columnists,
who specialise in putting on a show of robustly attacking the state, while
knowing exactly on which side their bread is buttered when it comes to
receipt of a pay cheque.
The second phase began in the middle of the 18th century. Most people
did not have the vote, and in the new mood of the period began to complain
about it, and also to demand the right to meet together and criticise the
government. The French Revolution fuelled discontent, and, in its aftermath,
British governments, in holy terror of the revolutionary mood spreading
from France, passed a succession of acts of parliament, the 'Six Acts',
introducing such swingeing restrictions on public meetings that it was
almost impossible to hold them without fear of arrest, or being cut down
by the military. Eleven died and hundreds were injured during the Peterloo
Massacre in 1819, when a mass meeting in Birmingham was attacked by cavalry.
The leading figures were tried and imprisoned.
Even more sinister was the government's role as agent provocateur in
the Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820. A state agent named Edwards set out
to provoke a group of disgruntled simpletons into a plot to murder the
Cabinet - something which suited the government well in the face of an
imminent General Election. The conspirators were arrested, hung and beheaded,
outside Newgate. The lesson of Cato Street is not to dismiss as necessarily
fanciful rumours of state involvement in terrorist atrocities, or their
contrivance, when the state wishes to discredit and suppress dissent.
Much of the worst of the legislation was allowed to lapse in the decades
following the defeat of Napoleon, and mass meetings and marches by the
Chartist movement for greater democracy, were reluctantly permitted until
government became frightened and largely succeeded in driving the meetings
off the streets in the 1840s. After pitched battles with the police in
Hyde Park in the 1860s, the government accepted a right of free speech
in the portion of the park now known as Speaker's Corner, and a tradition
of open air meetings throughout the country became part of national life,
only becoming eroded in the television and radio age.
A generation ago, politicians were accustomed to public meetings and
dealing with rumbustious heckling. That has become a largely lost art in
a time of the television interview, during which official interviewers
try to give the impression of being independent critics of government -
a sort of pretend public heckling. Even The Archers is now a vehicle
for government propaganda, as the BBC was forced to admit recently. Yet
those familiar with dealing with the BBC are well-acquainted with the air
of injured innocence it usually exudes at any suggestion of a lack of independence
from its paymasters in Downing Street.
The present phase of increasing erosion of the right to criticise is
far more serious even than the earlier attempts to prevent religious debate,
or block verbal tearing at the authority of the state - although those
remain to a degree objectives.
What is now being attempted in Britain is the complete destruction of
the British people and their society under the cover stories 'anti-racism',
'the fight against discrimination', and 'equality policy'. We are supposed
to give ourselves up to our own eradication without a murmur of protest.
The huge and surprisingly open debates about the shape of a post-war
society, organised by the government within the armed forces towards the
end of World War Two - over 60,000 lectures were given to the troops by
civilians in 1943 alone - appeared to presage a far more democratic post-war
world than the one which eventually emerged. The writer recalls an unforgettable
occasion during the late 1950s when, one dark night, the Metropolitan Police
threatened to beat him up for carrying about the streets a novel by DH
Lawrence! It is fair to say that most state activity is less heavy-handed,
but all the more sinister in its attempts not to make itself too widely
known.
The better part of state attempts to block debate about the dismantling
of Britain is being directed towards setting up a false facade of democratic
discussion in the form of the mass media. The method is a neat one. An
illusion is created of open debate between all sides of the argument, represented
by 'experts'. Since the participants are carefully selected solely to represent
a narrow range of approved opinion, the entire affair is little more than
a racket designed to deceive the public. The public is expected to believe
that they are genuine participants by proxy in a democratic debate on the
state of the nation, and what they would like to see for the country in
the future.
Talk radio was originally billed as offering open access to everyone
- an electronic version of the soap box meeting - but try telephoning to
say anything outside the narrowly permitted limits. The usual media procedure
is the promise of a taped interview. If nothing damaging to the pro-British
cause is said then, as a rule, the interview will never see the light of
day. "If you want to be heard, make a fool of yourself" is the unspoken
instruction!
The printed media, in so far as they have retained any independence
at all compared with the total subjugation of television, is now being
brought under full control. New Labour's totalitarians have spent years
quietly making sure that the national newspapers are packed out with pliant
placemen. Stray too far from supporting the big agenda - our destruction
- and the sturdy placeman can forget about being fed stories by the Government,
let alone the prospect of a knighthood or peerage.
One newspaper, the Daily Mail, has been claimed to remain reasonably
independent. Certainly, it is very critical of Labour. The game is given
away, however, by what it omits to say. The Mail bemoans the destruction
of Britain - the usual facade of free debate is maintained - but will never
support any movement genuinely opposed to it. The Tories are allowed to
bluster their pretence of opposition, but anyone who still believes their
intentions are any different from Labour's had better wake up!
No wonder the view of the man in the street is that nothing can be done
about anything - precisely the demoralising conclusion he is intended to
draw. Complain and he will be told about the vast and growing media, everyone
catered for somewhere, and so on. The semblance of a genuine debate is
supposed to be taken for the substance of one, and it is difficult to argue
if you have not seen the real workings of the media at first hand.
The task of the freedom movement is to persuade supporters that something
can be done - and that it is not really that difficult. Get into the free
speech communication business. The Internet is a Trojan Horse which can
defeat censorship. Who cares that universities, for example, have blocked
out all views but those of the left for nearly forty years, by banning
meetings? Anyone who wants to read the message of liberation is now spoiled
for choice. New web sites open every day. It has been said that European
communism was brought down by the uncontrollable use of photocopiers. The
Internet is much the same.
The European Convention on Human Rights has now become part of British
law. The High Court has already anticipated its effects in favour of a
far wider right to freedom of speech. What the law will shortly say is
that everyone can express their opinions, even if other people claim to
be offended, provided one is polite and does not call for violence. We
will also have a specific right to freedom of assembly in order to express
our opinions. We may not like the intrusion of European law into our country,
but political movements must use every weapon afforded them.
There are periods when Britain and its people reach a watershed of discontent
about the view of the world put to them by the state and the media. There
is an eruption of interest in new ideas, and an uncontrollable appetite
for discussion. It happened in the 1640s during the Civil War, during the
nineteenth century as a result of the massive misery and discontent with
the system of government which arose from the Industrial Revolution, and
during the last war.
The same is likely to happen in the next decades. The need for a recognisable
community to live in will be the focus of the exercise of freedom
of speech. It will not be easy for the state, much as it would wish it,
to control the ferment. The main means will not, as in the past, be marches
and public meetings, but the Internet and cheap printing.
References: From Soapbox to Soundbite by Stephen Coleman - Porcupine
Press, The Prince of Pleasure by JB Priestley - Heinemann
<<< back to Articles Index
