No free speech for those who would destroy it

Peter Tatchell is dead wrong here, where he writes opposing the conviction under the Public Order Act of five al-Muhajiroun Islamists who insulted British troops in Luton.

Tatchell acknowledges that these scum ‘want to destroy our democracy and freedoms’ but then argues for their ‘right’ to do so. Wrong, wrong, wrong! That is precisely why they should have no ‘right’ to ‘free speech’. To claim they do is to invite our own destruction. It’s a kind of high principled masochism and is fundamentally irrational.

Tatchell argues:

The best way to respond to these fanatics is expose and refute their hateful, bigoted opinions.

But that’s not the issue here. The issue is one of public order. What ‘right’ do people have to turn up in public at a highly charged and emotional event such as the homecoming of British troops and then start spouting their fascist filth?

They can hold their own meetings and do that. Fine. But no-one has the ‘right’ to ‘protest’ against freedom in the presence of brave men and women whose friends have died fighting for it. The ‘protest’ was vile and organised by a group that is anti-democracy, anti-Western values, anti-free speech and pro-al-Qa’eda (i.e. the mortal enemies of our very nation). They knew their presence and message would incite a violent emotional response from those around them – they were seeking that reaction – and then hid behind principles of free speech that they would themselves abolish, being protected by the police they tell to ‘go to hell’.

They were indeed ‘using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress’, and in this case, the law was properly applied.

The only shame is that the lot of them weren’t arrested on the spot and carted off in a police van at once.

Tatchell and co, please wake up – these are the enemies of the West, traitors against the freedoms that were won by thousands of Britons who died fighting Hitler. They are heirs to the Nazis and should be treated as such.

UPDATE

Peter responds:

Edmund

I don’t agree with your implied paradigm – the West versus the rest.

This issue is not about defending western values. It is about defending international and universal human rights, as supported by people in all parts of the world, including people in many Muslim majority nations, such the heroic democracy campaigners in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

And my response:

You’re quite right on this. I worded my response badly as I was writing quickly. I don’t see these as intrinsically Western values (as I argue here) – they don’t spring forth from European genes or some such nonsense.

However, a culture based on democracy and human rights is what we currently have in the West and we should defend it to the hilt.

No freedom for those who wish to destroy ours!

These people are traitors and should be treated as such. We are at war with al-Qa’eda, whether you believe it or not, and these are al-Qa’eda’s British wing. Oswald Mosley and his fascist followers were interned during World War 2 as they sympathised with Nazism. Frankly if we had any sense we’d be locking al-Qa’eda sympathisers up as well.