Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech

Supporters of political organisations like the freedom association and Ukip often claim that the UK's current hate speech and anti-defamation laws are simple attacks on free speech designed to curtail political expression and with a more Americanised approach the the situation the country would be far better off. The United States enjoys apparent freedom of speech under the US constitution yet despite these constitutional guarantees it has fallen sharply in the press freedom rankings tumbling from 20th to 46th position in just four years due to government pressure currently being placed on journalists and news agencies that are reporting on activities like NSA spying that put the government in a bad light. All this is happening as extremist groups like the Westbro Baptist church are allowed to spread their message of hate and and exclusion without legal consequence due to free speech protections.

It is this apparent freedom that the TFA and other organisations want to bring here in an argument that is often backed by the phrase "political correctness gone mad" but what does that actually mean? In the right-wing press political correctness if often attacked as an idiotic method of appeasing minority groups. I find that political correctness is simply an evolution of the English language, for example you would no call a co-worker, friend or stranger the n-word so why should you be able to use homophobic and sexist slurs in the workplace and in public? What these right-wingers fail to understand is that the right to free-speech does not extend to the right to belittle, offend or harass someone based on superficial points.

In this country we have real issues regarding freedom of speech. The United Kingdom itself has fallen sharply from 19th to 33rd in just four years as the governments attack on the Guardian, the security services harassment of David Miranda and the extent of how anti-terror legislation can be used against journalists and activists was revealed. These acts of state-repression should be fought against by free speech campaigns but starting a FoS campaign when all you want is the right to attack minorities is not only offensive and disingenuous but it also demeans the work of honest FoS campaigns that seek to protect journalists, activists and average citizens from legislation that in its current form can be used as a method of repression.

Euroscepticism and foreign policy.

If you've ever listened to a Ukip supporter argue for long enough you'll notice that they constantly talk about the apparent freedoms we're missing out of as part of the European Union and one of these rights seemingly lost to Brussels is an independent foreign policy, with sceptics claiming that if we left the European Union we could strike our own deals with trading partners and forge closer links with the Commonwealth.

I've always found this particular idea to be completely moronic as it is often based on a romanticised and simplified version of the past. In the days of the British Empire the world was a wildly different place with London able to maintain a strong position in world affairs simply because it was head of the largest empire in the world and could martial together the resources of millions of citizens, today that Empire has long disappeared and the axis of power has shifted. As part of the European Union the United Kingdom can maintain a strong position in trade deals and quickly organise sanctions and humanitarian missions in response to changing events. As an individual nation the UK would have a far weaker position in potential trade deals and sanctions/humanitarian missions would be harder to coordinate.

 In response to this i've heard sceptics claim that instead of working with the EU the country should forge closer relations with the Commonwealth but developing a trading union with a Commonwealth nation like Australia (population 22.9m, GDP 18th in the world, 10,000 miles away) would not be preferable to maintaining our trading union with the EU (population 503.5m, GDP 1st in the world, 21 miles away) and would surely require a standardised regulatory structure similar to the current European Union.

As a nation we must stop living in the past and accept the fact that the world is becoming less isolationist and power becoming less concentrated in nature.

Spirit of '45.

I shall hopefully be returning to full activity once again with a slight change in schedule. If everything is normal I should be posting articles every Monday and Friday. Here is an extremely short post I wrote after watching the Spirit of '45 on netflix

In the Second World War the vast industrial capacity of the United Kingdom was focused towards a singular goal, the destruction of Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers. Politics flew out of the window as all parties worked together in order to ensure production converting consumer goods factory to produce goods for the front lines and nationalising mines in order to ensure a constant rate of production. After achieving this victory the country was faced with a multitude of challenges damage from the blitz and the remnants of slum housing from the 30's combined with the near bankrupt nature of the country. Today we face the aftermath of one of the largest financial disasters since the great depression and a housing crisis that has been compounded by decades worth of government inaction. As a result people on the left and right have started blaming migrant communities for the shortage in housing, schools, hospitals and other local public services claiming that the influx of people as overwhelmed the system and led to the current situation but even if this was the case (its not) the current crisis remains and for a solution we must look at the actions of past governments

During the 45 election campaign Clement Atlee and the Labour Party pledged to remove the slums of the past and replace them with quality homes that will provide a stable foundation for the creation of the modern welfare state. After achieving a landslide victory Nye Bevan, then Minister of Health stepped into the role working with town planners and architects to construct attractive low-income housing (that was obviously a massive increase in quality from the slums of the past), nationalising former privately owned hospitals and constructing new clinics to suit the needs of the population. We need to re-kindle the spirit of 45 and empower national and local government not only to construct new homes, schools and hospitals but repair current empty lots and re-open public services forced to close due to government cuts. An end to the damaging policy of austerity and a solution to the public services crisis that does not involve scapegoating immigrants.

A case for re-nationalisation.

When our rail, energy and water networks were privatised the British people were promised a revolution with new capitalist competition paving the way for cheaper and more effective services. Instead of this the private companies have seen fit to record sky-high profits whilst ignoring complaints about poor service, confusing tariffs and constant above inflation price rises that in the case of the energy industry never seem to come down when energy is cheaper in the summer. I've talked about the inefficient rail network in the past and how private companies are glad to pocket the money while leaving the state to pick up the short stick and the same principle applies to the energy and water sectors. Nationalising these portions of the economy with greatly help those in fuel poverty across the country by giving them a permanent break from the extortionate prices rises of private industry.

Critics will highlight the fact that nationalised industry in the UK was inefficient but it does not have to be that way. In the past our nationalised industries performed admirably and we have efficient state-owned companies in the rest of Europe to look on upon for guidance. Instead of pessimistically looking at the works of times we should focus on the benefits that nationalisation will bring to the country and think of ways to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.