At approximately 3pm on the 27th of April, 2014, chairman of the political party Liberty GB, Paul Weston, was arrested by 6 police officers. Why, you ask!? For reciting the following quote by the late, great Sir Winston Churchill:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.
The quote originates from Churchill’s 1899 publication ‘The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan‘ which offers an insight into his personal experiences and observations as an Army Officer during the Mahdist War in Sudan. Not only did Winston’s esteemed political career span a period of 40 years, he was also an accomplished author, having captured the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 “for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values”.
Yet some 61 years on, a mere recitation of Churchill’s once enamored literature has lead a politician straight to the back of a paddy-wagon. This begs the question: If Churchill were alive today would he even be allowed to speak his mind, let alone be revered for it? Worse yet, would it lead to his arrest?
The great conundrum in the situation at hand is that the quote is an expressive analysis of an ideology that – quite literally – permits the murder and oppression of the vast majority of the United Kingdom’s established and native non-Muslim populace; an ideology that literally harbors cultural and religious supremacy, and a demographic that is forced to undertake and uphold the belief that the Prophet Muhammad is the ‘perfect Muslim’ and therefore perfect human. This being a man who, by the way, married a 6-year-old (slept with/raped at 9) and ordered the murder, rape, and pillage of countless. Indeed, pledging allegiance to such an ideology before your country and countrymen appears to me to be far more criminal than the likes of which Churchill or Weston have done: simply offer an analysis of it.
Similarly, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Muslim ‘protesters’ across not only the United Kingdom but wider Europe, are quite often documented spreading anti-Western hatred. Picket signs calling for the death of infidels (non-believers, non-Muslims) are not necessarily uncommon. Anjem Choudary, despite wide-spread calls for his deportation, has a long-standing history of public radical Islamic doctrine; refusing to condemn terrorist attacks on British soil, and going so far as to refer to the 9/11 terrorists as ‘magnificent martyrs’.
Yet these instances and those like them are seldom seen as criminal acts, nor are they punished through arrest or law despite being a much larger threat to a nation’s social fabric and cohesiveness than anything Weston has done. At least, that is, to anybody with an ounce of commonsense that isn’t buried beneath their own misplaced sense of white guilt.
In Australia, the current conservative party in power has proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. The proposed amendments would bring stringency and decisiveness to the otherwise vague and flimsy wording of sections 18C & 18D, which can see a person imprisoned on the grounds of an individual’s sensitivity and their ability to whine and cry foul. Currently, the proposal is opposed by ~88% of citizens according to multiple opinion polls, despite the fact that the amendments would no more afford a person the ability to denigrate a person’s character or social standing based on their race or ethnicity than they currently do.
Not without irony, president Gillian Triggs of the Human Rights Commission sees the validity of the amendments, having stated during an address to the National Press Club that she agrees the “bar has been set too low”.
Australian politician Bob Carr, in his book ‘Diaries of a Foreign Minister’, calls into question a Jewish Lobby’s perceived stranglehold over the Australian Labor party. This resulted in widespread media coverage that saw Jewish politician and member for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby to label Bob Carr a “bigot”. While Carr’s observational recount of his time as Foreign Minister suggests nothing of dislike, hatred or bias against Jewish people, Michael Danby’s provocative assumption is one that is a direct attack on Carr’s character. Yet who, in the end, was the person being ostracized by media and public? Carr, of course.
It stands to reason then, in my view, that the issues we face in regard to freedom of speech are as much a societal problem as they are a problem of law. And so long as they remain a societal problem, the greater the chance of radical opportunists invoking damaging interpretations of law and the potential enactment of new laws themselves.
In affording minorities of non-Western backgrounds the freedoms and civil liberties of the West, we have slowly locked ourselves out from them. In giving one protection, we remove multiple rights. Yet the hypocrisy stands tall, as the imbalance of our policy and priority both in society and in the interpretation of law continues to allow those we mistakenly see as disadvantaged to hold the one great trump card: The race card.
This is how the West was Lost.