Sometimes I appal myself! I can only put it down to advancing senility because as I write I am stone-cold sober but the fact is that I have decided to break the habit of a lifetime and join the great unwashed in a 'demo'. I blame that Oliver Kamm and his silky-smooth, city banker, intellectual prosody - the man's a menace! In a post headed "Support free speech" he enticed me into joining a demo outside the Danish embassy in support of that nation in facing the mostly government-inspired attacks on its embassies. I broke the first law that every soldier learns in basic training, 'never volunteer!', and metaphorically put my hand up. Oliver's army, as I like to think of us, have now been subsumed into a greater effort organised by the people behind this site.
I urge all my readers to try and attend. It will have one novel feature in that it will combine the forces of moderate Left and Right. For example, both 'Democratiya' and 'The Freedom Association' are supporting the demo. It will also have the enormous advantage of containing no members of the SWP/Respect faction, on the grounds that their belief in freedom of speech is limited to what the central committee approves, which should raise the hygenic standards above those normally to be experienced at such events.
Saturday 25th March in Trafalgar Square from 2.00 - 4.00 pm.
Be there!
Not that I don't agree, David, but how is David Irving's speech less protected than the Danish newspaper's?
It seems to me that both were grossly offensive to someone, not that I agree with violence of any sort. I'm Jewsish so David Irving is no friend of mine!!
Is the protest about attacks on embassies or about free speech? If it's about free speech I don't really see how you can protect one form of offensive expression and not another.
Posted by: Simon Metz | Friday, 03 March 2006 at 19:36
Simon, thanks for your comment and I think we may be at cross purposes. I have no desire to protect one offensive example of free speech more than another. I would like to see both of them defended. We can exclude the usual caveats of slander and shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, and certainly any speech directly inciting violence against other people(*). Similarly, each society must come to some conclusion on the definition of pornography and the means rerquired to protect children from it. Beyond that, the term 'freedom of speech' cannot, in my view, be finessed. I wish more people would take account of the sensibilities of others before opening their mouths or reaching for their keyboards, but, as my old mother used to say, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!"
(*) To be clear, it is not just the words but the location/timing that must be taken into account in deciding when, where and what constitutes a direct incitement to violence. To go into an area of one ethnicity and preach your dislike of them is an incitement to general violence, but I am pretty sure it is already covered by existing 'breech of the peace' laws.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 03 March 2006 at 20:45
Okay, I'll be there. Think I'll bring along a large coolbox filled with ice, gin, Noilly and a cocktail shaker. If you see me, I'll be happy to share a Martini with you.
Let freedom ring!
Posted by: Andy M | Saturday, 04 March 2006 at 23:25
Well done, Andy, but what a let down if, instead of my being arrested in a gallant fight for freedom, I'm just nicked for 'D & D"!
PS: Don't forget the olives!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 05 March 2006 at 09:07
David...you crack me up!
I might be there as well.
I'll bring the Newkie!
Posted by: Will | Sunday, 05 March 2006 at 23:40
Oh God! What with Andy's dry martinis and Will's 'Newkies', will I ever see Dorset again?
I will e-mail you guys nearer the time and perhaps we can meet up for a jar and a natter.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 06 March 2006 at 18:08
Huzzah Duffy!
Posted by: reasoninrevolt | Wednesday, 08 March 2006 at 02:23