Hello again. This isn’t pure C S Lewis, but everything is connected and our friend Jack certainly couldn’t have written and said what he did (and nor can we study, interpret and pass on his work today) without the assumption of free speech.
It may surprise American readers (and some British ones) that we in Britain do not have a codified right to freedom of thought, belief and expression, as the US Constitution guarantees. It is sometimes said that -our famously unwritten Constitution with it’s complicated checks and balances is ASSUMED to permit everything that is not explicitly outlawed, while Continental European constitutions are more inclined towards outlawing everything that is not explicitly permitted.
The above statements are contestable and many bags of worms would be opened if I tried to explain exactly what I mean, but generally there has been a widely held assumption that Britain explicitly allows free speech, going back to The Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. But this is not so. And the situation has become much more complicated in recent times, and looks likely to become even more complicated in the near future. Specifically, moves to outlaw ‘Conversion Therapy’, ‘Misogyny’ and ‘Islamophobia’ are afoot and could become law WITHIN MONTHS. Each of these three issues is important, but the big one at present is ‘Islamophobia’ and I will discuss this a bit. As ever, take my word for nothing but do your own research.
So why shouldn’t Parliament stop people saying things that upset people? For lots of reasons, but above all because of power. As the saying goes, ‘Find out who you aren’t allowed to criticise, and you find out who is ruling over you.’
As a Christian believer, thinker, writer and sometime activist, this couldn’t be more important to me. Those who don’t think it will affect them are much misinformed. My autistic daughter Sarah (*) when asked a question more complicated that what bus she took yesterday, will often stammer ‘I haven’t thought about it.’ If you are British and you aren’t very concerned about the threat to freedom of expression (particularly as concerns the Sexual Revolutionary agenda and Islam) then you haven’t thought about it. But, unless you are a sexual revolutionary or Muslim activist, or the sort of person who has no fixed opinions about anything and is happy to comply (even when asked to believe absurdities and contradictions, or to dig your own grave) then I respectfully suggest that YOU haven’t thought about it, and you ought to-because IT is thinking about YOU.
Below is a briefing from the Free Speech Union (which was formed only quite recently in response to the growing threat of ‘cancel culture’ where people with ‘unacceptable’ opinions are being bullied and threatened for holding legitimate opinions). It is worth of note that the bulk of the item is written by Tim Dieppe of the organisation Christian Concern, a campaigning organisation which takes a very traditional Biblical world view, and has a foreword by Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s most forthright atheist activist. A colleague of his is quoted as saying that when The National Secular Society agrees with Christian Concern about something, which is a very rare thing, people ought to sit up and take notice.
The late Christopher Hitchens (**), who was a close friend and fellow atheist campaigner with Dawkins, has a famous quote about the weasel term ‘Islamophobia’ which I post below.
I broadly agree with the sentiment in the post, but would argue that it’s meaning would be more to the point if it stated that the term ‘Islamophobia’ was used by, not only cowards but bullies and tyrants.
The word is an abomination. For a start, a ‘phobia’ means an IRRATIONAL fear for something that is quite harmless. Richard Dawkins makes this rather simple and incontestable point in his foreword (click above). However, to give a crude example, if you lived in South East Asia where tens of thousands of deaths from snake bite occur each year, and where deadly venomous reptiles like saw scaled vipers, Russell’s viper, Kraits and cobras abounded-you would not be ‘phobic’ if you were anxious about snakes. Rather, you would be an ignorant fool if you did not take reasonable precautions when walking in areas frequented by deadly serpents. The term herpetophobia exists, but could you reasonably criticise anyone who insisted on wearing high boots and carrying a long stick and when appropriate?
Islam, sadly (or certainly elements of it) can kills people as effectively as a cobra or mamba bite. It is not hard to find examples. I support a charity Open Doors which provides care and advocacy for Christians who are robbed, defrauded, threatened and murdered for their faith-usually by Muslims. The Religion of Peace web site (which is not explicitly Christian) documents violent acts perpetrated by Muslims, against other Muslims or members of other faith traditions. This site would undoubtedly be classed as ‘Islamophobic’ under the definition of the word adopted by our politicians and likely to become law under a Labour government, but when armed jihadis come to your village to rape, rob, burn and kill in the name of their god and prophet-it is not ‘phobic’ to be very anxious.
If anyone, perhaps a secularist, reading this far is tempted to say ‘They’re all as bad as one another!’, I beg you to get some facts rather than rely on slogans and anecdotes. Of course you can produce examples of peaceful Muslims and violent Christians, but the NUMBERS and the AUTHORITY matter. I appeal to people to do the scientific/sceptical investigation thing and look at (A) how typical is violent behaviour coming from Christian and Muslim angles, and (B) what of the teaching and example of the respective religions’ founders? As a Christian, I have often been on the receiving end of insults, slanders, sneers and misrepresentation. Jesus, founder of Christianity, specifically told his followers to return a blessing for a curse and patiently endure insults. For example in Matthew 5:11-12. If a professing Christian kills in the name of Christ, he is disobeying the actual teaching of Christ and disregarding his example. With the founder of Islam and his followers, it’s a different story. Searching on the term ‘does Islam command killing those who insult Muhammed’, I quickly found the advice below on a Muslim web site
And this is what we find, for example the Danish cartoonists, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Batley school teacher and Salman Rushdie. These cases (many more could be found with ease) all demonstrate that Muslims consider it normal, appropriate and quite within their rights to KILL anyone who upsets them by saying something critical about their faith, their holy book, the founder of their religion. The government of Pakistan, a nuclear armed country that Britain provided with hundreds of millions of pounds of aid annually and from whom we have accepted millions of immigrants, has a statutory death penalty for anyone who ‘insults the prophet.’ As the linked article states, so far although many have been arrested, charged and imprisoned for ‘blasphemy’ against Muhammed, the Pakistani State has not yet executed anyone (I would like to think that the British Consul has said that British aid would be stopped immediately if this happened) at least 89 people have been publicly lynched. It’s not all Muslims, OK, but a significant number believe it’s OK to kill infidels if they say what Muslims think they shouldn’t say.
To say that I am disappointed that British politicians are in bed with people who want to make ‘Islamophobia’ a crime, is something of an understatement. The Muslim Council of Britain has been demanding that any criticism of Islam be criminalised-in effect, a Blasphemy Law, but one that only protects Islam. Years ago, when the late Mary Whitehouse was campaigning against perceived anti-Christian blasphemy and sexual obscenity in public broadcasting, most main stream churches saw her as something of an embarrassment, and the Left leaning establishment ridiculed and cursed her-all in the name of individual liberty and freedom of speech. And yet, decades later when she is all but forgotten, the BBC, the Guardian and the Labour Party now seem to be poised to introduce the most draconian restrictions on free speech and the promotion of religious tyranny that we have known in this country since the days of Mary Tudor.
(*) I am not breaking confidences here, she wears autism T shirts and will tell you about her mental health problems if you meet her at a bus stop.
(**) Not to be confused with his brother Peter Hitchens, who is very much still alive and abandoned his atheism for Christianity.
Old Hampshire C S Lewis Society 