Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Category » Liberty Wall

From The Liberty Wall – St. George’s Committee Debate (6) – Self Determination For The English Nation?
READERS with good memories may recall that towards the end of September, Nations without States (NwS) held a debate. The subject was that call by Frank Field (the Labour MP for Birkenhead) for an English Parliament. As strong supporters of self-determination, NwS naturally welcomed this development. You can check it out here: http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-nations-without-states-debate-3-%e2%80%93-an-english-parliament-for-the-english-people
However, Nations without States weren’t the only group who were interested in Frank Field’s call. As may be expected, the St. George’s Committee (SGC) also debated – and found favour – with his comments.

The SGC were particularly interested in the idea of a ‘Common Senate’ which would take the place of the House of Lords. Established on almost Syndicalist lines, it would include experts on both arts and culture. Whilst it would be a UK-wide body – and not exclusively English – it was felt that it could prove useful when promoting English (as opposed to British) arts and culture.

The National Liberal Party has reproduced the SGC article below. However, you can also read it (and take part in the debate) here: https://www.facebook.com/stgeorgescommittee/posts/1566913953351750]
.

St. George’s Committee Debate (6) – Self Determination For The English Nation?

AS EVERYONE who visits this page should be aware, the St. George’s Committee (SGC) is an Anglo-centric movement. Our task is to preserve, protect and promote English history, heritage, traditions, identity and culture.

As a general rule the SGC steers clear of politics, despite the fact that there is a very fine line between politics and culture. Indeed, some English Advocates would argue – with some justification – that there is no distinction between politics and culture.

In the past we have touched upon political issues. In particular, we’re interested in any situation which will help us fight Anglophobia – where the establishment seems to portray any pride in England and the English in a wholly negative and derogatory manner.

We’re going to steer into political waters again with this St. George’s Committee Debate. Here we wish to draw attention to a recent article in The Express by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead. The article – Let us rule our England with an English parliament – is reproduced below. If you want to read it online here’s a link to it:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/834711/frank-field-english-parliament-constitutional-reform-brexit

The SGC is interested in Frank Field’s article as we feel that any form of Self-Determination for England should help us fight Anglophobia and ‘preserve, protect and promote English history, heritage, traditions, identity and culture.’

We’re also excited about his idea to form a “Common Senate” (in place of the House of Lords) which would include those from ‘the professions, arts and culture, industry, including both employers and trade unions.’ The inclusion of those from the ‘arts and culture’ is a move that will be applauded by the vast majority of thinking English Advocates who’re particularly interested English arts and culture.

However, on saying that, the establishment of a “Common Senate” could be a double-edged sword.

As we mentioned at the start of this debate, the SGC aims to ‘preserve, protect and promote English history, heritage, traditions, identity and culture’. So how do we think about Frank Field’s idea to abolish the House of Lords? Should we not want to defend all institutions?

We’d appreciate any thoughts – good, bad or indifferent – on Frank Field’s idea for an English parliament and the questions that we’ve raised. Simply post your views in the comments section below.

It goes without saying that there are no official links between the St. George’s Committee, Frank Field MP, the Labour Party or The Express.

.

Let us rule our England with an English parliament, says Frank Field MP

The task of the St. George’s Committee (SGC) is to preserve, protect and promote English history, heritage, traditions, identity and culture. Would an English Parliament help achieve this?

Establishing an English parliament was the inevitable outcome once the Blair government began to give way to Scottish nationalism.


But just as it took much political heaving to get through the first devolution bill, the passage to establish an English parliament will be further hindered by Brexit fallout.

Politicians are scared of the constitutional changes that were set afoot by Scottish devolution.

They should give up worrying. Brexit will drive reform on the constitutional front, just as it will do through much of public life.
Once the Blair government began the process of devolution, particularly to Scotland, but also to Wales and Northern Ireland, we faced what was called the “West Lothian Question”.

The then MP for West Lothian, the late Tam Dalyell, posed the question thus: should MPs from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland be able to vote on matters which affect only England? Politicians have since sought to answer Tam’s question but with little success.

What has not been posed is a new question, but here it is: Isn’t the answer to the West Lothian question to establish an English parliament? The only rational conversation I had with Gordon Brown was when he questioned if I genuinely believed in an English parliament. I replied that I did.

“But how do you get over the size?” Gordon enquired. “England is so dominant that it makes devolution for England impossible.”
It is the size of England that makes devolution more, not less, important. But England’s size does put a price on success.

England, yet again, needs to be generous in establishing the new constitutional order.

There’s no problem with establishing an English parliament. The House of Commons as we know it today would be abolished. In its place would be the election of MPs to an English parliament that would sit in the House of Commons.

The English Parliament would therefore be on a par with parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A second move would be to abolish the House of Lords. We have a bigger second chamber than China, although our population of 65 million is dwarfed by China’s 1.3 billion.

In place of the Lords should be a “Common Senate” to which the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English parliaments would send legislation for scrutiny, just as now with the Commons sending its legislation to the Lords.

The Senate should be elected, but not by giving party whips the chance to stack it full again with their candidates who failed to get elected to the Commons. Elections there will be but the establishment of the Senate will reflect those great organisations – the professions, arts and culture, industry, including both employers and trade unions – which would get to elect one or two senators for a fixed term of 10 years.

Likewise, there would be elections of another group of senators based on geography.

British representation has always had a strong local basis. Again, these senators would be elected on a regional basis and would serve a 10-year term. The 10-year term would limit the power of any whipping system trying to control the business of the Senate.
Only the feeble-minded who managed to squeeze through the new devolved electoral system would be easy meat for the whips.
The legislation from the English parliament, and those from the other three parliaments, would be considered, revision offered, but the Senate would not have powers of outright rejection.

Sovereign constitutional powers would reside in each of the four UK parliaments.

English senators would have to work with other senators on major pieces of business.

The Senate would decide taxation, foreign affairs and defence, with all three shared between the four UK powers. Division of seats would ensure that English senators would succeed only if they had the support of other countries’ senators.

Election to the English parliament would be on a constituency basis, just as now. This constitutional change would not only empower voters but it would reduce the bill.

The Lords cost taxpayers £108million in 2015-2016. Cut to a third of its size its cost would similarly fall. While the cost would fall, the effectiveness would increase.

It would attract people who head their own sections of public life. Likewise, each senator would know that their term was limited, a move that should increase their sense of value and independence.

• CHECK out our previous debates:

St. George’s Committee Debate (1) – How Do We Promote English History, Heritage, Traditions, Identity & Culture? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-st-george%e2%80%99s-committee-debate-1-%e2%80%93-how-do-we-promote-english-history-heritage-traditions-identity-culture
St. George’s Committee Debate (2) – Why Does The Establishment Hate The English? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-st-george%e2%80%99s-committee-debate-2-%e2%80%93-why-does-the-establishment-hate-the-english
St. George’s Committee Debate (3) – Is Anglophobia A Form Of Racism? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-st-george%e2%80%99s-committee-debate-3-%e2%80%93-is-anglophobia-a-form-of-racism
St. George’s Committee Debate (4) – Can English Culture Survive Under Westminster Rule? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-st-george%e2%80%99s-committee-debate-4-%e2%80%93-can-english-culture-survive-under-westminster-rule
From The Liberty Wall – St George’s Committee Debate (5) – What Dangers Do We Face? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-st-george%e2%80%99s-committee-debate-5-%e2%80%93-what-dangers-do-we-face
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – March Of The Thought Police (Part 1)
‘We believe that Britain should have a formal constitution and bill of rights, based on the concept of civil and religious liberties for all. We also feel that a civil rights watchdog should be established to protect the people’s ability to make use of these rights.

We believe in absolute free speech with very few exceptions to this rule – say for those who promote violence. Either we all have rights – or none of has rights. We support civil and religious liberties for all.’

• Taken from the Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/ – of Free Speech: How Do We Defend It?

FREE SPEECH is particularly interested in – and deeply concerned about – attempts by elements of the States to try to curtail free speech. To some extent this is our raison d’être.

With this in mind, or attention has been drawn to an article – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4612720/Tim-Farron-s-ousting-Lib-Dem-leader-left-victory.html – which appeared much earlier this year. It concerns former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron. Freedom lovers may recall that he was effectively forced to quit because of his Christian beliefs.

The following article was written by Dominic Sandbrook, a former history lecturer, freelance writer and newspaper columnist. Please note that we don’t agree with everything Sandbrook says. We feel that he focusses solely on ‘Leftist’ attempts to curb free speech. To us, both ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are mirror images of each other – and there are illiberal liberals and totalitarians on both sides! Despite this, we feel that supporters of free speech will find his article of interest.

We feel that the best way to stimulate debate on the issue of free speech is to reproduce his article in four sections. It goes without saying that there are no official links between Free Speech, Dominic Sandbrook or the Daily Mail.

.

Tim Farron’s ousting as Lib Dem leader is another victory for the Left which gags free speech and imposes its own warped views

Tim Farron, former leader of the Liberal Democrats. Did his Christian views bring him into conflict with illiberal liberals?

ONE OF the great myths of our age is that we live in a time of unparalleled tolerance, a paradise of liberalism, conscience and free speech.

You can think what you like, say what you like and do as you please, and nobody will ever tell you otherwise.
That is the theory. The reality, alas, is rather different. For this week came yet another worrying sign that the prejudices of our liberal cultural elite are no less stifling and no less repressive than the taboos they pride themselves on having banished.
At the heart of this is the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, who resigned on Wednesday after less than two years in the job.
I hold no torch for Mr Farron, who never struck me as an international statesman in waiting. But when I heard him say he could not reconcile his heartfelt Christian principles with his leadership of an avowedly liberal party, I wondered what had happened to our traditions of tolerance and democracy.
At the heart of his dilemma were his views on gay sex, which on several occasions he had failed to say outright was not sinful, as well as his disapproval of abortion (he later claimed to have changed his mind on the issue). But he never tried to impose those views on others. Nor did he propose to outlaw homosexuality, or to recriminalise abortion.
For his liberal critics, however, this was not good enough. As they saw it, he was guilty of what George Orwell called ‘thoughtcrime’. Only a full recantation — and presumably the renunciation of his Christian faith — would have been enough to save him.
‘I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in,’ Mr Farron said on Wednesday, ‘in which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.’
Alas, this is not merely an issue for the Lib Dems, for the sickness of liberal intolerance is far more widespread. Seeping out of our schools and universities, the culture of hysterical outrage is now in real danger of polluting our public life, stifling debate and silencing dissent.
Just look, for example, at the absurdly strident way the Left has reacted to the prospect of a deal between the Conservatives and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists. As staunch social conservatives, rooted in the Presbyterian churches, the DUP are opposed not just to gay marriage but to the extension of abortion rights to Northern Ireland — views clearly too much for the metropolitan dinner-party elite.
Never mind that the DUP are the single biggest party in one of the four nations of our kingdom. Never mind that their views are shared by the vast majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, who are understandably sick of being caricatured as reactionary primitives.
To the Left, such people are thought criminals. There is no place for dissent in the modern liberal imagination, no room for those who question the new orthodoxies of the chattering classes.
So racism must always be treated as the ultimate evil.
The equality of the sexes can never be questioned; indeed, the very idea of gender itself is deeply suspect. Immigration is always good. Welfare is wonderful; capitalism is monstrous. America is corrupt; Israel is worse. Patriotism is always bad, especially British patriotism. And so on.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

CATALONIA & KURDISTAN: NATIONS WITHOUT STATES JOINT PRESS RELEASE

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – National Liberal Trade Unionists – Why Nurses Deserve To Get A Pay Rise

ATIONAL LIBERAL Trade Unionists – NLTU – may be familiar with NHS psychiatrist, Dr. Max Pemberton who writes for the Daily Mail. Indeed, one of his articles – http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-5-%e2%80%93-is-it-racist-to-want-nhs-nurses-to-speak-english – formed the basis of the most recent NLTU Debate in late June.

Our attention has just been drawn to another of his articles (which calls for a wage increase for nurses) this time written towards the end of July, which we’ve reproduced below.
It appeared shortly after the BBC released figures relating to its top earning actors and presenters. As this Guardian report notes – https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/19/evans-lineker-bbc-top-earners-only-two-women-among-best-paid-stars

Chris Evans and Gary Lineker earned £2.2m and £1.75m respectively. In contrast, nurses earn on average between £22,000 to £28,000 a year.
The NLTU wholeheartly agrees with Dr. Pemberton’s view that if ‘there was any public servant who deserved a pay increase, it’s nurses.’ Indeed, we’d go further and say that all medical staff should automatically have a wage increase that – at the very least – keeps up with the rate of inflation.
As usual, we’d appreciate your feedback once this article appears on the NLTU Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/

.


Why Nurses Deserve To Get A Pay Rise

Staff demonstrating in support of the National Health Service. National Liberal Trade Unionists support their campaign for higher wages.

‘WHAT would you do with £2 million?’ asked the nurse at the sink.

‘I know – imagine it,’ came the reply from another nurse, rolling her eyes.
A patient joined in: ‘Don’t tell me you’d give up working in  this place!’  They all laughed.
I’ve heard these sorts of conversations before, usually when there’s a Lotto roll-over.  Not this time.
For a few days this week, on the ward where I work, the main topic of conversation was what the BBC pays top staff.  Much of it was daydreaming about what they would do if, instead of the £22,000 to £28,000 that the average nurse is paid, they earned a few million, like Chris Evans or Gary Lineker.
But the nurses weren’t bitter, which made the whole thing more poignant.  I suppose if it was money that motivated them, they’d packed in nursing years ago.
But it’s a warped world where someone like Casualty actor Derek Thompson is paid 15 times more to pretend to be a nurse and pretend to save lives than an actual nurse who saves actual lives.
While nurses might not go into nursing for the money, financial reward is how our society indicates the value we place on a profession’s contribution.  And more fool all of us for not valuing the contribution nurses make.  For it won’t be Claudia Winkleman of John Humphrys who’ll be staying beyond their shift to resuscitate you when you have a cardiac arrest, or who will be there when your child breaks their arm and needs painkillers and a kind, calming word.
Nursing is often a thankless task, and I have nothing but overwhelming admiration for the job nurses do and the gentle dedication with which they do it.
It seems strange that the argument is that nursing is a vocation – a job they do because they love it – yet the same logic isn’t applied to the BBC ‘talent’.  There are plenty other excellent actors and presenters who’d do those BBC jobs for less.
If there was any public servant who deserved a pay increase, it’s nurses.  But many nurses feel the only way to make a decent living is to move into management.  And without them the NHS will collapse.
• FOR MORE information on the National Liberal Trade Unionists – NLTU – check out https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/
• READ ISSUE 1 of Liberal Worker - the voice of National Liberal Trade Unionists.  To get hold of your FREE pdf copy simply request it by e-mailing natliberal@aol.com Also look out for more information about issue 2 in due course.
• CHECK OUT previous NLTU debates here:
National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 1 – How Can we Achieve Our Main Aims? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-1-how-can-we-achieve-our-main-aims
National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 2 – What Should Be Re-Nationalised? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-2-%e2%80%93-what-should-be-re-nationalised
National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 3 – Bob Crow: What Is His Legacy? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-%e2%80%93-bob-crow-what-is-his-legacy
National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 4 – How Should Trade Unionists View The EU? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-4-%e2%80%93-how-should-trade-unionists-view-the-eu
From The Liberty Wall – National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 5 – Is It Racist To Want NHS Nurses To Speak English? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-5-%e2%80%93-is-it-racist-to-want-nhs-nurses-to-speak-english
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States Debate (3) – An English Parliament For The English People?

NATIONS WITHOUT STATES – NwS – exists to highlight the plight of peoples who aspire to nationhood. These might be based on peoples or tribes based within a state or even across borders that may or may not have been independently organised in the past. They might have a linguistic or historical separateness from their neighbours or fellow citizens. All will aspire to recognition, autonomy or independence.

To date, NwS has rightly looked at groups like the Flemish, Kurds, Sikhs and Tamils. However, what about the English? Don’t they deserve some form of Self-Determination? After all, Scotland, Ulster and Wales all have their own separate forms of government – why not England?

This question was recently highlighted in an article – http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/834711/frank-field-english-parliament-constitutional-reform-brexit - in The Express by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead.

We’ve reproduced the article (below) and feel that it lends itself to a new NwS debate. In particular, Self-Determinsits should consider the following questions:

• What form of Self-Determination should England strive for – autonomy, independence or something else?

• What ‘internal’ structure should England adopt? Should it effectively revert back to the seven traditional kingdoms (East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex) of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy? If so, what powers would these ‘kingdoms’ hold?

• What do Self-Determinists make of Frank Field’s call for the House of Lords to be abolished and replaced by a ‘Common Senate’ which’ll consist of ‘the professions, arts and culture, industry, including both employers and trade unions’?

Self-Determinists are encouraged to post their thoughts in the comments section once they see this article appear on the NwS Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/184919468292372/
It goes without saying that there are no official links between Nations without States, Frank Field MP, the Labour Party or The Express

.

Let us rule our England with an English parliament, says Frank Field MP

Establishing an English parliament was the inevitable outcome once the Bliar government began to give way to Scottish nationalism.

But just as it took much political heaving to get through the first devolution bill, the passage to establish an English parliament will be further hindered by Brexit fallout.

Politicians are scared of the constitutional changes that were set afoot by Scottish devolution.

They should give up worrying. Brexit will drive reform on the constitutional front, just as it will do through much of public life.
Once the Blair government began the process of devolution, particularly to Scotland, but also to Wales and Northern Ireland, we faced what was called the “West Lothian Question”.

The then MP for West Lothian, the late Tam Dalyell, posed the question thus: should MPs from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland be able to vote on matters which affect only England? Politicians have since sought to answer Tam’s question but with little success.

What has not been posed is a new question, but here it is: Isn’t the answer to the West Lothian question to establish an English parliament? The only rational conversation I had with Gordon Brown was when he questioned if I genuinely believed in an English parliament. I replied that I did.

“But how do you get over the size?” Gordon enquired. “England is so dominant that it makes devolution for England impossible.”
It is the size of England that makes devolution more, not less, important. But England’s size does put a price on success.

England, yet again, needs to be generous in establishing the new constitutional order.

There’s no problem with establishing an English parliament. The House of Commons as we know it today would be abolished. In its place would be the election of MPs to an English parliament that would sit in the House of Commons.

The English Parliament would therefore be on a par with parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A second move would be to abolish the House of Lords. We have a bigger second chamber than China, although our population of 65 million is dwarfed by China’s 1.3 billion.

In place of the Lords should be a “Common Senate” to which the Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English parliaments would send legislation for scrutiny, just as now with the Commons sending its legislation to the Lords.

The Senate should be elected, but not by giving party whips the chance to stack it full again with their candidates who failed to get elected to the Commons. Elections there will be but the establishment of the Senate will reflect those great organisations – the professions, arts and culture, industry, including both employers and trade unions – which would get to elect one or two senators for a fixed term of 10 years.

Likewise, there would be elections of another group of senators based on geography.

British representation has always had a strong local basis. Again, these senators would be elected on a regional basis and would serve a 10-year term. The 10-year term would limit the power of any whipping system trying to control the business of the Senate.

Only the feeble-minded who managed to squeeze through the new devolved electoral system would be easy meat for the whips.

The legislation from the English parliament, and those from the other three parliaments, would be considered, revision offered, but the Senate would not have powers of outright rejection.

Sovereign constitutional powers would reside in each of the four UK parliaments.

English senators would have to work with other senators on major pieces of business.

The Senate would decide taxation, foreign affairs and defence, with all three shared between the four UK powers. Division of seats would ensure that English senators would succeed only if they had the support of other countries’ senators.

Election to the English parliament would be on a constituency basis, just as now. This constitutional change would not only empower voters but it would reduce the bill.

The Lords cost taxpayers £108million in 2015-2016. Cut to a third of its size its cost would similarly fall. While the cost would fall, the effectiveness would increase.

It would attract people who head their own sections of public life. Likewise, each senator would know that their term was limited, a move that should increase their sense of value and independence.


• CHECK out previous NwS debates here:
Nations without States Debate (1) – Why Do Our Oppressors Hate The Concept Of Self-Determination? http://tinyurl.com/jrj7dtl
Nations without States Debate (2) – How Can Self-Determinists Force Governments To Give Us Our Freedom? http://tinyurl.com/zbhv2ae
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – Tyranny Of The Minority (Part 4)

MICK HUME is one of Britain’s finest advocates of total free speech. He is probably best known as the editor-at-large of Spikedhttp://spiked-online.com/the UK’s first web-only comment and current affairs publication. Spiked opposes all forms of censorship, by the state or otherwise. Since April 2014 it has run an international Free Speech NOW! campaign, demanding ‘free speech for all, no ifs and no buts’.

He is also the author of There is No Such Thing as a Free Press … And We Need One More Than Ever (2012), Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? (2015) and Revolting! How the Establishment are Undermining Democracy and What They’re Afraid of (2017).

The article below originally appeared in the Daily Mail earlier this year. This is the fourth and final section of the article.

It goes without saying that there are no official links between Mick Hume, the Daily Mail and Free Speech.

Read part 1 of Tyranny Of The Minority here: http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-free-speech-how-do-we-protect-it-tyranny-of-the-minority-part-1

Read part 2 of Tyranny Of The Minority here: http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-free-speech-how-do-we-protect-it-%e2%80%93-tyranny-of-the-minority-part-2

Read part 3 of Tyranny Of The Minority here: http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-free-speech-how-do-we-protect-it-%e2%80%93-tyranny-of-the-minority-part-3

.

Nearly 17.5 million people voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. This means that more people voted for Brexit than have ever voted for any British government since records began. However, elitists like former Prime Minister Tony Blair (left) and Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable (right) oppose the popular will of the people and want to overturn democracy.

Tyranny Of The Minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

Yes, immigration was an important factor for many Leave voters. But it was far from the over-riding obsession it has been made out to be: a post-referendum poll found 34 per cent said immigration was their main concern but 53 per cent prioritised the ‘ability of Britain to make its own laws’.
The vast majority wanted EU migrants living and working in the UK to be allowed to stay.
Still the attempts went on to subvert the referendum result, with the intervention of the courts. First the Law Lords and then the Supreme Court saw fit to overrule the express wishes of 17.4 million Leave voters and tell the elected government it could not trigger Brexit without the permission of MPs and Lords in Parliament.
The same Parliament they had allowed to be overridden by Brussels for the previous 40 years.
Then there was the four-million-strong online petition calling on Parliament to hold another referendum that would require a larger margin of victory.
In similar vein was the letter signed by a thousand top lawyers, demanding that Parliament must decide (ie, vote for Remain). The QC behind this initiative explained: ‘In times of crisis people often turn to lawyers to ask them how we should behave in society.’
The arrogance of the notion that the opinions of 1,000 lawyers — whose fees are an affront to civilised society — could outweigh those of 17.4 million voters summed up the Remainers’ ‘some are more equal than others’ outlook.
Even now, the attempts continue to put Brexit back in its box, fuelled by a sense that too much democracy is dangerous.
The Brexit referendum vote opened up the opportunity for a new kind of political debate about the future of our society, engaging many who have previously felt excluded from public life.
Time and again, according to the Electoral Reform Society, its researchers heard people say the EU referendum was the first time their vote ‘had truly counted’. They decided for themselves what the truth was about the EU, and made their own choice in defiance of whatever was flung at them by the political class.
But the plain fact is that the elite in this country do not trust the mass of voters, believing we are too unintelligent, misinformed and emotional to make the right decisions on important issues.
Whichever side you took in June in the UK or November in the United States, we need to resist this with all our might.
The real issue should be to defend democratic principles against those who would tell us that some voters are more equal than others.
Aux armes, citoyens!
• Check out There is No Such Thing as a Free Press … And We Need One More Than Ever here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/There-No-Such-Thing-As-Free-Press/1845403509
• For an excellent review of Trigger Warning click here: https://countercultureuk.com/2015/07/26/trigger-warning/
• Check out Revolting! Click here: https://www.amazon.com/Revolting-Establishment-Undermining-Democracy-Theyre/dp/0008220824/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490209013&sr=1-1&keywords=mick+hume
• To check out a review of Free Speech click here: http://nationalliberal.org/review-of-issue-1-of-free-speech
• Check out Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? Click here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close