What part of 'free speech' do you not understand?

The Stasi, the old East German secret police, seem to be alive, well and living in England. They have assumed different identities and are now manifested as enforcers of sanctions against those they deem to be deviating from their determination of what is acceptable and approvable. The latest example is manifested in attempts to suppress the Coalition for Marriage's campaign against the proposals to 'redefine marriage'.

Now, I don't care where you stand on this debate, for the purposes of this issue. I really don't. What I do care about is the freedom of people to speak in support of what they believe - so long as they aren't inciting murder, offences against the person (including incitement to racial hatred) or other easily-recognised long-standing offences. Disagreements make the world go round and discussion of them often leads to better society and an improved laws (not always, but often). Attempts to suppress free speech (with the caveats outlined above) have a nasty habit of feeding upon themselves and can actually come back round and bite those who first championed them.

 A blogger named Archbishop Cranmer has received communications from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that can only be described as intimidatory. They have said that the enquiries should be kept 'confidential'. It sounds like a Star Chamber inquisition - conducted in secret. 'Archbishop Cranmer' has chosen to make the complaint public, and hats off to him for that. . His offence? To reproduce a promotional gif in support of the Coalition for Marriage. The complaints allege that this gif is 'homophobic' and 'offensive'. In my humble opinion, the complaints are crass and idiotic - as idiotic as that head teacher who, a few years ago, denounced Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' as 'blatantly heterosexist' and turned down free tickets for her school's pupils to attend a performance by the RSC or somesuch.

Those who engage in such attempts at censorship really should think carefully. I recall several local worthies saying to me that 'what this country needs is a benevolent dictatorship'. They were rather surprised when I responded: what if that dictator agreed with me, rather than with you? Would they still seem so benevolent then?' clearly, the idea that bullies might not be on their side had never occurred to them. It should have, and it should to anyone who thinks that their ias are in the ascendant and they can impose their will on anyone else. That way, damnation and the end of civilised society lies. As and when the backlash comes - and it will - there may be no-one able or willing to speak up for you.

'Archbishop Cranmer' observed: "Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse... "

For those unaware, I am more than happy to reproduce the advert here. If anyone objects, feel free to complain to the ASA. I may exhort you to avoid showing yourself up as a complete idiot but I won't stop you. .

. Archbishop Cranmer's blog can be found at: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/advertising-standards-authority.html#5066250301702003902

Of flameboys and moral fibre

An interesting 24 hours.

Between banging out articles, I got involved in a slanging match with the bunch of sycophantic mole rats who follow a certain James Delingpole, who writes a blog for the Telegraph's website.

I don't recommend visiting it - in fact, I recommend against. As has been pointed out to me, the number of visitors to a site is a reflection of how 'big' it is in the Internet playground. As even I hadn't visited this for a few years - I'd completely forgotten about it - it doesn't register as 'successful'. So don't encourage the powers-that-be at the Telegraph to think that this particular columnist is worth what they're paying him by ratcheting up the click-count.

Delingpole has been described as being "Like...a pickled deformed foetus...both repulsive and fascinating"; someone who seems to have "...virtually no interest in science, despite putting himself forward as some kind of 'expert' on global warming and climate change..."; and, in short, a rabble-rouser. His blogs are bombastic, pugnacious and aggressive. There was an unpleasant episode earlier this year, in which he published the name and address of someone who had the temerity to ask a Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate (ppc) a list of questions suggested by some 'green' organisation or another. Outcome: some of his 'boot boys' (as they have been described) disseminated the information and engaged in a campaign of intimidation. He then had the sense to pull the piece and apologise for the upsetting experience the questioner had been subjected to. Well, he apologised after a fashion and prompted one observer to question "...which is worse: Delingpole's lies, hypocrisy, horrible bullying or rabid invasion of an innocent person's privacy?"

(How he, his Tory ppc pal, the person who 'leaked' the original e-mail to him, and the mole rat boot-boys escaped prosecution under the Data Protection Act remains a mystery to me.)

The discussion threads are dominated by a small group of fanboys, who appear to have an obsession with bodily functions - bed-wetting in particular, it seems. The number is certainly less than 10 and seems to be about 6 or 7 - but what a mess a determined handful can achieve! They don't have a monopoly in destructive behaviour - it's a technique favoured by people from the Nazis through the trade unions of the 1970s to football hooligans - and now the Delingpole mole rats.

What they do is completely prevent reasoned debate with a stream of invective and insults, launched in an apparently co-ordinated way (but maybe just unplanned co-operation) against anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with the position of their beloved leader. Or maybe slightly fails to wholeheartedly endorse him.

Once all reasoned debate has been smothered, the column reduces to a cross between an Internet dating chatroom and a boring CB conversation from the 1970s/80s.

Delingpole makes no attempt to encourage open debate or to restrain his fawning pack - rather the opposite. Maybe he likes the adoration, even from such a poor sample of humanity as his mole rats.

Anyway, I occupied some of my time calling them out. In particular, I made it clear that I was more than willing to meet them in person to carry the discussion further. I have provided one of them with my proper name and full address (indeed, I insisted on it) and invited him down. Over a cup of tea (and maybe some biscuits, if I can restrain myself from stuffing the lot in my own face!) we could maybe bridge our differences and resolve our disagreements. Yes, honestly we could!

Is he coming down? Well, it would appear not. Why? No reason given. I'd be more than happy to pay his bus fare, if that's the problem. Alternatively, I could save him the inconvenience of a long trip and go to see him. Will he reciprocate and provide me - in confidence, he has my e-mail address - with his home address? No. Not so far. If he changes his mind, I will let it be known.

But cut back to the obsession with bed-wetting. I've been careful with my choice of words, in order to avoid accusations of intimidation. But still, he accuses me of "...physical threats...". Hope he didn't engage in his obsession so much as to make his clothes unrecoverable!

There is an expression that goes back to the early days of the Internet and e-mail: 'flameboy'. It was attached to people who engaged in big talk from the keyboard but who never backed anything up. The sort of people who would adopt a big, muscular avatar for online gaming - or maybe a feminine persona - in order to compensate for their personal inadequacies or to give expression to their deep-seated, secret fears and fantasies. Whenever I've met a flameboy in person, they've always been rather pathetic.

What the experience of the last 24 hours or so shows is the continuing truth of the 'flameboy' reputation. Big on line but can't hack it in the real world. It shows also, I think, that certain members of today's society simply don't have moral fibre, the personal integrity to stand up, in public, for themselves. What a pathetic bunch of self-abusers. The trouble with the Internet is, it puts these sad cases in touch with each other and leads them to think they're normal

Still, I mustn't complain - the visitor numbers here continue to rise and rise. Carry on like this and I'll be more popular than Delingpole - so long as the unwary take my advice and don't visit the mouthy prat's site.

Update, June 1/2: For the information of any who may be interested, I have taken my own most excellent advice and no longer visit James Delingpole's blog, either as myself or as anyone else, and haven't done since May 28. Any subsequent posts purporting to be from me are shameless impersonations - or, more likely, the deranged after-drippings of an unhinged imagination.