It's a free country

As a child growing up in London I was as argumentative as I am now. The only way that I would concede an argument was if you battered me senseless.
So, one of my favourite, regular Sunday morning outings was to Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park where I could watch Nazi's argue with communists, Methodists with Quakers and atheists with anyone of faith, to my heart's content. I remember, particularly, one black African dressed in traditional robes who harangued the crowd unmercifully on any topic, ranging from colonialism and slavery to the horrible English weather with equal fervour and passion. There was no subject that was taboo or off limits. You would see the occasional bobby on the fringes of the crowd, keeping an eye on proceedings. There was a lot of heckling and name-calling, much of it very personal and specific; but it was all part of the motley.
On Sunday afternoon, on the cobbles adjacent to the Tower of London, you could watch an escape artist struggle free from a tarpaulin wrapped in chains and pierced by various swords and other pointed objects: providing, that is, his pitch hadn't already been high jacked by Lord Soper, standing on a soap box and preaching his own brand of muscular Methodist Socialism to groups of bemused American tourists, argumentative off-duty dockers and occasional snotty little schoolboys like me.
One major boon of being English, planted in my unformed mind by these early experiences was that speech was free: That we all had an unalienable right to say precisely what we wanted on any subject under the sun. "It's a free country. I'll say what I like" was the ultimate clincher used in arguments by everyone from schoolboy to grizzled pensioner . I know, I used it throughout my school years and well into my late forties.
It's not an expression you will hear too much these days. It's not one that I employ at all any more. And for very good reason. England is no longer the home of free speech. People have been silenced, or at the very least reduced to whispers, on a whole range of topics by the insidious creep of political correctness and what is, spuriously, labelled equality legislation.
OK, things weren't perfect in my youth. Freedom of expression probably didn't seem too great a principle if you were black or Irish and subjected to racial insults; or a homosexual on the end of some queer-bashing vitriol. It was easier for a landlord to post a notice saying " No, blacks, Irish or Jews" than it was to get hold of a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover back then. But, the boundaries of "correctness" were a mixture of what was customary and generally accepted by the majority. This didn't mean that minority views or opinions weren't tolerated, they were, because the tradition of freedom of expression was breathed in along with the rain and the smog.
If people got hurt and offended, I am genuinely sorry. But, freedom of expression is not something that can be doled out in carefully weighed portions. Governments do not have any greater sense of what is right or correct than the rest of us. In fact, because they are vested interests with very specific congregations to succour, they tend to be much narrower than the public at large in their range of beliefs.
Witness the current administration, which has gradually eroded the rights of the majority in order to protect those of some very small, specific but highly vocal minorities.
This political correctness has manifested itself in all aspects of our lives; not least in people's reticence when it comes to speaking their mind. "You can't say that" is an expression heard in offices, pubs and homes whenever someone voices an opinion that strays from the conventionally acceptable on a raft of subjects ranging from immigration to homosexuality. The stick of multiculturalism has been used to beat people into submission and stifle grown-up, informed debate on whether or not it is sensible for a country with the highest population density in Europe - England - to encourage ever greater numbers of immigrants to come here.
There have been recent instances of sincere Christians, picketing a homosexual conference with posters containing biblical quotes, being arrested and convicted of hate crimes. Earlier this year, a couple who run a hotel was charged with a similar crime for debating Islam with a female convert to that particular religion. She, objected to them questioning her belief and called in the police. To their eternal shame, they reacted by arresting the couple under hate crime legislation.
Now, Harriet Harman is clouding the issue still further with the Equality Bill due to come into law in the autumn. Among other things, this will make it possible to charge a health club worker with discrimination if he - or she - offers a woman a lighter set of weights that they might offer a man. Protected religions will include any faith system including atheism and Jediism - if there is such a thing. Presumably, telling someone that Luke Skywalker is a comic character and doesn't actually exist will constitute an assault on the beliefs of a Jedi and result in some sort of criminal charge.
It sounds comical when considered in that light. But it's not. It is sinister and evil: Yet another brick in the wall imprisoning freedom of speech and expression.
If we continue along the same path and fail to counter the forces of political correctness no one in this country will ever win another argument by saying , " I can say what I like. It's a free country".

NB. Since writing this article, I have read a piece with a similar theme, written by PhilipJohnston in the Daily Telegraph, which is an extract from his latest book, title "Bad Law". Click on the link to read the article:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7494131/How-do-we-win-back-our-freedom.html

GB - Liar or incompetent?

So, it wasn't Call Me Dave who tripped Mr Brown up at Prime Minister's Questions this week but a Tory back-bencher who had bothered to do some research in the Commons Library on the topic of funding for the military. Tony Baldry challenged Gorgon on his statement to the Chilcot Enquiry that military spending had risen "in real terms" year on year under the Labour Government. He pointed out that there were at least three years where this had not been the case, according to the Commons Library.
Forced onto the back foot, Brown confirmed that he had already written to the Enquiry admitting his error. Unfortunately, Cameron and Clegg were so overjoyed at the prospect of landing a few cheap shots that they failed to ask the obvious question: If Brown had already written to the Chilcott Enquiry, how long had he been aware that the evidence he presented at the enqury was false? Moreover, how could a man who claimed that it was only his financial savvy that had saved the world's financial systems from total collapse be so utterly useless at adding up that he didn't know that, during the three fallow years Baldry mentioned, military expenditure had actually declined rather than increased, in real terms?
The truth is that we cannot know whether or not he simply made a mistake or simply lied to Chilcot.
Whichever version is the truth, it cannot disguise the fact that the man who wants to lead this country for another five years is either a serial liar - or a serial incompetent.
It does not exactly represent a very rosy future for the rest of us, does it?

A`peculiar equality

Equality is a much abused term, favoured by a whole slew of carpetbaggers intent only on promoting their own narrowly-focused agenda. As a consequence, we get situations like the one that arose this week when two dicta from different arms of the equality octopus seemed to confound and contradict each other.

The first deals with a heinous crime - rape. The second concerns itself with the much less serious problem of equality between the sexes in a gymnasium or health club. One is of real importance but is subtly undermined by the spurious nature of the other whose only purpose is to provide added froth to the feminist agenda.

We are already familiar with the extreme feminist view that all sex is rape; or, to be more precise, all heterosexual sex is rape. Now, it appears, that this is close to becoming the official position. Any woman who has sex with a man whilst drunk can now, officially, be regarded as having been raped since, by definition, she was not in a position to provide informed consent to the act. On the other hand, should the man be in an equally catatonic condition - but not presumably have been afflicted by the dreaded brewer's droop - he cannot use this as a defence to the charge of rape. Irrespective of his alchoholic intake, he is deemed to be capable of asking for and understanding whether or not consent has been given before proceeding.

From this we can only infer that men are deemed to be the stronger sex in any situation where alchohol is involved. If both sexes were, indeed, equal it stands to reason that they would be affected by alchohol equally and, by extension, would be equally as capable of deciding whether or not they want to have sex. But, this is apparently not the official view.
Which is strange because, in the health club, total equality between the sexes is to be adhered to so rigidly that simply offering a woman a lighter set of weights to lift than a man is regarded as discriminatory.
This might give rise to an interesting dilemma in the future, given our predilection for litigation based on Health & Safety issues in this country. It is not difficult to envisage a scenario in which a petite woman is provided with a set of weights more suited to a hefty male, tears a muscle, ricks her back or otherwise damages herself and then sues the trainer and the health club for failing to follow health and safety procedures.
It would be a delicious irony if any such failure were to be cancelled out by the trainer's strict adherence to the letter of the Equalities Act.