The EU attacking free speech ... again

Via the Pub Philosopher I learn that the EU is following up from its attacks on free speech in wanting to ban the denial of certain genocides the EU is starting to create legislation that will ban insulting religion.

But there may be a way of at least get a chance of fighting this thanks to our being in another international organisation, this one founded six years before the signing of the treaty of Rome with the UK as a founder member and with far more members and fewer pretensions towards itself becoming a State. The Council of Europe's main achievement is the European Convention on Human Rights now incorpated directly into UK law as the Human Rights Act. This enshrines the right to freedom of expression that this new EU proposal seeks to restrict.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

there is of course a get out clause:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

But I don't think that a way can found to use them without claiming some things that most politicians rather wouldn't. The only two things that could be used to get around the Human Rights convention, these are the clauses about "the prevention of disorder or crime", because when Muslims (and lets face it legislation is about appeasing Muslims) feel that somebody has insulted their religion there are often riots. Or possibly "the protection of the reputation or the rights of others". They are not going to use the prevention of disorder or crime option as that would mean admitting that they are having to appease Muslims by removing the majorities rights because of their tendency to violence. It would be an admission of the Islamic colonisation that is happening, and they are never going to admit to this.

There is no right not to be insulted, so the only way around the ECHR will be to claim that it is needed for the protection of the reputation of Muslims. But a reputation cannot be protected from the truth, Jonathan Aitkin or Jeffrey Archer cannot say that their reputations are being damaged by somebody saying that they are liars because they indisputably are. Likewise for a Muslim they might think that their religion isn't being portrayed in the best light by somebody pointing out that the Islamic prophet Muhammad fucked a nine year old, but it cannot be damaging to his reputation because he did. It would therefore be hard to justify a blanket ban on insulting Islam that goes beyond blatant falsehoods on the scale of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (available in all good Islamic bookshops) without admitting that there are some very unsavory aspects to it and the majority of the population must not be exposed to these facts. Again getting this admission would be unlikely.

This being EU legislation there is the worry that it will simply slip through Whitehall without anybody noticing and never being looked at by Parliament, like most of our laws do nowadays thanks to the EU's democracy by-pass mechanisms. However thanks to the Metric Martyrs that cannot be, in the final judgement to that case a new structure was added to the UK constitution meaning that some Acts cannot be repealed implicitly, but require an explicit act of parliament to do so. To get this though it must go though parliament and here it can be stopped, or at least neutered and the insidious influence of the EU exposed, so long as it is oppossion is willing to try and stop it.

Will the opposition parties be willing to oppose this infringement of our rights? It will have to go through parliament, but will there be anybody there to fight it when it does? The Lords will. But Labour have already decided to 'reform' them out of existence now they are no longer able to use ennoblement as a way of raising funds for their party, so the Lords might not be there when this finally hits parliament.

The Liberal Democrats should want to oppose this gross violation of liberty, but their europhilia and their adherence to the multicult might outweigh the call of liberty.

For the conservatives this provides a great tactical opportunity for David Cameron if he is willing to take it. It is an issue that he could use to renew the alliance between all the sections of his party: the EUsceptics won't like it as it comes from the EU, the libertarians don't want it because it infringes liberty, the social conservatives shouldn't want it because one of the ancient British traditions that they hold dear is the freedom of speech, and the knuckle dragging Monday Club might want to oppose it because it is being proposed in order to favour those nasty 'foreign' people over the majority population. Nor should he have to sacrifice too much of his hard won fluffiness, on this issue he can easily position himself as fighting for the freedom of the majority against a violent and oppressive minority, because he is, and use the media influence of the likes of Rowan Atkinson who was so prominent last time this came up. He might be worried about Labour playing the race card against him, but religion isn't a race and there is already protection of race. That would also involve admitting that this legislation is primarily in aid of Muslims, which would mean admitting to the special treatment they get because of their propensity for violence. This is not something that he can admit as this would encourage others to become violent in order to try and get the same special treatment.

There may even be few left in the Labour party that would be willing to oppose this on the grounds of liberty, or secularism, or simply that they now need to build up a media profile of their own as opposed just relying on their increasingly unpopular party in order to retain their seats.

So it is possible to get this legislation neutered despite it coming through the EU. But it will not be easy as coming from the EU the BBC, the UK's most powerful media group, and the multicultist establishment will be firmly on its side.