Free Speech under threat


Judge Sir Paul Coleridge

Just recently, Judge Sir Paul Coleridge was disciplined by the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO), whatever that is.  His offence?  Simply supporting the traditional view of marriage — a view that until a few years ago was absolutely standard and unquestioned.  A view which is still held by large numbers of citizens, and religious groups, in this country.  A view which is sanctioned by history and culture and reproductive biology.

Note that the JCIO was not merely disagreeing with the Judge.  It is (I assume) perfectly entitled to hold a different view.  There are many people (and a number of strident lobby groups) who would fundamentally disagree with Judge Coleridge, and in a free country they are entitled to do so, and to express their opinions in forthright terms.  But they were not simply taking a different view.  They were actually denying his right to express that opinion, and threatening him with disciplinary measures if he persisted.  This is an overt attack on free speech — something on which we used to pride ourselves in this country.

Another Judge who copped a lot of flak for expressing a widely-held opinion is Sean Morris, the Recorder of Lincoln, on my East Midlands patch.  He was hearing the case of a Romanian thief, part of a gang that targeted elderly people at cash machines.  Judge Morris complained that sentencing was delayed because of the inordinate amount of time it took to get background information from the Romanian authorities (I hope that that champion of European policing Bill Newton Dunn is paying attention at the back there).  He further asserted that Britain’s borders were “like a sieve”, and he feared that the courts would be flooded when our borders are opened to Romanians and Bulgarians on January 1st.

So far as I know, Judge Morris has not been disciplined.  But the bleeding hearts have been out in force, complaining that he has stigmatised foreigners and immigrants, that he is scaremongering and raising unnecessary alarm.

Both of these judges are simply reflecting the concerns of large sections of the community, and in both cases they have been attacked (and in one case threatened with disciplinary action) not for being unfair or wrong, but merely for stating an honest and reasonable opinion.

We face threats to free speech on the one hand from politicians who want statutory controls over the press, and on the other by rampant political correctness.  We should drink a toast to Judges Coleridge and Morris, and resolve to do all it takes to protect free speech in our country.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Free Speech under threat

  1. David says:

    I agree with you Roger, but are the 2 examples above due to creeping influence from our “chums” in Brussels?

    • Neither directly mandated by Brussels, but very much in line with EU thinking and direction of travel. And of course the Romanian immigration issue itself arise directly from Brussels Rules.

  2. Mike Spilligan says:

    Mr H: “…the concerns of large sections of the community…” only the people who no longer matter in our post-democratic nation.

  3. John Williams says:

    What is that Cameron doesn’t understand? I can understand why Clegg, Miliband, and the rest of the left don’t get it. It’s because they are clinically insane. I hoped more from Cameron. That is the reason I shall support U.K.I.P. Main concern is the calibre of the candidates I have met…

    • Me_Again says:

      Become one then John…………..

      • Me_Again says:

        Actually I must add that most UKIP members have no desire for elected office. In my branch we have some dedicated and bright people, legal and even dental professions represented there but few if any want to ‘go for it’. I am the first UKIP councillor in North Lincolnshire but town councillor, elected but not like a county councillor. I have been to the main county chambers and have friends in neighbouring counties who are county councillors. They don’t like it much either. They want me to stand in our county elections in 2015, but if I can find a way out I will. It seems to me that many those who desire office might not be the best for it as you look at the usual suspects with their professional candidates.

  4. PJ says:

    I couldn’t agree more Roger as it seems that the deeper that idiots like Cameron et al entrench this independent little island in the ways of the EU the less rights we have to complain about anything! BND isd simply an idiot for there is no ‘family’ idea in Britain, we are English, British, whatever. On the other hand they are French, German, Romanian, Croatian etc, ie, all different nations with different tax systems, laws & social etiquettes etc….. we do not need to be integrated with these people, it serves no purpose except to bankrupt this country! Freedom of speech ????? that came under the hammer years ago Roger!

  5. omanuel says:

    I agree with you. Such actions confirm that George Orwell was correct in the predictions made when he started to write “Nineteen Eighty-four” in 1946, the same year that textbooks

    1. Of astronomy started teaching that the Sun is a giant ball of Hydrogen, and

    2. Of nuclear physics and chemistry started replacing Lord Francis W. Aston’s valid “nuclear packing fraction” with von Weizsacker’s invalid “nuclear binding energy”.

    Both deceptions became part of the foundation of post-normal science, and are taught in classrooms around the globe today.

    With deep regret,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  6. UKIP Cllr Christopher Browne says:

    No doubt if the good judges advocated unmarried relationships and mass unfettered immigration that would have been fine.

  7. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Last night amongst the rolling repeats brought to us by that marvel of technology termed Terrestial DTV or was it Virgin repeated repeats…cannot remember. Anyway, it was about the European University and those young idealists that we obviously need to keep the EU thing going. Thats those partly financed by us of course.

    A speaker at this Uni (maybe Antwerp?) some years back was M.Thatcher who was shown saying that in UK she/we had managed to roll back many old state controls and was not wishing to see such controls return from a distant place.

    And here we are…getting them and more back by the look of it – and at vast expense to us.

    The DM today reports a UK judge masking due process regarding a couple of solicitors fiddling, similar to the Huhne/Pryce recent game. Judges….I just wonder really.

  8. Patriot says:

    Yes Roger, free speech is certainly being slowly eroded, but is this not what happened in the early days of hitlers nazi Germany, when the EU becomes the German Empire it will be too late!
    I only hope that if same sex marriage has to be carried out in Christian Churches that the same laws will apply to Mosques and other places of worship within the UK.

  9. 1957chev says:

    If we don’t start fighting back soon, our lives will be less than enjoyable, and close to intolerable.

  10. Mike Stallard says:

    I am a Catholic. I notice that two people who refused to allow two men in as a married couple were sentenced by the courts. I notice that a Muslim who complained about selling alcohol in M&S was allowed to get away with it. I notice that a Christian who tried to wear a cross at work was disciplined. I observe that veils are allowed in the most unlikely places.

    Of course the burning and attacks on Muslims have increased! No. They are wrong. I do not support them.

    Soon, I can see, I too am going to have to suffer for my beliefs – again. Gay behaviour, divorce, sex outside marriage is wrong. I am not going to change, even if the government does. And, no, I have not, over 50 years of marriage, lived up to these ideals – have you?

  11. Me_Again says:

    Well said Sir!

  12. Graham says:

    The one thing in your article and subsequent comments is that free speech is ‘SLOWLY’ being eroded in this country. There is nothing ‘slow’ about it. In fact, it is already widespread. So many people I meet speak of their concern at mass immigration, foreign criminals etc then quickly qualify their comments by terms such as ‘I’m not being racist, you know…’. People are so worried about being branded wrong for simply expressing a view and this is no rare thing. It is, in my experience, an almost everyday event.

    The example you cite, Roger, are ‘establishment’ based but you are correct in that they reflect the opinions of many ordinary citizens today. I just hope the millions who are concerned resolve to do something to reverse it and vote for a political party that will support free speech, however much it offends liberal elites.

  13. Me_Again says:

    Whenever I read fiction/factual texts relating to either the Soviet Union or NAZI Germany, the one thing that stands head and shoulders above all the other horrors is that they were all very careful about speaking and being overheard. Fellow citizens spying on each other and reporting strangers, friends and neighbours. Bit like today in Britain. Tittle tattling and worse still the police act on it.

    The introduction of ‘Hate Crime’ on our statute books protects no one and simply oppresses everyone. People don’t disappear in the middle of the night yet, there’s no jackboots kicking in the door and dragging people away YET. The repression today is far more subtle and usually comes in under the guise of being for our benefit, this is of course total bollocks.

    The velvet glove over the mailed fist will not last. What surprises me is that they can get people to be the oppressors. I had sixteen years serving my country and would not have carried out orders which were effectively the oppression of my own people, but I’d stand up and fight for my country -and did.

    This leads me to conclude that I should have no sentiment for or feel any kinship with those that do come for us.

  14. Richard111 says:

    Most people understand why boys and girls have separate shower rooms. Will they cater for the ‘others’, or will that be considered a ‘hate crime’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s