March for Free Expression

The next phase

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

UKIP Chingford and Woodford Green Branch

Have mailed to express their support for this campaign, and so join other UKIP branches in standing up for freedom for expression of everybody, of all political, religious and social opinions.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

And yet, there does not seem to be much of a queue of UKIP MPs wishing to speak at the rally. Speaks volumes!

7:26 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

accepting UKIP's support even sarcasticaly is ruining your compaign, there are differnet motives behind freedom of expression you know!

7:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UKIP, the BNP, the far right Libertarian Alliance and Freedom Association together with a Stalinist can hardly be described as “everybody, of all political, religious and social opinions.” It more looks like a jamboree of everyone who made the twentieth century hell!

9:37 am  
Anonymous Steven said...

Maryam Namazie is certainly not a Stalinist. And neither is Tatchell (I can't imagine who else is being referred to). But what these two left wingers are doing on a platform together with the far-right "Freedom Association" remains a mystery to me.

10:47 am  
Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

Maybe they believe in freedom of expression?

Just a hunch.

12:49 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could people stop describing UKIP, the Freedom Association and the Libertarian Alliance as 'far right', and putting them in the same grouping as the BNP. These three groups can fairly be described as right-wing, but are not Far Right, and are clearly different to the BNP, who have racist policies, while the other three groups are open to people of all races.
Or perhaps some left-wingers or 'far left' people are so narrow-minded that they think anyone on the right of the political spectrum is 'far right' and cannot be an honest supporter of freedom of expression for all.

4:14 pm  
Anonymous Zsa zsa said...

Err excuse me!

Not only have the Libertarian Alliance defended David Irving, and Nick Griffin, they campaign for the repeal of all laws against discrimination and incitement to discrimination on any grounds whatever; the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Equal Opportunities Commission. So committed to free expression are they that they seek “the cutting off of all tax-payer funding for any group that disagrees”.

Among other things they call for is the abolition of drink driving laws and Sexual Offence’s Register (SOR). Evidently running people over while a pissed and sexually abusing kid is a “Right”. Indeed it seems to be your duty as an English man, ‘cause the SOR is a conspiracy of “man-hating lesbians, sex-obsessed God botherers, empire-building social workers, corrupt and oppressive police officers, and the usual vote-hunting political trash."

Freedom Association, on the other hand isn’t quiet what it used to be. Its hay days was the 70’s when it engage in strike breaking (Grunswick anyone) and campaigning against immigration (evidently freedom of movement or to withdraw your labour was very important to them). But in those days they were rolling in money, bankrolled by the then Apartheid South African regime (evidently universal suffrage wasn’t a hot topic for them either). When accused of racism Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, a past Freedom Association council member retorted "If you say I am a racist, yes I certainly am, and proud of it."

So finally we come to UKIP. Two of its MEPs, Mike Nattrass and Jeffrey Titford, were formerly members of the short lived pro-Apartheid, pro-White Rhodesia New Britain Party, Another MEP, Nigel Farage, held discussions in 1997 with the British National Party’s Mark Deavin, the conclusion of which was, as Mark Deavin put it “the BNP will be the official opposition in the inner cities, in working class areas. The UKIP will be the opposition in the shires, the county areas, the middle class opposition".

Calling these people “far right” is, if anything, to downplay how vile and wakey these reactionary creeps really are.

7:43 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Libertarian Alliance also defended Abu Hamza, something I can hardly imagine Far Right racists doing. They did not defend Nick Griffin and David Irving (or Abu Hamza) because they agree with them, but because they disagree with any restrictions on freedom of speech. I agree that many of their positions are crazy, but that does not make them Far Right or similar to the BNP, whose positions on some of the issues you mentioned (like sex offences) are at the opposite end of the scale (executions, etc).

As for the Freedom Association, they seem more Thatcher Right than Far Right, focussing on ecomonically right-wing positions, which are again the opposite of BNP economic policies.

As for UKIP, UKIP expelled BNP members who tried to infiltrate the party, are publicly committed to non-discrimination and have ethnic minority members and candidates, including an NEC member, who came 2nd in the NEC elections (which has 8 positions).

Just because you think they are reactionary, does not mean these groups are Far Right in the BNP sense.

This is a march for free expression, not a march for left-wing causes and against right-wingers.

8:21 pm  
Anonymous zsa zsa said...

Let’s not quibble over words, let’s, for the moment, call theses groups “Thatcherite Right” instead of “Far Right”. The issue still remains are you prepared this Saturday to stand side by side (as I understand that the actual march has been cancelled) in Trafalgar Square with and listen to groups that you (anonymous) do not dispute are, between themselves, guilty of the following:

• Opposes the freedom to strike
• Opposed to any form of non-white immigration
• Supported the South African Apartheid regime
• Took money from the South African Apartheid regime
• Actively supports people who incite murder
• Never disassociated themselves with member who prided themselves as racist
• Belittles the sexual abuse of child
• Are homophobic
• Opposes any anti-discrimination legalisation
• Seeks the abolition of CRE and EOC
• Opposes the freedom of expression for voluntary sector groups that disagree with them
• Engaged in an electoral alliance with the BNP

12:20 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> call theses groups “Thatcherite
> Right” instead of “Far Right”

That’s called quibbling over words isn't?

Who the hell "Belittles the sexual abuse of child" or "Are homophobic" did the froth spill from your mouth and hit the keys?

Who "Opposes the freedom of expression for voluntary sector groups that disagree with them"? If you can show that to be true Voltaire will drop them instantly.

Please put names, references and links by our allegations.

Free speech means sometimes hearing things you don't like. I support that right for them to say things that might offend me ... and you.

12:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I am willing to stand alongside these groups as they are supporting the cause of free expression, just as I am willing to listen to Maryam Namazie, a member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran, even though Communism is the most repressive and murderous system in the history of humanity.

By the way, UKIP were not in an electoral alliance with the BNP, who regularly denounce them and accuse them of working with the anti-BNP group Searchlight. The Libertarian Alliance does not actively support people who incite murder: it opposes these people being put on trial for what they say. As for the Freedom Association's alleged links with the South African regime in the past, what about the people in the Labour Party (and various socialist parties) who supported the USSR (like George Galloway most recently), which murdered millions of its own people and others, and the IRA (like John McDonnell), who murdered well over a thousand people, including a founder of the Freedom Association? Does that mean that anyone from the Labour Party or another left-wing party should be unwelcome at this demonstration?

1:23 pm  
Anonymous zsa zsa said...

Well in answer to thefriendlyinfidel perhaps he or she would care to go Libertarian Alliance website ( and look up the following press releases.


In this Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance (who is due to speak on Saturday), says:

"In general, the paedophile witch-hunt in this country is to be deplored. At the bidding of a coalition that includes man-hating lesbians, sex-obsessed God botherers, empire-building social workers, corrupt and oppressive police officers, and the usual vote-hunting political trash, important procedural and substantive rights have been violated.”

Well I think the phrase “man-hating lesbians” is both homophobic and mysgonist.

He goes on to trivialise child abuse:

"Simple possession of certain pictures has been made a crime. Sexual acts committed on the far side of the world may now be crimes in this country…
"And most of the convictions or cautions under the child sex laws do not involve violent attacks on or gross deception of children. They mostly involve looking at pictures.”

So that alright then?


Doctor Gabb again:

"ASH is a sinister bunch of self-appointed health fascists that would not exist without various kinds of funding from our tax money. This funding should be immediately removed. Indeed, all charitable status should be removed from ASH. It is a corruption of language to associate the word charity with a group that exists only to destroy the freedom on choice from which true charity proceeds.”

Evidently Gabb was due a fag break.

And finally


Here the Libertarian Alliance outlines its position on free expression:

“The Libertarian Alliance advocates the following with regard to freedom of speech:
• No controls of any kind on the expression of opinion on matters of public policy;
• The repeal of all laws that make it illegal to express opinions on matters of race, religion, sexuality, or any similar matter;
• The repeal of all laws against discrimination and incitement to discrimination on any grounds whatever;
• The abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and all similar bodies;
• The cutting off of all tax-payer funding for any group that disagrees with the above.”

Like I said they "opposes the freedom of expression for voluntary sector groups that disagree with them".

So now that I have provided the evidence am I to assume that Sean Gabb and his creepy crew are to ask to sling their hooks?

2:52 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

zsa zsa thank you very much for providing the evidence to support your claims. It is very nice to engage in a reasoned discussion with someone rational on this board. I’d agree that some of their suggestions are more than a little left field.

I’m going to run through the list with my devils advocate hat on, so please keep an open mind.


I am of the mind that questions the worth of the sex offenders and agree that the reaction to the subject is massively irrational and that this is damaging to our society.

It is especially ironic as we sexualize our children on TV, in films on posters, for an example see the dance scene in Donny Darko.

Things change over time at the turn of last century we were sticking kids up chimneys to clean them and I hardly need to remind you of story of Aisha in the Hadiths books. Many Western countries get by without a sex offenders list, maybe we would be better off without one. This position is controversial, but not repugnant.

> Simple possession of certain pictures has been made a crime

This is somewhat true ... say I’m looking at some porn on newsnet and accidentally see a picture of a 12 year old girl. It sticks in my cache, I have my computer fixed, they find it, I’m charged and put on the sex offenders list. My life would be over.

Seeking sexual pictures of children creates a market and demand for the photos, its not the same as taking the photos. There is an argument that states, lets collect the photos up, allow people to view them and not make any more and no more children will be exploited (not an argument I support, but one I’ve heard).

It’s a sensitive issue. A applaud Libertarian Alliance for challenging the status quo, and believe that there must be a middle path between the hysteria we have to day, and no controls at all (Did you see the Brass Eye episode on this subject?)

> Evidently Gabb was due a fag break.

Very dry! :-)

It is my right to have a fag if I want one. I’m not into people telling me what is good for me, even when they are right. It’s my right to make a mistake. Aiming for a total ban on smoking is well ... totalitarian. I think that is my right to take drugs as well.


I’d agree we have to many of these laws and that they are often are often questionable value. A clear example of this is Sir Iqbal being interviewed by the police over his homophobic comments.

Ironically the model described by the Libertarian Alliance is what is followed in Demark, they even let paedophiles campaign to lower the age of consent. They ignore them of course, and if they catch one of the proponents with his / her hands on any children they go to jail, but they are allowed to talk ... no one is harmed by talk.

> "opposes the freedom of expression for
> voluntary sector groups that disagree with them"

It’s not quite that is it? They are stating that totalitarian groups should receive public funding not opposing their right to voice their views.

The Libertarian Alliance obviously rock the boat and say some very challenging things, out of the box things that might offend me, or you.

One thing from all the above I that will put my name against, is that we treat to many mental health issues as criminal issues, I suspect that is part of the message of the Libertarian Alliance.

> So now that I have provided the
> evidence am I to assume that Sean
> Gabb and his creepy crew are to
> ask to sling their hooks?

Not my call, but I don't think that they are demonic, just challenging. Exactly the sort of thing we are fighting to protect.

7:30 pm  
Blogger 5050noline said...

Interesting discussions on this blog.

The Left just 'hate' the Right. Ho hum....The Right think the Left are a bunch of '60s loonies.

At my age I have heard it all for along long time now, you (young) folks.

Just a thought here. Don't you think that it might just be that this adversarial 'balance' between strongly held views (however misguided in the view of 'the other' side) are what have held our democratic society stable for as long as it has?

I refer all parties to Voltaire's famous quote. But this time THINK ABOUT IT and see how it applies to YOU!!

9:57 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home