Small Black Flowers That Grow in the Sky

Free Speech – a lovely phrase. A democratic ideal, but perhaps unconsciously to many, one of those concepts that can all too often trigger an “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” response. Whilst many people will state that they agree with the idea of Free Speech, some of these will nonetheless call for the censorship of extreme views with which they do not approve. Two recent media events have been examples of Free Speech being used as a platform for views with which I certainly do not agree. This, of course, challenged me to consider my opinions on Free Speech.

The first of these incidents was Jan Moir’s repugnant Daily Mail article about the nature (or “unnature”, as she might have it), surrounding the death of Stephen Gately. This article, despite the fact that neither police nor coroner have ever suggested anything other than a death from natural causes, blamed his death on his homosexuality. Not in so many words, obviously – but the suggestion was plastered over the article. A massive internet backlash, lead by (among others) Derren Brown, Stephen Fry and a wonderfully scathing article by Charlie Brooker lead to a record number of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, and withdrawal of advertisments from the Daily Mail’s website.

The second event was Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. The BBC’s decision was criticised by many who considered that it would give the BNP more of a standing as a political party. I do wonder how many of such people would otherwise have defended free speech. In the event, Nick Griffin simply ended up making himself look like the uneducated bigot that many consider him to be – in showing a blatant ignorance of basic history and culture.

Both Nick Griffin and Jan Moir have expressed, on a vast public stage, opinions that to me are utterly despicable. But should they still be allowed to make these opinions public?

Hell yes.

Nick Griffin made himself look a fool. Jan Moir may have made a name for herself (I hadn’t previously heard of her), but it’s muddier than a Mississippi Mud Pie that’s fallen in Mud. I’m not sure who stated that “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt”, but I think that if we let the fools speak, it’s easier for us to recognise who they are. Intellectual evolution, really.

“If this doesn’t turn you into a raving Socialist,” she said, “Nothing will.” My friend was handing me a copy of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, by Irish workingman Robert Tressell. Preferring to keep an open mind on this grand claim, I took to reading it. At this point it might be prudent to describe my political leanings at the time I began reading. Swinging both ways, really – of the opinion that neither Capitalism nor Socialism held all of the answers.

For those unfamiliar with the book, it depicts the lives of a group of workers for a painting and decorating firm in the South of England, in the very early 20th century. We see the conditions under which the men have to work, often oppressed by their profit-minded masters – forced to work as shoddily and cheaply as possible to maximise profits. We see the men’s home lives, and how their poverty affects their wives, parents and children – very little to eat, or indeed to wear. We see the opposite side, the corrupt, yet affluent, lives of the masters – effected Christianity and corrupt control of the means of production and of council business.

The book itself is an engaging enough novel, with its occasional comedy and tragedy. But its intent is certainly to be more than entertaining. Throughout the book we are treated to the vision of Owen, one of the labourers, trying to convert his fellow workers to Socialist ideals. The workers themselves, by and large, dismiss these ideas, despite the obvious benefits they’d reap from such a system. Such is the indoctrination of these people that they believe that the status quo should remain because it’s simply the way things are. This is something I see all the time – workers will often happily accept the status quo because they don’t think that they have the authority, or the right, to question it. And it happens in other spheres of society, too. How long have people repressed homosexuality for fear that it wasn’t normal – and how many women have stayed at home to look after the kids and do the housework, because “that’s what’s supposed to happen”?

The book therefore, has a clear agenda – to promote Socialism. It would be very harsh to call it propaganda, but it is clearly didactic. And to very good effect. Socialism is not a term I’ve always understood. Dictionary definitions are usually too vague, the nature of dictionaries limiting defintions to a few lines. Encyclopaedic sources, even the internet kind without the limit of paper space, are often written academically, to be understood by those with a good knowledge of political or socio-economic jargon. Allegories, such as Animal Farm, can seem a bit too distant from the world of the reader, and so do not really afford any pathos. The explanations given in the book are perfectly understandable, and the setting of the novel around a group of working men, facing situations that even myself, as a white-collar worker, can relate to.

More importantly, the arguments for Socialism are convincing.

If they do want for anything, it is that the book portrays Socialism in the greatest light possible. It presents a dream of an almost Utopian world, with peace, harmony and utter contentment everywhere. Perhaps I’m cynical, but whatever benefits might arise from Socialism, I doubt that it would lead to a perfect world. A better world, quite possibly, but not perfect. Another problem, though not at all insurmountable, is the difference between the book’s world and the world of today. The two are very different, so perhaps the vision of Socialism presented to us by Tressell might not be fully workable in this day and age, but that’s no reason to simply give it up as a bad job.

So where am I politically now? More to the left, certainly. More questioning of the status quo. And undoubtedly more aware of the effects of Capitalism on society – I’m becoming more aware of the Co-operative and Fairtrade movements, and the benefits that such things provide. When you’ve grown up all of your life in a Capitalist society, as I have, it’s often difficult to miss them. I’m glad I can see things from another angle now.

A month or so ago, well before the recent European elections, a friend drew my attention to this new party. This friend of mine is relatively open-minded and fairly sensible, and a Party Political Broadcast of theirs had attracted her interest. For what reason, I cannot remember. I resolved, however, to look into them.

When I got around to this, I took a look at their website. Even before that, I became worried about their agenda. Google’s facility to suggest searches based upon what you’ve already typed was returning numerous references to such things as the BNP and racism.

Their website’s homepage itself was enough to make me decide that they are not a party with whom I’d wish to bother. Put simply, they appear to be nationalists hiding behind tactile nice-sounding policies, such as the creation of an English Parliament. I may rant about that concept another time, but for now it would be mere digression.The phrase of theirs that really attracted my attention (and I’m copying and pasting this from the site directly) was, “We want English freedoms and values, not multiculturalism.”

I have three major issues with this. Firstly, whoever picked such rhetoric clearly has no finger on the pulse of history. Since 44BCE, England has been invaded by pretty much any civilisation that could make boats. People from each such civilisation will have stayed around and bred with the indigenous population (which by the time of the Norman Conquest probably wasn’t purely indigenous). Our language, nominally Germanic, has vast influences from Gaelic, Scandinavian and Latin languages. For crying out loud, our country is named after a Germanic people. It is impossible to be English without being multicultural.

Secondly, who decides what English freedoms and values are? Do these people refer to stiff-upper-lip, no-sex-please, big-red-buses stereotypes as our freedoms and values? If we are to live by stereotypes, we are not free. Freedom, surely, encapsulates the right to choose one’s own culture, and not be bound by prescribed roles.

Finally, surely an anti-multiculturalist stance is always going to hint to racism. More than that, to homophobia, misogyny and sectarianism. It certainly doesn’t hint at a tolerant regime.

Despite this, they have still managed to convince some people that they aren’t racist. However, their true colours appear to have been shown recently, in their attitude to Doncaster Pride. The party’s Peter Davies had the following to say: “I don’t think councils should be spending money on them parading through town advertising their sexuality.” I disagree very strongly with this. It is events such as Doncaster Pride that helps to make people aware that LGBT culture is not something that happens to other people, something that you only read about, something scandalous and low. It’s a part of life, and has been a lot longer than a great many aspects of our culture. It’s certainly been around a lot longer than “English freedoms and values”, whatever those may be. For Doncaster Council to spend money on this is a fine thing and should serve as an example to other councils.

Their nationalist agenda has too been aired. For instance, they’ve stated that they wish to cut funding for translation services for non-English speakers in Doncaster. Personally, I hope on his next foreign trip, Peter Davies is only ever dealt with by people who cannot speak English, but that of the country they’re in. I bet even getting directions to the beach or looking for the pen of his aunt would cause him problems.

To my mind, the English Democrats have no belief in freedom, English or not. They simply want the country to act the way they prescribe, and cut off from the rest of the world and all it has to offer. Well, that’s my vote they’re not getting.