Note: Please see additional postscript at the end of this piece with extra information from The Britisher.

I’m currently trying to plough my way through a book I that I meant to read years ago but did not, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s ‘The Gulag Archipelago’. The reason for the slow progress I am having in reading it is not because of any fault with the writing, but the sheer horror of what the author is describing. It’s not only his description of the debased, sometimes short lives and brutal deaths of the inmates of the camps that elicits both horror and anger, but also his description of some of the absurdities that led people to be incarcerated in the first place.

A man could be shipped off to some hell hole of a camp and brutalised for years merely because he hang his cap on a bust of Lenin when he found there was no hat peg available in the building was working in. Denouncements for ‘wrongthink’ abounded and because of that Soviet citizens were punished for having the wrong opinion, the wrong attitude or even possessing a wrong document such as something originating from the West. In the days of Soviet Communism possession of the wrong opinions or being perceived as having the wrong opinions, could rip people away from families maybe to perish in a Communist concentration camp.

I was reading about the absurdities that could land innocent people in the gulag when I saw news reports about proposals by the Sentencing Council, the body that is supposed to ensure consistent and just sentencing by the courts, that are both chilling as well as absurd. The proposals, which have been put out for public consultation until August of this year, state that extremely long prison sentences should be handed out to those who ‘promote hatred’ online and that the length of the gaol term, which could be up to six years, would depend on the number of readers or followers that individual has.

This proposal would, you do not really be need to be told, be the death of the last vestiges of free speech in the United Kingdom. It would also represent the death of any meaningful adherence by Britain’s courts of the idea of equal justice. These proposals would prevent legitimate criticism of Islam. This is because even making a truthful statement, such as saying that Mohammed the Islamic ‘prophet’ was a nonce, could be taken by a Muslim to be ‘offensive’ and therefore elicit police and courts involvement. Also these proposals will make it very difficult if not impossible for British subjects to voice their very justifiable concerns about the extremists in the gender identity movement. It is not beyond the realms of possibility with absurd and capricious ‘hate speech’ laws that even telling your child ‘there are only two genders’ could be grounds for legal action if initiated by some ‘offended’ trans activist. What about asking awkward questions about the wilder shores of the gay community such as the bug chasers who desire HIV infection because it carries with it some form of misplaced ‘victim’ status, will these laws prevent us from talking about this? Probably. All of these scenarios would or could be seen as ‘offensive’ to those whom the various ‘equality’ laws have classified as people with ‘protected characteristics’.

However, although self-destructive members of the gay community or the lunatic paediatric gender transition movement are likely to make use of the power that these new draconian sentences will give them, it is Islam that these laws are most likely to protect. It is Islamic groups, some of them incredibly well connected within the halls of Government, who will take advantage of this extra method of silencing criticism of Islam. There is, as many of us know, a lot to criticise when it comes to Islam and it is highly likely that it is those who criticise Islam who will get the more lengthy gaol sentences. Like the absurdities that got Soviet citizens sent to the gulags for something as innocent as using Lenin’s statue for a hat-stand, Britons will also have to suffer similar unjust absurdities as being gaoled for merely stating the truth such as ‘Islam is NOT a religion of peace’.

The law, if it is to be fair and just, should be clear and not vague or subjective. However the very nature of these ‘hate speech’ laws are almost entirely based on vagueness and subjectiveness. Many of the alleged ‘crimes’ under ‘hate speech’ laws are based on an individuals own personal perception of an incident or a statement not on any real and testable evidence. For example something that doesn’t offend me may be extremely offensive to others and that is purely down to personal perception of a particular thing. Our courts are being governed by subjective feelings and that is something almost guaranteed to produce gross injustices.

Sargon of Akkad has a brilliant ‘Week in Stupid’ video that in part covers the issue of the new proposals on ‘hate speech’ from the Sentencing Council. He made some very interesting points about the proposals. Firstly he said that these proposals may have been put together with Tommy Robinson in mind. I admit that these proposals do look as if they are specifically aimed at those who stand up in public and tell the truth about Islam. The second point that Sargon made was that these recommendations were also made in the light of the aftermath of the Count Dankula trial. It is possible in my opinion, that following the Dankula trial, members of the Establishment may have taken the view that much harsher sentences were required to cudgel people, including comedians, into silence.

I must admit that the proposals coming out of the Sentencing Council both disgust and alarm me. They will be used primarily to shut down criticism of religious and political ideologies instead of allowing them to be openly debated and if necessary challenged. These are nakedly political sentence proposals and will I have little doubt be exploited to achieve political ends.

These proposals are up for public consultation and I would urge readers to make representations to the Sentencing Council as well as their local Member of Parliament over this issue. We are, as Sargon said in ‘This Week in Stupid’, ‘not a free country’, and my opinion is that these proposals will make a bad situation worse. The way to deal with bad ideologies or bad ways of thinking, including those with a quasi-spiritual carapace, such as Islam, is to engage in open debate about these things. To suppress debate over these issues, which these proposals seem to be seeking to do, will only store up more resentment for the future and possibly a type of resentment that is not amenable to taking part in debates. The concept of freedom of speech is an important societal safety valve and it would be foolish, as the Sentencing council seem to want, to close this safety valve completely shut.

If you want to make a representation to the Sentencing Council then you can find out how via the link below:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/consultations/public-order-consultation/

Post Script

The You Tube commentator ‘The Britisher’ has done some excellent digging into the background of some of the ‘non-judicial’ appointments that have been made by the Lord Chief Justice The Lord Burnett of Maldon, It seems that at least three of them are individuals from an obvious Social Justice Warrior background and one of them is associated with Britain’s ‘favourite’ race-baiter and Mastermind quiz show failure, David Lammy. As the Britisher points out some of these ‘non Judicial appointments’ are quite recent and the Britisher asks whether there is a connection between the appointments made of these left wingers and these new proposals for increased penalties for ‘hate speech’?

The Britisher also wondered if the LCJ Lord Burnett had ‘taken leave of his senses’ in appointing these Social Justice Warrior types to such an important body as The Sentencing Council? The Britisher considered the wisdom of these appointment but posed the question as to whether these SJW’s were forced on the Sentencing Council by Number Ten. I must admit that knowing the propensity for promulgating diversity guff, lies such as ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and for virtue signalling that the current incumbent of Downing Street has, this is not beyond the realms of possibility.

It’s worth watching The Britisher’s video on this subject that can be found via the link below.