Only Nice People On Social Media! by Les May

WHEN Boris Johnson said that he was going to ensure that social media companies will be compelled to remove ‘racist’ material from their sites under threat of losing 10% of the revenue stream generated in the UK, I have no doubt that he meant it, at least when he said it. But as the saying goes ‘the devil is in the detail’.

As was pointed out on this blog only recently, racial discrimination involves an individual, a group or a state treating individuals or groups of individuals differently based upon their race, colour or origin. It should be noted that this includes both preferential and prejudicial treatment, and requires some identifiable action to be taken by the individual, group or state. By contrast ‘racism’ is an ideological stance adopted by some people and people holding this view may or may not involve themselves in any action which constitutes racial discrimination. In other words it is an idea which some people have in their heads. Johnson’s problem is going to be whether he wants to be a politician who tries to legislate against ideas.

Here’s a little test. You come across the following seven separate posts on social media; at what point does the needle on your ‘outrage meter’ move into the red zone and you start to demand that that the offending post be removed.

‘You took that penalty like you were wearing carpet slippers! You played like a big girl! Where your boot laces tied together you big queer? An open goal and you missed, are you blind or something? I’ve seen cripples play better! Lazy bastards like you shouldn’t be in the team! Get back where you belong you white/black/brown bastard!’

All of these are things that someone might have said after watching eleven millionaires chasing a ball. None of them involve any action against another individual or group. The perpetrator’s only action was to type something, press a button and hey presto! Any individual reading any one of these might take exception to it on the grounds that they find it abusive. If they want to exaggerate they will call it ‘hate speech’.

And that’s another problem Johnson will face. Will a law tailored to satisfy the demands of those who feel outraged by recent events open the flood gates for other groups to expect that a law be enacted to satisfy their specific demands?

On the NV blog a year ago, 29 June 2020, I said that having read some of the abusive posts directed at Priyamvada Gopal, who had posted a ‘tweet’ which said “I’ll say it again. White Lives Don’t Matter. As white lives”, I thought you would meet nicer turds in a slurry pit. But being unpleasant to other people isn’t a crime, nor should it be made one.

The assumption that those who seek legislation make is that if only we can pass the right laws we can make people be nice to each other or at least stop them being unpleasant. Does anyone really believe that?

************************************************************************

Trump And Freedom Of Speech by Les May

A REGULAR THEME of what I have written for Northern Voices is the threat to freedom of speech posed by those who try to prevent people whose views they disagree with from presenting them to others. When this happens in universities and colleges it is commonly called ‘no platforming’. It’s a staple tactic of those who engage in the politics of identity.

It is the antithesis of how George Orwell defined liberty when he said ‘It is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. So is the decision by Twitter to refuse to allow Donald Trump to post on the social media platform an attack on liberty?

The Twitter decision does not prevent Trump saying whatever he likes. Twitter is under no obligation to provide space on it’s servers for the outpourings of Trump, myself or anyone else. If he wants to use some form of social media to enlighten his followers with his wisdom, he is entirely at liberty to set up his own version of Twitter.

Veteran Trump watchers will recognise the irony of his complaint. There are many instances at his press conferences of his refusing to answer questions he does not like and denigrating accredited journalists.

*****************************************************************

YOU TUBE SUSPENDS TOMMY ROBINSON

YOU TUBE has suspended adverts on the account of former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson.

Mr Robinson had broken the site's advertising rules, said YouTube, adding that his channel covered 'controversial issues and sensitive events'.
The decision means the channel, which has 270,000 subscribers, will not earn revenue when people watch the videos.
Mr Robinson denied they contained any 'hateful' content and said he was the victim of 'continued censorship'.

Corporate Censorship

YouTube said it believed in freedom of expression but also had a duty to protect viewers from "derogatory and disparaging" content.
The decision comes a day after YouTube removed adverts for anti-Islamic group Britain First from its site, saying they breached its advertising rules prohibiting "hatred, intolerance or discrimination".
A Britain First representative said: "Britain First is at present suing Facebook in Belfast for political discrimination. Once that case is resolved, in February, we will launch proceedings against YouTube for their politically motivated censorship."

Campaign group Hope Not Hate said social media companies had been "too slow" when responding to reports of hate speech.
"Lennon and others in the far right are utterly reliant on social media and crowdfunding platforms to keep their coffers plump," it said.
In November, PayPal announced it would no longer process payments for Mr Robinson, saying he had broken its policy on acceptable use.
In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court.  The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests.  The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns.
The case has now been referred to the attorney general.
In March 2018, Mr Robinson was banned from Twitter. It is understood that his account was suspended for breaking its "hateful conduct policy".

**********

Say 'No' To Hate Crime

by Les May

ELLA Whelan, author of the book ‘What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism’, has described the campaign by MP Stella Creasy to have misogyny classified as a hate crime as, ‘a top-down act of virtue-signalling by a handful of MPs and feminists, and an affront to freedom’.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/09/06/stella-creasys-war-on-thoughtcrime/

It’s top down because as she points out women are not marching in the streets for the criminalisation of misogyny.  It’s an affront to freedom because it seeks to punish individuals for what they think, not what they do, i.e. thought crime.

Now whilst I share Ella Whelan’s view on this there is I think a more practical objection.   If you think you’ve witnessed a hate crime, who you gonna call? Certainly not ‘The Ghost Busters’!  It’s the police of course.

The problem is that the police may not understand what constitutes a hate crime and what constitutes free speech.

A week ago it was reported that in Bath city centre a Christian street preacher by the name of Dale McAlpine was threatened with arrest and forced to leave the area.  Police issued a dispersal notice to a group of preachers and ordered them to leave the city centre.   It seems that one of the officers involved claimed they were committing a ‘hate crime’.

The outcome? Avon and Somerset police have contacted all police staff in Bath ‘to ensure they understand the importance of freedom of expression’.

https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Police-apologise-to-Bath-street-preacher-threatened-with-arrest

It isn’t the first time that McAlpine has been in trouble for expressing unpopular views.   In 2010 was arrested after he told a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) that as a Christian he believed homosexuality was a sin.   As the term ‘hate crime’ was not fashionable then, the PCSO contented himself with having McAlpine arrested for making ‘homophobic remarks’.

The outcome? The charges were dropped and police in Cumbria agreed to pay him £7,000 in compensation as well as his legal costs.  McAlpine responded ‘I hope the police will in future do their duty defending freedom of speech.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339843/Homosexuality-sin-street-preacher-wins-7k-police.html

I may not have any sympathy with McAlpine’s beliefs, but I’m glad that he’s there.  It’s people like him that remind us that freedom of expression applies to people you disagree with as well as those whose views coincide with yours.  The alternative is the echo chamber of social media where you need only listen to views that coincide with your own.

My motivation in writing this is primarily my concern that the eagerness of some people on hearing something they do not like to resort to words like, racist, anti-semitic, islamo-phobic, misogynistic, trans-phobic, homo-phobic, patriarchal or hate speech, prevents reasoned discussion and, if we self censor to avoid being so labelled, effectively denies us freedom of expression.   (It is not without interest that the PCSO who had McAlpine arrested is himself a homosexual.)  But in Stella Creasy’s case there is something else.

Creasy is credited with having championed payday loan fee caps and more recently has urged a crackdown on high cost credit cards. I admire this and say more power to her elbow. I just wish she would not waste her time trying to solve a non-existent problem. Perhaps she is not immune to vanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/27/stella-creasy-to-call-for-crackdown-on-high-cost-credit-cards

Feral Councillors!

by Durruti Column

IT's deeply worrying to hear that Greater Manchester has one of the highest rates of hospital admissions with malnutrition* in England, 1.5 times higher than the national average. Learning that there were 588 hospital admissions in our area with a primary or secondary diagnosis of malnutrition in 2015/16, a rate of 21 per 100,000 people, compared to a rates of 15 per 100,000 across England.  These shocking statistics naturally drew me to the scandalous plight of many of our councillors, many of whom are forced to seek out alternative sources of nutrition to bulk out  their obviously insufficient tax payer subsidised post meeting buffets.   Persistent reports that councillors near delirious with early onset malnutrition  have resorted to scavenging from local restaurants to prevent starvation keep surfacing on social media. '

'You can hardly move at the local soup kitchen for councillors pan handling for a bowl of soup and a roll - where are they all flocking from ?, reported one regular Food Bank user who did not want to be named , adding '   It's time the government or Bob Geldof stepped in with another Live Aid!  Shocking reports of aggressive town centre begging by councillors without portfolio has led some to believe that the councillors expenses are quite obviously inadequate and need an immediate public inquiry and recalibration.  'You can see the poor souls staggering out of local public house racked with exhaustion and overwork.  One of them does a whole three hours work every other week .  The lovies are so tired that they keep falling asleep in meetings.  If it wasn't for the expenses form being passed round and waking them up at the end of the meetings some of them would be there all night.   I don't know how they manages to keep going?   ‘Some of the poor dears barley manage to get into a restaurant more than four or five times a week it's a wonder they aren't forced into spending their own money sometimes', said a town centre zero hours contract cleaner.

One shamefaced councillor who wish to remain anonymous described an ugly incident behind No.1 Riverside last week when a pack of feral councillors intimidated local beggars away from the closely located supermarket food skips.   ‘There's  just not enough dustbins and food skips in the town centre to supply demand any more.   It's a ghetto out there - it's us or the street beggars !', she added through clenched teeth. Few people realise just how difficult it is becoming for our poor local councillors to survive in a such a highly charged and  toxic competitive environment.  It's been reported that some town centre street corners have two , three , sometimes more, individuals cynically competing in trying to extort more money from the public purse.

'Your average professional parasite hardly get a look in any more because of these new arrivals.  Councillors cornered the market on conning the public out of their hard earned cash for decades and we deeply resent these newcomers stealing our pitches', complained another tearful and near destitute councillor of twenty years standing.  'Peoples priorities have all gone astray.  I've three full time jobs , remuneration from a dozen committee posts and the lucrative income from housing benefits on several dozen properties to scrape by on yet the local proles would still far rather donate to feed the hungry kids of a frozen single mum sitting in the rain who's been sanctioned for being two minutes late at the job centre than subsidise meals for us decent hard up councillors!  What's wrong with 'em !  It's a diabolical liberty!    Some of us have been using the same sob story to voters for decades without any public scrutiny and we don't see why just because the towns social fabric is collapsing around us that our personal gravy train should be jeopardised.   It'll end in communism you mark my words!'.

Distressingly reports that some of our local councillors have been forced by dire circumstances and near destitution into working for a living although highly unlikely can not be discounted altogether.   A recent public service announcement warns locals not to give cash to any hungry or dishevelled councillors who may wander into the town centre delirious with hunger.   'Don't give public handouts to councillors', said a spokesperson , ‘It will simply feed their addiction.  They can't help themselves - Universal Credit and destitution is good enough for the majority of our hard working dedicated town centre beggars.  Councillors are no different and it really is time they started contributing to our local economy rather than expecting repeated public handouts'.

If you see a councillor aggressively demanding more money from the public purse in a public area.  Do not approach them - and most certainly do not vote for them since this will only encourage their recidivist anti-social behaviour - Keep calm and remember that a new Public Space Protection Order is in force to protect innocent members of the public from serial scammers & fraudsters.

* malnutrition

NOUN: lack of proper nutrition, caused by not having enough to eat, not eating enough of the right things, or being unable to use the food that one does eat.

Appeal Verdict on Stefan Cholewka

Editor:  We publish the decision of the Rochdlae Labour Party Appeal Panel without comment:

Stefan Cholewka: 

Appeal Verdict: The panel has decided to uphold the original LCF decision.  Monday 2^nd October 2017. 

Dear Stefan,

Thank you for attending your appeal hearing this evening. We would like to apologise to the delayed start to your interview.

We understand your concerns regarding your original interview panel. The appeal team is made up of members from outside the borough to make sure you receive a fair hearing. You were offered opportunities by the panel to dispute the points made against you, which they feel you failed to do. They felt that while you expressed many of your activities through the numerous organisations you are involved in, there was not enough about the labour party activity.

They also had strong concerns regarding how you dealt with the original panel decision, especially in regards to the social media post. They feel this shone a negative light on the party and showed a disregard for the process and did not allow it to take its proper course. The panel has decided to uphold the original LCF decision.

TUC Slams Proposed Ban on Social Media

by Les May

FRANCES O'Grady General Secretary of the TUC recently told the BBC that plans drawn up alongside the Trade Union Bill could force unions to give two weeks notice if they plan to use Twitter and Facebook accounts to campaign while members are on strike.  A consultation document linked to the proposed Trade Union bill suggests unions taking industrial action must give notice of 'whether it will be using social media, specifically Facebook, Twitter, blogs, setting up websites and what those blogs and websites will set out'.  Ministers have said that any restrictions will not apply to posts by individuals.

My first thought when a trades union friend told me of this was, 'this is a boat that won't float'.

In 2011 social media were widely credited with being a decisive element in the 'Arab Spring'.  Even a Tory government is unlikely to want to be compared unfavourably with the then Tunisian and Egyptian governments. In the minds of  many people it will seem but a short step to a ban on unions advertising in newspapers or giving interviews to journalists when a strike is pending.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) doesn't only protect human rights it also protects fundamental freedoms. When it was drafted in 1950 by the newly formed Council of Europe (of which the UK is a member) social media weren't even a twinkle in someone's eye. But if unrestricted access to social media is considered to be one of those fundamental freedoms then the UK government could find itself arguing its case in the European Court of Human Rights.

Repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act, which some Tories would dearly like to do, will not help them here because ECHR came into force on 3 September 1953.

Much of the praise for the part played by social media in 2011 appeared to me both uncritical and shallow.  Reliance upon the anonymity of the Internet and World Wide Web is itself a two edged sword because it is easy to create fictitious accounts on Twitter and Facebook which are then used to post misleading information.  The Rochdale Online news site claims that during the 2010 election campaign Matthew Baker was exposed as having a number of accounts on internet forums and using those accounts to support Tory Lite MP Simon Danczuk and attack his opponents and critics.  (I just love the slang term for people who do this, 'sock puppet'.  It's so... appropriate.)

If the government 'consultation' results in legislation I doubt that anti-union campaigners will be able to resist the temptation to 'fit up' unions by concocting fake web sites, blogs, Twitter and Facebook accounts. Wouldn't that make the government look silly in court! 



https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work/articles/story/striking-unions-could-face-restrictions-social-media-use
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34017423
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/96466/matt-baker-rochdale-mp-simon-danczuks-right-hand-man-is-moving-on