The Start
publicansdecoy said... Of course I still believe in freedom of expression! I feel strongly about it, which is why I would rather not just engage in leaving comments on some blog which only gets a few visitors these days. I think you're right, maybe it is time for us to take the plunge and start taking more action. Quite right too! This forum is my contribution.

:idea: We need members and we need a focus. In part, even though this is an online campaign, it is very much like a campaign of the traditional variety. Our initial aim should be to build up our membership but our primary aim should be to raise awareness of threats to freedom of expression. We need to “get out there” contributing elsewhere to raise awareness, getting our views out. Perhaps we need to set some broad guidelines about what we stand for and what we hope to achieve. We need to set some targets to work towards; the original campaign placed emphasis on the March Which Became a Rally. We could perhaps start by focusing on one or two specific campaigns that highlight threats or impediments to free expression. Do we want to focus on the blasphemy laws as mooted on the MfFE blog? If we did this we could possibly get support and publicity from the National Secular Society, but would this be of interest to our international contributors? Could we develop a campaign that highlights free expression abuse overseas, perhaps focusing on prisoners of conscience? Or perhaps we could focus on the efforts or lack of them from our politicians in protecting freedom of expression. This could have an international dimension (people could look at the efforts of politicians in the countries in which they live, or of MEPs in the case of those contributing from Britain and Europe), a local dimension (local politicians), and a British dimension (MPs, MEPs, MSPs or Members of the Welsh Assembly). This might be the best way to build up a global movement. But what comes first the members or the campaign? Do we need large numbers of members to start a campaign, or do we need a specific campaign to get new members? Forum members, please post your ideas.

Good post Aeneas, you raise some interesting questions. What type of organisation do we imagine that CaFE could become? Something like Liberty perhaps or could it be international like Amnesty International? My view is more like Liberty. Freedom of Expression in an international context depends so much on the form of government and the influence of religion in a particular country. Maybe later, but I would be satisfied if we could make CaFE a success here in the UK before we look further afield. I think that we need a few more committed members.

Our Aims:To have laws that have the potentual to be used to limit our freedoms repealed. To stop the advance of Sharia law. To contiune to defend the people's freedoms. Those who oppose us: Main ones are; Islamic jihadists and those who wish to impose Sharia Law in the UK, The government of the day and all those that will not repeal bills such as the ID Cards bill. Generally, all those who wish to further limit our freedoms. That is what I think this campaign should be about and the people that will be against us. Basically the focus should be on rolling back limits on freedom of expression to a certain line, I think that line lies at things like saying things that limit or take away peoples freedoms, bringing down the UK, and inciting murder.

We first need to establish what we actually agree on. Do any of you believe that free speech shoud be restricted in certain circumstances? In my opinion, there are two areas where it should: 1. Threatening to use violence, as this will result in some people not excercising their right to free speech through fear. 2. Defamation of character or slander The main two points that we should be defending are: 1. Truth should always be able to be said without being compromised by political correctness 2. Any ideologies or opinions can be expressed, criticised or mocked without fear of punishment. We will not agree on all these points, but we must establish a core set of principles regarding free speech that we do believe in and go from there. Remember, that to get any sort of widespread public support, we can't be seen to be supporting incitement to violence etc. However, if we concentrate on the two points I mentioned as worth defending, I think that we will get alot of people supporting us.

Will_B and Derius. I think that you made some very good suggestions :D . I have tried to summarise them (I hope you don't mind) below so that others can add to them, please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of your suggestions: Core values: No threats to use violence No defamation of character, slander, libel, etc. Truth before political correctness No ideology or opinion should be beyond criticism Aims and Objectives: Oppose new and call for repeal of existing laws that restrict freedom Protect Common Law and campaign against creating a two-tier legal system Our Opponents: Islamic jihadists and Sharia Law advocates in UK Politicians who propose new anti free expression laws or oppose the repeal of existing ones I think that brevity is a good thing, perhaps we can make these into slogans. Do other members of the forum have anything to add, if you do perhaps it would be a good idea to use the same headings if you can.

I personally don't think it should be allowed to have people plotting against the country. Treasonous gits.

Aeneas, Your summary looks good to me. The next issue is what should our stance be towards the "far right" and other fringe groups. This poses a slight dilemna. It was clear from the MfFE blogspot that certain posters were BNP members, who also believed in free speech. However, they would have to be supporters of, or at least indifferent to the racist outlook to that party. My ideal approach to such people is slightly different to Peter Ridgson's, who seemed content to label them all fascists and have nothing to do with any of them, despite the fact they might well agree with his campaign. He also never explained exactly how a fascist could believe in free speech in the first place, which always seemed a contradiction to me. Therefore, I think we should approach this matter as follows: No member can push a political party agenda on our campaign. This applies to all parties. Thus people posting with usernames such as "Staunch Tory" or "BNP Member" should be made to change it, or be banned from this forum. Remember that all the main political parties are supposed to be standing for freedom of expression anyway (though clearly our Government no longer does). Therefore, their choice of political party is not relevant to this campaign. Secondly, under no circumstances can anybody push a white supremicist or racist line. Race should be kept out of this campaign, as freedom of expression is a right that everybody is entitled to, regardless of their race. Breaching this should lead the relevant member to be banned. With these two restrictions in place, people of the far right and other fringe groups can join and help our campaign, if they agree with our aims, but any extremist views will not be given a platform at our meetings or on this forum. In my opinion, this is a happy medium to strike. However, I will go with the majority, so if anybody disagrees with this, then please say so, along with your reasons. I also suppose that Sir Percy could overule us all anyway, as it's his forum! My final point is that nobody should confuse ideology with race. Therefore, criticising Islam is acceptable, for example, as religions are only ideologies. I know this is stating the obvious, but many of those pushing for Sharia Law cry racist when you argue against them, and this tactic has intimidated some people into silence. If this campaign gains momentum, then we will be coming up against the Islamic lobby eventually, and we should be aware of the tactics they will employ. Incidentally, I do believe that people have the right to say racist remarks, however deplorable those comments may be. However, having such comments posted on our forum is not going to help us gain support, and we need all the help we can get.

Derius, good points. I do not think that anyone who truly believes in freedom of expression should be excluded from the campaign. I believe that free expression is a universal good and a campaign built around it should be a focus that brings people together from across the political spectrum. You are right that race should kept out of this campaign, subject to the caveat about ideologies that you mentioned. White supremacist views should be excluded, as should anti-white racism. Regarding the issue of political parties, I think that people's posts with obviously stem from their own political philosophies but I think party loyalties might shine through as part of this. I think you are right about usernames that indicate political parties, but I'm sure that people will find ways around this by using names of party political or ideological heroes that may leave other forum members in no doubt about the political direction that they are coming from. I can see where you are coming from on these issues and think that you are right, but we should avoid rules that might induce a kind of writer's block or that might hinder people's ability to express themselves. I think we need to discuss this further to fine tune it. So to summarise the points just discussed: Accept anyone who believes in free expression, but no Party agendas or Party political usernames, and no racism. I suppose this could be categorised under core values of our campaign. :?: On another issue, does anyone have any ideas as to any specific campaigns we could use as a possible focus to raise awareness of free expression issues and CaFE?

I still believe that we need to think more deeply about the limits of the Campaign. Our old friend Ismaeel from the MAC (remember him?) quite rightly pointed out on the MfFE blog that there is already an international organisation dedicated to looking after free speech: Article 19 - The Global Campaign for Free Expression. Guys you've been beaten to it: http://www.article19.org/about/index.html There is no getting away from the fact that it was opposition to the Danish Cartoons here in the UK that brought us all together on that damp Saturday last March. We came from differing backgrounds, although most of us were democrats, and we were appalled by the threat to our freedom of expression posed by religious opposition to the Cartoons. For many of us who took the freedom to criticize or poke fun at religion for granted (Dave Allen? The Life of Brian?), the vocal opposition to the Cartoons here in the UK, a country which didn't even publish the Cartoons, took us by surprise and suggested that we may have reached a crossroads in our ability to express ourselves freely. The movement was born here in the UK and I would suggest that, initially at least, the Campaign should concentrate on protecting freedoms here in the UK.

I was a bit worried when someone suggested "white supremicist" views should be excluded and not the supremicist views of other races. That, in my opinion, indicates how far the rot of political correctness has permeated our society, when anything associated with white people asserting themselves can be singled out in such a way. I'm glad Percy had the sense to rectify that, but I still disagree with him. If any poster wants to argue that their specific race, religion or nationality is better than others, then that should be allowed, providing it does not stray into abuse of others. As for party political viewpoints, once again that should be allowed. Arguments like that tend to be tedious anyway, but that doesn't mean they should be prevented. I'm also interested in the labelling of political viewpoints. If someone accepts a label such as "liberal", "leftist", "conservative" or "far-right", then so be it, but each description has a perjorative meaning in a different context or when used in a particlar manner. The number one boo word is, of course, "fascist" (or "nazi", if you belong to one of the sects of the radical left) and, outside of Italy, nearly everyone runs away from the description. It is also used with gay abandon to denigrate anyone that doesn't fit the scheme (such as the use by the organisers of the MFE, who should have known better) or raises unfortunate topics, such as immigration. Unless someone joins the forum and declares themselves a "fascist", I think this term should be confined to historical debates or the politics of Italy, where it makes sense. Finally, I would imagine most , if not all, the members of this forum regard the defence of free expression (primarily speech) to be the supreme and most important viewpoint, above all else. Does that make us "free speech supremicists"?

"I was a bit worried when someone suggested "white supremicist" views should be excluded and not the supremicist views of other races. That, in my opinion, indicates how far the rot of political correctness has permeated our society, when anything associated with white people asserting themselves can be singled out in such a way." Posted by Jack London above. My comment regarding white supremicist views was clearly said in the context of mainly discussing the BNP, some members of which had been posting on the MfFE website. I am not aware of any black supremicists being members of the BNP. Are you? Secondly, where exactly did I say that white people who assert themselves are supremicists? Thirdly, where exactly did I say that other racial supremicist lines should be allowed? I clearly stated that any racist comments should not be tolerated, regardless of their direction. It would help if you actually read what people are saying before launching into a counterattack. I actually agree with you that: 1. Political correctness gets in the way of truthful discussion and free speech 2. Incorrect political labelling such as "fascist", used to silence people instead of trying to engage in meaningful debate is a deplorable tactic used by many I believe we actually have similar standpoints on the issue of free speech. I do not toe the political correctness line, and it has not permeated by thinking, I can assure you.

I'm glad we largely agree. My point was that you started talking about white supremicists, before anyone else, as though that would mean the end of the discussion. Like I said, if anyone wants to advocate this, then I'm fine with it. Likewise, if people want to talk about the differences between the races, then great, providing they don't resort to abuse. It's called free expression! As for the BNP: it is not a 'white supremicist' organisation. See the interview with Nick Griffin, elsewhere on this board. Rather than asserting white supremacy, the BNP talks about the differences between the races and their mutual incompatibility. It also wants to protect a section of the white race, namely the Welsh, Irish, Scots and English. Why would anyone object to that?