Chris Huhne's snippet (it's not really an article) in The Independent has caused an outpouring of contempt amongst my libertarian colleagues not seen since Gordon Brown last opened his fat, droppy gob.
Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it.
OK, so freedom of speech is pretty fucking essential, Chris. Yes, I agree. And because "all other freedoms depend on it" that means that when you suspend free speech, you suspend all other freedoms, yes?
What with you being a Liberal Democrat an' all, you would never advocate suspending our freedoms, would you? Oh...
The decision to stop people from exercising this fundamental right must never be taken lightly.
Um... So, it's bad to suspend freedom of speech, except when it isn't...
Neither should a decision to ban people from visiting this country. As a result, I have in the past defended people with some particularly odious views, such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr Frederick Toben.
OK... Chris Huhne is deploying an argument similar to that of the guy who claims that "many of my best friends are black": you wonder what bigotry you are about to be subjected to.
So, what turd is Huhne about to drop into our laps? Ooh, can you guess...?
In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between the right to freedom of speech and when it topples over into incitement to hatred and violence.
No, there isn't. Look, Huhne, you utter fucknuts, either you have freedom of speech or you don't; and "freedom" means the freedom of people to say things that you don't agree with.
If someone says something that you don't like, well, tough. If someone then goes and beats someone up, that is when you prosecute. Do you understand this, you tit?
Obviously not. And obviously, the freedom of speech that Huhne claims "is our most precious freedom of all" is not freedom of speech as I understand it. As I understand it, freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything; to Huhne, it does not.
In my opinion, Geert Wilders' revolting film Fitna crosses this line, as its shocking images of violence and emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.
"In your opinion..."? Fuck your opinion, you cunt; why the fuck is your opinion any more important than mine, fuckface?
If it was my opinion that everyone over the age of 16 should be made to take Ecstasy, would you accept that? No. So why the fuck should I rate your opinion?
This is, quite simply, Cuntface Huhne using the law to enforce his personal opinion. Just like all of the other politicos do. Fuck you all, you cunts.
Ach, the man bores me: go and read The Nameless Libertarian for a more extensive and clinical filleting of this wanker.
UPDATE: on this subject, Bishop Hill points out that excluding Wilders was probably unlawful (see here, here and here), and then wonders if Liberty (the pressure group) is a complete waste of time, space and money ("yes" is the answer) and whether, at the very least, the humourless Shami Chakrabarti should resign.
David Davis is a politician and has presumably made a political calculation that he has little to gain from speaking out in favour of Wilders' coming to the UK, and a great deal to lose in terms of his future career (we assume that he will eventually seek high office again). We expect little else from politicians and can write off the LibDems on the same grounds.
Chakrabarti has no such excuse. She is the head of Liberty, a body that exists solely to speak out in favour of civil liberties. She has failed miserably to do so. Her silence over Wilders is not unprecedented either. She has made it abundantly clear that she doesn't feel that freedom of speech extends to nasty people; her words on Question Time last week can have left nobody in any doubt about that. She also has previous form on the "disappearing act" she has performed in the last few days, notably when Liberty maintained a determined radio silence over the Sikh play Bezhti.
Chakrabarti has demonstrated over the years that she will not stand up for those whose views she deems unacceptable. She will not defend unpleasant views. She will not speak out for unpleasant people. She hates racists so much that she will allow fundamental British freedoms to be trampled underfoot in order allow these views she detests so much to be crushed, regardless of the importance of the freedoms that are lost with them, and regardless of the duties entailed in her position.
What is the point of the woman?
There is no point to her: she should resign and take her smug face and charisma-bypass back into the obscurity from which she has somehow managed to struggle. But she won't resign as president of Liberty because, as far as I can make out, Liberty exists solely to provide Shami Chakrabarti with a salary.
Shami is a fucking twat. And Davis can get to fuck too. The both of them are fair-weather civil liberties campaigners, just out for what they can get out of it, i.e. personal fame and wealth.
Fuck 'em, and Chakrabarti especially: at least Davis has a sense of humour...