Give an inch…

What happens if you misjudge and give an inch?

As a practical example you can consider what happens to a train line. Rail tracks are designed to run in parallel - the why is obvious; so that the wheels of train stay on them. But, misjudge and give an inch when laying the first rail and at some point in the future at a distance the train will derail. How far away from the start line that event happens depends on the variable relationship between geometry, speed and distance, Know two of these values and its possible to calculate an answer ..

As a more societal example I offer the risk of conceding the right to free speech and free expression, misjudge and give that inch here and the old truism of “ Give someone an inch and they will take a mile” is very likely to comes true.  Give a small concession to those with power or those focused on an outcome and looking to exploit the opportunity and history shows they will inevitably try to take much more, and very often succeed.

So here is a second question that extends to a third and ultimately a largely rhetorical fourth:

“Have we given an inch in protecting free speech? – to the third, is that inch the first step towards the taking of the proverbial mile? Finally to the fourth' If so does the crash happen?”

My view? It seems clear that we are on a dangerous course. Democracy has a long established and ancient origin . It literally means rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”). It is the expression of the will and instruction of the people (the majority) to those who hold the representational power they bestow. It is not rule of the people via self declared mandate of those empowered. The right to free speech and free expression is key to its operation  and this key is increasingly been corrupted and polarised as the interests of those holding power turn it inward to serve their own purpose and belief under the cloak of guarding rights of minorities. So to usurp the interests of those of the majority who allowed it to be placed in the lock.

Major world situations are polarised between declarations of “good” and “bad”. Thousands march in support of the Palestinians in Garza. Within those thousands aims become blurred and balance of argument is simply lost. Good and Bad become fixed as black and white whilst in truth stand as a kaleidoscope of hues.

Witness the juxtapose between statement and sensibility of banners such as “Gays for Hamas and Hezbollah” carried whilst dressed in ISIS colours. If the carrier of such a slogan were to parade with the message within the territory of these groups there is a strong chance they would learn from a onetime experience that the terminal velocity of the average wight adult falling from a hight of 25 meters is around 50 MPH.

Further, the fervently expressed concern with free speech and malevolent action seems highly selective. How many march with banners decrying the 7th October Hamas butchery of innocents in Israel? How many march decrying Russia’s continuing attacks on Ukraine or in support of Ukrainians’ rights to self-identity and freedom as they demand for Palestinians’?

Would these individuals be willing to die in a ditch to preserve the freedoms they wave their banners to support and themselves enjoy - that for the last 1,187 days have been under daily kinetic assault in Ukraine?, or are they simply blind to injustice outside their chosen cause and geography and so happy for the Ukrainians to do so as a proxy in the real life or death struggle for Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom?

Maybe it all simply comes down to words and who control their meaning and impact. To who chooses between right and wrong, good and bad.

The experienced truth of many is that our government agencies and those of law enforcement seem far more interested in policing “bad” words and the thoughts they choose to extrapolated from them than actual physical crimes against citizens. Those held guilty of such actions have broken no law so are recorded for “Non-hate Crime” – an oxymoron if ever one has existed - or where a transgression is held to exist hit with the full force of the law often receiving sentences far more severe than actual perpetrators of “real” crimes.

Witness the balance between the 31 month custodial penalty for an ill-judged tweet by a mother and caregiver with no prior transgressions, Lucy Connolly, upheld on appeal, and the 10 week custodial sentence, suspended for 2 years on appeal, imposed on the then sitting  MP Mike Amesbury for an unprovoked common assault one one of his own voting Dēmokratēs. An assault that was recorded on camera for all to see and judge.   

Surely any reasonable person must weigh the balance these matters present and question the actions of Government and its legal agency in its balancing of right, wrong and societal retribution.

Police walking the beat are now as scarce as beaver in UK rivers but seem able to congregate and pounce in numbers if an ill-judged post is found on X or Facebook. Has the ethos of Robert Peel’s mission of constabulary to prevent real crime - not respond to its consequences post the event with a shrug and crime reference number - and appreciation of the dangers of straying from public acceptance been misplaced if not actually lost?

 'The basic mission of the police is to prevent crime and disorder. Our duties are dependent on public approval. This diminishes with our use of physical force and increases with our impartial service to the law. (quoted in Ramsay, Sir Robert Peel (1829) pp 88–89)

Nowhere is this truer than in free speech and expression – but what is free speech? Let’s look at a couple of views;

Of its meaning: ·    

• Oxford Reference – definition: freedom of speech  -  Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment.

Of its value

• Salmon Rushdie - What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

• ·Tom Smothers -  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren't really important unless they're heard. The freedom of hearing is as important as the freedom of speaking.

It is imperative that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are protected, defended and remain central to our democracy. All attempts to control, artificially frame or otherwise coral these freedoms must be repudiated and all who try should be removed from public office via the one method that we control – the X we mark in private on the date of election. If we collectively fail, then the inch gifted by our inaction will become the mile stolen and these rights, hard won over centuries, will be lost.

Oh, to answer the train question – at 40 mph the mis-judged inch guarantees it will derail in one mile. Let’s avoid a similar fate for our collective freedom of speech and expression