Diana West Free Speech UK


Written by: Diana West
Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:18 PM  

This week’s syndicated column:

Back in 2001, Britain’s political parties signed a fantastic pledge. They agreed to say nothing to “stir up racial or religious hatred, or lead to prejudice on grounds of race, nationality or religion.”

This gag order did more than keep the parties polite. Vital issues – from massive immigration and multiculturalism to their eradicating effects on British civilization – were officially banned. Thus, such concerns became impermissible thoughts. Not that such issues weren’t already thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would have put it. But this unprecedented pledge turned “violators” into political lepers.

I thought of that elite code of cowardice this week when a London judge sentenced a 42-year-old British secretary named Jacqueline Woodhouse to 21 weeks in jail. Her crime? An expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. Not in so many words. But that was the unmistakable gist of Woodhouse’s commentary one January night on the London Underground.

This same week, another London judge ordered two black girls, 18 and 19, to perform community service after a savage physical attack on two white legal secretaries. “I am satisfied what you both did, you did that night because you were fueled by alcohol,” Judge Stephen Kramer said, as though tut-tutting a child’s unknowing apple theft.

A few months ago, another London judge freed four Somali Muslim women who set upon a white couple, yelling, “Kill the white slag,” and other anti-white slurs. The gang beat the woman to the ground and ripped out a patch of her hair. Judge Robert Brown was lenient because, he ruled, as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk.

Jacqueline Woodhouse was drunk, too, but that was no mitigating factor in her case. She harmed no one, but that was no mitigating factor, either. Judge Michael Snow invoked the “deep sense of shame” Woodhouse’s display elicited, because “our citizens … may, as a consequence, believe that it secretly represents the views of other white people.”

“Thoughtcrime is death,” as Orwell wrote in “1984.”

And, thanks to YouTube, it becomes continuous spectacle. Woodhouse’s court-deemed “victim,” Galbant Singh Juttla, recorded and uploaded her display. After the six-minute clip went viral, Woodhouse turned herself in to police.

But what might she have confessed to?

I did it, mates. I said: “I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations.”

That’ll be 21 weeks in the clink?

More here.

11 Responses

  1. […] DIANA WEST: LIBERTY LOST ON THE ISLE OF ’1984′……. Liberty Lost Written by: Diana West Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:18 PM   This week’s syndicated column: Back in 2001, Britain’s political parties signed a fantastic pledge. They agreed to say nothing to “stir up racial or religious hatred, or lead to … Continue reading → Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:27:53 +0000 more info… […]

  2. Where are all the human rights lawyers who happily defend terrorists? She needs to appeal

  3. Geoffrey Robertson who defends julian Assange because of “free speech” is no where to be found.

  4. I’ve actually emailed Geoffrey Robertson (Julian Assange’s defense lawyer) asking this;

    Dear Mr Robertson,
    Will you also defend Jacqueline Woodhouse’s free speech (like you defend Julian Assange)?
    If not, why not?

    Kind regards,

    Steve Bronfman

    -Of course I don’t expect a response. Julain Assange is responsible for at least 8 deaths due to wikileak information being used to murder anti-Jihadist activists in Afganistan and Iran (they’re just the ones I’ve seen reported there could be many many more) but apparantly his treachery is worth defending upon free speech grounds but Woodhouse is jailed without a murmur from the Human Rights crowd. I think we need to make this a major issue. As pointed out in the article she is JAILED for speaking the truth while those who verbally taunted her face no punishment.

    She even says “I wouldn’t mind (immigrants) if you loved our country,”. I do not see how that is racist?

  5. The Somali women who were treated lightly because they were drunk – give them the sharia punishment for drinking alcohol – 8o lashes (I believe) and let the victim administer the punishment. The law is an ass. The politicians and judges are sycophantic cowards and fools, or else there is a covert plan to bring the West to chaos in order to implement the wonderful, totalitarian “New World Order” – bye bye freedom of expression.

  6. Governments have no business protecting the world against drunken, loud-mouthed, idiots. But leave it to “conservatives” to put such trash on a pedestal. “For a few, farcical minutes,” writes Diana West, “a nation’s tragedy, its unmarked passing, has taken the spotlight, the lead role played by a drunken secretary because there is no one else.”

    How poetic. In West’s hands you’d think Woodhouse was abandoned at the Alamo, outnumbered in defending the noble cause. And that’s exactly what she wants us to think.

    So look closely at this drunken secretary. She’s the face of the new “conservative” hero. It’s truly a shame that it’s come to this. In another captured video our martyr was bouncing her three year old son on her knee while losing it in the same manner. Hopefully she wasn’t drunk that time. But why sit silently minding ones own business when there’s an opinion to screech against a hoard of charging windmills?

    Hurray for stupidity. Hurray for barbarism.

    1. Hi DonJindra. West is not in agreement with her racist remarks, only with the her right to speak her mind, regardless of how tasteless the conduct. She has a fundamental right to voice her views. The crowd around her handled her diatribes, they did not need big brother government to get involved. The moment you let others to decide for you, what is ”acceptable speech”, is the moment you hand over your liberty. Free speech laws are needed to protect speech that gives offense, not the other way around.

      1. Of course West is in general agreement with Woodhouse. That’s why she sees the drunken “Eliza Doolittle” as having to reveal the “nation’s tragedy” because no one else would play the lead role.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *