Shami Chakrabrti is an enigma.
For her, as a paid up member of the Liberal Fascist elite, hypocrisy and moral cant are the currency in trade.
Take her missive in The Times today posted below.
Note how this 'defender of Liberty ' (Yeah Right ! ) has not once said anything about defending the 13 BNP activists arrested in Liverpool last week.
No doubt will Shami will quote the old chestnut ' Liberty does not defend the rights of racists' - but that wont run anymore Shami.
The BNP are a lawful party and the literature they deliver is 100 % lawful.
Therefore the BNP must be defended by Liberty - even if some sniffy liberals in Liberty think that the BNP is 'racist'.
Perhaps Shami needs remniding that racism is not a crime in the UK.
Inciting Racial hatred is a crime, but racism is not.
Even if the BNP is racist, which it is not, the fact remains that racism is not a crime.
It may offend liberals - but it is protected as a fundamental part of free speech.
Shami therefore has no logical defence for her to assert as to why she has not defended the BNP.
Here we see the problem of the classic 'Slippery Slope' example.
Shami despises the BNP, therefore she refused to speak out to defend the BNP.
Therefore the precedent was set for the police and the government that its okay to attack the rights of the BNP as no-one cares about the BNP.
This led to the recent raid on Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister.
First they came for the BNP and Shami did not speak out.
But by allowing the government to attack the rights of a 'despised' group this set an example that the government would always follow, which was to attack others with the same powers.
You see Shami is in a bit of a paradoxical situation.
She knows that once a government has been allowed to abuse it powers, it will go on and abuse them again.
Politicians are like paedophiles - in that once they have offended the nonces will always offend again.
Yet Shami and Liberty did not speak out to defend the BNP EVEN THOUGH THE LEAFLETS THE BNP DELIVERED IN LIVERPOOL WERE 100 % LAWFUL as confirmed by the CPS.
Neither did Liberty seek to see a copy of the leaflets so as to ascertain whether the leaflets were lawful before they refused to deny any support to the BNP - therefore we can see that Liberty as an organisation is bent.
It is not a defender of liberty - it is simply a defender of liberalism.
Liberalism is not Liberty, just as Fascism was not Nationalism and Communism was not socialism.
Liberalism is the antithesis if Liberty in that it defends only its own shallow values and ideals, and rejects and criminalises those it despises.
Liberalism is the engine of Political Correctness, which is the lexicon of classic fascism in a new cover.
The phrase Liberal Fascism came from H.G. Wells, a Fabian Socialist and Labour Party candidate, who wrote that Liberalism must become a variant of Nazism ;
He said: "I am asking for a liberal fascisti, for enlightened Nazis...obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on a still vaster scale. They must begin as a disciplined sect but they must end as the sustaining organisation of a reconstituted mankind".
But Shami knows this - yet she still refuses to defend the principle of liberty against Liberalism itself.
Therefore either shami is an idiot, which we know she is not or ;
1) Her defence of liberty is merely an extension of her politics - in that Shami thinks civil rights should only be defended for those people she supports
2) Her real role in Liberty is to act as the defender of liberalism and liberal values - not to defend liberty itself but only those liberal values that she defines as liberty.
3) That she is really an agent of the far left and her role is to defend the far left and those that the system want to have a voice.
Shami should be sacked from Liberty - it is her failure to defend Liberty for the despised that has allowed the state and police to erose our liberty itself.
As Noam Chomsky said " "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Perhaps Shami can answer why she has not defended the rights of those despised by the enemies of liberty, the proponents of Liberalism - but I doubt she will.
Hypocrites prefer silence to public scrutiny.
This arrest of an MP is a threat to us all
Liberty is always a rollercoaster ride and last week was more so than most. As an organisation dedicated to protecting civil liberties we began defending the free speech of Sun journalist and former Talksport radio presenter Jon Gaunt. He once thought me “the most dangerous woman in Britain”, but Britain it seems, is even more dangerous now. Hired to be a colourful “shock jock”, he was then summarily terminated for calling a local councillor a “Nazi” and a “health Nazi” in a heated debate about the wisdom of banning smokers from fostering children. Is passionate argument and rudeness to be censored? Are there to be no warnings or second chances in post-Brand/Ross radio?
Then the horrific atrocity in the land of my forefathers; the sub-continent that my small son has yet to visit but like thousands of other young Britons feels so much kinship with. This civil libertarian needs no reminding of the enormous burden of policing open societies in the face of the bloodthirsty.
So imagine my surprise when the call came about the dramatic police operation against Damian Green MP on suspicion of “aiding and abetting” a Home Office leaker. Surely the anti-terror cops have enough on their plate without responsibilities for internal Whitehall discipline? Surely the threat posed by mild-mannered parliamentarians doesn’t require the heavy mob? Perhaps pots might better investigate kettles than the Yard inquire into civil service leaks.
It is always dangerous to speculate about ongoing investigations, but Liberty was founded in response to overzealous antidemocratic policing, and questions must be asked.
As a former Home Office civil servant and lawyer, I well understand the importance of confidentiality. Any organisation that feels undermined by an employee is entitled to investigate suspected breaches of trust. I would even concede that in the sensitive environment of that department, it may be necessary to call in the police to establish the identity of a suspected mole and the extent of potential lapses. But why, particularly in the apparent absence of threats to national security, is it so often necessary to rush to criminal justice rather than discipline or even dismissal?
Then to Green himself. The legal creativity of investigating an elected politician for presenting leaked information to the public is obviously dangerous enough. Given the constitutional sensitivities, why arrest him rather than offer the opportunity to attend for interview by arrangement? This was after all considered adequate for Tony Blair in the small matter of cash and peerages.
Just as Sir Ian Blair is leaving the Yard in a cloud of bluster about political interference with policing, the bruised and battered Met now faces the inevitable charge of interfering in the political process. Who made this judgment in the public interest? When does irony descend into farce?
If I ever was the most dangerous woman, I suppose I must concede the potential dangerousness of the MP for Ashford. But a danger worthy of nine hours’ detention and up to nine counter-terror officers raiding his home does seem a bit of a stretch.
Then there is the small question of the integrity of parliament. Who exactly in the house authorised the raid on a member’s office, and while we’re about it, why the execution of this whole operation at a time when parliament has risen for a few days and difficult questions are harder to ask?
Who first briefed the press that Green had been arrested? Was this itself an unethical leak? Why were some senior politicians rather than others informed of the operation in advance? Given that the whole saga began with a Home Office complaint, did no one in the ministry of the interior know about the parliamentary side of the investigation?
These and so many other troubling questions may remain unanswered for some time, maybe until the conclusion of initial investigations. But of course that timetable conveniently rests with the police. Further, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has proved a less than fearsome watchdog to date. It seems to make too many friends and does not always bark in the night. Perhaps it might surprise me this time.
More happily, the much-maligned Human Rights Act struck a blow for press freedom in the context of another recipient of leaked information, the local journalist Sally Murrer. The case against her, built on bugged conversations with her police officer source, collapsed under the weight of her right to free expression which necessarily requires the protection of journalistic sources.
I have neither a borrower nor a leaker been and have often criticised “off-the-record briefings” relating to policing and security matters. However, it is one thing to establish ethics and discipline in an organisation and quite another to punish politicians and journalists whose free speech is essential to democracy, and whose job it is to disseminate information in the public interest.
The events of last week demonstrates the extraordinarily tough challenges faced by the new acting Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. I wish him so very well in the task of bringing calm, judicious policing to the capital. I may even send him a nutcracker this Christmas. He has inherited too many sledgehammers.
Shami Chakrabarti is director of Liberty