First They Came for Charlie Hebdo

 So Charlie Hebdo has a pop at another target - Her Majesty and The Firm.

I can imagine Colonel Blimps across the country, who revelled in the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the interests of Free Speech, spluttering over their copy of Majesty Magazine with moustaches bristling, while drinking a cup of Darjeeling from a Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee souvenir mug, giving their bulldog, Winston, a quick kick, casting a glance at their Indian Mutiny themed calendar for any royal birthdays or anniversaries and floridly huffing and puffing with righteous indignation at this egregious abuse of Free Speech.

That said, I can't see them getting together to form a hit squad to target Charlie Hebdo's office in revenge for an attack on their idol (although the palace flunkies may mobilise MI6).

The reason Charlie Hebdo can get away with this is because while royalists may identify with the Royal Family as the very pinnacle of the apex of an hierarchically ordered society, they're not that bound to them in terms of identity as a Muslim is with his or her faith. Also, they're afraid of being labelled as hypocrites. It boils down to the degree of personal identity that's attacked and the consequences - and few things go deeper than faith.

I'm no royalist, but I can empathise with royalists who feel mortally offended, just as I felt empathy with Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoon, which was totally expected, despite condemning the extremist reactions by many to the Mohammed cartoon. 

As I've previously said, Free Speech comes with consequences and those consequences have to be weighed, especially when they can be directed at some innocent party and with terminal effects. While satire is a weapon in the iconoclasts armoury, it is by no means the only weapon at his or her disposal. Deliberate provocation can have devastating and unintended consequences. 

Free Speech, for many, is fine, providing one agrees with what's said. 

This brings us on to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, a wholly unnecessary bit of legislation to curtail our right to protest and subject it to arbitrary decisions. The existing laws, brought in under Margaret Thatcher, are sufficient for effective and efficient policing of demonstration; however, this legislation has been led by the policing of the BLM, XR and Reclaim The Streets demonstrations, which the government hates, along with other protests against the government.. 

While this new legislation will play well to the tabloid readership, it also has consequences for other demonstrations that are less controversial. Under the proposed legislation anyone can make a vexatious complaint about feeling offended or complain about the noise level and the protest can be broken up. 

A charismatic leader tells you what you want to hear in terms of policy, but is deliberately vague about the strategy and tactics needed to achieve that policy. That allows others to perpetrate whatever tactics they want, or interpret them to their best ability, with the leader's hands being unsullied. The police are being left in an untenable position.

Remember this?

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. 

"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. 

"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. 

"Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

Protest is part of a democratic process and curtailing it can lead to a police state. Mind you , nothing surprises me with this government.