As I write, a national newspaper is lamenting the failure of the government to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of VE Day. The writer refers to the Allied victory in the Second World War as the liberation of the free world, when it should more accurately described as the triumph of evil.
Before anyone accuses me of endorsing Hitler or what he stood for, let me make it clear that I am not endorsing either side in the Second World War. Saying that the victorious side was evil is not the same as saying that the defeated side was without fault.
Many people from the defeated side were tortured by the Allies, and then prosecuted for crimes which they had confessed to under torture. Is this the hallmark of a free society?
By contrast, no charges were brought against Allied soldiers who murdered fifty Germans at Dachau, no charges were brought against any member of Bomber Command for murdering civilians, and no charges were brought against anyone in the Royal Navy for the murder of two thousand sailors who were on board the battleship Bismarck when it surrendered.
The one prosecution of Allied personnel that I am aware of was just a lame attempt to cover up the torture of German prisoners
(which took place in a town called Bad Nenndorf). Four army officers
were charged with various crimes, but only one of them was convicted of a few very minor charges.
It is common for countries which took part in the Second World War to have laws which unfairly curtail free speech, which makes me wonder if the Allied victory really had anything at all to do with freedom.
I have recently found out that Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, has been convicted of wearing political uniform. If I've got it right, this law was introduced in the 1930s as a means to oppose the British Union of Fascists. Before I continue, I should make it clear that I am not a supporter of Britain First, and that I do not aspire to wear a political uniform. Nevertheless I fail to see why any reasonable government should prohibit the wearing of political uniforms, and I fail also to see how such a prohibition is consistent with a free society.
Paul Golding's defence was that Britain First has no uniform. Instead it has merchandise. It sells clothes bearing the party logo, which the buyer may well choose to wear in public. I have just checked the websites of the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party. They both sell tee shirts bearing either the party name or the party logo. If clothing sold by Britain First is deemed to be political uniform, then I wonder whether or not clothing sold by the evil Conservative Party and the evil Labour Party should not also be classed as political uniform.
Update: I spoke recently with an employee at Conservative Central Office. She told me that the banning of political uniform applied only to marches (which is not true), and was aimed at extremist organisations. I asked her if the Conservative Party is an extremist organisation, and she said no. I asked her how she knew that, and put it to her that the word extremism is meaningless, but she did not want to continue the conversation.
Provision 1 of The Public Order Act 1936 reads as follows: any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence. The word extremism does not appear; neither does the word march.
At the time of writing, the Conservative Party website is still offering tee shirts for sale bearing the party logo. This in itself does not appear to be illegal, and presumably it is not illegal to buy such a tee shirt or to wear it in the privacy of your own home. Nevertheless it is illegal to wear it in the street, and the Conservative Party is perhaps acting irresponsibly by not urging its supporters to refrain from wearing party merchandise in public.
As a final point, the conviction of Paul Golding has not so far as I am aware been taken to the Court of Appeal. Therefore the ruling does not represent a binding legal precedent, but it does nevertheless provide a precedent which can be referred to in future prosecutions.
Second update: a prosecution in 1937 was thrown out by magistrates in Luton. Apparently it is not illegal merely to wear a colour with political associations.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
No comments:
Post a Comment