Without Freedom of speech we are dead - Charlie Hebdo and holding onto freedom

“Our job is not to defend freedom of speech but without it we’re dead. We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than to live like a rat,” These were the 2012 words of murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier. Following the Paris attacks, particularly in their proximity to the Sydney hostage situation, his words are incredibly important for the people of Europe.

The two suspects currently being chased through France are known religious fundamentalist militant activists; one had already been imprisoned for sending jihadists to the middle east - while the other wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence. Similarly, the man who took hostages in Sydney was known to be a militant Islamist, with several prior convictions and mental illnesses on record. 

Yet the reaction from the Austrailian government, mirrored the reactions seen before in London after 7/7, and in the US after 9/11 - securitisation.

Australian PM Tony Abbott, speaking after the attacks in Sydney talked of closer monitoring of communications, more security, greater restrictions on freedoms particularly on communication. This was called for despite the acknowledgement that the perpetrator, like in Paris, was a known entity who was already under police observation. This is clearly not the answer and we have to hope that greater limitations on the freedoms that Stephane Charbonnier was prepared to die for are not what Francois Hollande asks for in the wake of new attacks.

This blog has talked before about the anti Islamic agenda coming from the West (links below) and undoubtedly an antipathy towards muslims in France has contributed to this attack. Growing tensions promoted by the likes of Nigel Farage and Marie Le Pen - the latter calling Islam a 'murderous ideology' today - create fear and division amongst communities. Wild speculation with no foundations (as seen on Sky News), linking the attackers in both incidents to ISIS, the Arab Spring revolutions, or to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fuel fear and confusion and exhibit the base irresponsibility which is rife in our current media. 

Two men in a nation of 66 million do not represent an ideology or religion. When faced with the horror of events like these it is wrong to surrender to fear and relinquish freedom. Promote compassion and a response which weakens extremism of all kinds, whether it comes from Le Pen or al-Baghdadi and we can genuinely stop these attacks. What's your opinion on dealing with the attacks? Leave your comments below.

http://thetache.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/is-there-anti-islamic-agenda-in-uk.html

#illridewithyou

Royal Pains: Why we need to end the monarchy

Almost 40 years ago the Sex Pistols released their single 'God Save the Queen' - at the time many accused the UK singles chart of fixing the result so as to keep it at number 2, similarly to the censorship around the wizard of Oz single used to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Almost 40 years on, the British Royal family remain an unassailable danger to society.

Many argue the 'benefits' of the Royals saying that the attention surrounding the royal baby and tourism which the family bring to Britain make them worthwhile - and that their political power is non existent in a modern
constitutional monarchy. However in recent years under Cameron's Tory coalition additional protection has been given to the Royals and their powers to extract a salary from the exchequer for the minimal work they actually do.

The dangers of the family are not limited to their pow
ers to steal from the public purse without any scrutiny, in the first 3 years of the coalition government Prince Charles had 36 meetings with cabinet ministers, 9 of which were with the
Prime Minister himself. Considering the extra protections afforded to the Royals by this government, it would be incredibly naive to believe these meetings do not indicate a clear influence on the government from the Palace.

So a family who consistently take large amounts of money from the taxpayer, who come from an environment where preservation of wealth and maintenance of the inequalities in society only serve to benefit them, their families, the people they went to school with and are surrounded by are a positive thing for society? This is incredibly doubtful. Of course, the same could be said for the government they advise, but at least in that case democracy forces them to put up some sort of facade that they care about the rest of us.

Recent revelations about suspected child abuse from Prince Andrew serve only to bring to the fore the various evils which the family represent, and to create a better more equal Britain, they have to go.