William Croft Speech to the ACLU

Post Reply
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

William Croft Speech to the ACLU

Post by Will Frost »

Image

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’d like to begin by thanking our hosts, the board of the American Civil Liberties Union, for inviting me to speak here tonight. The work the ACLU does to advance freedom and personal liberty is a cause dear to my heart, and so for me there is no place better to begin my visit to the United States than to be here with all of you this evening.

While I’ve come to America in part to make the case for strengthening the Special Relationship between our two countries, the United Kingdom and the United States are bound together by far more than just cooperation between our governments. Indeed, the ties that bind us together the strongest are our shared values. The fundamental belief in the rule of law. An unapologetic defense of freedom, and our enduring hope to expand freedom’s light across every inch of the globe. And, critically, our shared commitment to free, unfettered speech.

Freedom of speech, and the ability to express one’s views openly, is perhaps the greatest export the Special Relationship between our two great countries has to offer the world. It is free speech that lays the foundation of any successful democratic society; enabling the individual to speak his mind, to challenge the ruling majority, and to turn his views into actionable democratic change via the ballot box. A populace that actively and proudly exercises their right to free speech is arguably the best defense against the erosion of democratic society. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who put it best when he said, “whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Would you look at that, a Brit paying a genuine compliment to an American. I believe we’ve made history tonight!

Mr. Franklin’s words were true then, and they remain equally true now. History is the best evidence of this. British suffragettes, like the courageous Emmeline Pankhurst amongst others, used their power to organise and speak out against the silencing of women to correct the historic wrong that was the refusal to allow women to vote in the United Kingdom. In this country, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. rallied millions across the United States to his cause of racial justice through non-violent means in great part because of the power of his oratory. Today oppressed peoples across the world, from Iran to China, bravely speak out against their despotic dictators in the hopes of one day soon achieving the democratic freedoms we have come to take for granted. In each instance, courageous individuals have used the powers of free speech, of political expression, and of free association to work together against the coercive interests of a backwards state. It is no accident that the greatest societal changes we’ve seen throughout human history have come not as a result of state action, but at the hands of hardworking individuals motivated by the cause of creating a better world. It was through their efforts to engage in political speech, and to use their speech to unite in common cause, that the wheels of progress have continued to roll on.

It is with deep regret, ladies and gentlemen, that I report tonight that the state of free speech across Western society is perhaps at its weakest point in generations. In Britain, we have seen the insidious rise of “political correctness,” that threatens to erode the great tradition of free speech, vigorous debate, and the open marketplace of ideas. I know those of you in the audience this evening will be no stranger to this backwards phenomenon, that stands in direct opposition to the values of a free society. In recent weeks political correctness has plagued my country, seeping into conversations and debates from university classrooms to the halls of Westminster. Instead of challenging the merits of a proposal, instead of examining the accompanying evidence and drawing a reasoned conclusion, politicians and activists alike have taken to deeming ideas “racist” or “incendiary” as a means to shut down debate before it has even begun. These people cheapen the true meaning of the charges they make, and undermine society’s ability to independently decipher good ideas from bad. Worst of all, the proponents of this practice seem to mistake what they are doing with protecting vulnerable groups, when in truth it is unfettered free speech that has done more than anything else to uplift oppressed people. Political correctness is, quite simply, the suffocating of free speech by another name.

While it might be rising in popularity, political correctness and enforced “appropriate speech” is nothing new. In fact, the practice of defining speech as “dangerous” or “damaging” has been routinely used by the world’s desposts to stifle dissent and silence opposition. It was, unsurprisingly, the delegation from the Soviet Union who worked to include language in the UN Declaration of Human Rights that would have prohibited speech that was “hostile” in nature. For a regime that had no problem murdering millions of its own people, the Soviet’s claims to be concerned with engendering hostility were unquestionably dubious. Your country’s late first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, saw right through their feigned concerns. In her words, the provisions “would encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of protecting against religious or national hostility.” She was right. When this language was eventually enshrined into international law, it didn’t prevent dictators from persecuting their people, but it did prevent those persecuted from having meaningful recourse against their dictators. The prohibitions contained within the Yugoslav criminal code against speech that, “incites discord betweens peoples and nationalities,” did indeed enable the regime to effectively criminalize free speech, but of course had absolutely no effect on preventing the ethnic cleansing and genocide that tooks place in the 1990s. The lesson history is trying to teach us is this: those who attempt to limit free speech always have ulterior motives.

Now let me be clear. To what I imagine will be the great disappointment of my fans in the British press, I am not suggesting that we should equate the political left’s love of political correctness with the tyrannical speech codes of the world’s despots. What I am suggesting, however, is that openly debating ideas is always preferable than attempting to dismiss them without conversation. The idea that sparked the most recent round of discussions on political correctness in my country, the suggestion that immigrants in the United Kingdom should be expected to have a functioning command of the English language, should of course be vigorously debated. It should be questioned heavily, and its proponents subjected to intense scrutiny. Because only then as a country will we be able to determine if the idea holds value, or if it should be firmly rejected on account of its merit. The alternative, where a few members of the political elite demand that it be arbitrarily labeled undesirable and prevented from being discussed further, does no one any good.

I believe that it is the duty of free people in both the United States and the United Kingdom to make a renewed case for the enduring value of free speech and the remarkable societal progress it enables
. It is tempting to try to immediately silence ideas with which we disagree, but it is deeply dangerous and the ramifications are unmeasurably grave. Speech isn’t always going to make us feel comfortable, we’re not always going to like it, but allowing even the most grotesque speech is preferable than the alternative. It is worth remembering that even at the height of the Second World War, the British Government did not prohibit the ability to read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It is a testament to the strength of our democracy, and of our free society, that even in our darkest days we were not tempted to afford the State the power to determine what ideas could be shared, read about, or discussed. Indeed, for as evil as Hitler's personal manifesto was, allowing it to see the light of day permitted it to be discussed and challenged: and no doubt helped turn the British people against the menace of fascism. Backwards and evil ideologies don’t go away on their own, they are defeated by reasoned counter arguments and impassioned opposition. Indeed, vitriol and hatred only fester and grow in the shadows that are cast by state imposed censorship. Open debate and free discussion are the tools through which we can shine light on these oppressive views and relegate them to the trash heap of history.

Again I thank the ACLU for inviting me to speak tonight, and for their stalwart defense of free speech and all of the critical liberties that rely upon its use. I’d like to conclude simply by sharing the warning of your nation’s first president, George Washington. “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Thank you very much, and I wish you a wonderful evening.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:10 am
XP: 18
Trait(s): Technical Mastery
Discord username: Martinulus#9514

Re: William Croft Speech to the ACLU

Post by Marty »

First of all, it's a bit of an eyebrow raiser for a British politican to address an American domestic policy advocacy group. I'd have imagined that this speech would probably have played better in front of a British freedom of speech-related group. This cushions the impact of the speech in and of itself.

However, I'm not sure that the ACLU, which I recall as a liberal-leaning civil liberties group in the United States, a country in which race is a more sensitive issue than in Britain, was the best venue for a speech noting concern with the rise of political correctness, especially not when you directly connect that sense of political correctness with the accusation of racism.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good speech, but the audience reaction was lukewarm at best and that makes it into the British press before anything else. The right-wing press runs more positive coverage, ignoring the fact that the speech wasn't well-received by its audience. The left-wing press in Britain, however, leans into the lukewarm reception of the speech fully.

Conservative +1
Dr. Marty of the A-team
Technical Wizard
Education and Children, Health and Social Security, Environment and Energy, Constitutional Affairs
Scenarios
Conservative Party advisor
Post Reply

Return to “Marked Press Cycles & Speeches”