How not to win friends and influence people
Two of the things which the British most pride ourselves on are a sense of fair play and on caring about children.
On both those grounds, taking out on children that you don't like the a decision or policy position that their mother or father supports is a pretty sick thing to do and not one which is likely to endear you to most British voters.
I was disappointed to learn that a left wing protest group staged a demonstration yesterday outside the home of Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and shouted not just at him but also his small children and their nanny.
I wouldn't dream of shouting "Your daddy is a totally horrible person" at a child even if the father concerned was someone I detest. Nor, I think, would most people. But some people have convinced themselves that the fact that they disagree with someone's politics makes not just them but their families legitimate targets for abuse.
Many MPs and commentators of all parties have rightly condemned this demonstration. But I have not seen any such condemnation from the Shadow Chancellor, and perhaps that should not surprise me, because he has contributed to the creation of a climate where such things could happen with speeches like this:
I don't care whether a politician is Tory or Labour, white or black, male or female, pro or anti-Europe, their children are not a legitimate target for abuse.
Let me clarify a point on which many people have difficulty: it is possible to believe passionately in the right to freedom of speech and to disagree with and to disagree with and criticise how some people may use that right.
I supported the successful "Feel free to insult me" campaign to remove from Section 5 of the public order act a ban on "insulting words or behaviour" because it was being used in practice to interfere with legitimate free speech.
Any legal controls on freedom of expression which are capable of being used to block speech merely because somebody strongly disagrees with it or finds it offensive is likely to be abused to stop reasonable expressions of opinion which a strong democracy should allow.
There are other bad laws - such as Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 - which should also be repealed because they are too broad and capable of being used against legitimate free speech.
Ironically, by supporting the report of Section 5, I helped to legalise the behaviour of the people who stand outside Conservative Party conference shouting "Tory Scum" at everyone going in or out including not just party members but journalists, exhibitors and minimum-wage caterers and cleaners. I am entitled to my opinion that the people who do this are being extremely silly: they are entitled to their opinion about Conservatives and to express that opinion.
The unavoidable price of freedom of expression is that opinions which you or I may think are wrong can be expressed as well as those we agree with. Only when that behaviour crosses the line into intimidation, threatening behaviour, incitement to violence or actual violence, or where statements are being made which can be shown in court to be false and slanderous, should the law become involved.
As I was not there, I am not in position to comment on whether the demonstration outside Jacob Rees-Mogg's house crossed the line into intimidation and threatening behaviour and it would be for the courts to decide whether it was against the law of the land.
But treating children like that because you disagree with their parents is certainly against the law of common decency.
It is also a very poor way to win friends and influence people.
On both those grounds, taking out on children that you don't like the a decision or policy position that their mother or father supports is a pretty sick thing to do and not one which is likely to endear you to most British voters.
I was disappointed to learn that a left wing protest group staged a demonstration yesterday outside the home of Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and shouted not just at him but also his small children and their nanny.
I wouldn't dream of shouting "Your daddy is a totally horrible person" at a child even if the father concerned was someone I detest. Nor, I think, would most people. But some people have convinced themselves that the fact that they disagree with someone's politics makes not just them but their families legitimate targets for abuse.
Many MPs and commentators of all parties have rightly condemned this demonstration. But I have not seen any such condemnation from the Shadow Chancellor, and perhaps that should not surprise me, because he has contributed to the creation of a climate where such things could happen with speeches like this:
I don't care whether a politician is Tory or Labour, white or black, male or female, pro or anti-Europe, their children are not a legitimate target for abuse.
Let me clarify a point on which many people have difficulty: it is possible to believe passionately in the right to freedom of speech and to disagree with and to disagree with and criticise how some people may use that right.
I supported the successful "Feel free to insult me" campaign to remove from Section 5 of the public order act a ban on "insulting words or behaviour" because it was being used in practice to interfere with legitimate free speech.
Any legal controls on freedom of expression which are capable of being used to block speech merely because somebody strongly disagrees with it or finds it offensive is likely to be abused to stop reasonable expressions of opinion which a strong democracy should allow.
There are other bad laws - such as Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 - which should also be repealed because they are too broad and capable of being used against legitimate free speech.
Ironically, by supporting the report of Section 5, I helped to legalise the behaviour of the people who stand outside Conservative Party conference shouting "Tory Scum" at everyone going in or out including not just party members but journalists, exhibitors and minimum-wage caterers and cleaners. I am entitled to my opinion that the people who do this are being extremely silly: they are entitled to their opinion about Conservatives and to express that opinion.
The unavoidable price of freedom of expression is that opinions which you or I may think are wrong can be expressed as well as those we agree with. Only when that behaviour crosses the line into intimidation, threatening behaviour, incitement to violence or actual violence, or where statements are being made which can be shown in court to be false and slanderous, should the law become involved.
As I was not there, I am not in position to comment on whether the demonstration outside Jacob Rees-Mogg's house crossed the line into intimidation and threatening behaviour and it would be for the courts to decide whether it was against the law of the land.
But treating children like that because you disagree with their parents is certainly against the law of common decency.
It is also a very poor way to win friends and influence people.
Comments