Credit: Jack Taylor/Getty
We’ve got plenty of good reasons to lie. And increasingly few reasons not to. So why aren’t we all at it?
I was wondering this while watching Labour’s attempts to bar Sir Roger Scruton from a government appointment. Earlier this week, the Opposition demanded an urgent question in Parliament over whether Scruton was a suitable person to be the unpaid head of an advisory body called “Building Better, Building Beautiful”. The claims made in the ensuing debate by the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Gwynne, pulsated with inaccuracies and lies.
Attempting to whip himself and his few present colleagues up into a righteous lather, Gwynne made what is now a standard attack. He accused Scruton of each of the sins of the current age: homophobia, racism, prejudice, bigotry and more.
He talked of Scruton’s “links to far-Right organisations” when no such links exist. Presumably the reason Gwynne repeated this canard in the House of Commons was because he would be protected there by Parliamentary immunity. Three decades ago, when a Left-wing paper made a similarly unfounded claim, Scruton sued them and won, with the newspaper forced to pay substantial damages.
But Gwynne was emboldened. He claimed that during a speech in Hungary, Scruton had spoken about the “Jewish intelligentsia” in anti-Semitic terms. It was a claim that anybody who had actually read the speech would know to be untrue. Gwynne then cited a Huffington Post article which Gwynne said showed that Scruton had “spoken favourably of the National Front, calling it an ‘egalitarian movement’”.
Again, anybody who had read the original 1983 piece in The Times would see what the Huffington Post and the Labour frontbench were studiously trying not to: “egalitarian” was not used as a term of praise but as part of a piece condemning the politics of the National Front and their ilk. Scruton criticised them for being “populist” and “hostile to constitutional government and to traditional authority, fired by ideology and by a spurious search for a common purpose”. Gwynne, like the Huffington Post, would have known this, since the Huffington Post also published a portion of the Scruton column which included the words.
Undeterred, Gwynne plugged away happily with his lie, later re-Tweeting a libellous Tweet by a Corbynista named Andrew Fisher which stated that Scruton “thinks the National Front are a lovely ‘egalitarian’ bunch”.
The same Roger Scruton who also thinks the National Front are a lovely "egalitarian" bunch …https://t.co/L5euXJnFOq
— Andrew Fisher (@FisherAndrew79) November 12, 2018
Is this really now an acceptable way of conducting oneself in public life? I’ve discussed the subject in the past with Sam Harris: how a certain type of person is eminently willing to make unfounded, untrue and spurious claims about people with whom they disagree simply in order to win a political round. Why, I wondered, when confronted with a blantant untruth, don’t more people don’t simply respond in a similar vein?
Why, I asked Sam, when he is accused of some kind of invented bigotry, doesn’t he reply by saying that he’s not going to take this sort of thing from a known child-molester? He could say, after the furore had died down: “Oh I’m terribly sorry, but since you decided to throw around one false claim I thought I’d throw one right back. Now we’re good, right?”
Watching Gwynne attacking Scruton, I must confess a little of this impulse came over me. Gwynne asserted that Scruton was such a “homophobe” that the government should “apologise to the LGBTQ community” for even putting him forward as an adviser on architecture. And I wondered why people didn’t simply decide to call Andrew Gwynne a homophobe? After all, there is a perfectly straightforward – and only slightly dishonest – means of getting there.
I might claim, for instance, that in claiming to speak on behalf of gay people Andrew Gwynne (who is straight) is not only presumptuous, but is robbing gay people of agency. Ergo his recent statements are a demonstration of homophobia. Since everyone is now agreed that acts of ‘hate’ are in the eye of the beholder, why should I not claim that I am a victim of a hate crime from Andrew Gwynne and that I believe he is motivated by homophobia?
In America, and across the rest of the Western democracies, you can see this thinking going on just beneath the surface. Everywhere, people are stooping to the level of their hated opponents. Broadcasters and journalists at all those outlets, like CNN, which like to accuse President Trump of narcissism and exaggeration haven’t noticed that they have taken on many of those characteristics they claim to deplore. In Britain, many of the people who have spent years accusing Brexiteers of foaming at the mouth have demonstrated that they are not averse to a little foam of their own.
But most striking everywhere has been the breakdown in the taboo over telling lies. Or to put it another way, the punishment for lying is getting smaller and the rewards for doing it successfully have grown.
So why shouldn’t we do it? Only for the reason that remained at the back of my conscience as I watched Labour’s pitifully unsuitable Shadow Communities Secretary foaming away about “far-Right associations” and “homophobia” and the rest. If you are willing to use any weapon no matter the cost in order to win a political round, then the likelihood is that you will never know when to put down the weapon you have seized.
Lies are tools which if deployed even once will become your tools of habit. And the greatest likelihood then is that – filled with zeal – you will have no means of stopping yourself from becoming precisely the thing that you started off by hating. And I for one could not face a future resembling Andrew Gwynne.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribethe guidelines if implemented would be in Breach of the ECHR( they have even said this) and probaly numerous UN codes
Any White , male, straight person sentenced after the implementation of these guildines would be able to sue the goverment, get a payout and a sentence reduction. As White, Straight, Male’s are a significant % of the prisoner population (lower than their % in the general population). This would be very expensive, very embarassing for the Goverment
So will Labour implement an illegal guideline. Here’s the thing, we already have lower sentencing for Women for the same offence, they just don’t write that down in law
The main takeaway from this article, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, is that the Conservatives are fake opposition.
I can’t think of a single bad Labour policy that the Conservatives reversed. Remember the promised Bonfire of the Quangos? They could have done it several times over, but chose not to.
We’ve had a New Labour government for the entire 21st century. It’s no wonder we’re in the state we’re in.
The one “Conservative” accomplishment was Brexit, and that was just a gamble that went the wrong way. The aim was to crush resistance to transnational government within the Conservative Party and in society at large.
The bonfire of the quangoes would have then required them to do and act, and of course then when their incompentence shone through, take the responsibility. And none of them would have wanted to do that once they realised that would be their fate. You only need listen to Johnson now and you can tell he feels hard done by. Not in any way accepting of the failure of his leadership. The man has no idea, and no ideas.
Brexit was not, of course, a Conservative Party accomplishment since the party did not support it and Cameron resigned rather than be responsible for implementing it. The Brexit vote simply highlighted how out of touch the entire political class was with the wishes of a majority of the country – a majority forged in the face of the propaganda of the three major parties and the MSM generally and the BBC in particular. Brexit has not been the success it might conceivably have been had it not been implemented by a Conservative Party that largely opposed it. That failure to ensure any substantial benefit flowed from Brexit has had the result we see today of a massive majority for Labour against the rightward drift seen on the continent.
A proper Conservative government would have had the promised bonfire of the Quangos and would certainly not have appointed an ideologue like Lammy to head up any racial commission. The report referred to in the article refuted the idea that BAME defendants are more likely to be convicted than white defendants despite the belief in this by many in the BAME community. Institutionalising a finger on the scales of justice in favour of BAME accused should have been anathema for a justice system wishing to be perceived as colour blind. If you want to persuade the populace that there exists institutional discrimination against the native population these guidelines are just the way to go about it, and even members of Labour can see it and know that endorsing this would be electorally damaging, but Quangos don’t care as they don’t rely on popular approval.
there are 2 reasons why BAME are more likely to be in Prison, they are more likely to commit a crime, anyone with their eyes open knows that
The other excuse i’ve heard, they are less likely to please guilty, hence getting a longer sentence
The public are increasingly losing faith in the judiciary and the judicial process, whether it is the ridiculous implementation of speech laws which sees mothers and grandmothers behind bars for years for fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things social media posts, or ludicrous blocking of deportations supposedly on human rights grounds. The whole system needs a radical overhaul – winning a minor spat with one quango won’t be enough.
You’re 100%right in my opinion. Personally, I think the starting point is to repeal or amend every law that even mentions human rights. Instead renew laws to enforce human and corporate responsibilities. At the same time introduce a rule that for every new law (after the human rights changes) two existing laws must be either ended or combined with others. This would lead to far fewer opportunities for lawyers to play fast and loose with justice.
Repeal every piece of legislation passed by a Labour government in the last 25 years – human rights, “equality” “gender recognition”, employment.
Maybe by the Tories too.
Set legislation back to 1997 and we will all be freer, safer and our economy might start functioning again.
And replace all the current judiciary.
This looks to be ‘BLM sentencing’ based on adherence to the structural principle of systemic racism in modern Marxist discourse. My greater concern is with the judiciary today reaching out for an updated form of the insanity plea (Nottingham triple murder) as well as the interventions of human rights lawyers in the cases of aggressive/violent/criminal so-called asylum seekers. That is why the UK needs to be out of the ECHR before it starts considering Rwanda-style deterrents or naval interventions to protect her sea borders.
Policies that favour foreigners, non-whites, women or homosexuals over British, heterosexual, white men will lead to the utter disintegration of “liberal” society. Women only have equal employment and voting rights because men have allowed them to have them. Immigrants – Commonwealth, EU or other – are only here at the pleasure of the native majority. Alternative lifestyles only exist because they are tolerated by the straight majority. So long as white men don’t feel they are being taken advantage of, things can tick along nicely. As soon as they do feel that, things will change very rapidly indeed. And in scary ways.
These idiots at the Sentencing Council should realise they are playing with fire! Starmer should immediately disband the whole quango and return its powers to the cabinet.
Yes. But he won’t.
You are right and it is very scary. I think two-tier-ism (aka policies that discriminate against white men) will be the end of two-tier Keir. And I think the next government – which I believe will probably be a Reform/Tory coalition – will be the last chance to fix this at the ballot box. After that comes non-democratic means of sorting our the issue and that is a terrible prospect.
“After that comes non-democratic means of sorting our the issue and that is a terrible prospect.”
I think this is near inevitable , and what’s the outcome from it, well no offence, it’s no contest , the winner is already known and it’s not the side Labour thinks
I know the capability of my fellow people, they nice, slow to act, but mess with them and there no saving you
So the outcome will be the fault of the left, who will quickly find not all people, cultures are equal
Never back a bear into a corner
“Women only have equal employment and voting rights because men have allowed them to have them” 100% , i’ve been stating the same. Women’s rights are dependant on having the Men of that society, agree and support them. It won’t just affect women’s rights in the west, but globally as there will be no dominant west pushing for it
It’s why i say Trump is the best deal for the Left, why because he preserves a functional society with laws, rights, protections. The left if given power for long enough erode all of that, therefore it’s the law of the jungle, and they will lose
Defund the police was always quiet amusing, as sure get rid of the police, then what’s happens to all Civil rights laws, oh wait, you don’t have them, because there is fundamentally no law, and the strongest prevail, and that’s not the left who get triggered over bad words
Men no matter the descrimination they face will always fundamentally decide what society will be , whether it’s in the liberal west or the less liberal developing world
Women need to understand this, their freedoms are at the discretion of the men in their society. For Western women, they got lucky, most Western Men are ok with Women having equal rights, but change that demographic, not as certain
“Starmer should immediately disband the whole quango and return its powers to the cabinet” he won’t because they provide a useful scapegoat, he can pretend he does’nt agree with it, but he does. These are the same people as he is. They think they can implement apartheid against the majority and get away with it.
See here’s the problem, that might work for the majority in India, Africa when the Europeans did it, that not gonna fly with us.
If White men are treated like this, why would’nt they just say, lets remove no matter your passport, all non whites from the UK.
If they don’t see this as a likely possibility , then they really are stupid
Today we learn that this infects bail decisions as well.
Robert Jenrick cannot possibly claim any credit here. This is one of those problems which at least 95% of the blame can be put on the disastrous 14 years of Tory rule.
Total farce.
I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary (for all her limitations) can foresee the ‘….oh but my religion and e.g. West African culture allows me to clip my wife with a stick…’ defences cheered on by Queers for Palestines and Lesbians Embrace the p***s type folk.
It is fantastic to be a tax payer in the UK today. Paying for layers and layers of Gov quangoes and departments that undermine the Gov and the implementation of duly elected political manifestoes, like them or not. So you get nothing done about immigration, nothing done about the implementation of unfair sentencing, and on and on. Meanwhile local authorities are going bust because money is being sucked out of the tax coffers to pay for this sort of rubbish, instead of funding school, police, refuse collection, roads, hospitals and so on. No, it is far more important to pay people inordinate amounts of money to do things like this article presents to prevent Govs doing what they were elected for. UK DOGE anyone?
Actually, local authorities are going bust because, every year, a larger proportion of their income has to be devoted to paying the unfunded pensions of former employees. Same for the NHS.
That too is a contributory factor, and the types of Gov depts as mentioned above are also producing people that will continue to suckle at the state teet for 40 or 50 years post retirement….. It is necessary to reduce the burden on the tax payer signficantly in the UK. That can start with getting rid of departments that do not serve the people, but instead hinder them and burden them with huge ever growing costs.
The problem is always the same: the complete lack of any organisational defence mechanisms protecting the white native population. Every other ethnic, racial, religious, or sexual group has a vast network of advocacy organisations — but white natives have nothing. With no pushback, the woke fascist left are free to do whatever they want.
White natives must organise ( if they want this type of thing to stop ) and stop thinking of themselves as a ‘majority’ in the balkanised dystopia that modern Britain has become.
How is it that BOTH are main political parties have allowed this utter nonsense to get this far!?
Because millions still keep voting them in. Vote Reform, whenever they’ll let you.
Call their bluff and just disband it.
God, the Tories were useless.
“the Sentencing Council is a Labour creation, [and] the Tories… presided over the appointment of the Council’s current membership ”
Yep, this part of the ‘deep state’ is the work of the ConLabLib Uniparty. Vote Reform, whenever they’ll let you.
This whole story is utter rubbish as anybody in the profession well understands. What is appalling is the inability of those in government to withstand an ill-informed mob, and the willingness of the official opposition to fan the flames. And there was nothing “wild” about the LCJ’s warning that it is a dangerous precedent for politicians to announce that a judge has given a wrong decision in a specific case, rather than abiding by the judgment or appealing it. What will you do when all the laws are cut down, and the devil turns back upon you?
Well that was a convincing argument.
Perhaps, but ‘everyone in the profession’ is also convinced that the state ought to be run by lawyers – and that £600 per hour for having a Home Office document on your desk is fair remuneration.
As with so many things, Shakespeare had the answer.
It’s a pretty safe bet, given his record and despite everything he says, that Starmer thoroughly approves of the Sentencing Council’s policy and will do nothing about it beyond rhetorical posturing – just as he has no intention at all of doing anything about illegal immigration. It’s quite astonishing that anyone takes him at his word. It’s Taqqiya, all of it.
No one knows why Starsi Starmer appears with a Union Jack. It doesn’t feel like England around here anymore……..