What is the point of Shami Chakrabarti?

I wrote something moderately rude about Shami Chakrabarti a few months ago. I wondered at the time if I was being a bit over the top, but increasingly it seems to me as if the head of Liberty is just as bad as I painted her.

Today, of course, we have had some people jailed for thought crimes, with not a whimper from Liberty. Diddly squat. Nada. Rien. It also occurred to me that the Chakrabarmaid has failed to make any comment on the government's grossly illiberal proposals on home education - ideas that if enacted will represent a disgusting infringement of family life. Further digging reveals that home educators have actually approached Liberty on the issue but have not even received an acknowledgement. What a bunch of Chakrab***ards.

Comments

[Kit]

Oh come on Bish just look at that list of luvies wishing Liberty a happy birthday:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/1-history/75-years-of-liberty/happy-birthday-liberty.shtml

Frank Dobson MP
“There are two basic tests for a human rights organisation. First, does it stand up for individuals, groups and principles even when they are unpopular? Second, does it make a good job of putting their case? Liberty passes both tests with flying colours."

[Firebird]

I just have to assume that none of those celebs knows what the hell they're talking about. They see the name and the claims and don't bother to ask if they're justified. Don't bother to look beneath the surface. It's just so easy to take the photo op, a nice birthday message to be published and boost their 'human rights cred'. Pathetic.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Bishop,

"Today, of course, we have had some people jailed for thought crimes, with not a whimper from Liberty. Diddly squat. Nada. Rien."

I will agree with you there. I haven't seen much on this anywhere - I just stumbled on it myself yesterday on the BBC website.

This is really disturbing, not least of all the claim of jurisdiction on servers outside the UK. Now if it is a case of holocaust denial and incitement to violence it is borderline but it is clearly a freedom of speech issue, and one that sets an appalling precedent.

Incidentally, if you read the linked article on the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010537.stm it says "Their hunger to stir up controversy saw them flee from justice in the north of England" - flee from justice???

[Pa Annoyed]

I've only looked at a couple of articles on the site, but it doesn't appear to incite violence. Holocaust denial, yes, but that shouldn't be illegal.

Servers in the US doesn't get you out of any responsibilities for publication. All it does is make it a lot harder to subpoena people's IP addresses and details to trace them, and to issue take down notices to block publication.

If this carries on, it may create a bigger market for anonymous, untraceable methods of publication. (The maths for which exists, but existing schemes are unwieldy and inconvenient.) That would actually be counter-productive from the police's point of view.

We're just following down the same path the Canadians have just been down, with their HRC scandals. (Ezra Levant, and all that.) It starts with prosecuting nazis and loopies, and once everyone has got used to that and it seems normal, they move on to their other political targets. That ought to make bigger news here.