I HAVE NO FREEDOM. and have no freedom everday from mental and emotional grief and distress by hearing and reading how these are the views of men who would wish to write for and edit a central politics newspaper.

I HAVE NO FREEDOM. But sit here and scream and weep inside knowing that this is the freedom that you will fight and defend rather than my need to have freedom from it.

I HAVE NO FREEDOM. As does my friend who as an ederly Jewish holocaust victim had his home burnt down with him in it by racist.

I HAVE NO FREEDOM. As does my other friend who also has a severe head injury as he wss with a brick as he was black.

I HAVE NO FREEDOM. As does my other friend who was raped as a child by her father at a very young age. Got put into care. Eas distressed so she was put into secure care for children where she had internale examinations my male support workers and when she fought put into solitary confinement for 6 weeksat age 6. To the point she started hearign voices and halucinating.

WE ALL DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM. AND HAVE NO SPEECH. WE ARE HIDDEN AND FORGOTTEN AND DISMISSED.

I DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM. BUT OTHERS LIKE LIDDLE HAVE FREE SPEECH WHICH TOOK AWAY OUR LIVES.

THE WORD IS POWERFUL. THE WORD GIVE BIRTH TO THE DEED.

I HAVE NO FREE SPEECH. I HAVE NOTHING. AND SO DO MANY OTHERS WHO YOU WILL NEVER HEAR OF. BECAUSE WE ARE NOTHING.

Or she!

“Maybe the trouble with liberalism, at least as embodied by Liddle’s chief rhetorical opponents, is precisely this strain of disguised authoritarianism. It’s the bastard child of the twentieth-century modernist wish to impose a rational order on society, a trivial and rather prudish creed, which, seeing little chance of ordering the vast chaos of social and economic life, busies itself with policing the boundaries of civility.”

As the creator of the Facebook group in question, I’d like to make the argument that I do not recongise myself, Sunny Hundal, Will Straw or anyone else who has been working with me in this description.

If I were to use the argument advanced in your article, Hari, I would suggest that you are aiming to stifle and silence us, and were displaying disguised authoritarianism.

But I think that would be silly. And it is equally weak when directed against us and the Indy readers who have chosen to join this protest.

The aim of the campaign is precisely to make the case that Rod Liddle should not be the editor of a paper we read, mostly like and want to see continue as one of the very few major liberal outlets in Britain that takes science seriously and does not attack ethnic minorities and women.

I believe in freedom of speech and I would defend Liddle if he were being prosecuted for his disgusting opinions, as I’d defend Mark Steyn or David Irving.

But upholding freedom of speech in no way entitles anyone to managerial positions of power – in the press or any other profression. I find this confusion quite baffling and in some cases, a worrying and grossly illiberal belief that columnists have special speech privileges which the public are not entitled to.

The story behind the EDM which you are missing is that many MPs were actually reluctant to make a statement about a potential newspaper editor for no other reason than fear that Liddle would use the paper to go after them later. Or that Diane Abbott was not allowed to use the language on the EDM she proposed. (There is a possible freedom of speech issue…)

As with other commenters, you are also underestimating the degree of opposition to the Liddle appointment amongst the staff of the Indy itself – who do not want him as their boss for precisely the reasons we have outlined but fear for their jobs if they speak on the record. (A real freedom of speech issue.)

You write here that the campaign aims at a homogeneity of public opinion. In reality, we are doing the exact opposite – trying hard to defend some plurality in the British media. Or are you seriously claiming that racial sensitivity, pro-immigration narratives, the promotion of women’s rights and serious reporting on global warming is over-represented in our national press?

“You’ve already won the point about Liddle’s unsuitability to edit the Indie – this is very much in the public domain. What’s the end/purpose of your campaign now?”

I’m glad you concede our case here, but as yet we have not won this point with the paper’s likely future owners and so are continuing to press on. We hope the next editor of the Independent – whatever political views he might hold – will have respect for ethnic minorities, for women, for science and the readership.

Beyond that, the campaign has no further aims and will come to an end either way with the next appointment. Though in other capacities as individuals we will certainly reserve the right to exercise our freedom of speech to respond to Rod Liddle’s witless and nasty attacks on black people, Muslims and women.

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7268/

And please see the two comments underneath that too.

As for Labour, they attack civil liberties because they want to stay in power and “appear tough”. They are too spineless to speak out against a Rod Liddle because they would rather pander to his views in the hope of getting votes. Many of the people he abuses, recent immigrants for example, do not get a vote so Labour aren’t bothered about them. And maybe the Indy readers who do not want Liddle (they could usefully get rid of Alton too in my view) are considered too few by Labour.

Those on the “left-ish” who have some principles should be encouraged. If the Indy is edited by Liddle they will have no nxpaper to buy for a start.

Catherine Bennett made the same accusations, and I replied to her here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/19/twitter-mob-rules-people-power

Being liberal doesn’t mean you can’t campaign against or for anything. No one is taking Rod Liddle’s free speech away – he still blogs away at Spectator and writes for the Sunday Times.

If they want to legitimise and help such an obnoxious misogynist and racist – that’s their problem: I don’t buy them.

But to say that liberals (I’m a left liberal, the name of the site is meant to be ironic) cannot campaign or criticise anyone because it somehow takes away their freedom of speech isn’t an argument. I’m not like the Chinese authorities. I’m not calling for him to be imprisoned.

This is like saying Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League marches shouldn’t have happened because they restricted the right of the BNP and National Front to say what they want.