A boot in the face

It seems that every week now brings bad news on the freedom front, often regarding both speech and religion in Europe. In Britain, Keir Starmer’s government has provided numerous examples, with its willingness to deny visitor’s visas to any foreign national deemed “far right” (which can mean anyone concerned about immigration or the rape gangs that operated in recent years with virtual impunity in certain urban areas)—the one part of border policy that the Labour government seems committed to enforcing. At the same time, freedom for citizens continues to be degraded.

Recently, Northern Ireland provided an example when Clive Johnston, a 78-year-old retired pastor, was fined for preaching John 3:16 outside an abortion clinic and within the exclusion zone specified by law. At least, I guess, he was not merely praying in silence and thus powers of telepathy on the part of the local constabulary were not needed this time to bring charges against him.

For those of us who grew up in the United Kingdom in the 1970s and ’80s, this is a bizarre turn of events. In those days, the enemy was the U.S.S.R., and the key thing that defined us was that we had freedom—of speech, of religion, of movement—and Soviet citizens did not. Yet it seems that those freedoms may be dying before our eyes. The United Kingdom is now a society where 78-year-olds are fined for preaching in the open air. And, it seems, where pregnant women have so little personal agency that the mere presence of somebody saying something religious (he did not apparently mention abortion) is likely to inflict terrible damage upon them.

As the news report quotes the policeman:

“You can say to yourself, in the goodness of my heart, ‘I am coming here to preach the word of God,’” the officer says at one point. “However, if you are reckless, as to the effect that it could have on patients, staff, or any protected person, then you may be committing an offense.”

There is the tell: The fear is psychological harm. But psychological harm is subjective and therefore always, it seems, defined by the political class. It appears that, for the U.K. government at least, it is not caused by public expressions of hatred for Jews or by the vicious trolling of figures like J.K Rowling for refusing to bow the knee to obvious untruths about sex. No, the real enemy is an elderly retired pastor. He represents real danger.

This is the same Northern Ireland that celebrates “sodomy” (its supporters’ choice of words, not mine) in a stained glass window in a public building. Setting aside the moral question, did any of those who supported this ask about the physical harm that particular practice inflicts upon the body? That harm isn’t subjective in the slightest and amounts to a whole lot more than that caused by preaching John 3:16 outside a hospital or silently offering to talk to anyone about their pregnancy.

But, of course, this is not really about care for humanity or human beings. It is about the silencing or the destruction of any who dissent from current therapeutic orthodoxies. Everyone (at least everyone pursuing choices of which the progressives approve) must be affirmed, whether it is a sexual practice that destroys their own body or an abortion that destroys somebody else’s body. And it is the most harmless people—the retired pastor, the grandmother with the sign, the charity volunteer praying in silence—who are the real victims, while the victimizers use every means at their disposal, from stained glass windows to the police, to realize their vision.

Perhaps Orwell was right after all: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” I had always assumed that was the Soviet Union. It looks to be coming closer to home.