Britain First and ‘Freedom of speech’

Britain First’s biffers hate it when we counter their hate speech with facts.

Chrischill BF EBF fascist quote anti fascist

They hate the fact that we take the time to fact-check their misinformation and go to great lengths to debunk their lies. And they try hard to discredit us.

EBF BF freedom of speech doxing intimidation Queens speech

One way they do this is by claiming that we’re ‘politically correct lefties’ who hate freedom of speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. We at EBF have no problem with freedom of speech but like most people we have a problem with malicious lies. Freedom of speech (actually here in UK we use the term ‘freedom of expression’) has limits and there are good reasons for that. It’s long been illegal to slander or libel someone because, as we all know, malicious lies have real consequences for the victim. That doesn’t mean we can’t have and express different opinions. We just shouldn’t go around stirring up trouble with deliberate lies. Let’s put it this way.

Cinema fire Highgate

Imagine a crowded cinema full of men, women and children who’ve come to see the latest animated kiddies’ blockbuster. It’s a family event and the stalls are packed when some mischevious lout shouts “fire!”.

It’s not true. It’s a malicious deception. There is no fire but people believe the lie all the same.

People stampede – a predictable response. Several hundred panicked cinemagoers rush toward the exit. The crush is suffocating.

People die. That’s predictable too.

Is that OK? Is the ‘trickster’ within his rights to exercise his freedom of expression in this way, even though the harm and death he caused to others was entirely predictable?

This sort of ‘speech’ is destructive and capricious. Any argument for ‘free speech’ is entirely disproportionate when measured against the very real damage that it causes to innocent people. Nobody would justify deliberate, harmful lies that put people at risk of harm or death.

Remember that point.

Deliberate lies that cause predictable harm to innocent others are not justifiable by an appeal to freedom of speech.

Now let’s apply the same logic to Britain First’s hate speech.

EBF BF car mob libel

Britain First consistently lies about Muslims, immigrants, non-whites and anyone who isn’t a white-supremacist neoNazi like themselves. They lie deliberately and they do so specifically to stir up hatred.

Iran bf flag burn lie EBF

Gullible people believe their lies and this puts the victims of those lies at risk.

People are harmed as a predictable result of the Biffers’ lies.

Remember the point we made earlier…

Deliberate lies that cause predictable harm to innocent others are not justifiable by an appeal to freedom of speech.

EBF BF Tesco hoax muslim soldier uniform

Let us spell it out…

Hate speech is not OK.

Lying is not OK

Britain First is not OK

Maybe we should take a leaf out of the French book. They know how to deal with lying hate preachers…

EBF Le Pen hate speech prosecution France fascist far right

20 thoughts on “Britain First and ‘Freedom of speech’

  1. Can you not call people Biffers please, it’s uncomfortably close to “biffs” a northern and disparaging term for mentally or physically handicapped people (yes, tempting, I know but we’re supposed to be on the right side of this argument). Hearts and minds will not be changed if we’re reduced to name calling.


    • Sorry – no. It’s a different word, used with a different intent. Contrary to the Biffers’ claims – we’re not so PC that we paralyse ourselves worrying that people might misunderstand what we mean and take offence. We think the term Biffer is perfectly acceptable.


    • The first time I ever heard that word, a corruption of the second part of the medical term Spina bifida, was in London in 1981 and I’m Northern born and bred so I don’t know where you get the idea it originated up here. I never heard it used at school in the 70’s and if it originated here I surely would have seeing as I attended massive inner city comprehensives.


          • Maybe we should get in touch with DC Comics and see if they’ll amend their fine publications for fear of offending X number of Yorkshire folk. The term Biff does not offend me for the record, my Darlington bred colleges at college often used the word Biff as an affectionate term during their colloquial banter sessions. Us bemused Yorkshire folk looked on in confusion, until we learned the ways of the North Easterners.

            Liked by 1 person

    • I’m from “up north” and have never heard of your term “biffs”. I’ve also done a quick web trawl and haven’t found anything. It can also mean to hit something, a best friend, and a multitude of other things.

      My understanding is that the term biffers comes from Britain Firsters, BFers, biffers.
      I suspect that by now the term biffers is more widely known than your term biffs.

      There are a number of words in the English language that have multiple meanings.

      I can think of a number of inappropriate names we could give to the Fransen creature and the rest of the biffers, but for now, biffers will do.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Biff” is a term used regularly in the British Army as light slang for someone who makes a mistake or mucks up what he/she is attempting to do. It has been around way before the likes of the Britain First.

    Army slang tends to be quite harsh and derived from very diverse geographical backgrounds of the Army’s area of experience, just like the naming of barracks and buildings associating battles and honours. A rich culture of remembrance.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As a member of ‘British Politics’ on Facebook I got the great fun of having literally every study, journal or otherwise valid form of evidence repudiated as “quackademia.” Where people whose ‘about me’ read “studied at University of Life” or “School of Hard Knocks” would go on about how left-wing universities censor speech and refuse to discuss difficult subjects.
    See, if you prove a fascist wrong, you’re actually just being paid by the Establishment to push David Cameron’s Islamic agenda. Now that’s something I always found amusing.

    This conspiracy is so far-reaching that the Tory government, notorious for its cuts to education and welfare is actually in league with all the universities and the Old Etonians are trying to Islamify the country, because it’s naturally in the best interests of the landed gentry to encourage a massive societal shift that would invalidate their claims to power and cause the collapse of the system that grants them that power. This is the world Britain First and the like live in. One where they are the last bastion of all that is good and British, standing firm against the British Government, the British Crown and, most notably, the British people.


      • Particularly since social history easily demonstrates that universities are often the epicentre of upheaval or revolution. Turns out that students learn the skills to make a difference, the knowledge to understand the injustice of a political system that keeps people underfoot and lack the patience to tolerate it.

        It’s extremely silly that people will trash-talk university educations without realising universities have always been the symbol of rebellion Britain first wish they were.


  4. I would like to dress the Winston Churchill thing. They said, “There is absolutely no evidence anywhere of him ever saying it so, therefore he didn’t say it.” But that is faulty reasoning. Is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically it is saying that lack of evidence for something is proof of the opposite. It is not proof of the opposite. That statement lacks validity for that reason, because even if the premises were true, that would not necessarily mean that the conclusion is true. I would also like to call into question the soundness of the premises. My issue is that they used a lot of absolutes, that I have my doubts about. They said things like, “absolutely no evidence anywhere of him ever saying it” which seems to me to be speaking a little beyond their authority. Had they said something like, “We could find no evidence anywhere of him ever saying it” sure, that may be sound, but the fact that you find none, does that necessarily mean that there is none? in Fact that quote, may or may not have been misattributed to him, but it is difficult to tell as there is not general agreement on who first said it, or when. Unfortunately, until someone finds an original document for it, or source of the quote, it is still up for debate.


    • Churchill was an almost obsessive diarist, he kept complete transcripts of every speech he made outside of the HoC, and all those made within the HoC are recorded in the archives at Westminster.
      Neither his diaries nor the Westminster archives have any record of the quote that the Biffers attribute to him.
      Other than that, the language used, the phrasing, is unlike any recorded Churchill quote. Doesn’t it seem a little odd that this one single quote bears no resemblance to anything else he ever said?


    • You wanted a source for the quote and it’s this.
      It’s a corruption of a 1930’s quote from Huey Long, a populist politician from the state of Louisiana.

      And what he actually said was along the lines of.

      “When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!.

      There’s your source, and now we can put to bed the argument that Churchill may have said it because absence of proof that he did isn’t proof he didn’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s