Billy Bragg on free speech, Morrissey, and the resurgence of the Far Right - GQ Magazine

New GQ Article by Billy Bragg:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/music/article/billy-bragg-interview-morrissey-free-speech

Excerpt: "So, call it what it is, says Bragg. Morrissey is now a man who knowingly shares white supremacist material on his platforms and, when challenged, doubles down. And while he is free to do so, that doesn’t mean he’s a victim when there’s a backlash. “Liberty without accountability is impunity, which is the most dangerous kind of freedom. Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”
 
M

Middle Class

Guest
Tommy Robinson shouldn’t have gone to prison the first time round in the way it played out... but now he’s been given a fair trial, he obviously should. He knew he was breaking the law anyway, when he was arrested he knew exactly what it was for because the police had already cautioned him in the past for the same reason. Now he’s acting like it was a huge surprise and he’s a victim. It’s almost like he invited it to happen.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bragg has a huge amount of social media traction (which is in no way proportionate to his status as a not-very-good modern day songwriter). He just needs to write a new article about Steve every week or so, it gets picked up/retweeted etc by tens of thousands of people, and he knows he can destroy Steve's life and reputation.
The only mistake Bragg has made is to assume that Steve Morrissey shares his own intelligent grasp of politics. The reality is that Steve hasn't got a f***ing clue. He hasn't even read the For Britain manifesto. He doesn't even understand the basics of left-right politics. He was foolishly drawn into supporting Annie Walters simply because she is a vegan lesbian feminist. Coming across her (in 2017 when she went for the UKIP leadership) is the single worst thing that's ever happened to him in his whole life.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
New GQ Article by Billy Bragg:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/music/article/billy-bragg-interview-morrissey-free-speech

Excerpt: "So, call it what it is, says Bragg. Morrissey is now a man who knowingly shares white supremacist material on his platforms and, when challenged, doubles down. And while he is free to do so, that doesn’t mean he’s a victim when there’s a backlash. “Liberty without accountability is impunity, which is the most dangerous kind of freedom. Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”

Excuse my ignorance, but who -the hell (sorry)- is this man Billy Bragg to feel entitled to dictate which kinds of freedom OF SPEECH are dangerous and which are good? Everybody feels entitled to promote censorship even in the most astounding areas of human matters. Now you can't listen to pop music neither knit a pair of socks without facing the darkest shades of intolerance towards other people's opinions. I'd like to know how many actual boundaries have defied and how many true risks have faced these new self-proclaimed defenders of public morality. They would be funny clowns if they weren't so pathetic.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
How difficult is it for you to understand? He broke the law - he goes to jail.

No one is silencing him. Like Morrissey, he can say and do what he wants. But his actions and words have consequences. REAL journalists know the boundaries. Little Nazi chancers like him are too thick to understand.

Again - how difficult is it to understand - he broke the law, he goes to jail. Do you advocate breaking the law?

I don't know what you people are talking about, but the right answer always must be: it depends on the law. There are laws that have to be broken. Like sharia law, for example. Not every rule is right just for being a law in a given space and during a given time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous."

Oh wow. This is what those to trying to prevent millions of Americans from continuing to be imprisoned for marijuana use are saying. I didn't know Bragg supported the War on Drugs. Only those who are firmly anti-black hold this view, and it saddens me to hear that Bragg supports this Nixon/Reagan "Lock Up All Drug Users!" mentality.

The state of Utah also thought that Joe Hill was espousing "dangerous freedoms," that's why they executed him. Can Bragg really call himself a folk singer any longer if he believes Joe Hill deserved to die? I guess Bragg also thinks Medgar Evers also had it coming. So sad to see Bragg embrace such a Republican mindset. I guess he sold out the same way Eldridge Cleaver did.
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
"Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous."

Oh wow. This is what those to trying to prevent millions of Americans from continuing to be imprisoned for marijuana use are saying. I didn't know Bragg supported the War on Drugs. Only those who are firmly anti-black hold this view, and it saddens me to hear that Bragg supports this Nixon/Reagan "Lock Up All Drug Users!" mentality.

The state of Utah also thought that Joe Hill was espousing "dangerous freedoms," that's why they executed him. Can Bragg really call himself a folk singer any longer if he believes Joe Hill deserved to die? I guess Bragg also thinks Medgar Evers also had it coming. So sad to see Bragg embrace such a Republican mindset. I guess he sold out the same way Eldridge Cleaver did.
But Morrissey isn’t an advocate of the idea of freedom as a ‘universal good’. I can think of a book full of prohibitions he has supported, including (quite sensibly) an end to travelling to the European continent, from the UK, by rail.
 
E

Eric Hartman

Guest
302579D2-D315-4B57-8D53-F4F298135888.gif
Eric, this will stop being funny. But not yet.

Sorry, what did you say? I was a little distracted.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[I don't condone violence. If anyone was assaulted with political violence, that is unacceptable; notwithstanding legitimate warring factions, including civil war]

Disclaimer out of the way... people that know, know Robinson is being politically silenced. UK lost free speech, very sadly. They are rightly upset. Here in the states, we are upset when grandma gets her door busted in by the bobbies for inappropriate tweets.

As to the shirt: you (and possibly the media) are reading so much into it. Aesthetically, that scheme goes with poster.

You write well but your words fall flat. I think if you stop with the attempted hero-worship it might make a better impression? Any endeavour that attempts to paint Yaxley-Lennon as a victim can only ever fail; it reduces any argument you expect to make. Yaxley-Lennon (for that is his name) is an opportunist: a violent convicted criminal and convicted fraudster - these convictions are not related to his so-called political activities - they are linked directly to his thuggery. Alt-right conspiracy theorists will argue otherwise, but then, they would, wouldn't they?

The opportunist that is Yaxley-Lennon hit a new low (even for him) recently when he made his pathetic, media-seeking video plea to Trump for asylum. The alleged protector of all that is England screeching that "he loved America" and begging to leave England. It should've been a wake up call to his acolytes but they were too busy with thuggery of their own to take notice.

I am anti-establishment (particularly of the white, male, straight, religious, wealthy and privileged kind). I believe politics in the UK to be a cesspool of cronyism (nothing new there) sustained by back door deals and centuries of corruption. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that I live in a democracy - I live in the illusion of a democracy. Anti-establishment to me does not mean the promotion of and collusion with: racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious intolerenace, anti semitism etc. These are the hateful building blocks on which our current establishment system was built. Why would I ever accept them? Why would anyone who claims to be anti-establishment.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
You write well but your words fall flat. I think if you stop with the attempted hero-worship it might make a better impression? Any endeavour that attempts to paint Yaxley-Lennon as a victim can only ever fail; it reduces any argument you expect to make. Yaxley-Lennon (for that is his name) is an opportunist: a violent convicted criminal and convicted fraudster - these convictions are not related to his so-called political activities - they are linked directly to his thuggery. Alt-right conspiracy theorists will argue otherwise, but then, they would, wouldn't they?

The opportunist that is Yaxley-Lennon hit a new low (even for him) recently when he made his pathetic, media-seeking video plea to Trump for asylum. The alleged protector of all that is England screeching that "he loved America" and begging to leave England. It should've been a wake up call to his acolytes but they were too busy with thuggery of their own to take notice.

I am anti-establishment (particularly of the white, male, straight, religious, wealthy and privileged kind). I believe politics in the UK to be a cesspool of cronyism (nothing new there) sustained by back door deals and centuries of corruption. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that I live in a democracy - I live in the illusion of a democracy. Anti-establishment to me does not mean the promotion of and collusion with: racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious intolerenace, anti semitism etc. These are the hateful building blocks on which our current establishment system was built. Why would I ever accept them? Why would anyone who claims to be anti-establishment.

I haven't seen the video (don't hang on his words/not a sycophant).

But I think I hear what you are saying and appreciate those words. To be clear: this is not hero worship on my part. I could be guilty of that misguided fanboy-ism for Morrissey, based on artistic expression, but if you wanted my honest take on the character of Tommy Robinson: he could very well be a hot-headed opportunist.

However, one bad does not negate the other. I'm not clear on UK authoritarianism in general. They forcibly extracted Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London recently. In the states, we typically hear of the police coming to the homes of perpetrators of wrong-think, etc.

I'm very encouraged that you are "anti-authoritarian" ,but unfortunately, in today's upside-down world, an 'anti-fascist' will bash a gay man in the states. I am in no way suggesting you are approving of, or involved in this, but that is where we are.

Thanks for the insight into some of those details. I will look into that and educate myself.
 
Last edited:

Radis Noir

By the thrice-beshitten shroud of Lazarus
They forcibly execrated Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London recently.
Aside from your misuse of the word 'execrated.' that statement is simply wrong. The Ecuadorian president withdrew asylum from Assange after the latter violated the terms of his political asylum. There was an existing arrest warrant for Assange resulting from when he skipped bail a few years previously. Therefore he was arrested and subsequently tried and found guilty of breaching his bail. He was imprisoned for that crime. Nothing occurred that can be attributed to 'authoritanism,' simply the normal workings of UK law.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
Aside from your misuse of the word 'execrated.' that statement is simply wrong. The Ecuadorian president withdrew asylum from Assange after the latter violated the terms of his political asylum. There was an existing arrest warrant for Assange resulting from when he skipped bail a few years previously. Therefore he was arrested and subsequently tried and found guilty of breaching his bail. He was imprisoned for that crime. Nothing occurred that can be attributed to 'authoritanism,' simply the normal workings of UK law.

Yes, you were right on that before my 4:00am auto-correct spelling was fixed.

But you're just giving me the legal semantic run-around. I have nothing against you. But please don't give me this legalize bullshit. Assange is an enemy of establishment, abusive, authoritarian assholes. You are either ignorantly complicit in justifying the loopholes or supportive of statist authoritarian cuckoldry.
 

Radis Noir

By the thrice-beshitten shroud of Lazarus
Yes, you were right on that before my 4:00am auto-correct spelling was fixed.

But you're just giving me the legal semantic run-around. I have nothing against you. But please don't give me this legalize bullshit. Assange is an enemy of establishment, abusive, authoritarian assholes. You are either ignorantly complicit in justifying the loopholes or supportive of statist authoritarian cuckoldry.
Right, I'm clearly wasting my time interacting with you as you are apparently completely immune to facts or reason.
 

wastelandofyourhead

Active Member
Right, I'm clearly wasting my time interacting with you as you are apparently completely immune to facts or reason.

I guess. I'm literally never studying the Assange case, waiting to pounce on a Morrissey forum on some technicality.

But i'm pretty keen to see the abusive of authority inherent in the situation.

(I don't know you, and you could be the most compassionate and anti-abuse-of-authority person. But it comes off as you're really quick to address how none of this is relevant in terms of executive misconduct).

Are you a prosecution attorney? (That could explain it, maybe).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Law to me is like reasoned, practical, and principled tenants of the social contract with the governing body that keeps the peace. Things like traffic laws, crimes against people's safety, well-being property, and also positive laws: such as the states' bill of rights.

This case is more like the judge is Judge Dredd: "I am the law!"

Because he illegally was reporting on a running trial he put the trial and the outcome in jeopardy which could have led to the collapse of the trial meaning child abusers could have been found not guilty and the victims of the abuse not getting justice. This has nothing to do with politics or silencing. That is a ridiculous argument being pushed by Yaxley-Lennon's supported. He was warned to stop breaching the reporting restrictions and he chose to ignore that warning. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
 

ACTON

Don't Leave Us In The Dark
"There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”

Not as dangerous as some beardy sweaty stinking foreign locals mowing down pedestrians on London Bridge.
 
W

We've Been Had

Guest
I guess. I'm literally never studying the Assange case, waiting to pounce on a Morrissey forum on some technicality.

But i'm pretty keen to see the abusive of authority inherent in the situation.

(I don't know you, and you could be the most compassionate and anti-abuse-of-authority person. But it comes off as you're really quick to address how none of this is relevant in terms of executive misconduct).

Are you a prosecution attorney? (That could explain it, maybe).

This person has got to be at the wind-up. If they are serious, it's scary as they just use terms without knowledge.

Robinson got jailed for breaking the law AGAIN. Like it or not, unless you're mates with the establishment, you cannot repeatedly break the law, be found guilty and NOT go to jail. Dems da rulez.

So use all the student words...'authoritarian' 'asshole' 'scumbag' 'racist' 'liberal' 'elite' 'cover up' 'conspiracy' etc....get them all out of your system and then understand that you and me and Tommy and others without money or power are subject to the law.

Got it?

No?

Thought not.

Now say student words in response but without experience or wisdom or comprehension.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How many times do you need to be told?

HE BROKE THE LAW and went to jail.

What don't you understand about that?
Tony Blair and The Bishes went against the United Nations and started a war killing a million Iraqis, looking for weapons of mass destruction everyone knew weren't there.
Tell me about the law and who it protects. Go on and keep repeating it like its true.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
New GQ Article by Billy Bragg:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/music/article/billy-bragg-interview-morrissey-free-speech

Excerpt: "So, call it what it is, says Bragg. Morrissey is now a man who knowingly shares white supremacist material on his platforms and, when challenged, doubles down. And while he is free to do so, that doesn’t mean he’s a victim when there’s a backlash. “Liberty without accountability is impunity, which is the most dangerous kind of freedom. Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”
Very disappointed in Billy Bragg.
Once was enough to hear from him.
He's continuing with his obvious vendetta against Morrissey. Wonder what it's really about.
Over the years he's made jibes about morrissey at his concerts but he's certainly making the most of this opportunity.
This is the most publicity Bragg has had in 30 years. Another Dave Hasbeen.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
New GQ Article by Billy Bragg:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/music/article/billy-bragg-interview-morrissey-free-speech

Excerpt: "So, call it what it is, says Bragg. Morrissey is now a man who knowingly shares white supremacist material on his platforms and, when challenged, doubles down. And while he is free to do so, that doesn’t mean he’s a victim when there’s a backlash. “Liberty without accountability is impunity, which is the most dangerous kind of freedom. Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”
Orwellian.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom