A chronicle of a society in its death throes: Lord Pearson asks if “Her Majesty’s Government whether, in pursuit of their anti-terrorism strategy,” will “require preaching in mosques and teaching in madrassas in England and Wales to be monitored for hate speech against non-Muslims.”

In response, the Muslim Baroness Warsi issues a warning: “I shall be really careful how I phrase this with reference to the original Question. Could I ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in pursuit of their ​antiterrorism strategy, they will require preaching in the form of Oral Questions and debate in your Lordships’ House to be monitored for hate speech and Islamophobia against Muslims?”

So the question of whether the government will monitor the mosques for “hate speech” is thrust aside, and Pearson is threatened for his “Islamophobia.” Everyone present except for Lord Pearson appears to assume that all the mosques in the UK teach peace and brotherhood, and that this should not be questioned. It would be “indiscreet” to question it, as Lord Bourne says: “I agree with [Baroness Warsi] about the importance of people in this House exercising discretion—of course, within the bounds of free speech—about what they say.”

Within the bounds of free speech? Free speech properly understood has no bounds except actual incitement to violence and approval of criminal activity. If questions cannot even be asked about actual and serious national security issues, then there is no freedom of speech in Britain, and as a free society, it is finished.

“Anti-terrorism: Hate Speech,” Parliament.uk, June 27, 2018 (thanks to O.):