In Great Britain, native Englishmen have been brutalized by their police and sentenced to years in prison by their judges. Their crime: complaining about violent crimes committed by third-world migrants and criticizing the malicious immigration politics of the English government.
The policies they decry have resulted in 1,400 British girls being groomed and assaulted over two decades by ethnic Pakistani gangs in Rotherham. More recently, a second generation Rwandan migrant went on a stabbing spree in Southport, causing the deaths of three young girls at a dance workshop.
Following these incidents both natives and migrants protested and rioted. Police then disproportionately stamped down on natives. At the same time, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pursued a policy of emptying allegedly overcrowded prisons of criminals, including migrants convicted of attacking and killing native Britons.
This is the state of Britain, great no longer: native, white Britons have been arrested and convicted for thought crimes and hate speech.
The overrunning of England by Islamic foreigners is not the only thing that would have distressed Thomas More. The tyrannical treatment of those natives who have dared to voice opposition to this disastrous state of affairs in the form of harsh sentences for “hate speech” would have disturbed the 16th century English statesman. Some may respond that 16th century England was a harsh, backward place that burned heretics and indulged despotic, absolutist kings. Yet, England’s contemporary liberal democracy is fundamentally far more despotic than almost any medieval king.
This latter injustice perpetuated by the government of the U.K. would have offended More because he – a medieval lawyer and judge – advocated for free speech.
After having served as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for Great Yarmouth and then London, More was elected and briefly served as Speaker of the House of Commons in 1523. During his tenure, More made a petition to King Henry VIII for freedom of speech for Parliament, the first ever made to our knowledge. It is recorded in the writings of William Roper, More’s son-in-law.
“…It may therefore please your most abundant Grace, our most benign and godly King, to give to all your commoners here assembled your most gracious permission and allowance for every man freely, without fear of your dreaded displeasure, to speak his conscience and boldly declare his advice concerning everything that comes up among us. Whatever any man may happen to say, may it please your noble Majesty, in your inestimable goodness, to take it all with no offense, interpreting every man’s words, however badly they may be phrased, to proceed nonetheless from a good zeal toward the profit of your realm…”
The freedom of speech for which More advocated was not a license to slander or to tell offensive jokes. What he had in mind was a protection for the necessary means of the men whose job it was to advise the king. It was – and is – their duty, in all things, to speak truthfully to him in their assistance of his governance, whether it was politically expedient for them to do so or not. This very defense of the truth in the face of Henry’s dishonest ambitions and usurpation of religious authority would eventually cost Thomas his life a little over a decade later.
Though he asserted that every effort was made to gather wise men in the House of Commons to advise the king, not all were equally wise, and being human, worded their counsel poorly in a way displeasing to the king’s ear. More asked that Henry bear it with patience and grace and assume every good intention of his servants in Parliament on such occasions.
The judges who threw native Britons into prisons for “hateful” social media posts about “underprivileged communities” likely found it easy to do so, given that some of the posts displayed severe passion. Strong language, slurs and adamant tone provide an easy excuse to label these opinions as thought crimes and hate speech, thereby easily convicting the supposed far-right radicals.
These courts are minions for an amorphous, oppressive government. They assume no good intention on the part of those who have voiced dissatisfaction and proclaimed the truth about the effects of mass migration into the U.K. These offenders likely had genuine concern for their families, their communities and the cultural integrity of their country, but they were denied the right to freely speak the truth, however imperfectly they did so.
More’s example exercises prudence in his provision for human nature, always showing its imperfection even in its best efforts to defend truth, as well as his boldness and fortitude in making such a request of King Henry.
Today’s British must exercise prudence by speaking truth boldly and freely as is their right and duty, but must be careful how and when they use their words considering the dangers of their circumstances.
The present state of affairs are an affront to any honest administering of justice, and an insult to the long tradition of English freedom and self-governance. British people should turn to Thomas More as an example and intercessor as they weather these sufferings and injustices.
May their spirit prevail, and may a prudent and wise government, filled with statesmen who emulate the likes of Thomas More, return so that Britain may be called Great once again.
