“We Will Come After You”, Being Careful, and Truth

From the 1940s: Four soldiers carrying the United Stats flag and the United Nations Honour Flag / Four Freedoms Flag, an unofficial design by Brooks B. Harding. Via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.
Stars and Stripes and Four Freedoms Flag. (ca. 1943)

America has changed since my youth. I’ve seen fire and brimstone give way to tofu and soy sauce, rotary dial phones replaced by smartphones.

Some things, however, haven’t changed. Like the value we place on freedom.

How my country’s self-described best and brightest see freedom, particularly freedom of speech: that’s what I’ll talk about this week.


“We Will Come After You” — He Really Said That

Walt Kelly's Pogo. (March 30, 1953) Howland Owl, Mole MacCarony, and The Cowbirds; in a discussion of owl migration. Mole MacCarony, in reference to an ignited 'Captain Wimby's Bird Atlas', says 'There's nothing quite so lovely as a brightly burning book'.My Google News feed shows me an eclectic mix each day, probably because my reading habits are — eclectic. Sometimes I even see links to this sort of thing:

UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: ‘We’ll come after you’
Alexander Hall, Fox News, via New York Post (August 10, 2024)

“London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.

‘We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,‘ Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News….

“…One key aspect that makes this apparent crackdown on social media particularly shocking to critics is that the British government is threatening to extradite American citizens from the U.S. to be jailed in the U.K. for violating their rules about political speech online.…”
[emphasis mine]

That last sentence is what got my attention. Partly because I’m an American citizen — and, although I’m not an ardent advocate of some political party or candidate, I’ll occasionally express ideas which can be considered “political”.

So it’s possible that something I say would violate United Kingdom “rules about political speech online”. Unlikely, but possible.

Particularly since I’m not entirely on the same page as the United Kingdom’s government — or mine, for that matter.

Under the circumstances, finding out what inspired this stalwart resolve to protect the British public from unlawful political statements seemed like a good idea.

RIOTERS RUN RAMPANT AS CHAOS STALKS THE LAND!!!

Pulitzer's New York World front page headline and illustration stating that a torpedo or bomb sunk the Maine. (February 17, 1898)Part of my answer was in that Fox News/New York Post article:

“…Riots have broken out across the United Kingdom in recent days over false rumors spread online that an asylum seeker was responsible for a mass stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded….”
(“UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: ‘We’ll come after you’” ; Alexander Hall, Fox News, via New York Post (August 10, 2024))

The “dance event” in Southport, Merseyside, England, sounds like it could have been fun.

It was billed as a workshop for kids age six through 11: “Calling all Swifties! You are invited to a yoga, dance and bracelet-making workshop with Leanne and Heidi. Open to children in Year 2-Year 6”.

I’m not sure why the bracelet making and yoga activities haven’t been mentioned in most news coverage that I’ve seen. Maybe editors figured “dance” was more relatable.

Anyway, some guy showed up at the workshop a little before noon on July 29 and attacked the kids.

A few minutes later, three children were dead or dying. Maybe he’d have killed more than just those three, maybe not. Either way, adults interfered, police arrived, the alleged suspect was arrested, and that’s when things got interesting.

Seems that the alleged attacker was a few days short of this 18th birthday at the time. Since he was a minor, authorities couldn’t legally release his name.

Someone in the legal system lifted that restriction on August 1.1 But by then the fewmets had hit the windmill.

“Complete Nonsense” and a Warning

Branford_Clarke's 'The Great Army for Truth and Americanism Makes Rome Tremble' from 'The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy', by Bishop Alma Bridwell White. (1925) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.

The alleged attacker was born in Wales, lived on the north-eastern outskirts of Southport, and is a British subject, but his parents were born in Rwanda.

Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seus)'s cartoon, showing Japanese Americans living in California, Oregon, and Washington as a fifth column of dangerous enemy agents loyal to Imperial Japan. Published in the February 13, 1942, edition of the PM newspaper. Via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.He doesn’t, apparently, ‘look British’.

With no reliable information available, England’s self-appointed protectors filled in the blanks.

It wasn’t long before at least one made-up name, Ali Al-Shakati, was making the rounds, along with earnest assertions that he was a Muslim and/or an asylum seeker.

This wouldn’t be the first time folks decided that foreigners must be dangerous because they were foreigners, and that citizens with the ‘wrong’ ancestry must be threats because of their ancestors.

These days, remembering that iterations of the Ku Klux Klan are “subversive” is easy. Remembering that Theodore (Dr. Seus) Geisel warned Americans against Yellow Peril on the west coast: not so much.2

By the same token, noticing when someone who isn’t the ‘right sort’ spouts nonsense is easy. Doing the same when it’s one of the ‘proper people’ — isn’t.

Which preferences and phobias today’s ‘proper sort’ hold dear has shifted since my youth. Variable sensitivity to what the London police chief called “complete nonsense” hasn’t.

At any rate, I still don’t know exactly what London’s Metropolitan Police chief had in mind when he warned those who spread illegal political speech, even those on foreign shores — “we will come after you”.

But I’m guessing that the warning’s mostly directed at folks who see the July 30 – August 5 English riots as a good thing, say so, and urge others to make their cause look like a threat to society.

What the folks with those “serious voices” are thinking, if anything, I don’t know:

Met Police chief attacks ‘serious voices’ spreading ‘complete nonsense’ about two-tier policing
Sky News: Breaking, UK & World (August 7, 2024)

“Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has been speaking to broadcasters this morning.

Asked if people rioting could be charged with rioting, the Met chief says: ‘We’ll throw the full force of the law at offenders, whether that’s charging people with assaults, violent disorder, riot and — if terrorism offensive are appropriate — I know the director of public prosecutions has said he’s prepared to consider that.

‘We will throw the full force of the law at people.

‘And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.’…”


Scary Situations, Fear, and ‘Those People’

Alexisrael's photo: 'Rose memorial for victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut'. (January 10, 2013) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.Fallout from the Southport killings was still popping up in my news feed this week.

What wasn’t making headlines is almost as interesting as what was.

Particularly the yawning chasm where discussions of the alleged attacker’s mental health might have been.

Seems that he’d been diagnosed with ASD, autism spectrum disorder.

He’s got that in common with the person who killed more than a dozen folks, mostly at Sandy Hook Elementary School, back in 2012.

As I recall, it didn’t take more than a month or so for serious-minded folks to stop saying that all those autism persons should be locked up. Or at least put on a watch list or something.

I had and have a personal interest in opinions of that sort, since my medical chart includes ASD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and an assortment of other psychiatric glitches.

Human nature being what it is, I figure that there will always be some folks who fear foreigners, lunatics, and those who don’t belong to their polo club.

But I also figure that many folks who aren’t just like me — aren’t all that different, either.

Illustration of 'icepick' lobotomy, from Dr. Walter Freenan II's 'Psychosurgery in the Treatment of Mental Disorders and Intractable Pain.' (1950)Something that has changed is the status of a once-honored and acclaimed procedure that made patients more “amenable”.

I’m grateful that, despite making lunatics more manageable, lobotomies seem to have gone out of fashion.

And that’s another topic.3

Let’s see. Where was I?

An ominous warning from London’s police chief, against making illegal remarks online: “we will come after you”.

Yoga, dance, bracelets, and death for children in England. Followed by riots and that remarkable statement by London’s police chief.

Fear, foreigners, phobias, and foibles.

An angle of the Southport stabbings that hasn’t been stressed, and why I have a personal interest in knee-jerk responses to scary situations.

Right.

Four Freedoms: a Catholic Viewpoint

Herb Block political cartoon: 'Say, what ever happened to 'freedom-from-fear'?' (August 13, 1951, during McCarthyism) published in Washington Post; see https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/herblocks-history/fire.htmlI grew up in an America where red-white-and-blue-blooded-one-hundred-percent-regular Americans were defending freedom something dreadful.

They stood behind everyone’s right to express unyielding, unwavering, unthinking support for their opinions.

For what it’s worth, I suspect many didn’t see the disconnect between their notion of “free speech” and how they treated folks who didn’t agree with them.

Time passed.

The Establishment of my youth lost whatever credibility they’d had, and long-overdue reforms finally got traction. I don’t like some of what’s happened since then, but some changes were for the better.

On the other hand, today’s Establishment — folks who know what’s best for the rest of us (just ask them: they’ll confirm this) and have earned positions of power and influence — they uphold “free speech” with the same old enthusiasm.

I don’t see much difference between them and their counterparts back when McCarthyism finally expired.

Sure, the current ‘proper sort’ have different preferences and new slogans. But I see the same fear and loathing of unsanctioned viewpoints. Possibly because I haven’t spent a lifetime surrounded by like-minded folks, or ingratiating myself to — no. I’ll stop there.

Researching this week’s post, I ran across a flag design from 1942: one that’s been called the Four Freedoms Flag, or United Nations Honour Flag; and has been largely forgotten.4

I’ll probably talk about that, eventually. But for now I’ll look — briefly — at goals mentioned in the American president’s 1941 State of the Union address:

  • Freedom of worship
  • Freedom from want
  • Freedom from fear
  • Freedom of speech and expression

More than eight decades later, all four still look like good ideas.

So: what, if anything, does all that “freedom” stuff have to do with London’s police chief’s declaration that his government will go after lawbreakers in other countries?

Freedom of Worship, From Want, and From Fear

Reid Wiseman's photo of sunrise, seen from the International Space Station. (October 29, 2014) via NASA, used w/o permissionI’ll start with freedom of worship.

I think it’s a good idea, partly because of my family’s history. One of my ancestors had trouble getting a birth certificate, and that’s yet another topic.

More to the point, I must value freedom of worship because I’m a Catholic. I’m Catholic, by the way, because I think Jesus is who he said he is, and finally realized who currently holds the authority Jesus gave Peter.

As a Catholic, I must recognize that folks are searching for God: including those who haven’t had my opportunities. Supporting freedom of religion, for everyone, comes with being Catholic. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839-845, 1907, 2104-2109, 2211, 2566, and more)

Freedom from want: I’ll take that as part of what we’re told about social justice. Basically, it’s a good idea. (Catechism, 1928-1942, for starters)

Freedom from fear, starting with the sort of fear the president mentioned in 1941.

“…freedom from fear … translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world….”
(The Four Freedoms speech, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 6, 1941) via Wikisource)

Over-simplifying this a lot: peace is a good idea. (Catechism, 2302-2306)

War is something governments should avoid. Praying and working for an end to war is a good idea. (Catechism, 2307-2317)

But sometimes war is better than the alternative. (Catechism, 2309)

As for fear, it’s an emotion. Feeling emotions is part of being human. By themselves, emotions aren’t good or bad: they’re just there. When we decide what we’ll do with our emotions: that’s when good or bad — ethics — get involved. (Catechism, 1762-1775)

The main emotions are love, hatred, desire, fear, joy, sadness, and anger. (Catechism, 1772)

I’d like it if rabidly earnest folks would appeal to emotions other than fear, anger, and hatred: but at least I can try not letting their rants affect me, and suggest that thinking is a good idea.

Free Speech and Being Responsible

Social media articles, selected from my Google News feed. (July 2, 2024Since I’m an American, I think freedom of speech is important.

Since I’m also a Catholic, I think freedom of speech is much like any other freedom.

Having free will is part of being human. I can decide what I do, or do not do. And I am responsible for my actions, or lack of action. (Catechism, 1730-1738)

The Catechism says quite a bit about neighbors, love, and responsibility: but not much specifically about “freedom of speech” in isolation. So I’ll quote a few popes:

“…The General Assembly wished also to affirm that one of the highest human aspirations is to see the dignity of the human person recognized, and it looked forward to the coming of a world in which all could exercise freedom of speech and freedom of belief. In this sense, the Declaration expressed a common ideal to be attained by all peoples and all nations….”
(Message for the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Pope Saint John Paul II (December 6, 1988)) [emphasis mine]

“…Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events….”
(Pacem in Terris [Peace on Earth], Pope Saint John XXIII (April 11, 1963)) [emphasis mine]

“…Freedom of the press, like any other freedom whether of action or of speech or thought is limited; it does not allow a man to print what is wrong, what is known to be false or what is calculated to undermine and destroy the moral and religious fibre of individuals and the peace and harmony of nations….”
(To representatives of the press from the United States of America, Venerable Pope Pius XII (July 11, 1946)) [emphasis mine]

That view of “freedom” falls well short of ‘I can do whatever I want, whenever I want’, but it works for me.

As for the once-common habit of treating “man” or “a man” as synonyms for “humanity” or “a person”: this isn’t the America I grew up in. I don’t miss the days when “she’s smart as a man” was supposed to be a compliment. I’ve said that before. Often.

The Powers That Be and Malcontents, Viewpoints and Fear

Left: photo from from https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2019/10/political-correctness/; 'Political Correctness Fatigue: Does Irreverence Make Better Leadership?'; David Salisbury; CMR Insights; California Management Review; Haas School of Business; University of California, Berkeley (October 18, 2019). Right: cancel culture cartoon from https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/political_correctness_in_cartoons.asp; Mike Bekom's Counterpoint (February 27, 2024). from  https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2019/10/political-correctness/Counterpoint (February 27, 2024).
Freedom of expression: a currently-proper view, and a banned comic strip.

Walt Kelly's Deacon Mushrat and Simple J. Malarky. (1953)My country’s history being what it is, the odds of someone running for office promising to stamp out freedom of speech are pretty much zero.

I’ve been told that we got our attitude toward freedom of expression from England, a legacy from our colonial days.

So how come the occasional malcontent gets in trouble for complaining, or simply drops off the radar?

I don’t know. I’m just some guy living in central Minnesota. I don’t have the resources for a comprehensive study of American politics and culture. Let alone a global view.

But I’ve been living in this country all my life, have been paying attention, and haven’t lost a wary view of The Establishment developed in the 1960s. So here’s how I see it.

Folks at one end of the political spectrum have little incentive to go bonkers over the news and official pronouncements: their views are well-represented.

Besides, the way they see events and ideas presented is clearly fair, balanced, and correct. From their viewpoint.

Everybody they work with, everybody they rub elbows with, all their favorite authors and celebrities: they’re all in agreement. “Our” view is the proper one.

Folks at the other end: well “everybody” knows that they’re wrong. And a threat to society. Therefore, those in authority must silence those threats. Thus says The Establishment.

Oversimplified? Yes, enormously. Not far from accurate? I think so, definitely.

“Outside Agitators”, “We Will Come After You”: Same Attitude, Different Eras

Gilbert Shelton's cover art for 'Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers' No. 1. (1971) (low-resolution thumbnail) (copyright may belong to Rip Off Press)I don’t see a problem with some degree of self-confidence.

But when self-confidence boils over and becomes self-righteousness: that’s a problem, a big one.

It’s an even bigger one, I think, when the folks in charge start seeing disagreement over policy as a threat to society. And try using their power to silence that threat.

They might have good intentions.

But doing something bad to get good results is a bad idea. Always. (Catechism, 1789)

That applies to folks who riot, when there’s still some hope of discussing problems — and I think it applies to other folks who won’t listen to views they don’t like.

Some of what I’ve read about the recent riots in England sounded very familiar:

“…Far-right groups spread misinformation online, and the UK government under [name] has accused Russia of spreading disinformation to stoke the unrest….

“… [name], an expert on right-wing extremism, commented….

“…the [newspaper] reported ‘far right thugs, fuelled by lies, sought to exploit the tragedy’….”
(2024 United Kingdom riots, Wikipedia (text from August 15, 2024))

Substitute “left” for “right”, “pamphlets” for “online” and “American government” for “UK government” — add phrases like “communist menace” and “un-American” — that could have been written about other people who’d gotten fed up, back when I was a teenager.

I’m not making excuses for folks who rioted in England.

But I am suggesting that maybe, just maybe, letting those who don’t agree with The Establishment have their say — even better, LISTENING to them — might result in fewer folks feeling that rioting was their only option for reform.

I’ll wrap this section up with a pared-down bit from that “serious voices” … “complete nonsense” article; and remarks by another frustrated official, who was also dealing with “outside agitators”.5

Met Police chief attacks ‘serious voices’ spreading ‘complete nonsense’ about two-tier policing
Sky News: Breaking, UK & World (August 7, 2024)

“Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has been speaking to broadcasters this morning….

“… ‘…whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.‘…”
[emphasis mine] [this article no longer found online; August 15, 2024]

***

“If the Federal Government really wants to help in this unfortunate situation, they will encourage these outside agitators to go home. We have the means and the ability to keep the peace in Alabama without any outside help.”
(Governor of Alabama, quoted in the Washington Post (May 21, 1961) via Historic Newspapers) [emphasis mine]


“With Great Power….”

Louis M. Glackens' cartoon in Punch: 'The Yellow Press'. William Randolph Hearst as a jester tossing newspapers with headlines such as 'Appeals to Passion, Venom, Sensationalism, Attacks on Honest Officials, Strife, Distorted News, Personal Grievance, Misrepresentation' to a crowd of eager readers, among them an anarchist assassinating a politician speaking from a platform draped with American flags; on the left, men labeled 'Man who buys the comic supplement for the kids, Businessman, Gullible Reformer, Advertiser, and Decent Citizen' carry bags of money that they dump into Hearst's printing press'. (October 12, 1910)It’s been nearly a week since I saw that “UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens…” headline in my news feed.

I still don’t know exactly what sort of online remarks would result in extradition to the United Kingdom.

I’m not worried, but now I have another reason for avoiding off-the-cuff responses to weighty issues.

I’m slightly concerned about mainstream news media’s non-coverage of the London police chief’s “we will come after you” remark. No criticism, no support for his stalwart defense of the British public: nothing. Not that I’ve seen, that is.

Maybe his remark doesn’t matter, and everyone in the proper circles understands that he was just blowing off steam. Or maybe I’ll start seeing headlines about dangerous extremists who made illegal statements. Or maybe I won’t see such headlines.

Whatever happens, I’ll keep on thinking that truth matters: which is another one of those things I’d better think, if I’m going to keep calling myself a Catholic:

“Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.”
(Catechism, 2468)

On a more practical level, I’ll maintain my habit of researching facts, and making an effort to not get facts, opinions, and feelings confused.

As for those whose position in society gives them a degree of control over what shows up in our news feeds, I think this quote applies:

“With great power must also come great responsibility!”
(Spider-Man, via Wikiquote)

Wisdom in a comic book? These days, I’ll use what I find, where I find it.

Finally, the usual links to more stuff; this time mostly about freedom of expression and making sense:


1 July 29, 2024; death in Southport:

2 Southport SNAFU, a little transatlantic background:

3 Loonies, lobotomies, laws, a tragedy, polo clubs, and me:

4 The powers that be, good ideas from the 1940s, and a really bad idea:

5 This year’s riots, yesteryear’s reponse:

How interesting or useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

I am sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let me learn why!

How could I have made this more nearly worth your time?

About Brian H. Gill

I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
This entry was posted in Being Catholic, Discursive Detours, Journal and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “We Will Come After You”, Being Careful, and Truth

  1. I especially enjoyed that talk about emotions. They’re natural, but even if they can be excuses for one’s shortcomings, they’re not really as effective as we like to think, especially with our egos. At the same time, I think of God working through the negative emotions like how He turned the Roman Empire Christian. And the positive emotions, I can see our learning these days about how they can be perverted. Again, I’m glad for God giving me the strength to filter through Him all those things that I learn about emotions. Still got a long way to go, though, so may He keep on challenging and guiding us all. And thank you very much again for your work, Mr. Gill.

Thanks for taking time to comment!