The tensions between upholding basic public decency and protecting our right to free speech is reaching a breaking point across the West. Look no further than the recent arrest of the thing called Heather Herbert, a transgender activist and University of Aberdeen web developer. Following the tragic death of Reform UK spokeswoman Ann Widdecombe, Herbert took to the internet to celebrate.
Let’s be entirely clear: Herbert’s comments deserve the absolute strongest, most unyielding moral condemnation. But should the state be stepping in with handcuffs? Absolutely not. Deploying the police to arrest someone for vile online commentary is a massive, dangerous misstep. The exact same censorship tools used to punish a radical leftist today will, without a doubt, be weaponised against conservative and nationalist commentators tomorrow. If we want to fight back against this societal decay, the answer isn’t expanding the power of the state. The answer is relentless public shaming and social ostracisation. something they leftist have used with sophistry for decades. But relying on legal tribunals to police our thoughts sets us on a slippery slope that ends with dissenting citizens being marched straight to the Gulag.
A Vicious Display of Radical Malice
The comments made by Herbert represent a horrific breakdown of human empathy. When news broke that 78-year-old Ann Widdecombe had passed away—a death counter-terrorism officers are investigating as a targeted murder—Herbert didn't just stay silent. She publicly posted: "Some good news for once. I hope it was an extremely painful death." If that wasn't sadistic enough, she followed it up by writing, "I hope she was handcuffed to the bed as she screamed in agony."
This goes far beyond a normal political disagreement. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian mindset. It views political opponents not as fellow citizens, but as subhuman enemies whose violent destruction is a cause for celebration. How did we get to a point where mainstream political activists exhibit such unchecked cruelty? It shows just how deeply radical ideologies have rotted elemental moral standards. If we lose the ability to respect the sanctity of human life across political lines, we lose the very foundation of a civilised society. This celebration of a brutal attack on an elderly public servant must be completely denounced.
The Trap of Speech Policing
But here is the trap: our disgust at this rhetoric must not blind us to the severe dangers of criminalising it. When we cheer for the state to arrest someone for a malicious tweet, we are handing the government a terrifying amount of power. "Offensiveness" is completely subjective. It means whatever the people currently in power want it to mean.
Does anyone honestly believe these speech laws will only be used against the radical left? History says otherwise. The exact same public order legislation used today will inevitably be turned against conservative, traditionalist, and nationalist activists. Think about it. Commentators who speak out on biological reality, traditional family values, national sovereignty, or mass immigration are already targeted by institutional elites. The moment we grant the state the authority to arrest a citizen for a cruel opinion, we demolish the boundary protecting all political speech. The precedent is set. Legitimate dissent against prevailing state orthodoxies will quickly be reclassified as "hate speech" or "incitement," effectively silencing right-wing activism through institutional fear.
Social Scorn Over State Tyranny
When a society replaces cultural boundaries with police intervention, it steps onto a path that historically concludes in total state tyranny. If we accept the principle that the government can lock someone away for a vile opinion, we are conceding that the state owns our minds. This philosophy naturally expands. Left unchecked, it creates a world where any unapproved thought can lead a citizen to be systematically canceled, stripped of their livelihood, or locked away in a modern ideological Gulag.
The remedy for abhorrent speech is not a jail cell; it is robust, decentralised societal accountability. Herbert’s repulsive statements should have been met exclusively with severe social isolation, widespread public shaming, immediate firing by it,s employer, and permanent banishment from respectable forums. When a community collectively stands up to shame an individual for celebrating murder, it strengthens its own moral fabric. Cultural shaming exposes moral bankruptcy to the world while preserving the legal protections of free speech that keep the entire citizenry safe from government overreach.
The case of Heather Herbert is a warning sign of two major crises: the profound moral rot within radical left wing activist circles, and the terrifying growth of the state surveillance apparatus. Her remarks regarding the tragic death of Ann Widdecombe were utterly reprehensible.
Yet, demanding it,s arrest is incredibly short-sighted. The tools created to punish today's radical activist will inevitably become the weapons used to crush tomorrow's conservative patriot. For freedom to survive, we must have the courage to punish monsters through social scorn and moral excommunication, keeping the heavy, dangerous hand of state censorship entirely out of the human mind.
