The level of interpretation on what speech is illegal in England ratchets up

This is inevitable once you decide some speech is allowed and some is not. The parameters are set post hoc and to an agenda that is unstated at first. You can’t know you. broke the law till after you did it, and authorities and media cannot repeat what you said to break the law or they are guilty of it themselves.

We are all headed this way.

H/T Buck.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “The level of interpretation on what speech is illegal in England ratchets up”

  1. The right to dissent
    Is part of British lore
    This English Spring –
    The Stasi at your door.

    “Don’t fund terrorism”
    To feed Sharia Law
    Halal and Haram
    Will take over every store.

    Then you will be quizzed
    Your daughters asked out more.
    “Yes boss,” the grudging goat
    Until they take what’s theirs for sure.

    • If a religious group said to the town planners they were going to have religious coffee shops, religious food stores, religious, butchers, religious halls… they would decline because the high street was being taken over and preventing diversity of choice..

      Of”don’t feed terrorists” sign, they then might reasonably say it was a religious-political statement and inappropriate.

      But when allowing halal stickers placed in all the windows to serve a murderous, envy-for-entitlement cult, they are simply signing their own death warrants.

  2. Oh, please, the law is perfectly clear:

    If you do/say anything that makes Islam look bad, you’re off-side.
    If you do/say anything that could be interpreted as to make Islam look bad, you’re off-side.

    Until further notice, you may criticise the law banning criticism itself, so long as you do not stray into criticising Islam.

    I should be writing legislative texts, eh?

    • That is pretty much what thepoliticians want, but they can’t write it down they have to rely on intimidation to enforce their new Third World legal system.

  3. I’m guessing the BBC, Sky, and the Guardian, will be hot footing it to that shop, and door stepping the councillors, enquiring why this state sponsored infringement of white working class rights is being allowed? I will watch avidly as Teresa May and Boris Johnson are put on the spot, and asked if they agree with this behaviour.
    Should be fun to watch.
    I notice, that Piers Morgan, (and others), when being questioned in return by interviewees who they are trying to embarrass, fall back to the plea, “we are asking the questions”. Such is the case, with cases like this, the mainstream media set the agenda by choosing what to cover.
    That’s the reason you never see documentaries (or rarely, anyway), on the disgusting practises of other cultures.
    Ebola springs to mind, where during the epidemic sweeping Africa, the mainstream media airily describe that part of the problem is caused by the traditional rituals of handling the dead, then never mentioned again. The reality of this, is of course, that these hideous practised involve intimately handling the decaying remains of your relative, without reference to the biological load emanating from the much revered corpse. Such practises, inferior to the Western practise of hygiene and health and knowledge, are basically ignored.
    Although of course, we are expected to pay for the inevitable outcome of these disgustingly quaint practises.
    The constant drip of slanted news, will eventually rise to drown us all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *