A video from the increasingly Orwellian Scottish Police

As comments are disabled for this video, probably because the police do not have the resources to arrest everyone who might leave one for this Orwellian statist jackboot approach to public order, I would encourage you to make your thoughts known to the Scottish police here.

If you are writing from Scotland, I would suggest you use a VPN or write in some kind of deniable code. Samizdat is the order of the century. Again.

Once or twice in interviews I have quipped that the only thing the founding fathers got wrong in the US constitution was that the first two amendments in the bill of rights are in reverse order. Because if you have no means to defend your freedom of speech from the state, then you don’t have it. And what freedom of speech you think you have is at the behest of the state as a privilege so long as it serves their interests.

I meant this quip to show the importance of public ownership of the means of protecting liberty. But I suspect it may be literally true at this point. The UK gave up their right to own guns and now they are being jailed for Facebook posts and Youtube videos of dogs shaking a paw in a context that upsets the leftist orthodoxy.

At some point people need to remember why exactly we don’t like Nazis.

It wasn’t the Hugo Boss uniforms, we kinda liked those.

It was because they behaved like the Scottish Police do now.

 

About Eeyore

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

22 Replies to “A video from the increasingly Orwellian Scottish Police”

  1. So blandly they blunder into repression. They say they want people to understand what hate-crime is, I think we would all like to see a legal definition. Otherwise, how can the police know if they are acting within the law? As we need to save public money, I say eliminate all the box-ticker jobs, but they’re the ones they keep inventing!

  2. and what about the jihad hate crimes of the religion of peace? Do they count? Do rapes of young girls count as hate crimes? How about Muslims driving trucks into crowds and blowing up people on busses and blowing up kids at a music concert? Or imams spitting out their love for Christians and Jews over and over in their “prayers?”

    Stupidity thy name is Kafir.

  3. The Founding Fathers – The U.S. Constitution – The Bill of Rights

    “Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?”
    By Publius Huldah – October 31, 2010

    Excerpt:

    c) You might well ask, “Why did our Founders add the first Ten Amendments if they were such a bad idea?”

    There was controversy over this! Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (9th para) that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers. And he was right! The supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square: no prayers at football games, no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, and Judge Roy Moore is ordered to take down the Ten Commandments.

    But some States refused to ratify the Constitution without them.

    So, the proper way to look at the first Ten Amendments is this: They are not the source of our Rights since our Rights come from God, and thus TRANSCEND the Constitution. The first Ten Amendments is merely a partial list of things the federal government may not do (they can’t take away our guns), and some things they must do (give accused persons a fair trial).
    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress-2/

    Rights Part 1 – Publius Huldah
    ThePubliusHuldah – Published on October 24, 2011

    • that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers

      Without the Bill of Rights the left (when they controlled Congress) and the Courts (when controlled by the left) would have stripped all of out rights away from us. Look at Britain, all of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights are the Rights of Free Born Englishmen. Rights that everyone in Britain use to enjoy, how many of those do they still have? Not Freedom of Speech, Not the right to keep and Bear arms. How many of the others still exit in Britain? Check it out and then tell me that the Bill of Rights was a mistake.

      • But our rights do not come from the U.S.Constitution.
        “Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God.
        Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.” PH
        Since our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the U.S.Constitution, then that means that our God given Rights or the Natural Law is for ALL men, in All places and at All times.

        Before our “Declaration of Independence” there was this:

        “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Republic/ On the Laws
        “Marcus Tullius Cicero, Who Gave Natural Law to the Modern World”
        by Jim Powell – January 1, 1997
        https://fee.org/articles/marcus-tullius-cicero-who-gave-natural-law-to-the-modern-world/

        “The Philippics” by Marcus Tullius Cicero
        LibriVox – Audiobook
        https://archive.org/details/philippics_cicero_0907_librivox2

        • Well duh, however without a written Constitution and an armed populace to protect those rights governments will try to take them from you. One of then things in you post was that the Bill of rights was useless because it gave a tyrant a target to try and remove those rights. The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are Rights that Canadians and Brits use to have but which were removed by the government.

          • I’m sorry Richard. I’m assuming that you are referring to the article posted above: “Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?,” and the excerpt: c) you might well ask…

            I should have also included “b),” The Hook.

            Excerpt:

            b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

            “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.

            Think carefully, for this is the hook: If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they “arise under the Constitution”; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

            When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of five judges on the supreme Court. But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the “bill of rights”, those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!

            So! Federal judges claim the power to regulate our political speech and religious speech. They claim the power to determine & regulate our property rights in the fruits of our own labors. They claim the power to control our retirements by forcing us to participate in social security! They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies.

            Thus, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases “arising under the Constitution.”

            This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God, the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

            And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all!
            https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress-2/

  4. You are right the first two amendments are probably in reverse order, without the Second Amendment in place the others are worthless. This is why the left spends so much time effort and political capital trying to destroy it. The right of self defense aka the right to resist is a natural right, it exists with or without government approval. Usually without government approval, after all what Government wants to let the unwashed masses have the tools that can be used to resist the Government when it wants to infringe on the other natural rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights.

  5. I’m thinking SHE should be arrested for the hate crime of torturing the Queen’s English. And they claim that Americans can’t speak properly. (eye roll)

  6. Technically speaking, a law that incriminates innocents selectively is criminal. Since only conservative whites will be charged, and it is not yet a crime to be a conservative white (hold breath), this needs to be challenged.

    • Some one will try but given what is happening in Britain there is less then a 50% chance it will succeed.

      You are talking about this being Orwellian, in many ways it is straight out of the book, Clockwork Orange.

      • Fahrenheit 451 is another prophetic book. The whole argument of the government in it is that burning ALL books is necessary to stop offence and dissent.

  7. I wonder if she’d consider it a hate crime if I told her I thought mohammed was a goat buggering, psychopathic, murdering pedophile who founded a death-cult political system wrapped up in the masquerade of a religion that is nothing but a cancer on humanity whose followers are a menace that need to be purged wherever they are found? Think that would be a hate crime?

Leave a Reply

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

*