UK debate about criminalizing “Islamophobia” is really about taking total control of what is legal to say

First, a debate segment where the new communist Labour government of the UK is asked to define Islamophobia, the claim being the government intends to criminalize it.

Robert Spencer has a couple of paragraphs on it here. He makes the important distinction between attacking Muslim people who haven’t done anything and criticizing or exposing the ideology which motivates so many acts against Western peoples and institutions.

Our issue though is a lot more concerning. We see this, like nearly all leftist policies, as a thin disguise over another agenda. That of criminalizing truth itself. The right of the state to determine what is legal to say and what is not. The massive narrowing of what is permitted to say, and what is not. Or put more accurately perhaps, if a free society is defined by all that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted, and a totalitarian communist or Islamic state is defined as all that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden, then this legislation, which they in our opinion, quite deliberately will not define for reasons which will become clear later in this post, is the topping point between a free society and an authoritarian one. Although in the case of the UK that claim could be made over events taking place every week since the new Labour communist government took over.

Please watch this important video from the OCSE meeting several years ago where the various influential diplomats and journalists explain how truth can be hate speech. The OCSE is a meaningful group. They help set policies across the West.

OSCE from 2013: Communist think tank Runnymede discusses Islamophobia:

Most of this video in fact does deal with islamophobia, even if they don’t use that word much. But it is all equivocating about criminalizing criticism of Islam based on hate-speech narratives.

Leftist language appears in nearly all cases to be a kind of sheep costume on a predatory wolf. Which goes a long way to explaining the logo of the staggeringly influential British communist think tank, the Fabian Society.

I asked Chat GPT the following Question:

What is UK PM Starmer’s relationship to the Fabian Society

Chat GPT itself is a cunning tool to try and move all thought, history and dialogue to the left. One has to treat it like a live virus vaccine. Too much of it will give you the disease you are trying to inoculate yourself against.

Here is its answer: 

“Keir Starmer’s relationship with the Fabian Society is closely aligned with his political philosophy and leadership of the Labour Party. While he is not strictly a Fabian in every aspect, his policies and approaches often resonate with Fabian principles, particularly in his focus on gradual reform and social democracy. In 2021, Starmer published a 12,000-word essay, The Road Ahead, under the Fabian Society’s banner, outlining his vision for Britain. This publication reaffirmed his alignment with key Fabian ideals, such as a commitment to fair wages, responsible public spending, and support for working families.

The Fabian Society, a long-established socialist think tank, advocates for democratic socialism and has influenced Labour leaders for over a century. Starmer’s focus on incremental change, rather than radical overhaul, reflects the Society’s approach, which favors reformist methods over revolutionary tactics. His leadership strategy mirrors Fabian values, particularly in his emphasis on evidence-based policy, worker’s rights, and environmental action?-

(Fabians, LabourList, Wikipedia)

 

Thus, while Starmer is not exclusively defined by Fabian ideology, he shares many of the Society’s core values, and his association with it helps shape his Labour Party leadership.”

Ok then. Even at face-value we get the picture. And when we decode it from ChatGPT to plain talk it gets clearer. Starmer is a communist, but distanced himself enough from the Fabians to make himself believable once elected as PM.

In other words, the debate segment at the top of this post, DELIBERATELY does not define Islamophobiia in order to make it maleable enough to apply to anyone for any reason.

Interesting.

Know who else was a member of the Fabians? A founding member in fact?

George Bernard Shaw.

Here he is explaining what a socialist state should do to those who socialists feel are not valuable to society:

Christopher Hitchens did warn us: