Labour MP in UK assist in total destruction of central freedoms with fake challenge

Posted on by

First, those who don’t agree that the entire purpose of freedom of speech is to criticize, mock, ridicule and otherwise challenge religious and political authority should ask themselves what is its purpose then? Because the second you cannot challenge or speak your mind about political and religious authority in any way you want, then everything else gets placed under the rubric of either politics, or religion. Including women’s fashion. Don’t believe me? Try and criticize what women have to wear in Islamic countries and suggest something more fashionable and see how that goes for you.

And now, the dialectic in action with another Labour MP in on the assist for the total destruction of freedom of speech in the UK:

We have often described how in Canada and elsewhere, the media would pretend to speak truth to power by bringing on government officials at one level or another and appear to be asking tough questions, but in reality were demanding that the governing leftists do more to crush freedoms and questioned why so much liberty was still permitted.

For example why more harsh vaxx mandates were not imposed, or why no curfews like Quebec had in a challenging tone. This allowed the government to appear benevolent by saying those measures were not needed at the time, but also opening the doors for these measures when they thought they would be. At no time did the MSM ask them if any of these measures where ever necessary or even legal or constitutional.

Here we see the exact same play in the UK Parliament. A Muslim Labour MP named Tahir Ali wants desecration of all religious texts and … well read it from his own Tweet:

Full text:

During PMQs today, I asked the Prime Minister to introduce measures to prohibit desecration of religious texts and targeted vilification of all the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths.

As November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month, it is vital the Government takes clear and measurable steps to prevent acts that fuel hatred in society.

Nice play. It makes Muslims look like they care about other “Abrahamic faiths” to get what they want, which is Islamic blasphemy laws, while the communists get total control of freedom of speech, which is what they want. An accelerant is guaranteed to follow if this proceeds at all:

Buddhists, Hindus and all observers or just people who identify with faiths other than the “Abrahamic” ones, will demand the same protection for their own symbols, deities and so on. And of course, they will get it. Karl Marx will be protected no doubt, and along with him, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and yes, probably even Hitler, unless they continue to use him as the God of Evil instead of the socialist tyrant he was, in competition with Stalin. And with each new restriction, the state grows more and more powerful.

Below, South Park explains this scam in the not-ironically now banned episodes called, Cartoon Wars. This is a short clip from Episode 1 of the 2 part series. Anyone who has not seen it owes it to themselves to find the (I think 5) banned episodes of South Park and watch them all. This was first broadcast on April 12, 2006. That would be going on 19 years ago.

Loss of freedoms is done by increments, where the first increment is sold to the public as a noble or good enough thing to justify an ‘exception’ to fundamental freedoms.

Making antisemitism illegal is far too good an example to ignore.

Chat GPT: “During The Weimar Republic (1919-1933): In the interwar period, following World War I, the Weimar Republic provided Jews with legal equality, enshrined in the constitution of the republic. Jews were full citizens and participated widely in the cultural, political, and economic life of the country. ”

That made no difference once Hitler worked his way into power, just as all the hate speech laws make no difference today whatsoever, other than protecting antisemitic speech, and ignoring its targets. Examples of that are too numerous to even link to, although recent clips with Ezra Levant are exemplars.

We all have to stand up for all freedom of speech, at least in the legal space. This doesn’t mean private domains like this have to tolerate speech which is insulting or anathema. But neither would we consider it a legal matter, or one deserving of reporting to any kind of authority unless it contained a criminal threat with immediacy. In other words, a threat with a time and place attached to it.

More importantly, we have to know what we see, when someone appears to be defending our rights when in fact they are targeting them for obliteration.

About Eeyore

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

4 Replies to “Labour MP in UK assist in total destruction of central freedoms with fake challenge”

  2. Just who are these “prophets of the Abrahamic faiths”?

    I get these two violent women confused–Yael and Judith. See https://grolierclub.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/jael-and-judith-a-pair-of-old-testament-heroines-on-a-sixteenth-century-panel-stamped-binding/

    Judaism considers them prophets, but it wouldn’t surprise me if someone would criticise or “villify” them. Maybe I just did by calling them violent.

    I am sure there are more sermons that villify King David’s duplicity in securing Bathsheba for himself than there are sermons that villify other prophets who engineer the death of the husband whose wife is desired.

    This laughable proposal shows how ignorant people are of the Holy Scriptues!

  3. The purpose of free speech is to be able to speak the truth and to shout “Fire” in a burning building. It doesn’t however mean that there will be no consequences, the truth is often unpopular.
    When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, the purpose was to protect people from bad Governments, and the rights were basic rights that apply to everyone. Now they’ve been enlarged upon and corrupted to mean something they were never meant to mean.

    “The law has become lawless, that is, it cannot see where the law should stop.” G. K. Chesterton

  4. If your rights come from the Government, they can also take them away.
    If your rights come from God, they are inalienable.