Terrorism, the law and the end of free speech
As people begin wake up in their tens of thousands to the fact that we are, and have always been lied to on a grand scale by our leaders and those that control them, we see the beginning of the clamp-down on free speech and the signs that our free society as we know it could be about to be quietly and subtly put to sleep. A wave of informative and revolutionary material is now circulating in online forums, much of which exposes the systematic wrongdoing of our leaders and representatives, local national and international, exposing the true extent of what an illusion our so-called caring and democratic society is.
Furthermore website such as this are rapidly uncovering things that most were previously not even aware of, increasing the public sense of anger and revulsion at what our systems of authority are really up to. Governments around the world are becoming increasingly nervous as their camouflage wears thin and layers are torn from their armour. We are rapidly moving towards a state of discontent which could, if not quashed, lead to a form of revolution.
This website is essentially an awareness website that gathers information about something very serious that is happening around us, and tries to convince others of the facts and theories we have formed from analysing what we see. We also try to rally people into peaceful action.
The action that this website encourages takes the form of leafleting, signing petitions, talking to people, writing to those in authority and organisation etc, and peaceful protest. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that those means of protest and campaigning remain peaceful and within the law. We do not agree with or encourage any form of violence, or aggression or intimidation, be it physical or verbal to person or property and try to make that very clear in everything we do. Even during our demonstrations we take great care to communicate with the police and organisations affected to ensure we act within the law and do not cause offense, obstruction or distress of any kind to anyone. When we speak to people about this topic we are polite and courteous. On the rare occasion we have experienced rudeness towards us we never react. We feel this is the way to gain respect and we go to great effort to try to ensure everyone involved with or associated with us or our events follows the same strict rules of engagement. The only threat we have ever refereed to is the threat of legal action.
Despite this, it seem that our Prime minister is extremely concerned about what we, and others like us, are doing and seems to be trying to take steps to make what we do, our website and our information illegal. David Cameron recently made one of the most bizarre speeches in political history. During an address to the UN he made repeated associations between non-violent dissemination of information, debate, ideology and Islamic extremism. The speech flips unjustifiably from IS to common conspiracy theory, and tries to inextricably link the two. The underlying and repeated message here is that it is no longer OK to question anything on the grounds that one day someone you don’t know might take your idea and do something violent simply because you spoke about it, somehow suggesting that all violence is the result of public debate of any kind.
You can read the text of the entire speech on the Downing Street website by clicking here.
Below are some extracts from that address with some particularly relevant parts in bold type:
Let me take each of these in turn The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism. This is nothing to do with Islam which is a peaceful religion which inspires countless acts of generosity every day. Islamist extremism, on the other hand, believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a quasi medieval state. To defeat ISIL and organisation like it we must defeat this ideology in all its forms.
As evidence emerges about the background of those convicted of terrorist offenses it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view. The peddling of lies that 9/11 was somehow a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear to defeat the ideology of extremism, we need to deal with all forms of extremism, not just violent extremism.
There it is; from the horse’s mouth. If you dare to question anything that is reported as the truth by press or government you are now considered, if this becomes law, and extremist. That essentially amounts to the death of free speech and the introduction of a police state. Lets continue with the speech though.
For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons.
Of course some will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual enquiry, but i ask you, would we sit back and allow right wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux Klansmen to recruit on our university campuses. No. So we shouldn’t stand by and allow any form of non-violent extremism…
We all need help and to help them with programs that channel young people away from these poisonous ideologues, and we need the strongest international focus on tackling this ideology which is why here at the united nations the United Kingdom is calling for a new special representative on extremism.
Fighting extremism will never be enough. Communism wasn’t defeated simply by pointing out its flaws but by showing that the alternative economic freedoms, democracy, the rule of law, these things could build a better society and a better world….
When the safety and security of our people is at stake we must be uncompromising in our response. That starts at home. For our part in the United Kingdom we are introducing new powers. The ability to seize passports and stop suspects from travelling. To allow us to strip British identity from dual nationals, and temporarily prevent some British nationals getting back into our country. To ensure that airlines comply with our no fly lists and security screening requirements, and to enable our police and security services to apply for stronger locational constraints on those in the UK who pose a risk.
To the untrained mind this is simply the ramblings of a leader trying to deal with a difficult situation, namely the fact that people are really starting to realise in huge numbers that all is not as it seems and that we are being lied to on a scale unimaginable to most until now, but don’t be fooled, this is the most dangerous speech probably made by anyone since WW2.
The implications of what are suggested here are deeply disturbing. Much of what is said is cloaked in an Islamic extremist context, but the deliberate wording belies its true intentions and meaning. As with everything our governments do, they explain things in a way that suggests our interests are at heart, but underneath lie sinister intentions. Legislation introduced to tackle this so-called extremist ideological threat to our society will be abused to persecute anyone who publishes anything that questions what the government do and say. Websites will be shut down, people will be arrested, material will be confiscated… 30 years late, but the thought police are getting kitted up and ready for action !
What nobody seems to have considered though, is that if the context is changed and it were to be applied to other areas of public debate it would effectively prevent any form of objection to anything. Imagine a website that campaigned about traffic wardens issuing tickets unjustifiably, or an anti-abortion website. Both these examples would mean that the persons publishing those ideas could now be considered terrorists and possibly arrested for incitement of violence under new terrorist laws, simply because what they believe might one day cause someone they don’t know to commit a violent act.
To call this speech sinister would be an understatement. Nothing was made of it in the mainstream press of course, but what we see here is the beginning of the end for free speech. The association of any form of questioning of the official line on any subject with terrorism, simply on the grounds that it is potentially influential in the causing of future violent acts is completely unjustifiable and probably illegal under current law, however it is the implication that the law will be changed to reflect this new attitude that is most worrying.
If this becomes law the editor of this website could be accused of being complicit in terrorism simply because the website has posted evidence of the fact that aircraft are spraying chemicals unknown into the sky. The law will be used to show that this might cause someone to commit a violent act as a result of simply reading this material. We will be taking legal advice on this and also keeping a very close eye on how this develops.
If Mr. Cameron thinks he can slip in changes in the law that essentially make us, and others like us, terrorist for exposing something then he really needs to think again. That is basically the beginning of the police state, and the end of free speech as we know it. We do not think the British public will tolerate that under any circumstances. Quite how he thinks he is going to convince our legal system to adopt this new change is not clear yet, but under the current climate of fear that has been created, nothing would surprise us now. The obvious way, as described in our other recent article, is the introduction of a state of emergency. Under a state of emergency anything can be introduced without justification or public approval (as we understand it).
We look forward to the appointing of the new minster for terrorism. Perhaps we need to go buy a copy of 1984 and brush up on the ideology of such a development. One thing that did strike us was the irony of the situation. He (Mr Cameron) claims to be introducing this new minister and change in the law so as to protect us from ideologies that might be detrimental to our way of life. The ideology of the police state, which is essentially what he is proposing, is the most direct threat to our way of life imaginable. Will David Cameron be hoist by his own petard. We think so. Wouldn’t it be beautiful if he made himself, under the terms of this new legislation, a terrorist liable to arrest. It is not hard to imagine that this legislation would result in widespread violence as a result of many thousands of people being labeled as terrorist simply for speaking their minds in a non-violent way.
In response to this speech, this is our message to The Rt. Honourable Mr. David Cameron MP in his capacity as our Prime Minister:
Prime Minster, we urge you not to incite widespread violence by removing the right to free speech in this country. Free speech is the cornerstone of our society and a fundamental principle which many fought and died to protect in the 2 world wars. If you cannot protect us from a few rag-tag violent extremists in other parts of the world without dismantling our free society and preserve our cherished way of life, then we suggest you are not fit for the job as our political leader and we urge you to resign immediately.
To draw parallels between violent extremists of any kind and those in the UK and abroad who simply seek to discover and disseminate truth is a dangerous, provocative and reckless act, and could be seen by many as a direct provocation, act of aggression and threat to the British people, institution and everything it stands for. It could be regarded by many as unconstitutional and a direct attack on our very way of life. You sir, may therefore be regarded by many, and possibly even by the laws you propose, as the terrorist.
We the people of the UK do not agree to this new ideology of fear and control, or the criminalisation of free speech that you are proposing. It is dangerous and a threat to our way of life. If you try to dismantle our free society by the introduction of a state of emergency or the subsequent or independent introduction of draconian legislation prohibiting the dissemination of material that openly discusses any topic but that does not promote violence, you will be inciting violence yourself by your very actions against the interests and principles of our society and we will hold you accountable under the terms of the new legislation.
We look forward to your response Mr Cameron.