Apparently the newly reelected British Prime Minister David Cameroon wants to have a Nazi revival in the U.K. He proposes to ban “extremism” and “hate speech” and prevent “radicals” from infiltrating the public sphere and influencing the young with “threatening” ideas. The Guardian states:
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
“Submit to police in advance” my writing? I Don’t. Think. So.
Well, given that “democracy” is mob rule, where the majority has the power to rule over the minority at the expense of individual liberty and private property, I HOPE that more and more people are a “threat to the functioning of democracy.” In fact, it was democracy itself that brought on the fascist political correctness that we have today, in which lesbian couples can take a private businessperson to court to punish her for not accepting the lesbians’ lifestyle and in which some countries are by law criminalizing so-called “hate speech.” But “hate” and “extreme” are subjective terms.
Frankly, I think that David Cameroon’s wanting to criminalize free speech or criticism of imbecilic and buffoonish government bureaucrats (such as himself), which is what “undermining democracy” could be defined as to these fascists, is itself “extreme,” and therefore Cameroon himself should be the first to be jailed if this proposal becomes law.
David Cameroon is taking the U.K. down the path of Nazi Germany, and that’s no exaggeration, with “anti-terrorism” really becoming anti-criticism of government morons mixed with political correctness and intolerance of “hate speech.” According to the History Learning Site,
The prime mover in censorship was the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. It was his responsibility to see that the German people were fed with material acceptable to the Nazi state. Newspapers, radio and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Even the film industry became controlled by the Nazis where the leading light was Leni Riefenstahl – who, though favoured by Hitler, did not enjoy a good relationship with Goebbels. Music was controlled by the Nazis. Music by Gustav Mahler and Felix Mendelssohn was banned as they were both Jews. Jazz was also banned. Even telling jokes about Hitler became a serious offence – one to send you to the concentration camps and potentially death.
. . .
people in general were expected to report anything unacceptable to their local party chief. Those who knew something but did not report it were deemed as guilty as those who went against the system. Censorship ensured that the Nazis had the German public in their grip as they bombarded them on a daily basis on how their lives had been improved from the day Hitler became Germany’s leader.
And, as historian Robert Gellately, author of Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany noted on his Florida State University bio page:
“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.”
. . .
As he was uncovering who was acting as the Gestapo’s unsolicited agents, (Gellately) also began to discern what motivated neighbor to inform on neighbor. The surviving myth told the story of informers who were motivated either by a commitment to the Third Reich or by a fear of authority.
But the motives Gellately found were banal—greed, jealousy, and petty differences.
He found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments.
And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said.
In his recent article on the U.K. Prime Minister’s latest threat to freedom of speech, Glenn Greenwald observed,
Threats to free speech can come from lots of places. But right now, the greatest threat by far in the West to ideals of free expression is coming not from radical Muslims, but from the very Western governments claiming to fight them. The increasingly unhinged, Cheney-sounding governments of the U.K., Australia, France, New Zealand and Canada — joining the U.S. — have a seemingly insatiable desire to curb freedoms in the name of protecting them: prosecuting people for Facebook postings critical of Western militarism or selling “radical” cable channels, imprisoning people for “radical” tweets, banning websites containing ideas they dislike, seeking (and obtaining) new powers of surveillance and detention for those people (usually though not exclusively Muslim citizens) who hold and espouse views deemed by these governments to be “radical.”
Sadly, so many people in the “West” (if we can still call it that now, given that much of the West has become so Third World), have become so thin-skinned that much of what people say or write now is “offensive” or considered “hateful” that people just can’t stand to even hear certain things as though such utterings are perceived as actual physical assaults.
But regarding the relationship between the people and our governments in these “Western” societies, the dumb cluck people-sheeple are giving their ruling bureaucrats so much power that such power is going to the bureaucrats’ heads and they then start waging wars on their critics, wars on journalists (and whistleblowers especially), and now these hacks want to use the legal powers of their regimes to criminalize criticism of them, the Rulers. That’s mainly what this is about.
So, freedom of speech means that I have the right to compare David Cameroon with Nazis, you bet it does (especially when I am making a legitimate point and that his actions are something that the people should be concerned about). And I have the right to spell his name “Cameroon” when it should be “Cameron” just to kid around which I like to do.
And freedom of speech means that I can criticize selfish lesbian couples who extort private businesspeople by taking them to court rather than just finding someone else to do business with. Freedom of speech means that I can say or write anything I want that isn’t an explicit threat to someone, anything at all even if it might “offend” someone. Freedom of Speech means that I can write in defense of Pamela Geller’s right to offend Muslims, and it also means that I have a right to criticize Israel (and say that the Canadian regime is wrong to criminalize that, too!). And of course, just as I have a right to criticize evil government bureaucrats, their minions and their enforcers, I also have a right to criticize the fools who vote for them, in America, the U.K., and everywhere else.