PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-FREE SPEECH ACTIVISM

 

PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-FREE SPEECH ACTIVISM

 

Looking beyond the current froth of the Conservative leadership election it is noteworthy how large a majority there seems to be in parliament across all the British Establishment parties, to crack down on free speech and on many traditional English civil liberties. 

 

The On-Line Harms Bill in particular is a Bill that would give concern to any who cares at all for free speech.  In addition to that, there is the clamp down on the right to protest whereby you will be able to get up to 10 years imprisonment for taking part in a protest where you could “Annoy” somebody!  You might think that annoying those people that you are protesting against might be the obvious purpose of such a protest! 

 

We also have the whole “Cancel Culture” phenomenon whereby those members of the Statist Multi-culturalist Establishment who now control many of our public institutions are able to prevent people hearing any contrary narrative.  There was also, of course, the whole Orwellian displacement of free speech during the “Pandemic”.  We were not allowed to protest or otherwise tweet. Also we were not allowed to even tweet anything that disputed their narrative. Anything broadcast on any of the Mainstream Media which challenged the narrative was also banned.

 

We can see where all this is heading towards.  It may not be long before anyone challenging the new British Establishment, or Multi-culturalism, or Globalism, or Internationalism, is likely to be arrested.

 

We saw some of that with a Reclaim activist who merely re-tweeted Laurence Fox’s jokey meme transforming the LGBGTQ+ flag into a Swastika being arrested by Hampshire Police for the possibility for having “Offended” somebody.

 

England was once known for our Rule of Law and our Freedoms - but no longer.  The British authorities think that the Rule of Law is us doing what they tell us to do, which shows us how far gone they are, as the whole point of the Rule of Law was that the authorities were restricted in what they could do by Law. 

 

It is however, as it often is, worth delving back into history to see whether there are any parallels in the past. 

 

I have recently been reading extracts from William Cobbett’s “Rural Rides” from the 1820’s.  William Cobbett was amongst many other attributes of this very able man, a radical politician, who was then called radical for being in favour of universal suffrage i.e. the right of everyone to vote!

 

In 1819 the Parliament passed a series of Six Acts which made it the crime of sedition even to criticise Parliament.  The consequence was that William Cobbett, along with many other “radical” politicians, was regularly being arrested and sometimes locked up for simply criticising the Government and Parliament. 

 

It did take 12 years of campaigning to succeed in getting the enactment of the Great Reform Act in 1832 which brought Cobbett into Parliament and onto the Front Bench and radically changed politics.  By the end of that century we had universal manhood suffrage and less than 100 years later in 1927, we had universal adult suffrage. 

 

The point that I am making is that looking back into history we can now barely imagine the mind-set of a Parliament which opposed widening the franchise so viciously that it would have its opponents locked up! 

 

This is a vivid example of just how wrong headed the current Establishment approach may be in criminalising its opponents.  They are thereby demonstrating that they do not really have very good arguments for their position!

 

Of course, if they did have good arguments, they would be using them, rather than trying to close down our arguments which they fear are likely to beat theirs!

 

My message therefore is don’t be discouraged.  However bad the positon may appear to be now it doesn’t mean that the counter arguments are lost.

 

 

BORIS NAILS HIS COLOURS TO THE MAST?

BORIS NAILS HIS COLOURS TO THE MAST?

During the Leadership “Debate” between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, a question was asked of them as to whether they preferenced the Union (of the United Kingdom) against Brexit (from the European Union).  Typically for somebody who is really just a footloose Liberal Internationalist (rather than a grounded patriot) Boris claimed that he would preference the Union of the United Kingdom and would drop Brexit.

Not only was this answer very revealing as to his limited attachment to any sort of Brexit, but it was also very revealing about his attitude towards England and English taxpayers.  In the run-up to this Election Campaign he had already committed his Government to giving far more money to Scotland than even the vastly over generous subsidies that it was previously getting under the Barnett Formula.  Naturally for someone like Boris, English taxpayers’ pockets are there to be picked for his personal and political advantage. 

I do hope that English taxpayers do remember where Boris’ “loyalties” lie in due course when people wake up to the fact that his “Deal” is the flimsiest Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) rehashing of May’s “Deal”.  It really should be considered to be an abject surrender document!

CLEARING THE WEEDS IN THE POLITICAL GARDEN

CLEARING THE WEEDS IN THE POLITICAL GARDEN

As any gardener knows, the first thing you have got to do in sorting out a flower bed that has become choked with weeds is to remove all the weeds and cut out any of the dead flowers etc. in order to make it worthwhile digging in your fertilizer or compost and planting your new plants.

This is the sort of stage that we have reached with our Parliament, which is now stuffed, in both the Commons and the Lords, with people who are not merely unpatriotic, but are actually anti-patriotic and are hostile to the very idea of our Nation.  They are Internationalists and Multiculturalists. 

For our national politics to flourish we need to see such weeds removed from our political flowerbed and also all the deadwood and old decayed plants as well, so that we can have a fresh and more honest and a patriotic revival!

In this sense it is welcome to see that Boris Johnson’s Government has had the guts to withdraw the Whip from all those Conservative MPs that betrayed the trust that had been placed in them by voting against Boris Johnson this week.

Even better was seeing Amber Rudd resign form Cabinet and the Conservative Party in response. She is the classic career-minded entryist who, in ideological terms, is a Liberal Democrat Remainer, Multiculturalist, Globalist, but could see that her career prospects would be better if she badged up as a Conservative.

These people were all elected on the ticket of implementing Brexit and, as ‘Conservatives’ were expected to be loyal, not only to their manifesto mandate, the country, but also to their Party Leader.  They proved disloyal on all counts.  They have no place to be remaining in our Parliament and it will be good to have them all thrown out of Parliament come the next General Election.

As for those who have crossed the floor to join other parties, they have gone fully beyond the pale and so will have to stand or fall come the next General Election with their new party rosettes on.  Let’s see what their local electorates make of them then!  I suspect none of them will be re-elected.

Less visibly, our Left-wing biased media has been more coy about reporting the movement of Labour MPs to the Liberal Democrats.  The latest one being Luciana Berger. 

Looked at from the point of view of purging our politics of the corrupt old ideologically meaningless “broad church” Establishment parties of Labour and the Conservatives, both of these developments are to be welcomed.   

We need to move to a politics where its voters can rely upon a party label to tell us much of what is in the political tin, as we would expect to be able to do if we were buying tinned food.  

If an ordinary trader made a business out of putting labels of baked beans on tins of peas, they could expect to be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act.  We urgently need something similar with our politicians to enable us to hold them to account if they fail to deliver on what they promised when they were standing for election.

I notice that those MPs that betrayed their electorates often talk about Edmund Burke’s idea that he was “a representative” of his electorate rather than his electorates “delegate”.  It is however worth remembering that, despite that explanation sounding quite grand, in fact at the next election, when he had proved himself to be unwilling to do what his electorate wanted him to do, he lost his seat! And quite right too! 

We need to move away from the bogus pretences of so-called “Liberal Democracy”, where undemocratic elites hide behind the pretence of democracy.  I think that we need to move instead to a proper functioning “Popular Democracy” where politicians are expected to live up to focussing on doing what is needed to be done to deliver the Will of the People. 

What do you think?