Friday, October 31, 2014

New UK law would ban critics of Sharia from broadcasting, protesting or even posting messages on Facebook

New UK law would ban critics of Sharia from broadcasting, protesting or even posting messages on Facebook

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/new-uk-law-would-ban-critics-of-sharia-from-broadcasting-protesting-or-even-posting-messages-on-facebook

Theresa-May_2606239b

The last free person in Britain, if there is one, might as well turn out the lights. If this becomes law, Britain is finished as a free society. As the law would also forbid opposition to gay marriage, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a proponent of Sharia protested against gay marriage — but Muslim groups are largely for it, since it opens the door to the legalization of polygamy.

In any case, future free historians, if there are any, will look back at David Cameron and Theresa May as essentially saboteurs and traitors who administered the coup de grace to their own nation as a free republic. If Britain were still a sane society, as soon as this law was suggested there would have been a no-confidence vote and the Conservative government would have fallen — followed by the arrest of Cameron and May and criminal proceedings against them. Instead, Britain appears prepared to go quietly, although civil war still very likely looms in its future.

“Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn,” by John Bingham, the Telegraph, October 31, 2014:
Anyone who criticises Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.
Mrs May outlined the proposal in a speech at the Tory party conference in which she spoke about the threat from the so-called Islamic State – also known as Isis and Isil – and the Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram.
But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
The obvious problem with this is that Leftists and Islamic supremacists constantly advance the false claim that opposition to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is justifying hatred against people, and the Cameron government clearly endorses this view — hence the ban on Pamela Geller and me. So this law will be used to curtail any opposition to the advance of Sharia in the UK.
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact.
The National Secular Society and the Christian institute – two organisations with often diametrically opposing interests – said they shared fears that the broad scope of extremism could represent a major threat to free speech.
Keith Porteous Wood, director of the NSS, said secularists might have to think twice before criticising Christianity or Islam. He said secularists risk being Islamophobic and racist because of their high profile campaigns against the advance of Sharia law in the UK.
“The Government should have every tool possible to tackle extremism and terrorism, but there is a huge arsenal of laws already in place and a much better case needs to be made for introducing draconian measures such as Extremism Disruption Orders, which are almost unchallengeable and deprive individuals of their liberties,” he said.
“Without precise legislative definitions, deciding what are ‘harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate’ is subjective and therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are a vital part of a democratic society….
Yes, but obviously not of British society. Not anymore.

No comments:

Post a Comment