State Censorship out in the Open

Back in 2009 I blogged about censorship and especially the newly enshrined in law Criminal Justice and Immigration Act and especially the parts of the act referencing the prohibition of viewing violent pornography.

I said at the time, the act was so broad in it's description of what was proscribed, that it could make it illegal to view online anything the Government deemed unsuitable. Violent Pornography was the useful excuse to enact the law (I mean it's bad, really bad, so we should ban it, right?), but the wording of the law enacted was so broad in scope that it could quite easily be applied to anything, including political viewpoints (oh bugger, you didn't see that coming did you?) (well yes I did actually).

We had the news via Breitbart that the governments considering making the viewing of "far right" material illegal. |No need to enact new law, the law is already there thanks to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. With  law already enacted you could drive a coach and horses through it, or get even a half-decent lawyer to argue "watching puppies do the cutest things" on the internet illegal, the Government can just change their interpretation of the law and they're good to go and round up the troublemakers and lock them up for a decade or more.

But who determines what is "Far Right"? Nigel Farage is termed far right by many newspapers... are we to be banned from listening to him? President Trump and the Republican party in the US is termed far right in their views. Are they to become illegal?

Tommy Robinson is termed far right by many and the term sticks because he is a minority of one and hasn't the political or financial power to change that. But will it become illegal to listen to his message?

Just who decides where the line is crossed from right of centre to far right and how clear will that border be defined. Who has that authority? The Government? Will they be issuing leaflets to every household explaining what groupthink is expected of  them so they can avoid prosecution?  Will it be the Police and their officers (those bastions of probity)  that will arbitrarily enforce the law when told by political masters?

This news and the news of the recent refusal to allow Lauren Southern, Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone into the UK show that there is a concerted movement to stifle free speech against the current globalist agenda.

Muslim Immigrants and Antifa are the useful stooges that allow the Government to stifle debate. Tommy Robinson calls out Muslim extremism and hate speech and he is labelled far right and racist. The trio detained at the weekend have Conservative Christian views, are threatened by Antifa and are detained at the border to remove the violence threatened against them (rather than detaining those that threaten violence).

It seems that the agenda to promote the globalist viewpoint to the exclusion of others is well advanced.

The continued mutterings from the Elite about ignoring the Brexit referendum result or making the deal so unpalatable that people clamour to remain, or a second referendum or commons vote on the final option are all part of the same agenda. Disallowing democracy and freedom of speech, promoting the global elitist viewpoint. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Also when it gets to censorship of political viewpoints, what I said a few days ago about the cornerstones of democracy (free speech and political freedom) are badly eroded this week.

Child Sexual Exploitation.

It seems that yet again we're hearing of yet another child sexual exploitation scandal.

The Mirror broke the story, which by all reports is horrendous.  Cases go back to the Eighties, involve several hundred girls being abused and also significantly deaths associated with the abuse cases.

We all know that these rings are predominantly run by Muslim men and hushed up by their community. Such is their warped sense of "community" no one outside the grooming gangs thought to help stamp it out. The Muslim community, by their inaction sanctioned this behaviour. I've seen it in Action up North.

Of course the BBC grudgingly report the news, without once mentioning the word Muslim. But that's par for the course these days. The media are running scared of mentioning the M-word, just in case someone does a Charlie-Hebdo on them.

The Police too are running scared, so political have they become that upholding the law is secondary to tax collection and polictial correctness. God forbid they are actually caught enforcing the law. I mean, social workers were yet again telling Police the stories, gaining evidence and the Police did nothing. I guess being glorified tax extractors and rent-a-bullies are all we can expect from them.

If the question is not raised at PMQs this Wednesday, then it will be an even bigger scandal.

If deaths can be proven and the inactivity of the Police is also proven, then the line has been crossed. Enough is enough. Telford should be looking closely at John Campion, it's elected Police and Crime Commissioner. If necessary electing an official with the backbone to act.

Disgrace of Positive Discrimination.

It seems to me that positive discrimination the like that popped up regarding Laura Pidcock on Question Time is a very destructive force. How come you ask?

Well, I believe in getting a job on merit. I don't believe that people should get a job based on who they know, or what golf club they belong to. By the same token I don't believe a person should get a job based solely on Gender or Race.

It always should be the best person for the job, irrespective of race, creed, colour, disability or gender.

I've seen time and time again even as a white, able, male it's not what you know, but who you know that gets people into jobs. There is discrimination in all areas of life unfortunately.

When I worked in I.T. I had to work twice as hard to get into the higher profile jobs I did get into. Many were by referrals and word-of mouth from previous colleagues, because without that the selection process was biased. Mainly because if people looked at my CV, yes they could see I'd worked on projects at some of the bluest of blue-chip corporations and banks (and I mean Goldmann-Sachs, HSBC, Commerzbank, that sort of thing), but I failed their selection criteria by not being University educated or in interview by speaking with a Northern Accent.

So I do know discrimination.

All the same, I wouldn't want a job just because a company had a shortage or Northern-Accented, non-university educated, lower-class white males. I would find the fact I'd been chosen not for my ability to do the job, but for what I was offensive and demeaning. I want people to employ me because I'm good at my job, not because they had to.

Obviously I'm not in their shoes, but I do wonder why people do take such jobs and crow about positive discrimination being a big step forward. I mean, Laura Pidcock wasn't a shining example of the best of the bunch on Thursday night, that's for sure.

The suffragettes and feminists worked hard for female equality, not for them to be discriminated against in any form, negative and positive. How would they look at women being put into positions just because they are female? Isn't that just the same as a patronising pat on the head? I would like someone to explain the difference.

The same goes for thye black minority, are they discrediting the legacy of equal rights activists by insisting on positive discrimination? I hear a lot about Black or B.A.M.E-only groups. How would the likes of Dr Martin Luther King like that, after fighting for EQUAL rights for everyone?

On both counts activists should look really closely and understand what positive discrimination as actually doing. The end does not justify the means and dicrimination of any type is counterproductive and divisive.

Of course now there are so many self-assesed minorities, the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm talking about the row bubbling away in the Labour party about all-female shortlists being open to transgender candidates (especially males that identify as female but have not fully transitioned). Sorry, but in my mind equality is equality: without fear or favour. But that's why I hate positive discrimination of any kind.

Of course the biggest can of worms that remains to be opened is Sport. Just how will the authorities square the issue of trans women or men joining in sport?

Maybe the Labour row is a good thing and it shows up how stupid the idea of shortlists and positive discrimination is. I doubt it, but I live in hope...