The UK’s far-left Labour Party has long partnered with Islamic supremacist groups who have been working to advance the Islamization of the UK. Its former leader Jeremy Corbyn was a virulent anti-Semite who befriended some of the worst global jihadists, apparently approving of their desire to obliterate Israel.
Now the Labour Party is doing the bidding of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and other Islamic supremacist groups (and individuals) who are determined to shut down the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of any free society. “Labour’s shadow government minister for legal aid, Karl Turner MP, has said that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to ‘generally offend.'”
While Turner does not specifically identify Islam, only Islamic supremacists have been continuously challenging the freedom of speech. Also, Charlie Hebdo was specifically mentioned.” Conservative MP Simon Clarke responded to Turner: “Freedom of speech *precisely* involves the freedom to offend. This is the whole point, from Charlie Hebdo to Voltaire to Rushdie.” To that, Turner shot back: “Of course everyone has the right to freedom of expression, Simon. But that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences from what they have said.”
The murderous “consequences” of offending Islam are endemic in places such as Pakistan, and this barbarism should be the primary cause of offense to the “Lefty lawyer” Turner, if he has any interest in defending human rights. That barbarism has no place in any democracy, and neither does any group or individual that cannot assimilate to Western culture and respect the rights to offend enshrined in democracy. The Muslims who fight tooth and nail against the freedom of speech are essentially working to force Islamic blasphemy laws upon the West.
“Labour MP Declares Free Speech Does Not Include Freedom to ‘Generally Offend,’” by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, October 13, 2020:
Labour’s shadow government minister for legal aid, Karl Turner MP, has said that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to “generally offend.”
Turner, a self-proclaimed “#LeftyLawyer”, issued his remarkable statement in response to Brexit campaigner turned conservative commentator Darren Grimes defending himself against London police investigating him over an interview in which one of his guests said something offensive.
“Freedom of speech Darren doesn’t afford people the freedom to make racist remarks or generally offend,” the politician declared in a now-deleted tweet, adding: “I shall say nothing further given that you say [the Metropolitan Police] are investigating a complaint.”
The backlash against the lawyer MP was swift and extensive, ranging from members of the public to Members of Parliament.
“Freedom of speech *precisely* involves the freedom to offend. This is the whole point, from Charlie Hebdo to Voltaire to Rushdie,” responded Simon Clarke, the Conservative MP for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland.
“Of course everyone has the right to freedom of expression, Simon. But that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences from what they have said,” Turner shot back — somewhat alarmingly, given the context of Clarke’s reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
“As I understand it, the Police are investigating complaints. And it is right that they should investigate racist behaviour,” Turner insisted.
The Labour MP spent much of the day issuing similar, effectively copy-and-pasting similar responses to multiple accounts, as more and more people including the (in)famously forthright Ricky Gervais weighed in on the controversy — but had little success.
“My great-grandfather had the right to freedom of expression. That he was shot by the government for using it is neither her[e] nor there, apparently,” remarked college lecturer Yuan Yi Zhu acidly, in response to Turner’s claim that freedom of expression “doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences” of exercising it….
Buraq says
I find Karl Turner’s remark ‘generally offensive’. Will he be prosecuted? Nope! Point made. He’s talking through his butt! Clown!
curious george says
This quote seems to accurately describe him and those like him.
“A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one.”
– Moliere (1622-1673)
Rufolino says
I’m offended by something or other every day. It’s called life. But I don’t go around chopping the heads off people who offend me.
David says
If we all did this, there would be a lot of decapitated muslims. (A rare of not non-existent event by non-muslims)
Islam is on the offensive, and it is offensive.
gravenimage says
Good point, Buraq.
LB says
“generally offensive”
What does that even mean? Show me the legal meaning of those words, I want to see what do they entail in maximum detail. If he’s a lawyer as he claims to be, he should know that words, syntax and full sentences in legal documents must not, I repeat, MUST NOT have any dual or otherwise vague meaning to them whatsoever, lest they be interpreted in multiple ways and enforced as such.
This is especially important when writing up a law that can potentially affect the lives of all your citizens. That is, unless the parties involved in the writing process WANT it to be vague so they could selectively enforce it to their benefit. This is how you know that people behind such writings are crooked (doing it for the money) at best and pure evil (doing it for the detriment of certain groups and individuals) at worst.
Del says
Islam doesn’t “generally offend” intelligent free people, it directly offends them.
Check Burry says
Yes it does cover A right to offend. Some are far to easily offended though, wink wink.
Bad Penguin says
No one has the right to never be offended.
elee says
Hey Brits, get yourself a Bill of Rights. Study up on the term “heckler’s veto.”
Mount Zion says
Where does that come from , bevore mass migration freedom of speech not covering offensive speech was barely an issue , now all of a sudden we have a deeper understanding , new revelations or higher moral standards , right ? Bullsh..
It’s Islam , it’s always and only Islam trying to compell westerner to adopt blasphemy laws under the disguise of forbidding hate or offensive speech and useful idiotic trairors like this labour MP are only helping to advance the OIC’s agenda.
FYI says
I feel generally offended by what he said. Lefties are offensive anyway ,especially the Far Leftards:but that goes with their Leftardism{=far leftism/communism}
Leftards like Karl Turner should be sent to China.
The natural environment of the Leftard is a totalitarian society anyway:it’d feel more like home.
David says
Perhaps Turner should take a holiday in a Uyghur retraining camp in China.
Eva says
Sadly, I don’t think china would take him. They’re on the same side, so they’ll want him out in the world, causing trouble.
Eva says
I’m offended by the fact that this imbecile is an MP.
In fact, I’m offended by the labour party full stop.
FYI says
I’m generally offended by his{..so predictable for a Leftie!..}Red scarf and Red polka dot tie.
{I’ll bet his sox are Red too:after all lefties have to keep that Red flag flying}
Communists are not noted for their sartorial elegance.
Eva says
They’re not noted for much, really, apart from their absolute stupidity and treachery.
But I agree, his accessories are a disgrace!!! 🙂
Dude says
Just publish direct quotes from ‘scriptures’ so if they complain they will just be ridiculing themselves. However to a rational person the ugly truth will be readily apparent. QED
David says
You mean verses from the holy book of the ‘religion of peace’? What a splendid idea. I think they should be displayed on all buses. ‘Verse of the Day’ Oh, wait, Londonistan has a ROP mayor. He would not like the truth to be displayed.
Istvan Vogel says
What a very dangerous slippery slope. To offend is to make someone upset. I am upset by all sorts of things so how can “offensive” speech become a crime? If I am generally offended by what I have read in the Koran, should the Koran be, therefore, a banned book? Discuss!
Mount Zion says
And most important , who decides when and which offensive speech becomes a crime .
Dave from San Antonio says
“Free speech is my right to say what you don’t want to hear.”—George Orwell
DavidR says
That’s so succinct it’s perfect. Thanks for being the messenger.
elee says
+1
Jayell says
There’s always been a right to offend which is balanced by threat of legal action on grounds of slander or libel if the offence can’t be proved to be justified by an examination of the facts. The trouble here is that any ‘offence’ against islam CAN be usually justified this way since it’s apparently caused simply by telling the truth about the ‘religion of Peace’.
Rarely says
“Freedom of Speech” is not an absolute but has limits. Being “offensive” is not (or, at least, should not) be one of those limits. It is inevitable that there will be argument over exactly what those limits are.
gravenimage says
“Argument” should not include beheadings. And any non-violent speech should be legal in a free society.
Dry Academy says
“Of course everyone has the right to freedom of expression, Simon. But that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences from what they have said”
Reminds me of the words of the psychopathic Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who said “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”
elee says
+1!
Jedothek says
What does the British equivalent of the first amendment freedom of speech say?
John Taylor says
He is our local MP in Hull and he is a complete fool! This remark has just proved it beyond doubt.
James Lincoln says
According to the feature article:
“UK: Labour MP claims that the freedom of speech doesn’t include ‘freedom to generally offend’”
What if that speech is fact checked and is truthful – but still offends???
Mount Zion says
Spot on James . It happens all the time especially when it comes to muslim misdeeds . It’s offensive to talk about honour killing , child brides in Islam ,vehicular jihad , FGM , wife beating sanctioned in the Kuran aso. even if everything is documented and reported on accurately and truthfully .
somehistory says
Well, I’m another “generally offended” by his stupidity in making this statement and in the statement itself.
As Paul Joseph Watson points out in his video, it’s all one-sided. Those in favor of evil, depravity, lying, hypocrisy, and other nefarious practices are allowed to say whatever they wish about whomever they wish and its just hunky dory. But if someone who believes in moral principles, God-given rights, law and order, Truth, goodness, kindness, virtue, etc., one is not allowed to express any thoughts or sentiment that falls outside the evil territory and into the good.
These idiots live on a one-way street called “Hypocrite..”
tgusa says
Generally speaking I find this guys thoughts words and beliefs to be offensive. By his own words he has no right to do that to me. Investigate him.
gravenimage says
UK: Labour MP claims that the freedom of speech doesn’t include ‘freedom to generally offend’
……………..
What crap. It is only speech that offends someone that needs defending.
newsupplements says
Don’t know about you but I find the veiled threat of not being allowed my own opinion regarding my deep seated dislike of thugs who want to remove my head OFFENSIVE!
mortimer says
Speech that is offensive to no one does not need to be defended.
Only speech that somebody finds offensive needs to be defended by the law.
newsupplements says
Whether you are offended or not cannot be defended. Many people are offended by this and that, but it is not the business of governemnt to get involved at the thought level of being. If the offended or the perceived offender then goes on to break the law with offensive violence to the person or property then that is a different matter but we should surely do all we can not to have imposed upon us a Nazi style regime that is checking our very thoughts of acceptability to the preferred ruling class. Some are offended by very little, others are full time cry babys! Some defend the indefensible as there could be no deity that would require such defence by its so called omnipresent nature and size. This is currently being used as an excuse to deliver tyranny by perverted ideology of the worst kind which in itself should be made illegal, and definitely strengthened in its intentions with our laws.
Mason Stewart says
“How is America’s political correctness impacting Great Britain?”
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/americas-political-correctness-impacting-great-114924550.html?__twitter_impression=true
This is yet another import we could do without, America.
Peter says
To all the imbeciles offended by free speech: the rest of us are offended by your being offended.
OLD GUY says
He is an IDIOT.