The problem with this is that any statement critical of anyone or anything can be regarded as promoting or justifying “hatred.” “Hate speech” laws such as this one are simply tools of the powerful to silence opinions that they don’t want aired. But while Iain Duncan Smith’s point about the “totalitarian woke state” coming to Britain is well taken, it has already been in place in many ways for quite some time. After all, it’s not even possible to take public note of the fact that the rape gangs that destroyed the lives of thousands of British girls were overwhelmingly Pakistani. Even that is too controversial, and while some have dared to state it, no one has dared to note that the rape gangs are overwhelmingly Muslim, even though many of the rapists themselves have justified their actions by pointing to the Qur’an. A survivor of a Muslim rape gang in the UK has previously said that her rapists would quote Quran to her, and believed their actions justified by Islam. Thus it came as no surprise when Muslim migrants in France raped a girl and videoed the rape while praising Allah and invoking the Qur’an. In India, a Muslim gave a Qur’an and a prayer rug to the woman he was holding captive and repeatedly raping. And the victim of an Islamic State jihadi rapist recalled: “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God…He said that raping me is his prayer to God.” In India, a Muslim kidnapped and raped a 14-year-old Hindu girl, and forced her to read the Qur’an and Islamic prayers.
The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.
But none of this can be discussed in shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain, and that has been the case for years. So Iain Duncan Smith’s concerns about the freedom of speech are coming a bit late.
“Freedom of expression fears grow as tough new Ofcom code classes ‘political opinion’ in its definition of hate speech,” by Vanessa Allen, Daily Mail, January 3, 2021:
Ofcom has expanded its definition of hate speech to include ‘political opinion’, raising fears over freedom of speech.
The broadcasting regulator updated its code to prevent programmes from including intolerance based on 14 new grounds, including political opinion and gender reassignment.
The code previously recognised just four such grounds, meaning broadcasters had to ensure their programmes did not contain incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality.
But the new code covers ‘all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age’.
An Ofcom spokesman insisted the changes were not a threat to freedom of speech, and said programmes could still include ‘healthy and robust debate’ of controversial issues….
Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith said: ‘We are drifting into a totalitarian ‘woke’ state where nothing can ever be said for fear that somebody will be offended. It’s madness, and it’s driven by a small minority. Most people don’t care.’…
CogitoErgoSum says
Is saying “I hate myself” banned too? I think the answer to that one probably depends on your skin color.
revereridesagain says
You can bet the Left won’t ban that, so long as it is pronounced by those afflicted with “whiteness”. In fact, things being how they are, it’s liable to soon be illegal for such persons not to make that statement.
gravenimage says
According to the “woke”, all white people are supposed to hate themselves. Corporations are paying Robin DiAngelo (“White Fragility”) to teach their white employees to hate themselves. She’s also been hired by Democratic members of Congress and gives talks in theaters where white people pay upwards of $200 to learn to hate themselves. Suicidal madness…
mortimer says
-“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
terry sullivan says
is “i hate the tories” ok?
gregbeetham says
Is that it now? Is that the end of putting the UK into an insane communications straight jacket or is there more to come? If I wasn’t actually watching this crap happen in reality from afar I wouldn’t have thought it was possible for a country like the UK to lose its marbles like it has.
Mark M says
In theory this should outlaw speech attacking ‘right-wingers’ as being fascist, Nazi etc etc. That is certainly encouraging hate or even violence against people. But is this likely? I can see it being used to protect the expression of liberal or left-wing political opinion but not right-wing opinion. It will be interesting to see if, for instance, Tommy Robinson tries to use this clause to protect himself from the usual torrent of hate whenever he opens his mouth. How will Ofcom wriggle out of that?
CogitoErgoSum says
Some humans just aren’t human. For folks on the left the people on the right are not human …. sort of the way Muslims see Infidels as being the most vile of all creatures. So hating a vile creature (or being contemptuous of it) is not really “hate.” I believe they might think of it as “anti-hate” to hate people (creatures) labeled as haters. Makes sense to them.
Mark M says
Sort of ‘two wrongs make a right’. Mathematically sound (-1 * -1 = +1) but morally wrong, of course. I do hope that a victimised ‘right-winger’, a.k.a. a political dissident, attempts to make use of this. Just to see the reasoning used against them.
CogitoErgoSum says
The Ministry of Love has a vacancy in room 101 so they can teach you the new math.
somehistory says
The House saw just such a two wrongs thingy when KL from GA, who lost her seat, decided not to keep her word and used the “reason” that the ***rioting*** was wrong, so she couldn’t go with Josh Hawley and Cruz to “do the right thing.”
And we are likely to see the criminalization of certain words and phrases that have been much spoken since Nov 3.
Tyranny and loss of freedom to speak Truth.
Have to say it now or never say it with out being prosecuted.
lucretia macevil says
Well, that’s the logic ‘Antifa’ uses. Too bad they’re never blessed with a sense of irony, or even an ounce of insight.
gregbeetham says
Well Tommy Robinson is on the losing team, he belongs to the majority.
Jayell says
Sorry. mate, you’re wrong there. The majority is always the winning team in the end It’s only a question of ‘when’ they win, and that starts to happen when the ‘silent majority’ stop being silent. We’ve already started hearing them loudly at the football grounds and the and they’ve holed BBC below the financial water line.
gregbeetham says
Well I do hope you are correct but from where I stand it looks like the establishment has abdicated their responsibility to the mainstream majority in favour of pandering to noisy minorities.
If the majority cared about the state of affairs why didn’t they make sure Tommy Robinson couldn’t be railroaded by a corrupt system?
jca reid says
Sheer & Utter Hypocrisy. A member of a certain persuasion stands up & spouts off words calling for the slaughter of others, if not murdered, then their enslavement, rape, buggery etc. is called “Free Speech”. Someone else says, ” I’m not a member, but I dislike that.” They could get & some have, hauled off , incarcerated in a Police Station & may end up in court charged with “Hate Speech” etc. In the USA, the Muslims are really trying to get the 1st. Amendment repealed. Strange they call “Anti -IOslam” people “Right Wing. when it is the Muslims & Islam that openly endorse Nazism.
Mason Stewart says
Muslims endorse racial superiority of Northern Europeans against Middle Easterners? Can we not argue form conservative establishment points of view, how about “the people taking over America and the West and enabling Islam are COMMUNISTS”, not long dead irrelevant Nazis, not hard.
Jayell says
Just to put people straight, a large proportion of people over here in the UK know perfectly well how bent the MSM now are and get their news and iinfo via trusted internet sources. We certainly avoid the BBC like the virus, and even former old friends like LBC now sound like they’re just part of the propaganda machine controlled by the establishment. Sad times just now, but no-one’s being fooled.
Aussie Infidel says
Like many Western leaders, it seems that Iain Duncan Smith has himself become swept up by woke logic.
It’s pretty obvious that the only people who object to the freedom of speech, are those who don’t want their dirty secrets exposed in public – like extremist political and religious groups.
Apparently Smith believes erroneously that all political parties and religions are benign and must be protected as a public good. He does not seem to understand that some of them – eg Antifa and Islam, are themselves totalitarian ideologies – and often in bed with each other. Islam, which is perhaps the greatest threat to the West, is not just a religion but also incorporates criminal political activities – like murdering anyone who doesn’t agree with it. Why should such an evil organisation be afforded protection?
“Ofcom has expanded its definition of hate speech to include ‘political opinion’, raising fears over freedom of speech.”
Does Smith not understand that freedom of speech cannot be limited without being lost? Or is he just complicit in doing the bidding of the ‘totalitarian woke state’ he is trying to protect us from?
James Lincoln says
Aussie Infidel,
Excellent post, my compliments.
gravenimage says
UK: ‘Totalitarian woke state’ descends as broadcasting regulator bans statements that promote ‘hatred’
……………….
Funny how Jihad terror is not hate, but noting that Islam teaches Jihad terror is…
Infidel says
Precisely! Just like a parley I saw today, where ‘Their violence is speech, but our speech is violence’
gravenimage says
Yep…
mortimer says
In fact, what they actually want is to allow only ONE SIDE to express hatred … their own.
Joe Scott says
So all these Lefty woke specimens & all these sluglims, must be wankers then, coz they all luuuuuurve themselves ???
OLD GUY says
WOKE-UP you are losing your human rights to the woke left agenda.
Crusades Were Right says
In theory, this code should give protection from “expression” which “spreads, incites, promotes or justifies hatred” to people such as Tommy Robinson…
…but, of course, we all know that, in practice, he is likely to be one of its principal TARGETS.
Crusades Were Right says
I note that the “new code” doesn’t mention anything about distinguishing between “expression” which is TRUTHFUL and that which isn’t; or whether the intention of the “expression” is to victimise innocents, or to WARN people about threats to their well-being.
If any individual or group finds that reasonable human beings experience feelings of hatred towards them because somebody is telling THE TRUTH about them, then it seems to me that it is that individual or group who is/are at fault!