web analytics


By David Vance On April 26th, 2015

Here’s another crackdown on free speech.

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband. “We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim NewsAhmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview. “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.

Given that any phobia is a fear, surely being fearful of MILITANT Islamists is entirely rational? So how will Labour outlaw FEAR? The truth is that this is Labour chasing the Muslim vote and they will happily sell out our liberty to challenge Islam in pursuance of this. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. There is plenty of Islamonausea about however.


  1. Islamonausea. Good one DV.

    I’d like to see that stupid prick Milliband lecture the northern Nigerians about being Islamophobic, or any of those States, eg. Kenya, that have borders with Muslim-majority populations.

    Funny how Russia has no problems with Islam, in spite of having a massive border with Muslim dominant Kazakhstan.
    Perhaps they remember what happened to Grozny when Russia became annoyed with that murderous Islamic Republic..

  2. you do understand that if they put that law into effect this site gets shut down and me along with half the rest of us will have warrents issued for us

  3. Russia capitulated to Islam in Chechnya, which is now not independent but not western either. Islamic ways of dress and are enforced, drinking is disxouragedn etc

    Russia has funded construcrion of large dominant mosques

    The large Sunni Muslim of Russia is not happy with Russia playing footsie with Shia Iran either

    Keep an eye on Russias muslims

  4. He’s mad. But who here would be annoyed if he said the same about (only) anti-semitism? (Actually, he proposed strictures on both “islamophobia” and anti-semitism).

    He also said that the UK should recognise Palestine, and he, if PM, would do so in a UN vote, so something good at least.

  5. The weasels who support ” hate speech ” otherwise will really love this.

    If free speech is not enshrined as an ideal with a very high bar to be set for tampering with it, you ultimately will have no free speech at all.

    The free speech opponents here will happily wign on to wear those chains. Maybe soon it will be a major crime to cast doubt on global warming, or to oppose large immigration from backward societies

    And btw Islam is the aggressor and always has been. This is taking sides with an alien aggressor. This isn’t oppossing ( the baby talk term ) islamophobia it is asking people to stop any criticizing of it

  6. Of Islam

  7. the only way what your calling Palestine should be recognized is through the bomb site of an aircraft…..

    was that good or evil?

    I say it’s subjective 😉

  8. Here’s a potential candidate for you in the forthcoming elections David. Perhaps you’ll consider moving to West Tyrone?:-)


  9. lol
    now you see Paul the 67 people who voted for her need to be watched…. in some peoples opinion. 🙂

  10. Miliband’s only making unreal promises to screw as many votes out of Labour’s favourite demographic as possible. He needn’t bother, since Labour’s postal voting scam already generates an average of 23 Labour votes per muslim household.

    Even if he was stupid enough to try it, he’d come up against so much opposition, at least from Labour’s North London comedian demographic, he’d soon give it up the way the last Labour government gave up making fun of religion (the fictional) hate speech.

    Even if he could somehow do it, so what?

    It would clearly be an illegitimate law and therefore quite properly ignored by all right-thinking people. Your thoughts and words are your property. They belong to you to do with as you see fit. There’s not a power on the planet with the moral right to proscribe what you say or type.

  11. …and for a second offence, Ed? beheading perhaps?

  12. Hate speech as a separate crime is a slippery slope, and those who advocate it as a crime do not understand hate or speech.

  13. It is impossible to imagine a major political leader in the US making such an overtly anti free speech proposal

    Very many Brits including some here do not even know what it is or why it is important

    They think it is ” free speech except for certain sensitive topics ”

    And the list of off limits topics will only grow

  14. On the contrary, I can well imagine the President making some speech along those lines.

  15. Well, he will have a substanital British precedent to draw upon if he does choose to go down that road.

    He may finally have found something British that he likes.

  16. And the British restrictions on speech can’t really be blamed on the ” evil EU ” at all.

    This has been an own goal from start to finish

  17. 2013-002 It is now against the European Law to criticise the EU
    Posted on 28 December, 2012 |

    THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.

    The EU’s top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.

    The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to “protect the rights of others” and punish individuals who “damaged the institution’s image and reputation”. The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.

    The court called the Connolly book “aggressive, derogatory and insulting”, taking particular umbrage at the author’s suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and “ultimately peace”.


  18. Mahons, on April 27th, 2015 at 1:47 PM Said:

    On the contrary, I can well imagine the President making some speech along those lines.

    I have to agree with Mahons, it is certainly not out of the realm of reality.

    There are supposed to be two things that are sacrosanct in American Society. Speech & Freedom of Religion.

    The latter one has been under attack for decades a President coming out against “certain” speech is a very easy scenario to see.

    The Hillary clip I put up the other day is proof. I put it up for one reason.

    One the main reason that people came to this continent was to escape government dictating to their church telling people what the rules of their religion should or should not be.

    Hillary Clinton as she runs for President says FLAT OUT

    “Deep seated cultural codes, Religious Beliefs and structural biases have to be Changed”

    That is a Platform of her campaign in her own words. She as President will use her authority to change peoples religion. There is no spinning that. It is the exact opposite of THE founding principal of our nation.

    Speech is just a technicality to her.

  19. //He may finally have found something British that he likes.//

    !! Nice one.

    I agree that the UK and several (though certainly not all) European countries are far behind the US in this regard, or further ahead on the road of censorship if you like, but let’s not cod ourselves that there aren’t many restrictions on free speech and free expression in the US as well.

  20. Bernard,

    That ECJ case related to an employment issue. My very quick reading of it is that Connolly got sacked because he breached Staff Regulations.

    He claimed the regulations themselves were contrary to freedom of expression.

    The ECJ simply said that there are certain permitted restrictions of freedom of expression (albeit these must be interpreted very narrowly) and this included where an employee breaches the employer-employee relationship by expressly breaching staff rules and contradicting the policy he is employed to carry out).

  21. In the US, ” speech bans ” would tend to come from the new bastions of anti intellectual activity, modern universities. Not from government proper. If it ever crosses that bright line, the First Amendment and robust free speech is dead.

    Britain is the ancestral home of free speech. If it dies there – and baby you are right there when a major political actor is bellowing for it – a new Dark Age will have descended on Britain, as the great man said.

    I don’t see major political actors in the US raising this as an area of concern. If someone like a Rand Paul were to make the protection of speech a major pillar of his campaign – using its decay in Europe as an example of what the US should never tolerate – if he did that, he could attract a lot of support from left right and center, and perhaps be the kind of coalition builder that a Republican would need to be in order to triumph.

    It is noted that all the attacks on speech rights as far as I can tell, come from the left.