Scott Adams mente optøjerne ikke ville være nok til at redde England og nok bare var “the last whining before they go under”. Kier Stürmers reagerer ved at ville indføre ansigtsgenkendelsesteknologi og slå hårdt ned på englænderne. Det er ikke fordi han holder med muslimerne – selvom det gør han nok – men fordi det er englænderne der truer det multietniske samfund, der for lang tid siden er nået ud over point of no return. Det handler ikke om Stürmer selv, men om systemet, der ikke kan andet end at forsvare sig selv.
For at undgå/udsætte fremtidige opstande er der kun en knap at dreje på og det er indskrænkningen af frihedsrettigheder, først og fremmest ytringsfriheden. Multietniske samfund kan vanskeligt være frie samfund. Herhjemme har vi jo vores forebyggende og indledende Koran Lov, som næppe var blevet vedtaget, hvis ikke vi underholdt et stort antal muslimer i vores ellers hyggelige land.
“Am I going to be locked up for the night? Do I need to bring my medications?” spørger en englænder, som politiet arresterer ham i hans eget hjem, fordi han har skrevet noget obskønt på Facebook. Det hedder “The Communications Act 2003.” og flekser sin fleksibilitet med formuleringen “electronic communications which are grossly offensive or indecent, obscene or menacing, or false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another“. Michael Shellenberger skriver om tendens i den Vestlige Verden
[I]ncreasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.
It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.
Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.
But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.
Konstantin Kisin skriver
But looking at media reporting, if it wasn’t for X, we wouldn’t even know that gangs of armed & masked Muslim men are rampaging through cities up and down the country. We wouldn’t see them hunting down and beating up white people. We wouldn’t have yet more evidence of two tier policing. All we would have is the approved narrative.
You can see this with all the screaming about misinformation. When the founder of far left doxxing organisation Hope Not Hate posts misinformation about Muslims being targeted with acid which is completely false and obviously provocative, they just pretend it didn’t happen.
Like it or not, human beings invented mass communication platforms. They aren’t going away. Governments and legacy media want to crack down on them to re-establish narrative control. I can understand why but it’s not going to happen.
Professor Sander van der Linden, der “has been working directly with both DHS & the US State Department thru his Cambridge U censorship center”, siger om Musk
He is running into trouble in the court of public opinion by making outrageous statements and amplifying misinformation on Twitter. But theoretically a government could georestrict access to a platform if the situation got so bad that being on this platform would actually pose a danger to citizens.
I mean it’s not completely unprecedented I mean other countries have temporarily banned access to for example TikTok. So it is possible that the UK government could temporarily put a restriction on Twitter. They could also be banned in the App Store for violating policies which would be a huge
Det er fascinerende at “the court of public opinion” ikke er nok til i sig selv at regulere debatten, men at den skal bruges som undskyldning (hvem afgør ‘the public opinion’?) for staten til at censurere dissens. En jurist i menneskeret, Jessica Semor, siger i samme ånd
Pass a short Bill closing Twitter down in the U.K. @Keir_Starmer? There is more than enough reason to do so. One of the richest men in the world is using his platform to cause serious harm – putting lives & communities at risk. @YvetteCooperMP @lisanandy
I think we should stop it. Only temporary measure to limit the spread of inflammatory information and misinformation as well across the United Kingdom as this point. I think we should focus on keeping people safe! And communities safe as well.
So my point is to stop it.
Edward Luce var enig fra den anden side af Atlanten
Can’t say this enough; Elon Musk’s menace to democracy is intolerable. He’s using the largest & most influential platform in the democratic world to stoke racial conflict and civil breakdown – in his own posts & what X promotes. Democracies can no longer ignore this.
Lars Andersen gennemgår Politikens leder.
Tommy Robinson får skylden for han er budbringeren. I sidste uge holdt han en stor demonstration med op mod 100.000 deltagere, som viste deres utilfredshed med den knægtelse af briternes rettigheder, mens man importerer flere og flere muslimer og afrikanere, der får fortrinsret. Så da en migrant brutalt myrdede nogle små piger, kogte det over overalt i Storbritannien.
I England er muslimerne stadig i mindretal, i Bangladesh er de i flertal.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar