Once the right to criminalize unpopular/controversial ideas has been established the logical next step is to tighten the definition of what constitutes ‘acceptable’.
Broadly, in discussions throughout societies, this is done by narrowly framing debates. What is it about Zionism that causes globalists to make a special effort to quash discussion through criminalization?
Can these generally unknown events help us to piece together what might be going on?
Despite recent attempts to shut down and/or ‘re-structure’ Qatar based Al-Jazeera it gave us this on the USS Liberty episode.
Zionism might, at some point, figure in an in-depth debate regarding these incidents. Mr. Macron might allow that, so long as you don’t take a position e.g. anti-Zionist. He’s telling you what the ‘acceptable’ boundaries of debate are. We know the globalists are prepared to back up their definitions of acceptable with imprisionment.
Is he right? What do YOU think? Better say now before it becomes illegal to express YOUR thoughts …
[21 Jul 2017]
[22 Aug 2017]
It’s not about which ‘side’ you’re on … fundamental rights apply to all, equally
[14 Sep 2017]
“The judge said the offer for Ms Clinton’s hair was “solicitation of an assault” that is not protected by the First Amendment, and there was “a risk someone may take” Shkreli up on his offer”
Solicitation of something is not the same as enacting something. The First Amendment protects free speech and it cannot be watered down by ‘risks’ of what other people might do as a result of that free speech. Judge Mastumoto has abandoned his own constitution. That’s what this story should have focused on.
[27 Oct 2017]
[14 Nov 2017]
[6 Dec 2017]
Many States have devised methods of smothering criticism that are carefully crafted to suit their particular circumstances. When a State outwardly claims that it abides by constitutional declarations such as the right to ‘free speech’, it can use a plethora of methods legal, social etc. to suppress free speech in practice. Here is an example of one State, out of many, that has chosen to use defamation and contempt of court procedures to illustrate the paradox of law to us. We go, cap in hand (begging), asking the State to protect our freedom by upholding it’s own constitution. That very same legal system turns around and cages and/or fines those members of the population brave enough to ‘perpetrate’ a ‘contempt of court’. This is law being used, purely and simply, as a tool of oppression.
Are you afraid to hear criticism of the State? Are you honestly going to start behaving chaotically and anti-socially because you heard something negative said about the State? Are you afraid to hold an opinion that differs with lawyers and judges about what can and cannot be said? If so, why?
Consider this: If you disagree with my statements above, should I be able to slap you down with a ‘contempt of court’? Or do you honestly believe that your master is always right? I dare you to have an opinion.