Atheism, Bigotry, British Government, free speech, ISIS, Islam, Middle-east, Moderate Muslims, Paris, Religion, Terrorism, Twitter, Twitter Idiots, UK politics, Uncategorized

How the regressive left fails on Free Speech

In the UK, we have a sharp paradigm of confusion with regards to liberalism and progressiveness. Of recent years our intention to build a fairer society with justice for all has tipped over the edge – landing on the opposite end of the scale. Long gone are the days of widespread racism & misogyny; sadly, instead of being replaced by less racism and less misogyny – we have replaced it with a group of people so afraid they might have offended someone somewhere, that they make sure they call out every sentence ever uttered for the supposed bigotry it is. If you dare say that “All lives matter” instead of just “black lives matter” you are branded racist and publicly harassed – which is odd, as if you said the same thing in 1970’s Britain you would have probably been harassed for saying “black lives matter” at all.

We are now in a state of panic, where asking questions like “Why exactly is Caitlin Jenner brave?” Is enough to get you fired and compared to Hitler by hundreds of thousands on twitter. No one ever seems to take a question as genuine anymore, especially when it is easier to screenshot and throw abuse. Most nowadays misunderstand abuse, they don’t see the difference between hurling abuse, and then hurling abuse at someone for doing the same thing. If someone on twitter claims “all black people are criminals” you would be just as abusive to tweet back a message that degrades him by the colour of his skin. This is hard to explain to the online community. They believe their bigotry is somehow protected as it is used to fight someone else’s. The mind boggles.

This week a 43 year old woman from Bicester, who must have been emotionally affected by the events in Paris took to her company’s facebook page to proclaim the following:

Blinks of Bicester are no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith whether you are UK granted with passport or not,”

After screenshots & RT’s galore, on top of the barrage of hate-mail and abuse she has undoubtedly received – she has now been arrested after complaints of “racial abuse”. This must remind you of the cake shop in the United States which similarly refused to bake cakes for gays based on religious grounds. Both are as futile and childlike. A few things I have a problem with:

  1. How will she know who is Islamic or not? If they are white and shave the beard she would be none the wiser. The fact she thinks she can spot a Muslim, even though racially they are diverse and normally only recognised by their facial hair – this is the only part where I think the race card can certainly be used. As Islam and Muslim is not, I repeat NOT a race. If you don’t understand that, ask your nearest biologist or pick up a dictionary.
  2. How exactly is she racially abusing? Can a tweet, although utterly stupid, but completely vague and non-targeted to a specific human be counted as such? Other than the underlying idea she can spot one based on appearance does this barely count as racial – but even then it is at a push.
  3. And is it abuse? Genuinely, would this count as abuse?

Maybe it is, who knows. I do know that it is social media suicide, and if her business lasts till next Christmas I will be surprised.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not support this woman. I think she is a fool & also quiet idiotic to think her “stand” will do anything but cause an outcry of hate in her direction, not the support she probably expected. She should have waited a few hours after her anger died down to think twice about such a post. But here is a thought. Why was she arrested? Isn’t the online onslaught she has endured the price she must pay? I would expect so.

In the U.K. we have allowed a man with a child on his shoulders sitting on top of a 5 foot ISIS flag to parade around the streets of London as if it were a normal outfit. He was not arrested by the way. We have accepted the normality of letting actual terrorists like Michael Adebolajo protest on our streets who would end up beheading a British Soldier in Woolwich; terrorist organisations & sympathisers like CAGE who find any way to absolve terrorists and instead blame anything with links to the U.K. or Tony Blair – They claim not to be terrorist friendly, yet are publicly friendly with known terrorists and just seem to agree on about every subject with said terrorists – but I’m splitting hairs. Did I mention these hate groups and hateful people get police protection paid for by the tax payers? Let’s not forget Anjem Choudary who has spent the best part of a decade preaching hate against the U.K. government which just so happens to pay all of his bills and protected him with 24 hour police care. Many U.K. nationals who idolise Choudary then go on to fight in the Middle-East for groups such as ISIS. His links with terrorism are out in the open, his support is unashamed. Yet it took the U.K. over 10 years to arrest him with “encouraging support for terrorism”, but only took 24 hours to arrest a woman for a banal facebook post.

Where exactly do our priorities lay? The police didn’t do this alone, public complaints in the thousands most likely helped, so why were the same “liberals” and “leftists” not petitioning for Choudary’s arrest 10 years ago? Why did it take the U.K. government over 12 years to finally have Abu Qatada extradited to face terror charges (which a corrupt court found to be unsubstantiated) – even though the U.N. and all other experts have evidence of his links to Al Qaeda) but it took the U.K. police no time at all to arrest a women for saying something silly about Muslims in a tweet?

It seems strange to me that I can turn on my TV to watch Muslims using U.K. free speech laws to protest against free speech (Yes, they are that stupid) or catch them with signs like those below


Yet none of these men are arrested. None of them are outed on facebook or twitter to the hordes of hundreds of thousands of online bullies. This is one of the many ways in which the left fails, not the real left like myself who actually stands for liberal principals, but the newly named “regressive left”.

Are we really saying that an extremist can waltz through our streets expressing his/her interest in bringing chaos and murder to our country, but if an idiot with a social media account says “[Insert derogatory term] + Islam” that we must draw a line for justice?

I stand for free speech, I for one think these extremists should be allowed to protest and spew their hate any day of the week, although without police protection – furthermore I believe if you accept this, you must accept and allow this woman to post her nonsensical message of not serving anyone of the “Islamic faith”. It’s only fair, right?

Freedom of speech works both ways, for messages we adore and ones we abhor – many “leftists” have seemed to completely forgotten about that.



Abortion, Atheism, Christianity, Religion, Richard Dawkins, Twitter, USA

Stoning children to death and genocide is OK, but aborting a foetus? What are you crazy?

I am well aware this topic has been discussed at length but there are a few points to this issue I have yet to read, which I would like to put across.

Richard Dawkins replied to a tweet regarding what one should do in the event of knowing that a foetus would have Down’s syndrome.

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have a choice.”

Sadly (it would seem) the majority of the world’s population does not have reason, logic and an understanding of biology. Worst of all – in my opinion – are the interpretations I have found; As a writer I constantly battle with people trying to tell me what I was saying in a piece, instead of understanding what I actually said. Most online debates are now as follows:

“I agree with proposition A.”

“OH, so you are basically saying that proposition B is wrong, and the Nazi’s were nice people?”

I’m sure in this technical age we have all seen conversations like this, utter nonsense.

I have seen people write in comment sections on facebook that Dawkins’s tweet meant that he wants all babies and young children with Down Syndrome “to be shot”, this is not a joke. Even many atheists have lined up against Richard regarding this tweet, do they prove or attempt to diminish his point with a logical argument? Not at all.

So quickly, a foetus is not a child, a foetus in biological terms has no difference to an embryo – although in normal terms a foetus is the time when we can see clear signs of what type of mammal the life will become. The brain of a fly has about 100,000 cells, an embryo about 150, though I doubt any religious people shed a tear when they swat a fly; why not? They have basically just killed 666.66 children by my calculation (I swear I didn’t mean to land on that number) (100,000 / 150 = 666.6…)

His statement has nothing to do with living humans, so stop comparing them – it makes you look unintelligent.

It has to be said, we all want healthy children. Let’s say hypothetically children were never made in the natural sense and you could customise an embryo on the shop floor like a BMW, we would stop seeing babies born with disabilities almost instantly. I have suffered with mental health issues in my life, I know the pain and bullying that goes along with it, I also know the stigma that hits you like a brick. If I had a choice to rid the possibility of mental health issues from my child, I would do it in a heart beat, wouldn’t you?

This statement in no way diminishes actual life, a child with any disability should be cared for and loved the same if not more so by all. But we have to admit, the reason we have this moral initiative of taking care of disabled children – in a different way to how we care for children without disabilities – is because a Down’s syndrome child is at a massive disadvantage. Any child with a disability is just that, disabled from some part of natural or normal life. It is not wrong to admit this, in fact we can only help such people after we accept the criteria for abnormality.

How many people if they had the power, would opt for a child who cannot see? A child who cannot use his full mental capabilities? A child who will need constant assistance until death? In all honesty, I think we know how this process would end.

Finally I want to make a point about the hypocrisy I have seen from Christians on this twitter outrage.

“We finally hear atheist morality straight from the horses mouth.”

Excuse me? Firstly, Mr Dawkins, although I admire him, is not the spokesperson for my lack of belief; but most importantly how ironic a bible thumper would find killing a foetus immoral – yet they love the story of Noah and his arc.

You know the story, God knows everything that will ever happen, so he knows he is going to make a population that will anger him, and he knows he is going to retaliate by committing genocide and drowning them all in a flood – And he still chose to do it!

These Christians who find Dawkins’s comments so repulsive, must be OK with stoning children to death, or is God also repulsive?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 King James Version (KJV)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Stop interpreting Dawkins’s words to make them fit some nasty idea, take him on his word, we don’t need to wait for 2000 years worth of re-writes and interpretations, we can see exactly what he wrote and precisely what it meant.

Aborting a foetus to give a healthier egg a chance, is not only justified, it is scientifically, biologically and morally sound – Stoning to death a child who is unruly however…